From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 00:18:08 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:18:08 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
References: <e321aa4b1002221852x5d10a80erbd06cf9ff6a6b4cb@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002261627q5565dabel880d71f29a44bae8@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1002261728r7e194228l167dc9ff0ce8df9e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002262029y3966ea1cp1918f485b7d4633c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1002262037h170251acu31c7de5837348276@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002270238y38102a63je148e549d4f69df@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1002272009r66d0b093w6a67849397206496@mail.gmail.com> 
	<CE35A5DE-F04E-4899-A4F5-2F0E75FF742D@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281025l6d85448an25ecee0570ed4a3e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com>

John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Philosophically speaking, and that's what we're talking about, why is that distinction important?

Man, John, it's disorienting to see you displaying such wanton
civility. I must be doing something right! Or wrong.

Anyway: it's a question of function. If you call information
processing philosophically important, then certainly there is a
philosophically important distinction to be made between gross
structure and fine chemical/electrical activity. When it comes to the
human brain, at least.

If the brain were clockwork, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Generally a clock can just keep ticking along regardless of, say, its
thermal conductivity. Generally, though, stripping a system of all but
its structural properties will almost always render it lifeless.

This is basically what happens in the case of plasticization.
Structure is preserved, but chemical and electrical properties are
radically altered. Read: removed. A plasticized brain no longer *does*
anything of note. It just kind of sits there.

As mentioned previously, I think the mind is an activity. So there you
go. No activity, no mind.

Now I realize what sparked Ben Zaiboc's quantized time argument! I
might never finish chewing on that thing. This whole subject is some
kind of Zenoan supertask of comprehension.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Sometimes they do [wake up], and if they do subjectively the mind's existence has continued without a break even if it hasn't objectively.

There's a little more nuance to it, but, yeah. Basically.

I am forced to argue that when it comes to people who've woken up from
comas (say), the mind's existence has ALWAYS continued without a break
objectively. If that's the case, then it's a moot point.

It seems to me that subjective continuity and objective continuity
cannot be disentangled; one always implies the other. Mind scanning
does not preserve objective continuity, as more gradual uploading
methods do, and so subjective continuity is left as an open question.

The worst case scenario is that your subjective experience is dropped
directly into some kind of ill-defined eternal torment while some
other entity takes your place to think your thoughts, feel your
feelings, perceive your perceptions and conceive your conceptions. But
that would be rather silly. Logically possible, sure, but... silly.


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 00:33:28 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:33:28 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1002281102gb17718fu144a04a0fdc2463@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1267358402.22855.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<214822.48535.qm@web113620.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281102gb17718fu144a04a0fdc2463@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31002281633s5579c3b7vac89ab296c9e0b69@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 March 2010 06:02, Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Technically, C has a different mind from A or B. The brain is doing
> something different in C. For some reason or another, M makes the leap
> from A to B to C, skittering across many different minds over time.

I guess you are talking about M making a leap as a sort of analogy,
but it can be a misleading one. For continuity of experience it is
necessary *and* sufficient that the right sorts of mental states occur
in A, B and C. M does not add anything to the explanation and does not
go leaping.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 00:07:19 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:07:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?
In-Reply-To: <613970.21167.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <496794.57916.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 2/27/10, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:

> If my fervent belief that spreadsheets are not round and magnetic
> commits me to property dualism, then I fully embrace my hitherto 
> undiscovered, yet apparently inescapable, dogma.

It does not. 

If you think the conscious thoughts in your head exist as non-physical properties of brain matter then you can embrace property dualism.
 
If you think the conscious thoughts in your head do not exist as any sort of property of matter, but rather as something entirely distinct from matter, then you can embrace substance dualism. 

If you think the conscious thoughts in your head exist as physical properties of matter then you can embrace materialism. 

If you think the conscious thoughts in your head exist only in your imagination then you can embrace Spencer Campbell. 

If you can think, but you think you do not exist, then you can embrace Jef-with-the-one-f-who-has-no-self.

If you cannot think at all then you can embrace John Clark.

-gts



      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 00:42:16 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:42:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e31002270650q43508103x5508dec8e7a8f2e9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <230089.92387.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 2/27/10, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's true that there is no requirement for an AI to follow
> brain architecture, but I am considering the special case where
> it does. 

After mulling over your thought experiment for oh so many weeks, it seems to me apparent that weak AI *must* deviate from organic structure. So I don't know what you mean by "special case", unless you've just begged the question of strong AI.

I don't know if you understand the full ramifications of those false assumptions that I pointed out. I don't know why we/I didn't see them sooner. 

-gts




      


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 00:43:11 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:43:11 -0800
Subject: [ExI]  The entropy of Extropy-Chat
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>

<x at extropica.org>:
> And I ask again, "What the hell happened to halt the growth of the
> Extropy discussion list?"
>
> I remember that discussion on this list used to be surprising,
> enlightening, challenging. ?Now the predominate pattern appears to be
> participants ignoring that which they don't understand, railing
> against that which offends their personal sensibilities, and
> persisting in tooting their own horn.

A better question, to which that one is an important corollary, might
be: "How can we make the Extropy discussion list better?"

I haven't been here long enough to have any idea of how things used to
be, so that question is virtually the only contribution I am qualified
to make. Personally, I joined on the hope that I could talk to a large
number of witheringly intelligent people about esoteric-yet-promising
ideas. Specifically, with an eye toward refining those ideas and
perhaps (in some cases) gaining support to implement them.

Predictably, perhaps, the first and only idea I presented fell flat on
its face. Total silence. So, I've since changed my stance toward the
list from "opportunistic" to "hedonistic". At this rate, I will
probably phase you guys out eventually as my life fills up with more
rewarding ventures. It's a tragedy of pragmatism.


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 00:46:37 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:46:37 +1100
Subject: [ExI] related replies
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1002281139x397fd1a4uf3219e95ee9d4a30@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1002281139x397fd1a4uf3219e95ee9d4a30@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31002281646k9d55782jb2bdffe84d99a115@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 March 2010 06:39, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:00 AM, ?Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> There is no requirement on AI researchers to make an AI by following
>> the structure and function of the brain. However, if they do do it
>> this way, as mind uploading researchers would, the resulting AI will
>> both behave like a human and have the consciousness of a human.
>
> This way is *exceeding* dangerous unless we deeply understand the
> biological mechanisms of human behavior, particularly behaviors such
> as capture-bonding which are turned on by behavioral switches (due to
> external situations). ?A powerful human type AI in "war mode,"
> irrational and controlling millions of robot fighting machines is not
> something you want to happen.
>
> Humans do go irrational (for reasons firmly rooted in our evolutionary
> past). ?See the descriptions of the mental state the machete killers
> in Rwanda were in while they killed close to a million people.

I don't think a mind upload would be dangerous initially because it
would not have either superintelligence or the ability to self-modify.
However, researchers could then go on and add these qualities as a
further project much more easily than they could to a biological
brain, and that is when it might get dangerous.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 01:04:15 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:04:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <681156.95585.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> And I ask again, "What the hell happened to halt the
> growth of the Extropy discussion list?"

I can tell you that I've got one foot out the door after ten years here. I'd have left already but for Stathis and a few other notable participants.

I don't suppose many people care, and I suppose some might even welcome the news, but I've had it with John Clark among other things. 

-gts




      


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 01:08:45 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:08:45 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e31002281633s5579c3b7vac89ab296c9e0b69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1267358402.22855.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<214822.48535.qm@web113620.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281102gb17718fu144a04a0fdc2463@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002281633s5579c3b7vac89ab296c9e0b69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1002281708n75ee0241w9ae1d55d59c31287@mail.gmail.com>

Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>:
> I guess you are talking about M making a leap as a sort of analogy,
> but it can be a misleading one. For continuity of experience it is
> necessary *and* sufficient that the right sorts of mental states occur
> in A, B and C. M does not add anything to the explanation and does not
> go leaping.

Considering the fact that M is literally defined as, "some property
[of an individual] such that continuity [of experience] remains
unbroken as long as the individual retains that property", I would go
so far as to say that an explanation which doesn't mention M, at least
implicitly, is impossible. It's just shorthand for continuity of
experience in and of itself, really.

Your constraints do not help me at all. What are the right sorts of
mental states? Stressing once again the problem of mental clones, what
if more than one thing is in the right sort of mental state to qualify
as me? Which one am I?

Taking your statements at face value, I must necessarily be every
entity that has the right sort of mental state. I'm not sure that it
makes sense to talk about me being a bunch of individual people,
considering the fact that I would not necessarily qualify as a hive
mind.

I don't know. In practice my many brains might somehow
quantum-entangle with each other automatically and I will inevitably
become a hive mind, but that seems very unlikely to me. I'm aware that
some people here are keeping up to date on the latest findings in
psi-like phenomena research. Damien Broderick could probably tell me
with some confidence whether or not something like that is plausible.
It does border on identical-twin telepathy and the like.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 01:09:37 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:09:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>

On 2/28/2010 6:43 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:
> Predictably, perhaps, the first and only idea I presented fell flat on
> its face. Total silence. So, I've since changed my stance toward the
> list from "opportunistic" to "hedonistic". At this rate, I will
> probably phase you guys out eventually as my life fills up with more
> rewarding ventures. It's a tragedy of pragmatism.

Watching the Great Swobe Disaster endlessly unreel (while repeatedly 
hitting Delete) has made me realize that lists *can't* effectively allow 
this sort of monomania to overwhelm their dynamic. I used to agree with 
those who said "Let 1000 Flowers Bloom," pick and choose from posts as 
you will, ignore those other people droning on about their obsessional 
interests, say something  new to keep the ball rolling into fresh areas. 
But I now suspect it doesn't work that way. The commons get clogged and 
the lively spirit drains away, somehow. It's a bit like standing in a 
party where a couple of people are yammering at the top of their voices 
at each other--in principle you can chat with the person beside you, but 
in fact most people just pack up and leave.

I might be wrong about this. I'd be interested to hear other opinions. 
If there's anyone still here not named Swobe, Papaioannou or somewhat 
less frequently (exact numbers available on request) Clark.

Damien Broderick


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 01:25:52 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:25:52 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>

Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> Watching the Great Swobe Disaster endlessly unreel (while repeatedly hitting
> Delete) has made me realize that lists *can't* effectively allow this sort
> of monomania to overwhelm their dynamic.

Would everyone agree that putting an abrupt end to all living
Searle-derivative threads is a good idea? I could go either way. I
certainly recognize that nothing good has or will ever come of it,
aside perhaps from such ephemeral benefits such as "pride" or
"amusement" or "oppressive frustration". I might be getting more than
my fair share of those.

I think mainly the GSD is damaging to morale, but it also robs time
from people who could otherwise be contributing to more productive
topics.


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 01:35:23 2010
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:05:23 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 March 2010 11:55, Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> > Watching the Great Swobe Disaster endlessly unreel (while repeatedly hitting
> > Delete) has made me realize that lists *can't* effectively allow this sort
> > of monomania to overwhelm their dynamic.

Disaster? This is a walk in the park. I remember the good old days of
the g*n "debates", remember those? Whatever happened to Mike Lorrey?

--
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 01:45:25 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:45:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501002281745l32e46ee5o7db8f2692fc7289d@mail.gmail.com>

There is something to be said for depth, however this horse may have been
beaten beyond recognition.  But I am sure some neat-o ideas have been put
out there that never would have been produced if this stuff hadn't been
taken beyond its logical ends.

As for "esoteric yet promising ideas," I have posted not one but two
messages to the list in the past 2 days, each in excess of 1000 words, that
seem to have been ignored for what is most likely a response to the na?vet?
of my writing (I'm seventeen, damnit!) but perhaps shows an endemic
pro-classicism here.  That, or I would just love validation.

But honestly, to stimulate discussion:

a) More topics on space, on material science, on energy, on social dynamics!

b) To these topics, reply even if you aren't confident in totality of theory
or if you think your ideas are half-formed.  There is always a chance that
the seed of wonder is somewhere in those ideas, especially when there is
almost surely a person on this list who is very well-versed in said topic
and can help with the nitty-gritty.  The more ideas get put out there, the
better chances there are of one being a good one.  The rest will die as per
natural selection.  Be impulsive more, and, most importantly, establish a
filter that replaces every instance of the word "Searle" with "Fuck me!"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100228/e1e3eeeb/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 01:45:39 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:45:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>

On 2/28/2010 6:43 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:

> I haven't been here long enough to have any idea of how things used to
> be

Rue the day, kiddo. The sigma dropped by at least 50% when Eliezer, 
Anders, Robin Hanson, Eugen Leitel, Hal Finney, Robert Bradbury and some 
others left the room. You have no idea. A pity the archives don't go 
back that far.

Damien Broderick


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 01:50:07 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:50:07 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8B1D4F.7080500@satx.rr.com>

On 2/28/2010 7:35 PM, Emlyn wrote:

> I remember the good old days of
> the g*n "debates", remember those? Whatever happened to Mike Lorrey?

Exactly.


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 01:55:56 2010
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:25:56 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc1002281755s3d5adea7mdbe0a4d69fdefb12@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 March 2010 12:15, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/2010 6:43 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:
>
>> I haven't been here long enough to have any idea of how things used to
>> be
>
> Rue the day, kiddo. The sigma dropped by at least 50% when Eliezer, Anders,
> Robin Hanson, Eugen Leitel, Hal Finney, Robert Bradbury and some others left
> the room. You have no idea. A pity the archives don't go back that far.
>
> Damien Broderick

The extropians list was the best list in the world. But we can't
remember the extropians list. Exi-chat is not that list. Ex-chat is
just a tribute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4an3rpucSos&feature=related

-- 
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 02:22:56 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:22:56 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501002281745l32e46ee5o7db8f2692fc7289d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com> 
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4e3a29501002281745l32e46ee5o7db8f2692fc7289d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1002281822q164eeb77vbb8905e22ec389ed@mail.gmail.com>

Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
> There is something to be said for depth, however this horse may have been
> beaten beyond recognition. ?But I am sure some neat-o ideas have been put
> out there that never would have been produced if this stuff hadn't been
> taken beyond its logical ends.

But are we going to DO anything with those ideas?


Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
> As for "esoteric yet promising ideas," I have posted not one but two
> messages to the list in the past 2 days, each in excess of 1000 words, that
> seem to have been ignored for what is most likely a response to the?na?vet?
> of my writing (I'm seventeen, damnit!) but perhaps shows an endemic
> pro-classicism here. ?That, or I would just love validation.

I skipped over "intelligence, coherence, the frontal lobe, quantum
evolution" basically because I am more an engineer than a theorist
when it comes to the natural sciences. I did read "The Chess Room",
though, and I noticed your presentation shared a couple significant
things in common with mine.

1: You ended on an open question, which should have provoked lively
response yet somehow just made the whole thing seem incomplete and
unapproachable.
2: It was very, very long. Also, rambling.

These are what I came up with to explain the total lack of response I
got, and now, thanks to you, I'm pretty convinced that I was right.
>From now on, I'm going to shoot for concise and complete. Far more
difficult, but I can adapt.

I did feel drawn to talk about the chess room, as it seemed to vaguely
point toward something very interesting about the nature of group
intelligence (which I am extremely interested in), but I was very busy
and just kind of half-consciously archived it. Maybe I'll go over it
again tomorrow.


Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
> But honestly, to stimulate discussion:
> a) More topics on space, on material science, on energy, on social dynamics!
> b) To these topics, reply even if you aren't confident in totality of theory
> or if you think your ideas are half-formed. ?There is always a chance that
> the seed of wonder is somewhere in those ideas, especially when there is
> almost surely a person on this list who is very well-versed in said topic
> and can help with the nitty-gritty. ?The more ideas get put out there, the
> better chances there are of one being a good one. ?The rest will die as per
> natural selection. ?Be impulsive more, and, most importantly, establish a
> filter that replaces every instance of the word "Searle" with "Fuck me!"

Everyone listen to this man.

I know what *my* next thread is going to be!


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 03:00:53 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:00:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501002281745l32e46ee5o7db8f2692fc7289d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281745l32e46ee5o7db8f2692fc7289d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C28E75EA-5DE0-4809-8877-5B47863DC4C1@GMAIL.COM>


On Feb 28, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Will Steinberg wrote:
> for "esoteric yet promising ideas," I have posted not one but two messages to the list in the past 2 days, each in excess of 1000 words, that seem to have been ignored for what is most likely a response to the na?vet? of my writing (I'm seventeen, damnit!) but perhaps shows an endemic pro-classicism here.  That, or I would just love validation.
"Chess Room" seemed interesting, but I never finished it, sooo long, haha. Sorry. I'll probably read over it, though I make no promises.
> a) More topics on space, on material science, on energy, on social dynamics!
> 
> b) To these topics, reply even if you aren't confident in totality of theory or if you think your ideas are half-formed.  There is always a chance that the seed of wonder is somewhere in those ideas, especially when there is almost surely a person on this list who is very well-versed in said topic and can help with the nitty-gritty.  The more ideas get put out there, the better chances there are of one being a good one.  The rest will die as per natural selection.  Be impulsive more, and, most importantly, establish a filter that replaces every instance of the word "Searle" with "Fuck me!"
Yes! I love it. I joined the list about 4-5 months ago now, and I really liked it when I started, but the last couple of months have sort just dragged on. I've gotten so used to just rapidly slamming on the "delete" key that I now tend to venture on the "nah, not going to read it side.

Btw, I'm 19, and its good to know there are at least a couple young people on the list (not saying everyone else is old, but I got the impression youngins were rare 'round these parts).

Not sure if I am comfortable to post an original topic just yet, but I'll try to pay more attention in the future. This is, after all, an "extropy" chat list, and the whole point is to fight entropy, after all.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100228/fe129ca3/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Mar  1 03:09:07 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:09:07 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com><4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com><e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>

 
> ...On Behalf Of Emlyn
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
> >
> > Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> > > Watching the Great Swobe Disaster endlessly unreel (while repeatedly
hitting
> > > Delete) has made me realize that lists *can't* effectively allow 
> > > this sort of monomania to overwhelm their dynamic.
> 
> Disaster? This is a walk in the park...

Agreed!  The Searle discussion has been mostly civil.  I have always thought
it easy enough to hit the delete key, or to filter a thread, or even a
specific poster.  I see no harm nor foul in having a particular obsession,
so long as one refrains from personal attacks.

>... I remember the good old days of the g*n "debates", remember those?

I do!  Those debates were so pointless and out of place here, even though
this was initially a libertarian site with plenty of pro gun people hanging
around.  In those rancorous debates there was so much personal animosity, I
feel sorry for whoever was doing the moderating in those days.  That was
before my hitch.

> Whatever happened to Mike Lorrey? Emlyn

I googled on my own name a few months ago, and found Mike had quoted me on
something I wrote a bunch of years ago regarding how to select a crew for a
Mars colony.  That post was from last summer as I recall, so Mike is still
alive and still thinking.  The question is whatever happened to Joe Dees.
He disappeared about ten years ago, and I have never been able to find him
since.  Anyone here friends with Joe Dees?  Do invite him to drop in to the
kinder and gentler ExI-chat list.

spike



From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 03:11:44 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:11:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>

Inspired by Spencer, here is a "brief" summation for those who thought this
was "tl" and so "dr".

A machine can construct an AI based on analysis of some data set on one
person.  Here it is their chess strategy.  But the machine encounters a
strategy that was carefully averaged over many players, yet still, by its
algorithms, produced consciousness.  I then noted that many systems are
reliant on external information modified by more than one consciousness, and
so can only be determined by all the consciousnesses (or an average.)  This
may already take place with our left and right brains.

This left me wondering whether any group of minds, say, humanity itself,
also had an emergent mind associated with it.  If the brains are very
complicated series of calculations, a bunch of brains is pretty much the
same thing.  I might even go so far as to say that this system is aware.
 Next, I leapt to the idea that the components of entire universe could well
exhibit awareness by this means, albethey in a much slower and more
complicated manner.  I guess I'm sort of proposing a god of sorts, but one
that is constrained by the same rules that constrain us and has awareness so
spread out as to not even constitute a true being in our sense of the word.

This leads to another question: at what boundary to communication does
awareness stop working?  When do the parts become too separate to lead to
consciousness?  Our brain is conscious.  If we take it that the human system
is not, to any degree, then there must be a boundary to physical intimacy
(in the brain, of course.)  I might even say that if you believe in a
totally emergent consciousness, then you MUST believe in emergent
consciousness on Earth and in the Universe in at least some small amount,
and that if you believe that consciousness exists (as I do) at some certain
neurological locus, there is still room for discussion.

If THIS post is in fact too long to merit consideration, I suppose I'll have
to craft an even shorter response and read it to you like a bedtime story.
 I could even use puppets, if you'd like. ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100228/0d5819bb/attachment.html>

From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 03:26:24 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:26:24 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1002281926l57d2f5cbh89d0e898bfa5a9ec@mail.gmail.com>

Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
> Inspired by Spencer, here is a "brief" summation for those who thought this
> was "tl" and so "dr".

The summation is less compelling, but more approachable! B++

Based on the logic presented here, I feel pretty well convinced that
it is accurate to speak of the earth (say) having a mind. However, I'd
also submit that that mind is unconscious. This may just be my
prejudice against non-verbal entities, though. There is a certain
correlation, here, with Ken Wilber's concept of the evolution of
consciousness.

I am making the implication that the earth could develop into a
conscious entity, whether or not it's converted to computronium first.
In fact, it ought to be possible without any visible technology to
speak of; we just have to get all the humans to act in a certain way.

I'm not sure exactly what that way is, though. China Brain is
cheating; that would only instantiate a new mind, whereas I want to
give a voice to a mind that already exists.  Benthic Violet (the
machine with a genius name) does something equivalent to
brain-scanning, and the jury is still out on that.

How do you talk to a thing made of seven billion people?


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 03:36:08 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:36:08 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <C28E75EA-5DE0-4809-8877-5B47863DC4C1@GMAIL.COM>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com> 
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4e3a29501002281745l32e46ee5o7db8f2692fc7289d@mail.gmail.com> 
	<C28E75EA-5DE0-4809-8877-5B47863DC4C1@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1002281936o5ee7c716q345182415a04cdca@mail.gmail.com>

JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
> "Chess Room" seemed interesting, but I never finished it, sooo long, haha.
> Sorry. I'll probably read over it, though I make no promises.

I KNEW IT!

There ought to be some kind of check in place to catch this when it
happens. From the writer's perspective, it just looks like everybody
hates you. Laziness and/or lack of time did not initially occur to me
as a likely cause for "The Throughput of English" dying before it hit
the ground.


JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
> Btw, I'm 19, and its good to know there are at least a couple young people
> on the list (not saying everyone else is old, but I got the impression
> youngins were rare 'round these parts).

Twenty, here.

I think intellectuals just age faster than normal people.


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 03:40:21 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:40:21 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?
In-Reply-To: <230089.92387.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e31002270650q43508103x5508dec8e7a8f2e9@mail.gmail.com> 
	<230089.92387.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31002281940u2ed894cds6b1391094f366794@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 March 2010 11:42, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 2/27/10, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's true that there is no requirement for an AI to follow
>> brain architecture, but I am considering the special case where
>> it does.
>
> After mulling over your thought experiment for oh so many weeks, it seems to me apparent that weak AI *must* deviate from organic structure. So I don't know what you mean by "special case", unless you've just begged the question of strong AI.

What I mean by an AI following brain architecture is that it is made
up of components that exactly duplicate the I/O behaviour of the
corresponding biological component. There is no requirement that the
artificial component itself follow the structure of the biological one
internally, although as a practical matter it might be easier if it
does. I have mainly been talking about these artificial components
being neurons but they could just as easily be subneuronal or
multineuronal structures. For example, we could remove a sphere of
brain tissue one centimetre in diameter and replace it with a sphere
of similar size comprised of machinery which interacts with the cut
surface exactly as the replaced tissue would have. Within the implant
there would be a computer running a program based on information from
scanning or dissecting the original tissue, controlling sensors and
effectors at the surface. Essentially, the implant is a little
philosophical zombie designed to fool the surrounding brain into
believing that it is normal brain tissue, in the same way as a fully
grown philosophical zombie is designed to fool humans into thinking
that it is a conscious human.

You agree that the fully grown zombie is possible but you have
expressed doubts about smaller and simpler versions of it. If you have
presented an argument to support this view I have missed it.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From aware at awareresearch.com  Mon Mar  1 03:36:16 2010
From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:36:16 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5741002281936v635f9777ud172d48a34772f30@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
>> Watching the Great Swobe Disaster endlessly unreel (while repeatedly hitting
>> Delete) has made me realize that lists *can't* effectively allow this sort
>> of monomania to overwhelm their dynamic.
>
> Would everyone agree that putting an abrupt end to all living
> Searle-derivative threads is a good idea?

As I've said before, if the participants actually cared about reaching
a more encompassing understanding, they should make the effort to
summarize THE OTHER participants's positions.  Moreover, they could
establish some structure expressing the various points of view,
supporting beliefs, and potential approaches to falsification or
assessment of [in]coherence.

I think such efforts toward not reconciliation, but encompassment,
would be worthwhile.  But instead we get just another example of the
psychology of human biases and status-seeking behavior.

- Jef


From spike66 at att.net  Mon Mar  1 03:14:41 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:14:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <2A09304DD4664B59ADBC3E2EBFC62854@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
> 
> On 2/28/2010 6:43 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:
> 
> > I haven't been here long enough to have any idea of how 
> things used to be...
> 
> Rue the day, kiddo. The sigma dropped by at least 50% when 
> Eliezer, Anders, Robin Hanson, Eugen Leitel, Hal Finney, 
> Robert Bradbury and some others left the room. You have no 
> idea. A pity the archives don't go back that far.
> 
> Damien Broderick

We adultos rue the day these guys left too.  I got a phone call from Robert
Bradbury a few weeks ago.  He is well, still thinking, still being Robert.
Anders was in town last spring for a meeting of some sort, but I was on the
road on the east coast for business most of the time he was here, so we
didn't even get a chance to gather the locals.  Shelly and Isaac enjoyed the
sunshine of his presence.  Eugen has a son about the same age as mine, so I
have a good notion of why we seldom hear from him these days.

spike







From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 03:50:32 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:50:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>


On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:11 PM, Will Steinberg wrote:
> This left me wondering whether any group of minds, say, humanity itself, also had an emergent mind associated with it.  If the brains are very complicated series of calculations, a bunch of brains is pretty much the same thing.  I might even go so far as to say that this system is aware.  Next, I leapt to the idea that the components of entire universe could well exhibit awareness by this means, albethey in a much slower and more complicated manner.  I guess I'm sort of proposing a god of sorts, but one that is constrained by the same rules that constrain us and has awareness so spread out as to not even constitute a true being in our sense of the word.
> 
> This leads to another question: at what boundary to communication does awareness stop working?  When do the parts become too separate to lead to consciousness?  Our brain is conscious.  If we take it that the human system is not, to any degree, then there must be a boundary to physical intimacy (in the brain, of course.)  I might even say that if you believe in a totally emergent consciousness, then you MUST believe in emergent consciousness on Earth and in the Universe in at least some small amount, and that if you believe that consciousness exists (as I do) at some certain neurological locus, there is still room for discussion.
I am wary of the idea of an actual mind composed of minds. The thing is that people always have choices, they can behave in unexpected and unpredictable ways, and so as a result, I don't see a group as having a mind (unless all the people in it chose to behave in a very particular way that was designed to do such a thing, but that is, honestly, cheating). I really don't recognize how there can be anything called a "mind" without concepts and language. This Overmind or whatever composed of the actions of lots of humans can't have concepts or language, so it isn't, by my definition, a mind. My dog, in view, is literally mindless, as she has no concepts nor words. Babies too, are essentially mindless, up until 'round the time they say their first word. With language comes thought (conceptual thought), and with thought comes Mind.

Perhaps such a thing may exist, and it is just too big to understand it. But it strikes me as more Voodoo witchery that anything else. I believe in emergent consciousness, I just find it difficult to imagine minds forming an Overmind. Something about the idea of a "mind" makes it a stand-alone entity.

Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 03:57:35 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:57:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
	<16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501002281957v243ae9bdi4f7167851d17af77@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:50 PM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am wary of the idea of an actual mind composed of minds...I don't see a
> group as having a mind...I really don't recognize how there can be anything
> called a "mind" without concepts and language. This Overmind or whatever
> composed of the actions of lots of humans can't have concepts or language,
> so it isn't, by my definition, a mind...Something about the idea of a "mind"
> makes it a stand-alone entity.



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WD0-4FNNC67-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09/30/2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1226580090&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=42b68e9253e83b5635e7db8babaa700c

Two separate consciousness registered; one could communicate because it
contained speech processing areas. (Note--this is lifted right out of
Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, which is, though sometimes a bit to eager
to give merit to its own ideas, a very well-done book, especially on
recognizing the uniqueness of intuition.  Poe's Eureka also speaks to the
fact.)

It is absolutely true that we cannot, as of now, comprehend this
multi-consciousness existence.  But here is the proof--right there in the
pudding!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100228/0faa5584/attachment.html>

From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 04:20:04 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:20:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501002281957v243ae9bdi4f7167851d17af77@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
	<16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002281957v243ae9bdi4f7167851d17af77@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E459A630-6EA4-48C4-B028-DBBB79917C22@GMAIL.COM>


On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Will Steinberg wrote:
> Two separate consciousness registered; one could communicate because it contained speech processing areas. (Note--this is lifted right out of Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, which is, though sometimes a bit to eager to give merit to its own ideas, a very well-done book, especially on recognizing the uniqueness of intuition.  Poe's Eureka also speaks to the fact.)
> 
> It is absolutely true that we cannot, as of now, comprehend this multi-consciousness existence.  But here is the proof--right there in the pudding!  
I haven't read the article, as it would cost me money, but from the abstract, it was not two separate consciousness's, but rather a single consciousness which had been ripped in two by surgery, which could recognize "itself" in pictures. I don't view split-brain patients as really indicative of normal people, as they have been brain damaged. Normally, the two hemispheres of the brain communicate and cooperate to create our "I". When the corpus collosum is severed, this is no longer possible, and yes each side may then develop a somewhat separate personality, but two separate consciousness's, in our own minds? No, I don't think so. A split-brain patient is more akin to two minds sharing a body that two minds forming one mind.

Of course, it is possible the article itself suggests differently. I only have the abstract to go on. I haven't read Penrose's book, or Poe's. I intend to soon start Hofstadter's "I Am A Strange Loop", though it has been on my bookshelf for nearly a year now, so we'll see. 


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 04:37:46 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:37:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <E459A630-6EA4-48C4-B028-DBBB79917C22@GMAIL.COM>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
	<16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002281957v243ae9bdi4f7167851d17af77@mail.gmail.com>
	<E459A630-6EA4-48C4-B028-DBBB79917C22@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501002282037u34c158t29f944bad76da9b@mail.gmail.com>

Ah sorry--I didn't read that specific article, but it seems to have been the
study from tENM.  What is interesting is that the split-brain patient's two
sides expressed *different intentions!*  Each side expressed wishes for
separate futures and seemed to exist independently.  The brain is known to
compensate for damage.  Perhaps it compensated here by forming an entirely
new copy of the "consciousness sector."  Hofstadter espouses a very similar
idea close to the beginning of his book.  I would recommend tENM over it,
but both are very interesting.  Eureka is...different, but it has great
stuff on intuition and will paint Poe in a new light for you.

Anyhow--back to an emergent mind.  What sways me towards the idea is that a
group can have intention and trends, sometimes without total comprehension
of any within the group as singular units.  Humanity progresses, but the
specifics are not known to any one of us.  This may just be an emergent
necessity, but maybe our awarenesses are as well, given some special
interactions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100228/7853fb64/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 04:48:10 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:48:10 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1002281926l57d2f5cbh89d0e898bfa5a9ec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281926l57d2f5cbh89d0e898bfa5a9ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8B470A.3040901@satx.rr.com>

On 2/28/2010 9:26 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:

> How do you talk to a thing made of seven billion people?

Very slowly.


From moulton at moulton.com  Mon Mar  1 04:22:37 2010
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 1 Mar 2010 04:22:37 -0000
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
Message-ID: <20100301042237.21295.qmail@moulton.com>


On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 19:45 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> Rue the day, kiddo. The sigma dropped by at least 50% when Eliezer,
> Anders, Robin Hanson, Eugen Leitel, Hal Finney, Robert Bradbury and some
> others left the room. You have no idea. A pity the archives don't go
> back that far.

I seem to recall there was a movement at one time to create a complete
archive.   Is this still a possibility or is that history going to be
lost?

Fred


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 04:56:16 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:56:16 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1002281708n75ee0241w9ae1d55d59c31287@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1267358402.22855.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<214822.48535.qm@web113620.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281102gb17718fu144a04a0fdc2463@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002281633s5579c3b7vac89ab296c9e0b69@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1002281708n75ee0241w9ae1d55d59c31287@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31002282056r7f415ce4p53cf0976b75a1970@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 March 2010 12:08, Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>:
>> I guess you are talking about M making a leap as a sort of analogy,
>> but it can be a misleading one. For continuity of experience it is
>> necessary *and* sufficient that the right sorts of mental states occur
>> in A, B and C. M does not add anything to the explanation and does not
>> go leaping.
>
> Considering the fact that M is literally defined as, "some property
> [of an individual] such that continuity [of experience] remains
> unbroken as long as the individual retains that property", I would go
> so far as to say that an explanation which doesn't mention M, at least
> implicitly, is impossible. It's just shorthand for continuity of
> experience in and of itself, really.

In an earlier post you posited, as I understood it, that there might
be continuity of experience but no M. That if you wake from a coma M
might be preserved but not if you are resuscitated after dying, even
though your experience is exactly the same in each case. That does
imply that you think M might be something over and above continuity of
experience. Or without using M, you are saying there might be two
types of continuity of experience, type A and type B. Type A occurs
when you wake from a coma, while type B occurs when you are
resuscitated after dying. There is no subjective difference between
type A and type B, but type A is still "better".

> Your constraints do not help me at all. What are the right sorts of
> mental states? Stressing once again the problem of mental clones, what
> if more than one thing is in the right sort of mental state to qualify
> as me? Which one am I?

You are the one you feel yourself to be at the moment you consider the
question, of course. Your soul/consciousness/M/whatever does not flit
from one body to the other. At any moment you have memories of having
been a particular person, and you look forward to becoming a future
version of the same person. In a single linear time line there is no
problem with thinking that you are, in fact, the one person traveling
through time in the forward direction, but if you consider unusual
situations involving clones, parallel worlds and time travel it
becomes clear that this is just a delusion. It is nevertheless a very
important delusion, hardwired into your brain, so if you are
duplicated in two places you try to make sense of it by assuming that
you are still living linearly, which means that you expect to end up
one or other copy with equal probability. It is harder to say what you
should expect if there are multiple copies with varying degrees of
mental similarity to the original, since that is unlike any situation
your brain evolved to cope with.

> Taking your statements at face value, I must necessarily be every
> entity that has the right sort of mental state. I'm not sure that it
> makes sense to talk about me being a bunch of individual people,
> considering the fact that I would not necessarily qualify as a hive
> mind.
>
> I don't know. In practice my many brains might somehow
> quantum-entangle with each other automatically and I will inevitably
> become a hive mind, but that seems very unlikely to me. I'm aware that
> some people here are keeping up to date on the latest findings in
> psi-like phenomena research. Damien Broderick could probably tell me
> with some confidence whether or not something like that is plausible.
> It does border on identical-twin telepathy and the like.

I don't have a problem with simultaneously existing copies. I am one,
and only one, of the copies at any moment.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 06:16:24 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:16:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ExI] intelligence, coherence, the frontal lobe,
	quantum evolution
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1002282216l345a50abw890f6a1db693baaa@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:53 PM,  Will Steinberg
<steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone posted that a few weeks ago, quantum mechanics in photosynthesis.

That's not exactly true.  Plants use multiple quantum chemistry
because it takes more than one quantum of light to accomplish the
first step in reducing carbon dioxide.

Chemistry is understood today as quantum chemistry, particularly bonds
are represented as electron quantum states, 1s, 2p, etc.  But that's
marginal.  If you took chemistry recently you probably understand it
better than I do.

Being an old school electrical engineer, I took QM and the next
semester solid state physics.  If they assign you the non infinite
square well problem when you take QM, the key to solving it is the
Bessel equation.

As a general matter in discussions on the net (not just here) I
suggest not invoking QM arguments until you have had the course.
After taking the course, chances are you won't do that because QM is
hard to relate to common place events in the world except the trite
cases such as chemistry or device physics.

snip

I don't know how deep your knowledge of modern biology, particularly
evolution is.  Selfish Gene by Dawkins is basic to understanding
evolution, I presume you have read that.  What other parts of the
topic are you up on?

Keith Henson

PS.  You are *so* lucky to be 17.  If you study up on evolutionary
psychology it should keep from wasting huge chunks of your life trying
to figure out why people are the way they are.


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 06:35:16 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:35:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ExI] intelligence, coherence, the frontal lobe,
	quantum 	evolution
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1002282216l345a50abw890f6a1db693baaa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1002282216l345a50abw890f6a1db693baaa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501002282235n5ffe590em7d28b03155aa6d6f@mail.gmail.com>

Oi!  Phew--I am glad someone will tell me that (as I'd assumed) I have
grossly oversimplified the workings of QM in order to speculate.

However--given that neurons ALSO need multiple quanta of energy to fire, and
that there may be "loose" enough bonding to allow sizable delocalization, is
it tenable that the brain can in some way use this quantum efficiency to
calculate things faster?  I was under the impression that the problem with
QM in biological situations was mostly associated with a "noisy
environment," and that the discovery of coherence in plants, which are
relatively hot, perhaps allowed for other situations.

Am I wrong in assuming this?  What makes coherence possible for plants that
would not apply to brains?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/00b7a111/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 09:16:45 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:16:45 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Rue the day, kiddo. The sigma dropped by at least 50% when Eliezer, Anders,
> Robin Hanson, Eugen Leitel, Hal Finney, Robert Bradbury and some others left
> the room. You have no idea. A pity the archives don't go back that far.
>
>

Matches: from:(Gordon Swobe)
Do this: Skip Inbox, Delete it

This will save wear and tear on your Delete key.
But you will still see the vast number of posts trying to use
reasoning to stop the unreasoning repetition of the same 'beliefs'
over and over again.
And people responding quote far too much of the drivel. Trim your quotes!


List management has many different styles but it has to respond as
necessary to the circumstances. Sometimes a light touch is all that is
needed, with the threat of the big stick hidden behind your back. But
neglect can let a good list sink into the swamp.
It needs someone to have personal ownership of the list with a picture
in their mind of what they want the list to be and time to spend to
maintain the list accordingly. Many other attributes, of course, go
towards making the perfect list moderator.
(A Hitler mask helps!).


The main difference with the old Extropy list is that everybody got older.
And their sphere of action moved away from the old ways. In some cases
it may be that their 'philosophy' changed and some of their old ways
became an embarrassment that they would rather not discuss. Their new
outlook expresses itself in different ways in different environments.

But we have a new generation appearing. Unfortunately (for the ol'
guys) they appear to have the normal student desire to sit round a
table at 2 in the morning, discussing whether the table really exists.
(Don't laugh - you know you've all done it!)
But the oldies will have to have a bit of patience while the
youngsters work through that phase. The kids nowadays!  ;)


BillK

But there are hopeful signs.


From giulio at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 09:47:08 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:08 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003010147x79b8d4adk3c1ce96a7ab005cb@mail.gmail.com>

As Damien says, the list used to be more interesting a few years ago,
and even more interesting 10 years ago. This  depends partly on some
of the most brilliant posters having left or missing in action, but
also on not having a strategic visions for this list, shared by a
majority of posters.

Too bad, because this list used to represent one of the most exciting
discussion spaces on the net, probably the most exciting. What could
we do to restart a Golden Age?

Giulio - by the way, I am now using my main email address for this list.

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:16 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:
>> Rue the day, kiddo. The sigma dropped by at least 50% when Eliezer, Anders,
>> Robin Hanson, Eugen Leitel, Hal Finney, Robert Bradbury and some others left
>> the room. You have no idea. A pity the archives don't go back that far.


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 11:15:11 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:15:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501003010315r7a94a266x6a2655ecea818bee@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:16 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> But we have a new generation appearing. Unfortunately (for the ol'
> guys) they appear to have the normal student desire to sit round a
> table at 2 in the morning, discussing whether the table really exists.
> (Don't laugh - you know you've all done it!)
> But the oldies will have to have a bit of patience while the
> youngsters work through that phase. The kids nowadays!  ;)


Hey!  I'd call it more trying to see why the table exists given that we know
it does.  I guess it is a bit...airy?  But where else are you going to find
the latest references to MTV, texting, Miley Cyrus, instant gratification,
electronic-mail, high-fructose corn syrup, hyphenation, blue jeans, or
Pokemon?  We might have some solid ideas!

Because, I mean, like, what if this is all--you know, I mean life,
right--what if it's all, like, we're in this big computer, and it's like,
you know that binary shit, right?  Like we're all that kinda code and then,
like, you can hack the code, and--dude, fuck!  Are you just going to hold
it?  I mean, pass it dude, you're wasting it!  ...Do we have any more Easy
Mac?  ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/e5609f4a/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 12:50:38 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
Message-ID: <178900.3450.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sun, 2/28/10, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>> Disaster? This is a walk in the park...
> 
> Agreed!? The Searle discussion has been mostly civil.? 

Thank you Spike. I have been unfairly maligned for presenting a philosophy heretical to extropianism, and for no other reason. What happened to free thought and spirited debate on this list?

Damien you ought to know better, but instead you fan the flames and encourage my ostracism. Disappointing.

-gts




      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 13:44:45 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:44:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <378348.32120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> Matches: from:(Gordon Swobe)
> Do this: Skip Inbox, Delete it

Exactly, Bill. Nobody reads messages at gunpoint. If A has no interest in B's messages then A should behave like an adult and simply ignore B. 

No need for insults, snide messages, gossip or any other of the kind of childish behavior that I've seen here recently. Clark even created an entire thread just to harass me.

-gts


      


From pjmanney at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 15:04:23 2010
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:04:23 -0800
Subject: [ExI] I need a favor...
Message-ID: <29666bf31003010704x18fdc7dasb10d0399fb10016c@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,

I would greatly appreciate if someone with restricted library access
could download the pdfs of the following academic papers and send all
of them to me.  I am trying to help my group of local parents get an
accelerated science track into our high school, which would benefit my
own kids, their friends and our school generally.  And you all know
how administrators like data...  :-)

http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/54/3/409
http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/4/338
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005IJSEd..27..471C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhTea..45..434V
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003APS..MAR.R1276S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003IJSEd..25...13R

Thank you SO much!

Sincerely,
PJ


From aware at awareresearch.com  Mon Mar  1 15:32:41 2010
From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:32:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5741003010732l1ad39da5h953d563ffae90064@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> The main difference with the old Extropy list is that everybody got older.
> And their sphere of action moved away from the old ways. In some cases
> it may be that their 'philosophy' changed and some of their old ways
> became an embarrassment that they would rather not discuss. Their new
> outlook expresses itself in different ways in different environments.

Yes, I think this is the main reason for the decline.  The confluence
of the Internet taking off, the dot-com boom, nascent recognition of
exponential growth, hints of disruptive technological developments
(bio, nano, robo, cogno) always just on the horizon,
Libertarian/Randian propensities finding an avenue for expression, and
some highly intelligent and *passionate* people coming together
resulted in heady times.

That experience set my expectations (unreasonably) that if such people
only come together in the right environment, the intellectual fires
would continue to burn hotter and hotter.  Now the "burning" is much
more like that described earlier in this thread by Will.  Oh well.  I
do know better. Thanks for the reminder.

Fortunately, I subscribe to a (very) small number of other lists where
very bright researchers discuss the leading edge of topics that once
fueled extropian speculation:  bigger-picture views of complexity,
chaos and information theory, evolutionary and developmental change
(and where epistemology need not be rediscovered each go-around.)  But
the dry academic humor on these lists is no substitute for the passion
of the old extropy list.

We've seen over and over again that new people join the list and are
excited to discover the same old epistemological puzzles involving
notions of qualia, consciousness, self, personal identity, etc.  Most
of these are motivated by the (easily understandable and to be
expected) desire to promote the Self, via duplication, augmentation,
amplification and immortality.  Very few understand, or are interested
in thinking, that shows the capital-S Self to be an entirely fictional
entity, while the effectiveness of its agency really matters.

We've considered creating repositories of past knowledge and arguments
arguments on these topics, which might provide a scaffold for those
interested in climbing higher.  But the passion is gone, and local
entropy reigns and as Gibson said, "the future is already here; it's
just unevenly distributed."

Silly (seriously) to have expected that here it could remain concentrated.

- Jef


From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 15:39:35 2010
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:39:35 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <e68fc1101003010147x79b8d4adk3c1ce96a7ab005cb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003010147x79b8d4adk3c1ce96a7ab005cb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af71003010739k4b04acbmb28830e59da93aa4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote:
> Too bad, because this list used to represent one of the most exciting
> discussion spaces on the net, probably the most exciting. What could
> we do to restart a Golden Age?

And if any of you are serious about wanting a "Golden Age", you'll
stop hiding all of your old archives and say to hell with it. Forward
those old emails, upload the archives. Even just sending one or two
nuggets every few days would be enough to spark some interest in those
topics.

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


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 15:59:41 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:59:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501002282037u34c158t29f944bad76da9b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com> 
	<16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002281957v243ae9bdi4f7167851d17af77@mail.gmail.com> 
	<E459A630-6EA4-48C4-B028-DBBB79917C22@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002282037u34c158t29f944bad76da9b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003010759i6416b2c6s7ea281db284acfb4@mail.gmail.com>

Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
> Anyhow--back to an emergent mind. ?What sways me towards the idea is that a group can have intention and trends, sometimes without total comprehension of any within the group as singular units. ?Humanity progresses, but the specifics are not known to any one of us. ?This may just be an emergent necessity, but maybe our awarenesses are as well, given some special interactions.

Crowds make a perfect example of how this works. Put enough people in
one place, direct their attention toward a single thing, and the mob
mentality sets in. This is merely disconcerting when the mob-mind is
focused on some physical phenomenon (music concerts, comedy clubs),
but it can become outright dangerous when it gets an idea (protests,
riots). Angry mobs are, somehow, angrier than the sum of their parts.

Organizations of all kinds illustrate the concept on longer time
scales. Microsoft seems to have its own dysfunctional personality,
distinct from its constituent owners and employees. The willfulness of
nations is well-documented; even in a democracy, which has no
consistent "head" to speak of, the nation as a whole continues to have
predictable behavior and preferences that distinguish it from every
other nation.

These aren't new ideas by any means, so Google can dig up gold. Here's
a typologist talking about the personality type of a system of
typology:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2008/01/socionics-game.html


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 16:26:03 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:26:03 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e31002282056r7f415ce4p53cf0976b75a1970@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1267358402.22855.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<214822.48535.qm@web113620.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281102gb17718fu144a04a0fdc2463@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002281633s5579c3b7vac89ab296c9e0b69@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1002281708n75ee0241w9ae1d55d59c31287@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002282056r7f415ce4p53cf0976b75a1970@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003010826p7fd3b1a9y195f59deb3cc22af@mail.gmail.com>

Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>:
> In an earlier post you posited, as I understood it, that there might
> be continuity of experience but no M. That if you wake from a coma M
> might be preserved but not if you are resuscitated after dying, even
> though your experience is exactly the same in each case. That does
> imply that you think M might be something over and above continuity of
> experience. Or without using M, you are saying there might be two
> types of continuity of experience, type A and type B. Type A occurs
> when you wake from a coma, while type B occurs when you are
> resuscitated after dying. There is no subjective difference between
> type A and type B, but type A is still "better".

No, you misunderstood it. To use your terminology: in Type A
continuity there is no question of whether or not I retain M, because
(and only because) nothing unusual is happening to make us think that
maybe I don't. In Type B continuity we are doing strange things with
technology. Even if I do wake up and show all the behavior of my old
self, there will be suspicions from the pro-soul crowd: does the thing
waking up have a soul? Is it the same soul as before?

You can replace "soul" with M in both cases, in which case the answer
to the first question is obviously yes. The answer to the second
question is not so easy. If it's yes, then it seems my M must have
been stored somewhere in the interim, which means M is an immortal
soul. If it's no, which I am more inclined to believe, then we have a
big problem: uploading would appear to work for all intents and
purposes, but either (a) the thing experiencing my mind would not be
the same thing that experiences my mind right now, or (b) there has
never been anything that experiences being me.

Saying that M must have been stored somewhere in the interim is
probably going to attract more comments along the lines of "but
interrupted continuity is experienced as identical to uninterrupted
continuity", so I'll take a shot at addressing that right now.
"Interrupted continuity of experience" is an oxymoron. M is not your
conscious mind, which fades in and out; M is purely an abstraction. If
you are temporarily knocked out or dead or whatever, resulting in a
period of time in which you have no subjective experiences, you still
have M during that period. The only situation in which you lose M is
when you go to the atheist afterlife. M is, in a very literal sense,
you.

Again, nolipsism solves the problem neatly. If any of you say, "but M
is a self, and there is no such thing as a self, so M is a meaningless
abstraction of nothing", then my only possible response is: yes,
that's logical.


Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>:
> I don't have a problem with simultaneously existing copies. I am one,
> and only one, of the copies at any moment.

I could ask which, but that's a cheap shot. Instead: exactly one? Why not zero?


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Mar  1 16:03:46 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:03:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] How not to make a thought experiment
In-Reply-To: <496794.57916.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <496794.57916.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2BCDD6B7-A420-4B01-88E3-A91627CD6FF6@bellsouth.net>

Since my last post Gordon Swobe has posted 5 times.

> If you think the conscious thoughts in your head exist as physical properties of matter then you can embrace materialism. 

But one cannot embrace Gordon Swobe's views who believes consciousness was created by things the Scientific Method cannot detect and, although Swobe gives lip service to it, clearly Darwin's theory of Evolution could not have produced. 

> If you cannot think at all then you can embrace John Clark. [...] I have been unfairly maligned for presenting a philosophy heretical to extropianism, and for no other reason. What happened to free thought and spirited debate on this list?


What happened to people who had the courage to defend their views when seriously challenged instead of looking for sympathy and whining about unfair treatment ? 

> If A has no interest in B's messages then A should behave like an adult and simply ignore B.

Or one could challenge B, in fact I was under the impression that was the entire point of the Extropian list; and I'm sorry this message is so short but even with 5 posts there was very little substance to work with.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/c4a85963/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 16:48:32 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:48:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:15 AM,  <extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

snip

> Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
>> But honestly, to stimulate discussion:
>> a) More topics on space, on material science, on energy, on social dynamics!

Space and materials science relate.  For example Spectra 2000 is good
enough for a moving cable space elevator from the lunar surface out
through L1.  I put this into a spreadsheet not long ago and later
found I had regenerated the stress graph Jerome Pearson did when he
worked through the problem.

Energy and space relate through solar power satellites.  Alas, that is
looking less and less likely since another approach has come along
that will make energy in the "half the cost of coal" range and takes a
lot less front end investment.  Spike knows what I am talking about.
We should be able to freely discuss it in a few months.

Social dynamics requires a background in memetics and evolutionary
psychology.  For EP to make sense you must be up on the selfish gene
(Dawkins) modern understanding of evolution.  If you want to
intelligently participate in such discussions it it critical you
understand these topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection#Hamilton.27s_rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness

>> b) To these topics, reply even if you aren't confident in totality of theory
>> or if you think your ideas are half-formed.

If you don't understand a post on these topics *ask questions.*  Don't
just assert your ignorance with dogmatic statements.

To take this discussion up to a meta level, why to people read and
post on mailing list at all?

The reason is rooted in stone age evolution, particularly in
reproductive success.  Can anyone clearly state the logic?

Mondo snip

> Subject: Re: [ExI] ExI] intelligence, coherence, the frontal lobe,
> ? ? ? ?quantum ? ? ? ? evolution
>
> Oi! ?Phew--I am glad someone will tell me that (as I'd assumed) I have
> grossly oversimplified the workings of QM in order to speculate.
>
> However--given that neurons ALSO need multiple quanta of energy to fire, and
> that there may be "loose" enough bonding to allow sizable delocalization, is
> it tenable that the brain can in some way use this quantum efficiency to
> calculate things faster? ?I was under the impression that the problem with
> QM in biological situations was mostly associated with a "noisy
> environment," and that the discovery of coherence in plants, which are
> relatively hot, perhaps allowed for other situations.

> Am I wrong in assuming this? ?What makes coherence possible for plants that
> would not apply to brains?

Coherence doesn't apply to either.  The scale is wrong.  What goes on
in brains is many orders of magnitude away from where quantum effects
show up.

"Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have speculated that consciousness is the
result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed
Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). But Max Tegmark, in a
paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron
firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence
time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000. The reception of the
paper is summed up by this statement in his support: "Physicists
outside the fray, such as IBM's John A. Smolin, say the calculations
confirm what they had suspected all along. 'We're not working with a
brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the
brain evolved quantum behavior', he says." The Tegmark paper has been
widely cited by critics of the Penrose-Hameroff proposal. It has been
claimed by Hameroff to be based on a number of incorrect assumptions
(see linked paper below from Hameroff, Scott Hagan and Jack
Tuszy?ski), but Tegmark in turn has argued that the critique is
invalid (see rejoinder link below). In particular, Hameroff points out
the peculiarity that Tegmark's formula for the decoherence time
includes a factor of T2 in the numerator, meaning that higher
temperatures would lead to longer decoherence times. Tegmark's
rejoinder keeps the factor of T2 for the decoherence time.

"In his book, The Web's Awake, Phillip Tetlow states that Penrose's
ideas about the human thought process are not widely accepted in
scientific circles, citing Minsky's criticisms, and quoting science
journalist Charles Seife, who notes that Penrose is one of a handful
of scientists for whom the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum
process. [14]"

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


Keith


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 16:49:19 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:49:19 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <378348.32120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com> 
	<378348.32120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003010849h488a286bvb9b6dbc2d56ccefe@mail.gmail.com>

Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> Exactly, Bill. Nobody reads messages at gunpoint. If A has no interest in B's messages then A should behave like an adult and simply ignore B.

Right! So, if you have a kid, and your kid is speaking passionately
about some nonsensical drivel or other, you should do the adult thing:
turn on the TV, send your kid off to school or homework, insist that
it is bedtime or mealtime, for heavens sake find some excuse not to
listen.

Same deal between two adults. If you don't like someone, simply ignore
everything they have to say. You already know that you know better
than they do, anyway. Surely John Clark's only motivation for
criticizing you is sheer unrepentant malevolence. The only noble
approach for dealing with him is to snipe from afar, handing down
judgements from on high so as not to stoop to his level.

I don't like you, Gordon, but I would never clamp my hands over my
ears and shout LAALAALAA to drown you out. It might be that I don't
like you because you are right and I am wrong. I have no way to
determine that ahead of time, so, if I want every opportunity to
educate myself, I have to take my chances and keep reading what you
write.


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Mar  1 16:51:24 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:51:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002221852x5d10a80erbd06cf9ff6a6b4cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e31002261627q5565dabel880d71f29a44bae8@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1002261728r7e194228l167dc9ff0ce8df9e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e31002262029y3966ea1cp1918f485b7d4633c@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1002262037h170251acu31c7de5837348276@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e31002270238y38102a63je148e549d4f69df@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1002272009r66d0b093w6a67849397206496@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE35A5DE-F04E-4899-A4F5-2F0E75FF742D@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281025l6d85448an25ecee0570ed4a3e@mail.gmail.com>
	<77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D837693A-8346-496B-9537-BD4E55D62594@bellsouth.net>

On Feb 28, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:
> 
> If you call information processing philosophically important

I do.

> then certainly there is a philosophically important distinction to be made between gross structure and fine chemical/electrical activity.

I don't understand this philosophical distinction, it's all just a question of putting atoms (including electrically charged electrons) here rather than over there.

> If the brain were clockwork, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
> Generally a clock can just keep ticking along regardless of, say, its
> thermal conductivity.

But if you magnetize the clock's parts it will stop ticking, and thermal effects will change the length of a clocks pendulum and thus its speed. I don't get the philosophical point you are trying to make.

> This is basically what happens in the case of plasticization.
> Structure is preserved, but chemical and electrical properties are
> radically altered. Read: removed. A plasticized brain no longer *does*
> anything of note. It just kind of sits there.

Yes, but so what? If you stop a clock from ticking it will, ah, stop.

> I think the mind is an activity. So there you go. No activity, no mind.

Obviously. 

> I am forced to argue that when it comes to people who've woken up from
> comas (say), the mind's existence has ALWAYS continued without a break
> objectively.

Well that is just untrue, if you go into a coma on Monday and come out on Wednesday then objectively your mind did not exist on tuesday, but objectivity is of trivial importance, subjectivity is not. 

> It seems to me that subjective continuity and objective continuity cannot be disentangled

Well of course they can! If you put me under general anesthesia I'll swear up and down that it's Monday even though the calendar says it's Wednesday. 

> Mind scanning does not preserve objective continuity

I don't care.

> as more gradual uploading methods do

That would imply there is a preferred rate of change in the universe and the evidence for that is as good as there being a preferred reference frame in the universe. None. 
 
> Man, John, it's disorienting to see you displaying such wanton civility.

I don't know what you mean. I have been on the Extropian list for 15 years and in that time I have always treated fellow list members with all the respect they deserved. 
> 


 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/376ff419/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 16:53:30 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:53:30 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <378348.32120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <378348.32120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B8BF10A.6010907@satx.rr.com>

On 3/1/2010 7:44 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Nobody reads messages at gunpoint. If A has no interest in B's messages then A should behave like an adult and simply ignore B.

I used to agree with those who said "Let 1000 Flowers Bloom," pick and 
choose from posts as you will, ignore those other people droning on 
about their obsessional interests, say something  new to keep the ball 
rolling into fresh areas. But I now suspect it doesn't work that way. 
The commons get clogged and the lively spirit drains away, somehow. It's 
a bit like standing in a party where a couple of people are yammering at 
the top of their voices at each other--in principle you can chat with 
the person beside you, but in fact most people just pack up and leave.

Damien Broderick


From aware at awareresearch.com  Mon Mar  1 17:01:45 2010
From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:01:45 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5741003010901y567a224ehe92a0b95389693e5@mail.gmail.com>

2010/2/28 Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
> Inspired by Spencer, here is a "brief" summation for those who thought this
> was "tl" and so "dr".

+1 to Spencer for self-referential humor.

+ 0.5 to Will for the effort at creative writing which, sadly, was "tltr".

Actually, I did read it, but awareness of unawareness of awareness put me off.

You might consider the somewhat counterintuitive fact that given
perfect knowledge of the present, the *past* is *more* uncertain than
the future, because there are multiple configurations of the past that
/might/ have led to the present configuration but only fully specified
and determined configurations going forward.  Pass this along to
Tippler if you happen to see him in the future.

- Jef



- Jef


From ddraig at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 06:36:53 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:36:53 +1100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1002282236o5cf4d942kee583bdd278ac973@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/03/2010, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Disaster? This is a walk in the park. I remember the good old days of
> the g*n "debates", remember those? Whatever happened to Mike Lorrey?


Ooooh yeah, the post-9/11 "nuke the swarthy ragheads" ranting totally
killed off my enthusiasm for this list. I don't post often (if ever)
but I used to, I've been subbed since 1993 or so. Hell, I got email
from Spaf and Marvin Minsky because of stuff I mentioned here, years
ago.   My impression is the European discussers wandered off to form
various transhumanism groups leaving American debaters.

My 5c. YMMV

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


From ddraig at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 06:37:59 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:37:59 +1100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1002282237o6da5cddcp5028aae20e23708c@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/03/2010, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> Rue the day, kiddo. The sigma dropped by at least 50% when Eliezer, Anders,
> Robin Hanson, Eugen Leitel, Hal Finney, Robert Bradbury and some others left
> the room. You have no idea. A pity the archives don't go back that far.

They don't?!?!?!?!

YIKES.

I should have stuff archived somewhere. Maybe.

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


From spike66 at att.net  Mon Mar  1 17:17:22 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:17:22 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <178900.3450.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<178900.3450.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <208908272D9B474FB1535B542A2492AB@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Gordon Swobe
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
> 
> --- On Sun, 2/28/10, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
> >> Disaster? This is a walk in the park...
> > 
> > Agreed!? The Searle discussion has been mostly civil.
> 
> Thank you Spike. I have been unfairly maligned for presenting 
> a philosophy heretical to extropianism, and for no other 
> reason. What happened to free thought and spirited debate on 
> this list?
> 
> Damien you ought to know better, but instead you fan the 
> flames and encourage my ostracism. Disappointing.
> 
> -gts


Hi Gordon, 

Do let me make a couple of observations from a disinterested viewpoint on
the whole debate.

I read over most of the Searle discussion, never posted anything on it for I
am insufficiently informed.  Like plenty of others, I didn't really see the
discussion producing much fruit and observed some want of strict discipline
in answering specific objections before running on to something else.  That
being said, the criticism was unfounded.

Note that there was definite overposting, persistent, annoying overposting,
and I do confess I did nothing about it, didn't even warn those who were
doing it, so I share some of the blame for that.  I don't filter anyone
ever, since I still kinda try to help where I can with moderation.  My
philosophy is to moderate as lightly as possible, but not moreso.

Regarding being unfairly maligned, this tone is seen from time to time on
this list.  I have seen worse.  Having someone post comments such as "Gordon
has posted yakity yak times since my last post" well, if you are not
overposting, it just shows that person to be unreasonable.  If you are
overposting, it shows you to be unreasonable.

Carry on!

spike


 





From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Mar  1 17:15:51 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:15:51 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <20100301042237.21295.qmail@moulton.com>
References: <20100301042237.21295.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <139CAF1F782A437A84A16A2D8894895A@DFC68LF1>

Hi Fred,

We are working on a book based on some early posts. 

By the way, Anders is still on the list, as is 'gene.  Hal is unavilable,
and we miss him.  Robert graciously left the list after a problem concerning
his posts. 

Fred, would you like to assist with the archive?  Anyone?



Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
moulton at moulton.com
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 10:23 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat


On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 19:45 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> Rue the day, kiddo. The sigma dropped by at least 50% when Eliezer, 
> Anders, Robin Hanson, Eugen Leitel, Hal Finney, Robert Bradbury and 
> some others left the room. You have no idea. A pity the archives don't 
> go back that far.

I seem to recall there was a movement at one time to create a complete
archive.   Is this still a possibility or is that history going to be
lost?

Fred
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From aware at awareresearch.com  Mon Mar  1 17:18:21 2010
From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:18:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <378348.32120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
	<378348.32120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5741003010918y67748534mfcf44853c7f855fc@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Matches: from:(Gordon Swobe)
>> Do this: Skip Inbox, Delete it
>
> Exactly, Bill. Nobody reads messages at gunpoint. If A has no interest in B's messages then A should behave like an adult and simply ignore B.

...and speaking of self-referentiality, not necessarily humorous:

-1 to Gordon for another example of extreme oversimplification to make
a point ("at gunpoint" and "simply ignore") again demonstrating
insensitivity to context.

-1 to Jef for futilely reminding Gordon of the importance of context.

and,

+2 to Jef for doing it in a humorous, self-referential way,
(((taunting someone who is childishly suggesting we behave as adults)
and self-referentially commenting on it) thus turning it into a joke.)

- Jef


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Mar  1 17:10:52 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:10:52 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <4B8BF10A.6010907@satx.rr.com>
References: <378348.32120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4B8BF10A.6010907@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <CEB11413F35B417DB315DA787393FDA2@DFC68LF1>

I recall you saying this same thing, or something very close to it, about 5
or so years ago when the list was bottle-necked.


Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien
Broderick

"... rests, say something  new to keep the ball rolling into fresh areas.
But I now suspect it doesn't work that way. The commons get clogged and the
lively spirit drains away, somehow. It's a bit like standing in a party
where a couple of people are yammering at the top of their voices at each
other--in principle you can chat with the person beside you, but in fact
most people just pack up and leave."

Damien Broderick
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From sparge at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 17:39:18 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:39:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] related replies
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e31002281646k9d55782jb2bdffe84d99a115@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1002281139x397fd1a4uf3219e95ee9d4a30@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002281646k9d55782jb2bdffe84d99a115@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003010939u4cd54136j60ec80e9f01c92ba@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 March 2010 06:39, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This way is *exceeding* dangerous unless we deeply understand the
>> biological mechanisms of human behavior, particularly behaviors such
>> as capture-bonding which are turned on by behavioral switches (due to
>> external situations). ?A powerful human type AI in "war mode,"
>> irrational and controlling millions of robot fighting machines is not
>> something you want to happen.
>
> I don't think a mind upload would be dangerous initially because it
> would not have either superintelligence or the ability to self-modify.
> However, researchers could then go on and add these qualities as a
> further project much more easily than they could to a biological
> brain, and that is when it might get dangerous.

It also shouldn't be direct control of anything potentially dangerous,
certainly not millions of robot fighting machines.

-Dave


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 18:01:22 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:01:22 -0800
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003011001y4e50b06ey6a211258af537811@mail.gmail.com>

Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
> Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
>> b) To these topics, reply even if you aren't confident in totality of theory
>> or if you think your ideas are half-formed.
>
> If you don't understand a post on these topics *ask questions.* ?Don't
> just assert your ignorance with dogmatic statements.

Oh, sweet irony. I love it so.

There are many, many things wrong with the standard methods used in
formal education today, but we can categorize a great many of them
under one heading: unidirectional learning. For the most part,
teachers teach and students learn. It is a rare classroom indeed where
the students also teach and the teacher also learns; generally, if
you've worked as a teacher for at least two years, you are already
about as good at your job as you will ever be.

A few underlying assumptions have supported unidirectional learning as
the leading paradigm at least as far back the industrial revolution,
probably reaching back to around 1770, and "ignorance is best kept out
of sight" is one of them. Yet, somehow, most teachers today have a
strong tendency to ask leading questions; an excellent tactic for
making your students look, and feel, ignorant of the subject matter.

The reason it's important for people with a poor grasp on a concept to
speak freely about that concept is simple: if you don't know enough to
articulate it properly, you probably don't know enough to figure out
what questions you could ask to improve your understanding. I think
teachers ask leading questions mainly in an attempt to show what a
Good Question looks like, so that hopefully their students will follow
suit.

It almost works. The class starts engineering its questions so that
they sound insightful, in a mostly-unconscious ploy to display falsely
keen understanding and thus earn better grades. These sorts of
questions compete for time with questions born out of genuine
curiosity, it should be noted.

Notice I have not cited any of my sources. Further irony! Ah, what fun.


Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
> To take this discussion up to a meta level, why to people read and
> post on mailing list at all?
>
> The reason is rooted in stone age evolution, particularly in
> reproductive success. ?Can anyone clearly state the logic?

At first your hint seemed off-puttingly specific, but then I realized:
yes, of course, you can say the same of just about all uniquely human
behavior.

It seems to me that we can only clearly trace the history of mailing
lists as far back as the agricultural revolution, when people were apt
to gather around and suss out why things don't always grow when you
plant them (thus setting the stage for astronomy), but you seem to
have a definite correct answer in mind. Do tell.


Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
> Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
>> Am I wrong in assuming this? ?What makes coherence possible for plants that
>> would not apply to brains?
>
> Coherence doesn't apply to either. ?The scale is wrong. ?What goes on
> in brains is many orders of magnitude away from where quantum effects
> show up.

"This theory requires long-lived quantum coherence at room
temperature, which never has been observed in FMO. Here we present the
first evidence that quantum coherence survives in FMO at physiological
temperature for at least 300 fs, long enough to perform a rudimentary
quantum computational operation. This data proves that the wave-like
energy transfer process discovered at 77 K is directly relevant to
biological function."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5108

So, barring the potential invalidation of that research, coherence
certainly applies to at least one. Try again.


From ablainey at aol.com  Mon Mar  1 18:30:34 2010
From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:30:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com><4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com><e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8CC87846A4D167B-4D80-2E72@webmail-m009.sysops.aol.com>


 Yes what did happen to Mike? There are a few other names that I havn't seen post since my return. Harvey Newstrom for example.

A.

 


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 1:35
Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat


On 1 March 2010 11:55, Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> > Watching the Great Swobe Disaster endlessly unreel (while repeatedly hitting
> > Delete) has made me realize that lists *can't* effectively allow this sort
> > of monomania to overwhelm their dynamic.

Disaster? This is a walk in the park. I remember the good old days of
the g*n "debates", remember those? Whatever happened to Mike Lorrey?

--
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/ca574298/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 18:41:26 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:41:26 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af71003010739k4b04acbmb28830e59da93aa4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003010147x79b8d4adk3c1ce96a7ab005cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af71003010739k4b04acbmb28830e59da93aa4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003011041u68f506a9qf65877d426726078@mail.gmail.com>

I used to be able to access the archives of the old "extropians" list,
a real mine of wonderful content. I am unable to find them now. I will
write to somebody who should know.

So about this Golden Age Renaissance: what, how, who, when?

G.

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote:
>> Too bad, because this list used to represent one of the most exciting
>> discussion spaces on the net, probably the most exciting. What could
>> we do to restart a Golden Age?
>
> And if any of you are serious about wanting a "Golden Age", you'll
> stop hiding all of your old archives and say to hell with it. Forward
> those old emails, upload the archives. Even just sending one or two
> nuggets every few days would be enough to spark some interest in those
> topics.
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 18:49:54 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:49:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<412543.58639.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002170859g6c25fcag3ddb51826fff23bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<154647.10956.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I must confess that a selection of data points that you find disagreeable doesn't sound like forgery to me.
>
> I further find the fact that you make this accusation without any apparent proof of deliberate forgery slanderous.

### I have reassured myself by extensive reading that deliberate
forgery of climate data is well supported through analysis of the
papers, as well as perusal of additional documents produced by FOIA
requests.

I am not interested in suing anybody.

Do you have any more comments?

Rafal


From ablainey at aol.com  Mon Mar  1 18:50:54 2010
From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:50:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <2A09304DD4664B59ADBC3E2EBFC62854@spike>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com><4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<2A09304DD4664B59ADBC3E2EBFC62854@spike>
Message-ID: <8CC878741551DC8-4D80-356D@webmail-m009.sysops.aol.com>


 Yes Kids certainly put a dampener on our efforts to change the world LOL.
How many brilliant minds have been lost to the drudgery of parenthood?

  I must admit that this thread has given me that gut sinking feeling of nostalgia.


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>


>We adultos rue the day these guys left too.  I got a phone call from Robert
>Bradbury a few weeks ago.  He is well, still thinking, still being Robert.
>Anders was in town last spring for a meeting of some sort, but I was on the
>road on the east coast for business most of the time he was here, so we
>didn't even get a chance to gather the locals.  Shelly and Isaac enjoyed the
>sunshine of his presence.  Eugen has a son about the same age as mine, so I
>have a good notion of why we seldom hear from him these days.

spike





_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

 
=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/a0380d2b/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Mar  1 18:28:27 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:28:27 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <139CAF1F782A437A84A16A2D8894895A@DFC68LF1>
References: <20100301042237.21295.qmail@moulton.com>
	<139CAF1F782A437A84A16A2D8894895A@DFC68LF1>
Message-ID: <7023EAC9390349679EC78D45E7CB2816@spike>

> ...On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> We are working on a book based on some early posts. 
... 
> Fred, would you like to assist with the archive?  Anyone? Natasha
Vita-More

What kind of help do you have in mind?  I have been anticipating something
like this for over a decade.

spike







From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 18:43:02 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:43:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] related replies
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003010939u4cd54136j60ec80e9f01c92ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1002281139x397fd1a4uf3219e95ee9d4a30@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e31002281646k9d55782jb2bdffe84d99a115@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003010939u4cd54136j60ec80e9f01c92ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <318126.25454.qm@web111210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I think y'all are confusing "dangerous" with "fun". Honestly, if controlling millions of robot fighting machines with my lightning-fast, heavily augmented uploaded mind isn't part of the program, then what's the point?



________________________________
From: Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 9:39:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] related replies

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 March 2010 06:39, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This way is *exceeding* dangerous unless we deeply understand the
>> biological mechanisms of human behavior, particularly behaviors such
>> as capture-bonding which are turned on by behavioral switches (due to
>> external situations).  A powerful human type AI in "war mode,"
>> irrational and controlling millions of robot fighting machines is not
>> something you want to happen.
>
> I don't think a mind upload would be dangerous initially because it
> would not have either superintelligence or the ability to self-modify.
> However, researchers could then go on and add these qualities as a
> further project much more easily than they could to a biological
> brain, and that is when it might get dangerous.

It also shouldn't be direct control of anything potentially dangerous,
certainly not millions of robot fighting machines.

-Dave
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/dc32a898/attachment.html>

From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 19:22:57 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:22:57 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <D837693A-8346-496B-9537-BD4E55D62594@bellsouth.net>
References: <e321aa4b1002221852x5d10a80erbd06cf9ff6a6b4cb@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002262029y3966ea1cp1918f485b7d4633c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1002262037h170251acu31c7de5837348276@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002270238y38102a63je148e549d4f69df@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1002272009r66d0b093w6a67849397206496@mail.gmail.com> 
	<CE35A5DE-F04E-4899-A4F5-2F0E75FF742D@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281025l6d85448an25ecee0570ed4a3e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<D837693A-8346-496B-9537-BD4E55D62594@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003011122o2d8ce004i3fff730c57dd12d@mail.gmail.com>

John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> I don't understand this philosophical distinction, it's all just a question
> of putting atoms (including electrically charged electrons) here rather than
> over there.
(snip)
> But if you magnetize the clock's parts it will stop ticking, and thermal
> effects will change the length of a clocks pendulum and thus its speed.?I
> don't get the philosophical point you are trying to make.

It's really more of a tangent than a point. A supplemental tidbit, a
sidenote, to the argument which concludes that mind-scanning is
self-destructive*.

You are correct. In concrete terms, electrical and chemical properties
ARE structural properties. The particles are just arranged in such and
such a way. I was addressing the whole thing from a very abstract
perspective, as is my wont.

We can drop it. It's an ancillary topic. I just thought it would
clarify what I mean by "absolute brain death" and such, but, clearly,
I have confused more than I've clarified.

*I'm not sure if this is a pun or a double entendre or, for that
matter, a single entendre.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Spencer Campbell wrote:
>> I am forced to argue that when it comes to people who've woken up from
>> comas (say), the mind's existence has ALWAYS continued without a break
>> objectively.
>
> Well that is just untrue, if you go into a coma on Monday and come out on
> Wednesday then objectively your mind did not exist on tuesday, but
> objectivity is of trivial importance, subjectivity is not.

I don't think objectivity is trivial at all! What makes you say my
mind *objectively* did not exist on Tuesday? How are you measuring?

We may be talking about very different things, here.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Spencer Campbell wrote:
>> It seems to me that subjective continuity and objective continuity?cannot be
>> disentangled
>
> Well of course they can! If you put me under general anesthesia I'll swear
> up and down that it's Monday even though the calendar says it's Wednesday.

Yeah, see. I think I know what you're talking about, but I don't think
you know what I'm talking about.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Spencer Campbell wrote:
>> Mind scanning?does not preserve objective continuity, as more gradual uploading?methods do ...
>
> That would imply there is a preferred rate of change in the universe and the
> evidence for that is as good as there being a preferred reference frame in
> the universe. None.

You could potentially convince me if you elaborated on that a bit,
but, at first glance, I don't think I agree. I don't see any
implication of the sort. One of the "more gradual" uploading methods
I'm thinking of is, for example, replacing the brain with synthetic
neurons one by one.

The rate of change doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. What
matters is whether or not the old brain is in constant communication
with the new "brain" right up until the old brain is completely gone,
so that you can't draw a clear line between the end of the old mind
and the beginning of the new mind.

It could take eons or jiffies for the transition to take place. Maybe
I should have said "incremental" instead of "gradual".


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Spencer Campbell wrote:
>> Man, John, it's disorienting to see you displaying such wanton?civility.
>
> I don't know what you mean. I have been on the Extropian list for 15 years
> and in that time I have always treated fellow list members with all the
> respect they deserved.

Precisely my point.


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 19:24:36 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:24:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] EP and scale
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003011124s1f9e708i81bd6b1fb68f9095@mail.gmail.com>

> Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
>> To take this discussion up to a meta level, why to people read and
>> post on mailing list at all?
>>
>> The reason is rooted in stone age evolution, particularly in
>> reproductive success. ?Can anyone clearly state the logic?

(Will Steinberg)

> At first your hint seemed off-puttingly specific, but then I realized:
> yes, of course, you can say the same of just about all uniquely human
> behavior.
>
> It seems to me that we can only clearly trace the history of mailing
> lists as far back as the agricultural revolution, when people were apt
> to gather around and suss out why things don't always grow when you
> plant them (thus setting the stage for astronomy), but you seem to
> have a definite correct answer in mind. Do tell.

People read and particularly post on mailing list to improve their
status in the eyes of their peers.

The reason people engage in status seeking behavior is utterly simple:
 In the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) high status was
strongly correlated with reproductive success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology#Environment_of_evolutionary_adaptedness

We don't live in a stone age EEA any more.  Status (at least that you
can gain on a mailing list) isn't likely to get you the additional
reproductive opportunities that a successful hunter got in those days.
 Even playing in an indie rock band is a more effective way to get
nooky.  (And with birth control, even getting more mating
opportunities may not translate to more offspring.)

> Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
>> Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
>>> Am I wrong in assuming this? ?What makes coherence possible for plants that
>>> would not apply to brains?
>>
>> Coherence doesn't apply to either. ?The scale is wrong. ?What goes on
>> in brains is many orders of magnitude away from where quantum effects
>> show up.
>
> "This theory requires long-lived quantum coherence at room
> temperature, which never has been observed in FMO. Here we present the
> first evidence that quantum coherence survives in FMO at physiological
> temperature for at least 300 fs, long enough to perform a rudimentary
> quantum computational operation. This data proves that the wave-like
> energy transfer process discovered at 77 K is directly relevant to
> biological function."
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5108
>
> So, barring the potential invalidation of that research, coherence
> certainly applies to at least one. Try again.

Consider the coherence length and the size of a brain.  At the speed
of light, how far can a signal get in 300 fs?  How far for typical
nerve signal propagation speeds?

Keith Henson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society


From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 19:12:13 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:12:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<412543.58639.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002170859g6c25fcag3ddb51826fff23bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<154647.10956.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

You wish only to accuse, not to prove. Your attitude speaks for itself and reflects directly on the worth of your opinions.

I have nothing else to add.



________________________________
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 10:49:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I must confess that a selection of data points that you find disagreeable doesn't sound like forgery to me.
>
> I further find the fact that you make this accusation without any apparent proof of deliberate forgery slanderous.

### I have reassured myself by extensive reading that deliberate
forgery of climate data is well supported through analysis of the
papers, as well as perusal of additional documents produced by FOIA
requests.

I am not interested in suing anybody.

Do you have any more comments?

Rafal
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/a02adff7/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 20:35:52 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1687.1267407935.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <358535.23952.qm@web113615.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
 
> As for "esoteric yet promising ideas," I have posted not
> one but two
> messages to the list in the past 2 days, each in excess of
> 1000 words, that
> seem to have been ignored for what is most likely a
> response to the na?vet?
> of my writing

Nope, Naivete is something we all possess in spades (we're all still human after all).  For me, at least, the major factor is length (no smut, please).

Any post longer than 2 pages, and I start to skim. Faster and faster, until I realise it's going to take far too long, then I jump to the next post.

Shorter, more concise posts please.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 20:39:55 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:39:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?
In-Reply-To: <834002.74785.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <834002.74785.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <972456.27246.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Forgive the top posting.

I think?most self-identified materialist are really physicalists and that the difference between the notions is minor. To me, physicalism just means, in terms of mind, that mental processes _supervene_ on physical ones.

I'm not sure this supports dualism or what you mean by a dualism that would be supported by it. I know there are non-reductive physicalists, such as Louise Antony and Josephy Levine (or they were a few years ago when they published an essay defending this position against the likes of Kim:). Is that dualist? They don't seem to think so -- save that they seem to mean mind has a domain of autonomy, but what does that mean in ontological terms?

A problem for the dualist-physicalist is that the core tenet of physicalism is that the physical world is causally closed. This means that physical whatever -- things, events, etc. -- can only have physical causes. (This would amount to any seeming non-physical cause really being a physical one ultimately.*) How would dualism of any sort stand up to this? It seems once one introduces non-physical causes, one is giving up physicalism all together.

I'm not sure computers captures dualism well. It's nice metaphor, but I doubt any serious dualist would see it as more than that. After all, computer programs can be reduced to how electrons are moving about. (Someone here mentioned multiple realizability. I don't think that works either. Antony and Levine seem to disagree on this, but I think their argument against Kim here, while it probably does knock out part of the latter's reasoning, doesn't really knock out the conclusion.**) I thought dualism, to be worth its salt, would have to have more than one set of things, events, properties, etc. merely supervening on another set -- as in mind supervening on brain or the mental supervening on the physical.

In his _Physicalism, Or Something Near?Enough_, Kim presents a fairly strong case for physicalism with almost no non-reductive things, properties, etc. His argument is basically if all the mental stuff is really just physical stuff because all mental causes are, ultimately, reducible to and supervene on physical ones. In his terms, let's say you have two mental states, where it appears one causes the other:

M1 -> M2 (i.e., M1 causes M2)

and underlying two physical states, where one causes the other:

P1 -> P2 (i.e., P1 causes P2)

M1 one really supervenes on P1 and M2 on P2, so then we could say:

P1 -> M2 as P1 -> P2 and there is no M2 without P2.

Add to this causal closure under physicalism and there's no need to posit M1 -> M2 -- since there are and could be no non-physical causes for P2. I.e., per physicalism, so M1 can't have any causal input to P2. Does this make sense?

Regards,

Dan

* This can get complicated depending on how one limits "physical." Obviously, if one expands it out to include everything now thought of as mental, then one gets physicalism by definition. But if one has too narrow a delimitation of physical, one might end up thinking QED effects are not physical and hence chucking out physical on the basis of post-QED physics.

** Of course, I've often wondered how the multiple realizable argument fits in with Paul Benacerraf's views of set theory's relation to number (as in his "What numbers could not be") and with Lionel?Robbins views on non-reducibility of economic laws (as given in the first edition of his _Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science_).


From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 5:27:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?

----- Original Message ----
> From: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 11:46:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?
> 
> Maybe I'm getting the wrong view from reading his work, but my view is Kim is a 
> materialist or a "physicalist" -- which seems to me to be a euphemism for 
> materialist. I get this from, e.g., his _Physicalism, Or Something Near 
> Enough.

I think that physicalism is a bit more robust than simple materialism. Physicalism allows for all of physics to come to play in the philosophy of mind. This includes concepts like energy, information, and entropy. Things?that are distinctly not matter. So in a way physicalism is more supportive of a dualistic worldview, especially when QM is concerned. Since a?non-superstitious irreducible?dualism is at the heart of measurement problem. Of the prevailing opinions on the matter either?an observation by a mind?collapses a?non-material wavefunction?*or* an observation by a mind creates whole new universes out of nothing.

> That said, though, I don't think the dualist 
> position is necessarily religious. To me, there are just many different views 
> one can have walking into this issue. Dualism happens to be the view many take, 
> but I don't think they take it for religious reasons -- meaning, they hold it on 
> faith. Rather, I think it's just a default position for 
> many.

I don't think dualism is necessarily religious either. Indeed I don't see how computationalism can avoid being a?dualist philosophy. I mean computers have hardware and software and those distinctions?are every bit as dualist as body and mind.

Stuart LaForge 

"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." - Niels Bohr


      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 20:41:52 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:41:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1687.1267407935.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <626687.91380.qm@web113617.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would not
> consider electrical charge distribution to be a structural
> property.
> That's an electrical property.

How can you separate one from the other?  Think of a bunch of charged amino acids joined together.  Can you change their charge distribution without changing their structure?  No.  The two are inextricably bound together.  Good thing too, or life wouldn't even exist.



> (Talking about quantized time, here.)
> 
> I'd be inclined to agree. Nevertheless, it came up. I can't
> just
> ignore the arguments that I think are irrelevant, you
> know!

LOL.


Ben Zaiboc


      


From spike66 at att.net  Mon Mar  1 21:18:35 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:18:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <8CC87846A4D167B-4D80-2E72@webmail-m009.sysops.aol.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com><4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com><e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC87846A4D167B-4D80-2E72@webmail-m009.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <89FB6031E86B47B48A0FBAD5972864D7@spike>

 


________________________________

	From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
ablainey at aol.com
	Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:31 AM
	To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
	Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
	
	
		Yes what did happen to Mike? There are a few other names
that I havn't seen post since my return. Harvey Newstrom for example.
	
	A.
	


I got an offlist from Harvey about 5 or 6 months ago.  He is busy as all get
out, same with a lot of us these days.

spike



From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 21:21:30 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1716.1267469403.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <724175.55151.qm@web113609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thank you Spike. I have been unfairly maligned for
> presenting a philosophy heretical to extropianism, and for
> no other reason.

No.  You have been repeatedly criticised for repeatedly contradicting yourself, making circular arguments and simply ignoring valid challenges to your ideas.

All you need to do is address the actual challenges instead of evading or ignoring them.  E.g.: Levels of abstraction.  After several people pointed out how important they are for the issue of simulation/emulation, you just went quiet and totally ignored that aspect, but continued to talk about simulations not being wet, etc., as though nobody had ever mentioned levels of abstraction at all.

But I guess you'll just ignore this as well.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 22:10:05 2010
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:10:05 -0600
Subject: [ExI] [Open Manufacturing] Leaf veins inspire a new model for
	distribution networks
In-Reply-To: <4B8C34B7.309@kurtz-fernhout.com>
References: <4B8C34B7.309@kurtz-fernhout.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af71003011410w742a141fw7b8342364262f2d1@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 27, 2010) ? A straight line may be the shortest path from
> A to B, but it's not always the most reliable or efficient way to go. In
> fact, depending on what's traveling where, the best route may run in
> circles, according to a new model that bucks decades of theorizing on the
> subject. A team of biophysicists at Rockefeller University developed a
> mathematical model showing that complex sets of interconnecting loops --
> like the netted veins that transport water in a leaf -- provide the best
> distribution network for supplying fluctuating loads to varying parts of the
> system. It also shows that such a network can best handle damage.
> ?The findings could change the way engineers think about designing networks
> to handle a variety of challenges like the distribution of water or
> electricity in a city.

You may also be interested in "constructal theory":
http://constructal.org/

"According to the Constructal law, every system is destined to remain
imperfect, i.e. with flow resistances. The natural constructal
tendency then is to distribute the imperfections of the system, and
this distribution of imperfection generates the shape and structure of
the system. The constructal way of distributing the imperfections is
to put the more resistive regime at the smallest scale of the system."

The constructal law is stated as: "For a finite-size (flow) system to
persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve such that it
provides easier and easier access to its currents." (Bejan, 1996)

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


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 22:09:06 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:09:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com><4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com><e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
Message-ID: <217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Just a general comment: Isn't there a certain evolution of these things? There's a very creative stage followed by much less creative ones and the initial buzz or atmosphere is never going to be the same as during that stage. Maybe the model is something like the conventional view of a romatic relationship: there that first "magic" stage, but that sort of flowers and candies every day can't last. Eventually things have to settle down.
?
But that's a depressing view and maybe it'd be better to focus on not so much lamenting that it's no longer 199x but seeing where we can go from here.
?
Regards,
?
Dan


      


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 22:50:25 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:50:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1003010759i6416b2c6s7ea281db284acfb4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
	<16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002281957v243ae9bdi4f7167851d17af77@mail.gmail.com>
	<E459A630-6EA4-48C4-B028-DBBB79917C22@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002282037u34c158t29f944bad76da9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1003010759i6416b2c6s7ea281db284acfb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54AE50CB-5259-4D9E-89BD-195E37ED5765@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Spencer Campbell wrote:
> Crowds make a perfect example of how this works. Put enough people in
> one place, direct their attention toward a single thing, and the mob
> mentality sets in. This is merely disconcerting when the mob-mind is
> focused on some physical phenomenon (music concerts, comedy clubs),
> but it can become outright dangerous when it gets an idea (protests,
> riots). Angry mobs are, somehow, angrier than the sum of their parts.
> 
> Organizations of all kinds illustrate the concept on longer time
> scales. Microsoft seems to have its own dysfunctional personality,
> distinct from its constituent owners and employees. The willfulness of
> nations is well-documented; even in a democracy, which has no
> consistent "head" to speak of, the nation as a whole continues to have
> predictable behavior and preferences that distinguish it from every
> other nation.
I hate crowds, political rallies, etc. precisely because they undermine the independence of the people in them, and make them behave irrationally, as in your angry mob example. People behave differently in them, and as you mentioned, it is (very) disconcerting.

But are they minds? I mean, you can view them as such, via analogies, but the overall system is controlled by the choices of the individuals. There are, for good or ill, patterns which seem to hold in groups, but that is quite possibly more a result of statistical averaging over many different actions by the people concerned. You can say mobs have intentions, and corporations have personalities, but I think they are of a different character than your regular old "mind" like we humans have. When we have a thought, it is, in the context of our mind, a single entity. We might have many thoughts on a given issue, ideas about what to do, beliefs pulling us in different directions, but those are all, in our experience, entities separate from the others. In the context of our Overmind (whether it be a mob or a corporation), any such thoughts are composed of the individual fickle thoughts of people, all interacting in different ways. They are compositions, rather than discrete things.

Perhaps that isn't really where the major difference is though (I'm fuzzy on that one). But the real crucial difference, is that this Overmind cannot exist without its parts working, but the parts CAN operate without the mind. And that isn't the case with, for example, our minds. Our minds are dependent on our brains, but if our neurons are working in a way which makes mind impossible (as in a seizure), they cause damage and die (or at least, risk death). And, at the very least, that is why, even if you can say there are such things as these "minds of minds" or whatever you wish to call it, they are derivative of our minds, and can't properly be said to have rights, as we are independent from them and have rights. Only in such a situation (where these composite minds have no rights) would I be comfortable in claiming they exist. That's my personal bias, ideologically.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 22:52:55 2010
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:52:55 +0000
Subject: [ExI] [Open Manufacturing] Leaf veins inspire a new model for
 distribution networks
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af71003011410w742a141fw7b8342364262f2d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100301225255.VSBVQ.103802.root@hrndva-web13-z02>

Jesus #!*$%@ Christ, does nobody ever pay any attention to the history of science, or actually read on applied bio-pysics?

For the fist group, they should look into xylem and floem deeper, they're akin to veins and arteries. There are no circular loops involved it's a high pressure to low pressure network. There are no roundy rounds. If you know anything about the limits of diffusion at that scale you'll understand why there can be no loops in a living network.

I suggest two things to this group of 'discoverers'....

Look up the 4/5 Scaling Law and read every damn work printed by Christopher McGowen. The sooner the better.

To Constructal Theory, rewording the 2nd Law doesn't make it new.

---- Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote: 
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> > ScienceDaily (Feb. 27, 2010) ? A straight line may be the shortest path from
> > A to B, but it's not always the most reliable or efficient way to go. In
> > fact, depending on what's traveling where, the best route may run in
> > circles, according to a new model that bucks decades of theorizing on the
> > subject. A team of biophysicists at Rockefeller University developed a
> > mathematical model showing that complex sets of interconnecting loops --
> > like the netted veins that transport water in a leaf -- provide the best
> > distribution network for supplying fluctuating loads to varying parts of the
> > system. It also shows that such a network can best handle damage.
> > ?The findings could change the way engineers think about designing networks
> > to handle a variety of challenges like the distribution of water or
> > electricity in a city.
> 
> You may also be interested in "constructal theory":
> http://constructal.org/
> 
> "According to the Constructal law, every system is destined to remain
> imperfect, i.e. with flow resistances. The natural constructal
> tendency then is to distribute the imperfections of the system, and
> this distribution of imperfection generates the shape and structure of
> the system. The constructal way of distributing the imperfections is
> to put the more resistive regime at the smallest scale of the system."
> 
> The constructal law is stated as: "For a finite-size (flow) system to
> persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve such that it
> provides easier and easier access to its currents." (Bejan, 1996)
> 
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From spike66 at att.net  Mon Mar  1 23:13:55 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:13:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hayek and keynes bustin a rhyme fashizle
Message-ID: <729D03D05B424C4FAB7D8FC7C2DBAF07@spike>

I do not like rap SamIAm, but if they rap about something cool like
evolution, physics or economics then I be down wid it: 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded>
&feature=player_embedded#
 
spike
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/6876891e/attachment.html>

From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 23:28:50 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:28:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] hayek and keynes bustin a rhyme fashizle
In-Reply-To: <729D03D05B424C4FAB7D8FC7C2DBAF07@spike>
References: <729D03D05B424C4FAB7D8FC7C2DBAF07@spike>
Message-ID: <BEEBB3D5-7043-435E-8149-E11AD9E4FACA@GMAIL.COM>

OMG! That was absolutely amazing. Favorited, going on facebook, etc., for sure. Thanks Spike!


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com

On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:13 PM, spike wrote:

> I do not like rap SamIAm, but if they rap about something cool like evolution, physics or economics then I be down wid it: 
>  
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded#
>  
> spike
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/c49e151f/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Mar  1 23:31:20 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:31:20 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1003011122o2d8ce004i3fff730c57dd12d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002221852x5d10a80erbd06cf9ff6a6b4cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e31002262029y3966ea1cp1918f485b7d4633c@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1002262037h170251acu31c7de5837348276@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e31002270238y38102a63je148e549d4f69df@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1002272009r66d0b093w6a67849397206496@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE35A5DE-F04E-4899-A4F5-2F0E75FF742D@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281025l6d85448an25ecee0570ed4a3e@mail.gmail.com>
	<77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com>
	<D837693A-8346-496B-9537-BD4E55D62594@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003011122o2d8ce004i3fff730c57dd12d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <715CB28C-42FF-49C1-8054-C5324BAC62AD@bellsouth.net>

On Mar 1, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:

>> I don't think objectivity is trivial at all!

I don't care if objectively I'm dead as long as subjectively I'm not. Even when I was a kid I never understood why in some of those old horror movies at the end the hero is horrified to discover that he's really dead and the movie maker invites us to be horrified as well. It all seemed mystifying to me. Personally I'd be delighted to find out I'm dead because that would mean death is not nearly as important as I'd thought it was, I had always thought death meant oblivion but apparently not.

>> if you go into a coma on Monday and come out on Wednesday then objectively your mind did not exist on tuesday


> What makes you say my mind *objectively* did not exist on Tuesday? How are you measuring?

I'm measuring with the only tool any of us have in detecting other minds, the way they act; admittedly this tool is not perfect but it's all we have to work with. And you sure didn't act like you had a mind on Tuesday, so with as much confidence as I can say anything about minds other than my own I can state that objectively your mind did not exist on Tuesday. I might add that on Wednesday, when you consider the previous day, you would agree that you had no thoughts on that day; and a mind can not exist without thoughts, so subjectively your mind did not exist then anymore then it existed in the year 1642. So if objectively it didn't exist and subjectively it didn't exists I think it's safe to say it didn't exist.    

>>> Mind scanning does not preserve objective continuity, as more gradual uploading methods do ...
>> 
>> That would imply there is a preferred rate of change in the universe and the
>> evidence for that is as good as there being a preferred reference frame in
>> the universe. None.
> 
> You could potentially convince me if you elaborated on that a bit,
> but, at first glance, I don't think I agree.

If you changed a biological neuron to a electronic neuron once a second it would take about 3000 years to change over the entire brain to the computerized version. That may seem like a long time but it depends entirely on the time scale used, from a cosmological viewpoint 3000 years would be virtually instantaneous. And there is no preferred time scale, it's just as valid to look at natural phenomena at the nanosecond level as the billion year level.    

> The rate of change doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. What
> matters is whether or not the old brain is in constant communication
> with the new "brain" right up until the old brain is completely gone

I agree, otherwise the new electronic brain would be missing the last thoughts the old biological brain had.

 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/22d29dd3/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Mar  1 23:58:34 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:58:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5741003010732l1ad39da5h953d563ffae90064@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5741003010732l1ad39da5h953d563ffae90064@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <371FF4E8-1059-49AF-9FCF-F70E9184F6FC@bellsouth.net>

On Mon, Mar 1,  BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> The main difference with the old Extropy list is that everybody got older.

Getting older really sucks, but it beats the alternative. I've been on this list for 15 years but I'm far from one of the original members. From day 1 15 years ago when I was the resident newbe I've been hearing about how much better the list was back in the good old days. It's like a ninety year old man telling us how much happier people were during the Great Depression; well I can easily believe that you personally were happier, back then you were a lusty teenager now you're a decrepit old man.

 John K Clark 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/1d3672d6/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 00:46:05 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:46:05 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1003010826p7fd3b1a9y195f59deb3cc22af@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1267358402.22855.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<214822.48535.qm@web113620.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281102gb17718fu144a04a0fdc2463@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002281633s5579c3b7vac89ab296c9e0b69@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1002281708n75ee0241w9ae1d55d59c31287@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002282056r7f415ce4p53cf0976b75a1970@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1003010826p7fd3b1a9y195f59deb3cc22af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31003011646o6afe8102ucb0b6f7c0b211fda@mail.gmail.com>

On 2 March 2010 03:26, Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>:
>> In an earlier post you posited, as I understood it, that there might
>> be continuity of experience but no M. That if you wake from a coma M
>> might be preserved but not if you are resuscitated after dying, even
>> though your experience is exactly the same in each case. That does
>> imply that you think M might be something over and above continuity of
>> experience. Or without using M, you are saying there might be two
>> types of continuity of experience, type A and type B. Type A occurs
>> when you wake from a coma, while type B occurs when you are
>> resuscitated after dying. There is no subjective difference between
>> type A and type B, but type A is still "better".
>
> No, you misunderstood it. To use your terminology: in Type A
> continuity there is no question of whether or not I retain M, because
> (and only because) nothing unusual is happening to make us think that
> maybe I don't. In Type B continuity we are doing strange things with
> technology. Even if I do wake up and show all the behavior of my old
> self, there will be suspicions from the pro-soul crowd: does the thing
> waking up have a soul? Is it the same soul as before?

The external observers may doubt it, but if the thing waking up is the
same objectively *and* subjectively, what is there left? Different in
the mind of God, perhaps. But we could undergo such a difference every
time we sneeze, or scratch ourselves, or every second Tuesday. That
"nothing unusual" is happening in these situations should not make us
any more confident that M isn't being messed up. By assuming that it
does you are assuming that you can know something about M from
observation, when the whole idea is that you can't. It could be the
that the probability that M changes is directly proportional to the
degree than your life seems to be otherwise normal. God could even
write down an equation describing this relationship if he wanted to.

> You can replace "soul" with M in both cases, in which case the answer
> to the first question is obviously yes. The answer to the second
> question is not so easy. If it's yes, then it seems my M must have
> been stored somewhere in the interim, which means M is an immortal
> soul. If it's no, which I am more inclined to believe, then we have a
> big problem: uploading would appear to work for all intents and
> purposes, but either (a) the thing experiencing my mind would not be
> the same thing that experiences my mind right now, or (b) there has
> never been anything that experiences being me.
>
> Saying that M must have been stored somewhere in the interim is
> probably going to attract more comments along the lines of "but
> interrupted continuity is experienced as identical to uninterrupted
> continuity", so I'll take a shot at addressing that right now.
> "Interrupted continuity of experience" is an oxymoron. M is not your
> conscious mind, which fades in and out; M is purely an abstraction. If
> you are temporarily knocked out or dead or whatever, resulting in a
> period of time in which you have no subjective experiences, you still
> have M during that period. The only situation in which you lose M is
> when you go to the atheist afterlife. M is, in a very literal sense,
> you.
>
> Again, nolipsism solves the problem neatly. If any of you say, "but M
> is a self, and there is no such thing as a self, so M is a meaningless
> abstraction of nothing", then my only possible response is: yes,
> that's logical.
>
>> I don't have a problem with simultaneously existing copies. I am one,
>> and only one, of the copies at any moment.
>
> I could ask which, but that's a cheap shot. Instead: exactly one? Why not zero?

I am the copy that is speaking. I have a self, and there is no
confusion if I specify that I am the self being generated by the
collection of matter at particular space and time coordinates.
Normally, there is only one version of me extant at a time, so I can
get away with just using my name; but if there are two copies of me I
will have to specify whether I am copy A or copy B. This is
straightforward so far. The problem comes when I try to claim that I
am a single entity persisting through time, as if there is a soul
waiting in limbo during the copying process and then entering one body
and not the other. It's what my brain is programmed to believe, but
everyone who gives serious thought to these duplication scenarios
should realise how absurd it is.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 02:22:00 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:22:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <54AE50CB-5259-4D9E-89BD-195E37ED5765@GMAIL.COM>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
	<16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002281957v243ae9bdi4f7167851d17af77@mail.gmail.com>
	<E459A630-6EA4-48C4-B028-DBBB79917C22@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002282037u34c158t29f944bad76da9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1003010759i6416b2c6s7ea281db284acfb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<54AE50CB-5259-4D9E-89BD-195E37ED5765@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501003011822j7d167d18h4489c3d405e9b742@mail.gmail.com>

Here is a very interesting and possibly consequence-bearing way to rephrase
my idea in a heretofore unstated manner: *any given number of people will be
able to pass the Turing Test as a group.*  We say a human is conscious
because we deem him so by observation; we are also aware that the
constituent mental structures which produce this consciousness are NOT aware
of the greater emergent mind themselves.  They are merely effectors of a
higher-level product.  So this would seem to imply that a group of people
responding to the Turing Test DOES produce a consciousness that is
discernable by us humans, *in essence, the same way the brain does,* yet
those people themselves are not aware of the meta mind.  Why should this
consciousness not exist in the same way our own does?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/07ae17f9/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 03:18:02 2010
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:48:02 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <371FF4E8-1059-49AF-9FCF-F70E9184F6FC@bellsouth.net>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5741003010732l1ad39da5h953d563ffae90064@mail.gmail.com>
	<371FF4E8-1059-49AF-9FCF-F70E9184F6FC@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <710b78fc1003011918ud0b2fabr9757ce2cd47ddc08@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/2 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> On Mon, Mar 1, ?BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The main difference with the old Extropy list is that everybody got older.
>
> Getting older really sucks, but it beats the alternative. I've been on this
> list for 15 years but I'm far from one of the original members. From day 1
> 15 years ago when I was the resident newbe I've been hearing about how much
> better the list was back in the good old days. It's like a ninety year old
> man telling us how much happier people were during the Great Depression;
> well I can easily believe that you personally were happier, back then you
> were a lusty teenager now you're a decrepit old man.
> ?John K Clark
>

I second that; I remember turning up on the list in the late 90s (I
think), same deal; apparently it's a shadow of its former self.

I do sometimes wonder if that attitude is somehow related to the lack
of available archives, better for rose coloured glasses and all that.

-- 
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 03:26:53 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:26:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<154647.10956.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You wish only to accuse, not to prove. Your attitude speaks for itself and
> reflects directly on the worth of your opinions.
> I have nothing else to add.

### I offered to send you a list of the peer-reviewed articles written
by Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, and others, that contain
fraudulent data or conclusions, so as to enable you to see for
yourself the specific instances of fraud, in primary sources. You did
not take me up on that offer. Instead you chose to comment on my
"attitude", and in an earlier post you insinuated that I am about to
"bring our civilization to its knees". I couldn't help myself but
chuckle over that one.

I see that indeed you have nothing else to add.

Rafal


From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 03:38:54 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:38:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <371FF4E8-1059-49AF-9FCF-F70E9184F6FC@bellsouth.net>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5741003010732l1ad39da5h953d563ffae90064@mail.gmail.com>
	<371FF4E8-1059-49AF-9FCF-F70E9184F6FC@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <62c14241003011938m53e69dbbx47ccb50268947b24@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/1 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> On Mon, Mar 1, ?BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The main difference with the old Extropy list is that everybody got older.
>
> Getting older really sucks, but it beats the alternative. I've been on this
> list for 15 years but I'm far from one of the original members. From day 1
> 15 years ago when I was the resident newbe I've been hearing about how much
> better the list was back in the good old days. It's like a ninety year old
> man telling us how much happier people were during the Great Depression;
> well I can easily believe that you personally were happier, back then you
> were a lusty teenager now you're a decrepit old man.

Thanks for providing the segue into what I was feeling about this
thread.  So the good old days of X, Y, Z notables are in offline
archives.  So you're bored of the current commentary.  Restoring
topics from a decade ago won't make the list any better than retelling
classic movies improves the story.  I would rather hear NEW ideas.
Oh.. but those are comparatively rare these days, right?  ... because
all the good ideas have already been thought?   I say no, that's
intellectual laziness.  This meta thread may be a good "wake up call"
- but if we want to see higher quality posts, then we need to act.

btw, Good call on the suggestion to keep posts short and direct.


From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 03:41:10 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:41:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <62c14241003011938m53e69dbbx47ccb50268947b24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B1C43.6080802@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003010116i5b909675pf1d1a0a8d7c9da47@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5741003010732l1ad39da5h953d563ffae90064@mail.gmail.com>
	<371FF4E8-1059-49AF-9FCF-F70E9184F6FC@bellsouth.net>
	<62c14241003011938m53e69dbbx47ccb50268947b24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14241003011941s3756330ewa16f7fbf7c3af592@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> btw, Good call on the suggestion to keep posts short and direct.

Sorry, I should have properly attributed Ben Zaiboc for his suggestion.


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 03:42:41 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:42:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:59 PM,  John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, ?BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The main difference with the old Extropy list is that everybody got older.
>
> Getting older really sucks, but it beats the alternative. I've been on this list for 15 years but I'm far from one of the original members. From day 1 15 years ago when I was the resident newbe I've been hearing about how much better the list was back in the good old days. It's like a ninety year old man telling us how much happier people were during the Great Depression; well I can easily believe that you personally were happier, back then you were a lusty teenager now you're a decrepit old man.

Well, I was there, still have some of the postings from those days on
various copied media (nowhere near the whole thing)  There were a lot
of new ideas boiling up in those heady days when nanotechnology,
memetics, cryonics, and the consequences of godlike AI were first
being discussed in the relatively new context of a mailing list.  A
lot of my archive files are on 3.5 inch Apple Lisa floppies which I
have not been able to read for more than a decade.

If anyone wants to read a story that was written around the ideas that
floated across the Extropy list in those days, try Acclerando by
Charles Stross.  It's free on the net, but you might want hard copy as
well.

Keith


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 03:45:55 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:45:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><154647.10956.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki

> ...you insinuated that I am about to "bring our 
> civilization to its knees". I couldn't help myself but 
> chuckle over that one. Rafal

I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling.  Can someone explain
why the average temperature increasing by a degree or two or half a degree
in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its knees?  Are we really
that delicate and non-adaptable?  

When I talk to teenagers about what they think will happen with global
warming, they all seem to have something very short term in mind.  One
currently in her teens expressed surprise we haven't already seen something
dramatic changing.  Even the most hard core AGW types realize that this
isn't anything that will change suddenly, ja?

spike







From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Mar  2 04:17:22 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:17:22 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>

On 3/1/2010 9:42 PM, Keith Henson wrote:

> If anyone wants to read a story that was written around the ideas that
> floated across the Extropy list in those days, try Acclerando by
> Charles Stross.  It's free on the net, but you might want hard copy as
> well.

I've been reluctant to mention this, but in that context (a good 
recommendation from Keith!) I might as well: if anyone wants to get 
something of the flavor of the ideas and approaches buzzing on the list 
in the mid-'90s, read my book THE SPIKE. The trouble is that these once 
hair-raising ideas are now commonplace, some decade and a half later 
(although I had to omit some of the more difficult material because I 
was aiming at a general Wired-ish audience).

Perhaps one reason the idea flux seems a bit lacklustre now is that 
people who weren't there then inevitably rehash many of the same ideas, 
which are still somewhat novel if you're 20 or younger, and this is not 
so enthralling for the old timers. The Swobe cascade would also have 
been laughed off the list fairly quickly back then; 'gene would have 
been scathing in his brilliantly condensed way.

Still, I'm sure there are new ideas waiting to be explored, or old ideas 
waiting to be examined in depth--but it's not obvious what they are. 
(I'm waiting eagerly for Keith to tell us what his current idea for 
cheap energy is.)

Damien Broderick


From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 04:22:16 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:22:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
Message-ID: <62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling. ?Can someone explain
> why the average temperature increasing by a degree or two or half a degree
> in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its knees? ?Are we really
> that delicate and non-adaptable?

My theory supposes linear growth of 1 degree per year wouldn't be so
bad if not for the anecdote about boiling a frog to death.  So if we
don't get wildly concerned today, we may find ourselves evolving
perfectly comfortably into lizards to accommodate our new ecology.
There may be a few people who are OK with this but they're more than
two deviations from the top of the curve (which everybody knows is the
safety-in-numbers best place to be)

Conversely at >1 degree per year as input to my weather model, we
notice hypertetration of temperature increase.  This threatens to
overcome the mere exponential growth in technological ability to adapt
to temperature change.  If we don't act immediately to rectify Earth's
runaway temperature increase, we might find ourselves within a few
short months having an average temperature in excess of the surface of
the sun.

The observation of <1 degree per year of temperature increase to this
weather model would indicate an unknown dampening of hypertetration.
Unknown variables could later be discovered to have disastrous
consequences, perhaps leading to a complete re-examination of the data
and possibly the invalidation of the theory.  People generally view a
complete restart after years of emotional investment to be
unimaginable and therefor inherently wrong.

To answer that last question quite seriously:  No, we are not that
delicate - we only think that we are.


From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 04:45:56 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:45:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando
In-Reply-To: <4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <62c14241003012045p6dc847b6q64fb92f0b482fce7@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Still, I'm sure there are new ideas waiting to be explored, or old ideas
> waiting to be examined in depth--but it's not obvious what they are. (I'm
> waiting eagerly for Keith to tell us what his current idea for cheap energy
> is.)

Seconded.

I was thinking about electricity generation hooked to hamster wheels,
but the unwanted waste output is a considerable design challenge (not
so much per unit, but when you scale that operation up to 1GW you have
a real logistics issue)

Perhaps updating all floors with piezoelectric tiles that generate
small amounts of current under the cyclical stresses of people walking
around.  Imagine: mall-walkers could be producing useful electricity.

Also a way to get "half the price of coal" energy is to simply raise
the price of coal until it is twice the price of the biodiesel
alternative.  That one is a lawyer/politician solution, Keith is an
engineer.  I'll reserve my prediction here, it might be increasingly
viable as we approach the worldwide delivery date - the literal "drop
dead" date, as it were.

I hope with Keith's engineering propensity for numbers that he didn't
take The Matrix too seriously, else those numbers about the electrical
output of a neuron multiplied by the number of idle neurons in a human
brain times 7B people start to be interesting.  If you think today's
grid power is unreliable, imagine what it would be like when one Neo
can destroy the whole network.

Anyway, I also wait eagerly (perhaps not idly) for Keith's next energy solution.


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Tue Mar  2 05:17:11 2010
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 5:17:11 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando
In-Reply-To: <4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20100302051711.DXDER.180344.root@hrndva-web24-z02>

I'd strongly suggest along with that the Cypherpunks mailing list, if you can get over the space aliens eating your drugs that is.

---- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote: 
> On 3/1/2010 9:42 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
> 
> > If anyone wants to read a story that was written around the ideas that
> > floated across the Extropy list in those days, try Acclerando by
> > Charles Stross.  It's free on the net, but you might want hard copy as
> > well.
> 
> I've been reluctant to mention this, but in that context (a good 
> recommendation from Keith!) I might as well: if anyone wants to get 
> something of the flavor of the ideas and approaches buzzing on the list 
> in the mid-'90s, read my book THE SPIKE. The trouble is that these once 
> hair-raising ideas are now commonplace, some decade and a half later 
> (although I had to omit some of the more difficult material because I 
> was aiming at a general Wired-ish audience).
> 
> Perhaps one reason the idea flux seems a bit lacklustre now is that 
> people who weren't there then inevitably rehash many of the same ideas, 
> which are still somewhat novel if you're 20 or younger, and this is not 
> so enthralling for the old timers. The Swobe cascade would also have 
> been laughed off the list fairly quickly back then; 'gene would have 
> been scathing in his brilliantly condensed way.
> 
> Still, I'm sure there are new ideas waiting to be explored, or old ideas 
> waiting to be examined in depth--but it's not obvious what they are. 
> (I'm waiting eagerly for Keith to tell us what his current idea for 
> cheap energy is.)
> 
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Tue Mar  2 05:18:31 2010
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 5:18:31 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando
In-Reply-To: <62c14241003012045p6dc847b6q64fb92f0b482fce7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100302051831.E70I8.180350.root@hrndva-web24-z02>

Has somebody been watching "Tokyo Zombie" again?

---- Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote: 

> Seconded.
> 
> I was thinking about electricity generation hooked to hamster wheels,
> but the unwanted waste output is a considerable design challenge (not
> so much per unit, but when you scale that operation up to 1GW you have
> a real logistics issue)
> 
> Perhaps updating all floors with piezoelectric tiles that generate
> small amounts of current under the cyclical stresses of people walking
> around.  Imagine: mall-walkers could be producing useful electricity.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 05:39:28 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:39:28 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com><2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
... 
> science isn'tsettled
> 
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling. ?
> Can someone 
> > explain why the average temperature increasing by a degree 
> or two or 
> > half a degree in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its 
> > knees? ?Are we really that delicate and non-adaptable?
> 
> My theory supposes linear growth of 1 degree per year 
> wouldn't be so bad if not for the anecdote about boiling a 
> frog to death... Conversely at >1 degree per year as input to my weather 
> model... The observation of <1 degree per year of temperature increase 
> to this weather model...Mike


Mike's post makes my point better than I did.  We are so very accustomed to
thinking of something per year, a few percent a year, another birthday per
year and so forth.  The climatologists are offering numbers that look like a
degree per century.  We just are not used talking about anything per
century, so confusion results.  A lot of teens somehow jump to the
stunningly illogical conclusion that this two degree change we are trying to
stop will show up in a few years or any day now since the Copenhagen flop.

This causes what I call the Russians vs Germans effect.  During WW2, the
Germans had better technology, so in the summers when the days were long and
warm, they beat back their foes and drove deep into Russia, but when the
vicious November storms hit, the German tanks were ill suited to the cold,
the tracks were glued to the ground in the freezing mud, the engines guzzled
fuel since they had to be left running to prevent freezing etc.  So in the
winter the Russians had the clear advantage, and drove the Germans all the
way back.  

In the global warming debate, the proposed change is very slow, but human
lifetimes are very short.  We end up with the global warming people, like
the Germans, having the advantage in the summer, but every winter, they give
up the ground they gained because people still die from the cold.  Then the
global warming ridiculers, like the Russians, regain lost ground.  The
battle surges back and forth every year, with tragic results.

spike





From max at maxmore.com  Tue Mar  2 05:57:44 2010
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:57:44 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Radical Life Extension and the Problem of Malthusian Hells
Message-ID: <201003020557.o225vpx0015328@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Another good Ron Bailey article, this one citing a fine paper by 
transhumanist Russell Blackford:

Radical Life Extension and the Problem of Malthusian Hells
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/09/radical-life-extension-and-the

Max


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



From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 06:11:18 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <22143.42867.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

The problem has never been that people cannot adapt. It's that ecosystems can adapt in ways that are extremely unfriendly to people. No matter how well-deserved your estimation of your own genes is, your kids are not going to grow gills or derive nutrition from sand. Catastrophic global warming won't kill by heat stroke. It'll kill by war, disease and famine.


________________________________
From: Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 8:22:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling.  Can someone explain
> why the average temperature increasing by a degree or two or half a degree
> in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its knees?  Are we really
> that delicate and non-adaptable?

My theory supposes linear growth of 1 degree per year wouldn't be so
bad if not for the anecdote about boiling a frog to death.  So if we
don't get wildly concerned today, we may find ourselves evolving
perfectly comfortably into lizards to accommodate our new ecology.
There may be a few people who are OK with this but they're more than
two deviations from the top of the curve (which everybody knows is the
safety-in-numbers best place to be)

Conversely at >1 degree per year as input to my weather model, we
notice hypertetration of temperature increase.  This threatens to
overcome the mere exponential growth in technological ability to adapt
to temperature change.  If we don't act immediately to rectify Earth's
runaway temperature increase, we might find ourselves within a few
short months having an average temperature in excess of the surface of
the sun.

The observation of <1 degree per year of temperature increase to this
weather model would indicate an unknown dampening of hypertetration.
Unknown variables could later be discovered to have disastrous
consequences, perhaps leading to a complete re-examination of the data
and possibly the invalidation of the theory.  People generally view a
complete restart after years of emotional investment to be
unimaginable and therefor inherently wrong.

To answer that last question quite seriously:  No, we are not that
delicate - we only think that we are.
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/059864c7/attachment.html>

From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 05:56:42 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:56:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<154647.10956.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161962.36396.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

> I offered to send you a list of the peer-reviewed articles written> by Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, and others, that contain
> fraudulent data or conclusions, so as to enable you to see for
> yourself the specific instances of fraud, in primary sources.

To which I responded that I'm not a climatologist, or even a scientist. I am also excruciatingly well aware that these sources are being interpreted across an entire spectrum, from completely reliable to not only incorrect but fraudulent, to not only fraudulent but fraudulent in the furtherance of some conspiracy. I value my opinion on the matter no more or less than yours, and due to the highly charged atmosphere in which non-scientists are making pronouncements, I can only leave it to the scientific method to arrive at the actual truth.

> Instead you chose to comment on my> "attitude", and in an earlier post you insinuated that I am about to
> "bring our civilization to its knees". 

I do in fact believe that fear-mongering conspiracy theorists, in this technological day and age, pose an existential threat to modern Western civilization. I stand for reason, evidence and temperance. That is why I take accusations of fraud in science very seriously. It is also why I must dismiss as--let me not say fraudulent, but wildly hyperbolic--someone who makes such accusations but does not feel compelled to act on them, other than to add his voice to the senseless din of the digitally enraged.

Or, more succinctly, you make the accusation, the burden of proof is on you. Put up or shut up, as they say.
 



________________________________
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>
Cc: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 7:26:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You wish only to accuse, not to prove. Your attitude speaks for itself and
> reflects directly on the worth of your opinions.
> I have nothing else to add.

### I offered to send you a list of the peer-reviewed articles written
by Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, and others, that contain
fraudulent data or conclusions, so as to enable you to see for
yourself the specific instances of fraud, in primary sources. You did
not take me up on that offer. Instead you chose to comment on my
"attitude", and in an earlier post you insinuated that I am about to
"bring our civilization to its knees". I couldn't help myself but
chuckle over that one.

I see that indeed you have nothing else to add.

Rafal



________________________________
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>
Cc: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 7:26:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You wish only to accuse, not to prove. Your attitude speaks for itself and
> reflects directly on the worth of your opinions.
> I have nothing else to add.

### I offered to send you a list of the peer-reviewed articles written
by Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, and others, that contain
fraudulent data or conclusions, so as to enable you to see for
yourself the specific instances of fraud, in primary sources. You did
not take me up on that offer. Instead you chose to comment on my
"attitude", and in an earlier post you insinuated that I am about to
"bring our civilization to its knees". I couldn't help myself but
chuckle over that one.

I see that indeed you have nothing else to add.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/d204f999/attachment.html>

From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 05:58:12 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:58:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><154647.10956.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
Message-ID: <52761.17779.qm@web111209.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I wasn't referring to global warming. I was referring to fear-mongering conspiracy theorists, as willing to paint their opponents as a mortal threat as they are unencumbered by evidence in support thereof. 



________________________________
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: rafal at smigrodzki.org; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 7:45:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled



> ...On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki

> ...you insinuated that I am about to "bring our 
> civilization to its knees". I couldn't help myself but 
> chuckle over that one. Rafal

I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling.  Can someone explain
why the average temperature increasing by a degree or two or half a degree
in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its knees?  Are we really
that delicate and non-adaptable?  

When I talk to teenagers about what they think will happen with global
warming, they all seem to have something very short term in mind.  One
currently in her teens expressed surprise we haven't already seen something
dramatic changing.  Even the most hard core AGW types realize that this
isn't anything that will change suddenly, ja?

spike





_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/8b270359/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Tue Mar  2 06:45:20 2010
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:45:20 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
Message-ID: <201003020645.o226jQHg027524@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Damn, this was good:
"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded

We need transhumanist rap songs...

Max



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 07:03:55 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:03:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <669618.48277.qm@web111210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<669618.48277.qm@web111210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003012303i2050f32ci684688e8b97df041@mail.gmail.com>

I wrote:

>>?I offered to send you a list of the peer-reviewed articles written
>> by Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, and others, that contain
>> fraudulent data or conclusions, so as to enable you to see for
>> yourself the specific instances of fraud, in primary sources.

and Chris Luebcke recused himself from reading the aforementioned
primary sources as follows:

> I'm not a climatologist, or even a scientist.

and then proceeded to add:

> Put up or shut up, as they say.

### Chris, you demand proof from me but you refuse to read it when I
offer it to you, citing lack of competence. Yet, you have the temerity
to demand that *I* shut up, so that you, who admit to being completely
ignorant of the technical issues involved in this discussion, can go
home feeling victorious.

Does this make sense to you?

Rafal


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 07:24:55 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:24:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <22143.42867.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com><2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike><62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<22143.42867.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <56BCCD59396E4DB3BDDEAEA4639E183E@spike>

>...On Behalf Of Christopher Luebcke
	Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science
isn'tsettled
	
	>...The problem has never been that people cannot adapt. It's that
ecosystems can adapt in ways that are extremely unfriendly to people. No
matter how well-deserved your estimation of your own genes is, your kids are
not going to grow gills or derive nutrition from sand. Catastrophic global
warming won't kill by heat stroke. It'll kill by war, disease and famine...


So I hear.  Consider the kinds of oversimplification that leads to
misunderstanding.  One I pointed out, where the proletariat somehow turns a
degree per century into a degree per year.  Then there is the annoying habit
of lumping all varieties of skeptics into one large bin of enviro-heretics,
even though there are many subtle varieties.  I for instance recognize that
the surface temperature may rise a bit on average, but I seriously doubt
that warming by itself will cause war, disease, famine etc.  We have
*plenty* of factors that can cause all that stuff without a couple degrees
of warming.  For instance, we have war, disease and famine as a result of
human disagreement on the name of their imaginary deities.  Humans just have
a bad habit of killing each other.

Considering modern war technology, agricultural technology, pest control,
water handling, construction skills, I honestly think we would scarcely
notice a degree or two of warming over a human lifetime.  We can handle it,
farm animals can handle it, crops can be genetically engineered for a bit
warmer and longer growing season.  Some beasts will go extinct as beasts do,
but some would anyway even without the warming.  Chris we have bigger
problems to worry about, such as maintaining the supply of cheap energy.

spike






From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 07:59:49 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:59:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003012303i2050f32ci684688e8b97df041@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<669618.48277.qm@web111210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003012303i2050f32ci684688e8b97df041@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <879541.2414.qm@web111210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Rafal,

I have absolutely no reason to suspect that I am capable of becoming, in less time that it takes to actually follow that career path, as qualified to judge the merits of the data selection as any junior climatologist.

I similarly have no reason to suspect that you have any competence in the field, either.

I have no reason to believe that climatology is a discipline that can be picked up any easier than, say, oncology. I trust you to evaluate climate research as much as you should trust me to evaluate a clinical trial.

When I say "prove it", I don't mean that you should point me to the data you believe are fraudulent. I apologize that this wasn't clear, but I what I mean is, "Get it proven".

If you're right, it is hugely important. If you're wrong, you're wrong about smearing people's names. Either way, it's important. Get it proven. Or drop it. 

If you're right, you can prove it to the people who actually matter, and if you're right, it's really important, so you should. But to sit back and say, "Yeah, I looked at the data, it's a fraud," but show no interest in actually doing anything productive about it--what the hell is the point? 




________________________________
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 11:03:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

I wrote:

>> I offered to send you a list of the peer-reviewed articles written
>> by Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, and others, that contain
>> fraudulent data or conclusions, so as to enable you to see for
>> yourself the specific instances of fraud, in primary sources.

and Chris Luebcke recused himself from reading the aforementioned
primary sources as follows:

> I'm not a climatologist, or even a scientist.

and then proceeded to add:

> Put up or shut up, as they say.

### Chris, you demand proof from me but you refuse to read it when I
offer it to you, citing lack of competence. Yet, you have the temerity
to demand that *I* shut up, so that you, who admit to being completely
ignorant of the technical issues involved in this discussion, can go
home feeling victorious.

Does this make sense to you?

Rafal
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100301/c3a439e5/attachment.html>

From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 08:10:17 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:10:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <56BCCD59396E4DB3BDDEAEA4639E183E@spike>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com><2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike><62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<22143.42867.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<56BCCD59396E4DB3BDDEAEA4639E183E@spike>
Message-ID: <350877.96512.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Spike, I disagree with some of what you wrote, but not all of it. From what I understand it's potentially a lot worse that you think it might be--"we" will probably do just fine from an evolutionary standpoint, but destabilization of ecosystems can cause a tremendous amount of suffering for a lot of people.

Regardless, I appreciate your point, and I agree that cheap energy should be a top priority (because among other things, if we get close to some of the worst-case scenarios, we're going to need all the cheap, distributed energy we can get).

My entire argument with Rafal actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability, potential consequences or overall significance of warming predictions. It is entirely to do with the accusation of fraud he has made, and my deep concern that this type of discourse--the offhand demonization of one's opponents, no longer restricted to politicians and election cycles, but now to scientists, business leaders, non-profit organizations and everyday citizens--is frighteningly corrosive to the prospect of our civilization being able to survive intact, much less thrive.

Fundamentally, an accusation of scientific fraud ought to be at least as thoroughly reviewed as the original science before being accepted. Any lower standard is an insult to the scientific method.




________________________________
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 11:24:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

>...On Behalf Of Christopher Luebcke
    Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science
isn'tsettled
    
    >...The problem has never been that people cannot adapt. It's that
ecosystems can adapt in ways that are extremely unfriendly to people. No
matter how well-deserved your estimation of your own genes is, your kids are
not going to grow gills or derive nutrition from sand. Catastrophic global
warming won't kill by heat stroke. It'll kill by war, disease and famine...


So I hear.  Consider the kinds of oversimplification that leads to
misunderstanding.  One I pointed out, where the proletariat somehow turns a
degree per century into a degree per year.  Then there is the annoying habit
of lumping all varieties of skeptics into one large bin of enviro-heretics,
even though there are many subtle varieties.  I for instance recognize that
the surface temperature may rise a bit on average, but I seriously doubt
that warming by itself will cause war, disease, famine etc.  We have
*plenty* of factors that can cause all that stuff without a couple degrees
of warming.  For instance, we have war, disease and famine as a result of
human disagreement on the name of their imaginary deities.  Humans just have
a bad habit of killing each other.

Considering modern war technology, agricultural technology, pest control,
water handling, construction skills, I honestly think we would scarcely
notice a degree or two of warming over a human lifetime.  We can handle it,
farm animals can handle it, crops can be genetically engineered for a bit
warmer and longer growing season.  Some beasts will go extinct as beasts do,
but some would anyway even without the warming.  Chris we have bigger
problems to worry about, such as maintaining the supply of cheap energy.

spike




_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/c77e55d4/attachment.html>

From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar  2 10:46:20 2010
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:46:20 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] endpoint of evolution
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <413829.24091.qm@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

I've given it a little thought, and there's a few other galactic endpoints rather than the M-brain around every star.

The M-cloud - instead of layers of computronium with an ecology of data entities, a cloud of nanites/microbots each hosting a mind (or fraction/group thereof, depending on size and performance). This allows variety and flexibility, and allows greater room for territoriality and breaking free. It's a bit like the difference between huge algal mats covering earth's oceans and an ecology of plankton, krill and fish like have today.

Creating more universes - why stick with this one when you can create your own, or (borrowing from Greg Egan's Diaspora) migrate to others?

Inhabiting stars - OK, I'm borrowing from Baxter's SF here but there may be room to do this. At an extreme, there may be room for black-hole computing to support intelligence - instead of M-brains, minds being supported in the altered spacetime around a black hole.

Alternatively, there may be sound ecological reasons why progress to M-brains across the galaxy is not inevitable. Potential answers to the Fermi Paradox sketch out possibilities - Stanislaw Lem has a story where different civilisations have learnt how to manipulate the laws of physics, and the universe we see about us is a compromise designed to keep the big civilisations apart, and we're stuck in a no-man's land. 

Maybe M-brains are too prone to becoming inward-looking and ignoring the outside (I'm thinking the later portions of Accelerando here). Alternatively, maybe the Great Filter keeps smacking down civilisations before they become M-brains, and all you see are single star system civilisations popping up, looking around wondering "where is everyone?" and then disappearing into the night once more.

There's a lot of possibilities out there, each with their own logic.

Tom (stopping before Ben Zaiboc skips the overly long post)


      


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 12:25:39 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:25:39 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando
In-Reply-To: <4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003020425r3db4550n9cdc135f42fdafec@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:
>snip>
> Still, I'm sure there are new ideas waiting to be explored, or old ideas
> waiting to be examined in depth--but it's not obvious what they are. (I'm
> waiting eagerly for Keith to tell us what his current idea for cheap energy
> is.)
>
>


<http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/02/09/revrev-makes-energy-generating-gyms-a-reality/>

Many of us have been to the gym and wondered why the exercise
equipment isn?t hooked up to generate electricity and feed it back
into the grid. At long last a company in Florida called ReRev has
answered our calls, converting existing elliptical machines into
sources of power. Now when you hit the gym, you can burn off those
calories while creating some renewable energy for a carbon negative
workout.

:)

BillK


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Tue Mar  2 13:45:49 2010
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:45:49 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com><4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com><e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Dan wrote:

> Just a general comment: Isn't there a certain evolution of these things? 
> There's a very creative stage followed by much less creative ones and 
> the initial buzz or atmosphere is never going to be the same as during 
> that stage. Maybe the model is something like the conventional view of a 
> romatic relationship: there that first "magic" stage, but that sort of 
> flowers and candies every day can't last. Eventually things have to 
> settle down. 
> ?
> But that's a depressing view and maybe it'd be better to focus on not so 
> much lamenting that it's no longer 199x but seeing where we can go from 
> here. > ?
> Regards,
> ?
> Dan

Well,

I happen to read Scientific American (ok, its Polish edition actually) 
from time to time (say, once per month) and after more than a decade they 
still deliver.

I don't think a marriage analogy covers this case.

I remember old "exi", as I had a chance to read it in it's late period 
(final as it seems). After that something happened to my hardware and when 
I could switch on at least, the Universe was a bit different. So, I hope 
you forgive me (some day) but I say it is my fault. My computer broke and 
voila, all gone. My guilt feeling will be my punishment, if you don't 
mind.

But seriously, this was quite a sudden change for me.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 14:56:50 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:56:50 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>

Some posters explain the decreased sex appeal of this list with the
departure (or inactivity) of some key posters, or to the sad fact that
we are all getting older and less energetic, and I think some truth in
that. Others think this is the normal evolution of things (romantic
love does not last forever) and there is some truth in this too.

Others think the trend is due to the fact that our most radical ideas
(indefinite lifespans, superAIs, uploading etc.), which were
disruptive and conflictive in the 90s, have became almost mainstream
or at least are covered in more mainstream discussion spaces (TED, BB,
io9...). Also, this used to be the only transhumanist discussion space
in the 90s, now the discussion is fragmented in many spaces. On the
one hand this is good (1000 flowers), on the other hand it reduces
cross-fertilization between different sensibilities.

Restoring and publicizing the archives would definitely be a good
idea. Not to convert the list into a museum, but to see whether we can
find some new angle.

What I miss more is the variety of transhumanist discourse, and at
times I have the feeling that the list is now a set of disjointed
monologues on personal pet ideas, of dubious interest for others.


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Tue Mar  2 15:07:05 2010
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:07:05 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando - and other recommendations, too
In-Reply-To: <4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021516590.32172@tau.ceti.pl>

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Damien Broderick wrote:

> On 3/1/2010 9:42 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
> 
> > If anyone wants to read a story that was written around the ideas that
> > floated across the Extropy list in those days, try Acclerando by
> > Charles Stross.  It's free on the net, but you might want hard copy as
> > well.
> 
> I've been reluctant to mention this, but in that context (a good
> recommendation from Keith!) I might as well: if anyone wants to get something
> of the flavor of the ideas and approaches buzzing on the list in the mid-'90s,
> read my book THE SPIKE. The trouble is that these once hair-raising ideas are
> now commonplace, some decade and a half later (although I had to omit some of
> the more difficult material because I was aiming at a general Wired-ish
> audience).

I still have to find some time for this book. However, I've thought it is 
a good moment to mention something from myself. I am the long time reader 
of books (and other things) written by Polish writer Stanislaw Lem. 
Sometimes it seems strange to me that he did not get much publicity here 
(or that he got no pub at all, actually). Of course I may not be quite 
objective, since I consider the man one of my heroes (yep, and how many 
writers deserve to be called like this?). He wasn't explicitly extropian, 
yet if you could read his "Summa technologiae" or "Golem XIV" maybe you 
could recognise this or that. Some will say, this is old crap stuff. I 
still think this old stuff kicks a** - even 50 years later. Which is a 
hell of achievement.

>From what I could read, Michael Kandel did wonders translating Lem into 
English, so you may pay attention to translator's name. Unless you could 
read Polish, and maybe German (I can say nothing about quality of German 
translations, only expect them to be good because Lem is said to have many 
German-speaking readers). I think Russian translations can be good too, 
since I've heard there were times when he got a lot of attention of their 
scientists and I doubt they would waste their time (unless, of course, 
they read this in some other language, Polish, maybe? - oh, I don't mean 
reading Lem in Polish would be a waste of time, ok let's stop it).

> Perhaps one reason the idea flux seems a bit lacklustre now is that people who
> weren't there then inevitably rehash many of the same ideas, which are still
> somewhat novel if you're 20 or younger, and this is not so enthralling for the
> old timers. The Swobe cascade would also have been laughed off the list fairly
> quickly back then; 'gene would have been scathing in his brilliantly condensed
> way.

Yes, ideas seem to be recycled a bit. Read some older stuff, from times 
when extropy wasn't a word yet.

> Still, I'm sure there are new ideas waiting to be explored, or old ideas
> waiting to be examined in depth--but it's not obvious what they are. (I'm
> waiting eagerly for Keith to tell us what his current idea for cheap energy
> is.)

Is there anybody taking bets :-) ?.

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 dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 14:48:05 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:48:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com><2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
Message-ID: <942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

If we look at the long course of human civilization and even humans before civilization, both human civilization and humans have gone through lots of drastic changes in climate. So, like you, I don't see the big deal for adapting. I suppose food production might have to change over decades to adapt to different conditions -- maybe by changing the ranges and times for crops or by changing the types of crops grown.

Also, if we just look at the last two or three centuries, we see a huge shift in where and how people live and how they get their food. This shift hasn't taken place as much in the Third World -- but that's mostly because of bad policies that can easily be changed. (How? Simply turn over policy makers and enforcers to me for re-education.)

This is, of course, assuming that global warming has merit and that at least some of the projected climatic shifts will take place.

Regards,

Dan

----- Original Message ----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 12:39:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
... 
> science isn'tsettled
> 
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling. ?
> Can someone 
> > explain why the average temperature increasing by a degree 
> or two or 
> > half a degree in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its 
> > knees? ?Are we really that delicate and non-adaptable?
> 
> My theory supposes linear growth of 1 degree per year 
> wouldn't be so bad if not for the anecdote about boiling a 
> frog to death... Conversely at >1 degree per year as input to my weather 
> model... The observation of <1 degree per year of temperature increase 
> to this weather model...Mike

Mike's post makes my point better than I did.? We are so very accustomed to
thinking of something per year, a few percent a year, another birthday per
year and so forth.? The climatologists are offering numbers that look like a
degree per century.? We just are not used talking about anything per
century, so confusion results.? A lot of teens somehow jump to the
stunningly illogical conclusion that this two degree change we are trying to
stop will show up in a few years or any day now since the Copenhagen flop.

This causes what I call the Russians vs Germans effect.? During WW2, the
Germans had better technology, so in the summers when the days were long and
warm, they beat back their foes and drove deep into Russia, but when the
vicious November storms hit, the German tanks were ill suited to the cold,
the tracks were glued to the ground in the freezing mud, the engines guzzled
fuel since they had to be left running to prevent freezing etc.? So in the
winter the Russians had the clear advantage, and drove the Germans all the
way back.? 

In the global warming debate, the proposed change is very slow, but human
lifetimes are very short.? We end up with the global warming people, like
the Germans, having the advantage in the summer, but every winter, they give
up the ground they gained because people still die from the cold.? Then the
global warming ridiculers, like the Russians, regain lost ground.? The
battle surges back and forth every year, with tragic results.

spike


      


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 16:18:42 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:18:42 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003020425r3db4550n9cdc135f42fdafec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com><4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003020425r3db4550n9cdc135f42fdafec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D642D31BB07A4FBCB2836A170D81EB82@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of BillK
> ...
> <http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/02/09/revrev-makes-energy-gener
> ating-gyms-a-reality/>
> 
> Many of us have been to the gym and wondered why the exercise 
> equipment isn't hooked up to generate electricity and feed it 
> back into the grid. At long last a company in Florida called 
> ReRev has answered our calls, converting existing elliptical 
> machines into sources of power. Now when you hit the gym, you 
> can burn off those calories while creating some renewable 
> energy for a carbon negative workout.
> 
> :)
> 
> BillK

I know the answer to that question BillK.

> Many of us have been to the gym and wondered why the exercise 
> equipment isn't hooked up to generate electricity...

It is because the tiny amount of energy generated scarcely covers the
capital cost of the generator.

This is not to say it isn't worth doing, for it is a great educational tool,
a valuable way to enlighten the public.  Modern people are astounded at how
hard it is to pedal enough energy to light a standard 75 watt bulb.
Athletes can do it, but the general proletariat cannot keep that bulb lit
for more than a few minutes, if that long.  As for pumping hard enough to
run a blow drier, athletes can only do it for a short stretch.  Big screen
TV?  Forget it.  Computer?  A laptop only.

I like the idea, and hope plenty of people get to see how hard it is to
muscle power our modern electric homes.  They will go immediately and start
to turn off stuff.

spike





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Mar  2 16:33:51 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:33:51 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando - and other recommendations, too
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021516590.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>	<4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021516590.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <4B8D3DEF.1060504@satx.rr.com>

On 3/2/2010 9:07 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote:

>> >  read my book THE SPIKE. The trouble is that these once hair-raising ideas are
>> >  now commonplace

> I still have to find some time for this book. However, I've thought it is
> a good moment to mention something from myself. I am the long time reader
> of books (and other things) written by Polish writer Stanislaw Lem.
> Sometimes it seems strange to me that he did not get much publicity here
> (or that he got no pub at all, actually).

Lem is well known among sf scholars, but his work is mostly too cerebral 
for the mass market readers of adventures-in-space. Kandel's 
translations are indeed brilliant. SOLARIS has of course been made into 
two movies (neither especially effective in my view, although the 
Tarkovsky is famous for its moody cinematography).

>  I consider the man one of my heroes (yep, and how many
> writers deserve to be called like this?). He wasn't explicitly extropian,
> yet if you could read his "Summa technologiae" or "Golem XIV" maybe you
> could recognise this or that.

I cite Lem at several key points in THE SPIKE, and "Golem XIV" remains 
astonishingly good as a treatment of a self-augmenting AI that 
transcends/sublimes. Alas, SUMMA TECHNOLOGIAE has never been translated 
in full into English. I recall that an enthusiast started to translate 
some key chapters and put them on the net a decade or so back, but I've 
lost track of that attempt.

Damien Broderick



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 16:41:44 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:41:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <879541.2414.qm@web111210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<669618.48277.qm@web111210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003012303i2050f32ci684688e8b97df041@mail.gmail.com>
	<879541.2414.qm@web111210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003020841w235d3717q60d6bbc05842d2fc@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/2 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:

> I similarly have no reason to suspect that you have any competence in the
> field, either.

 If you're wrong, you're wrong about
> smearing people's names. Either way, it's important. Get it proven. Or drop
> it.

### Chris, you more or less say I am too dumb to understand an article
about the thickness of tree rings in the Ural mountains, and yet
willing to accuse "real" scientists of fraud in selecting the trees to
be included in a proxy climate reconstruction.

I have news for you: There are people who actually read and understand
peer-reviewed articles in many disciplines, rather than rely on
dumbed-down third hand journalistic reports for their opinions. If you
are not one of us, drop it.

Rafal


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 17:07:46 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:07:46 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando
In-Reply-To: <4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003020907u114cabdai4ad20417b0c39a53@mail.gmail.com>

On 2 March 2010 05:17, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> On 3/1/2010 9:42 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
>
>  If anyone wants to read a story that was written around the ideas that
>> floated across the Extropy list in those days, try Acclerando by
>> Charles Stross.  It's free on the net, but you might want hard copy as
>> well.
>>
>
> I've been reluctant to mention this, but in that context (a good
> recommendation from Keith!) I might as well: if anyone wants to get
> something of the flavor of the ideas and approaches buzzing on the list in
> the mid-'90s, read my book THE SPIKE. The trouble is that these once
> hair-raising ideas are now commonplace, some decade and a half later
> (although I had to omit some of the more difficult material because I was
> aiming at a general Wired-ish audience).
>

Absolutely.

Personally I never liked much Accelerando.

Personally, I would consider it mostly as a "by-product" of the
transhumanist culture and language of the period...

I am not sure in English, but "vulgarisation" has two different meanings in
Italian or French.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/2c8c88ee/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 17:12:17 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:12:17 -0800
Subject: [ExI] generating energy with exercise equipment. was :RE:
	Accelerando
In-Reply-To: <D642D31BB07A4FBCB2836A170D81EB82@spike>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com><4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com><ee50357e1003020425r3db4550n9cdc135f42fdafec@mail.gmail.com>
	<D642D31BB07A4FBCB2836A170D81EB82@spike>
Message-ID: <C4B17992E1934055A6E1AE2C3BFB7C98@spike>

> ...On Behalf Of spike
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Accelerando
> 
> > ...On Behalf Of BillK
...
> > Many of us have been to the gym and wondered why the exercise 
> > equipment isn't hooked up to generate electricity and feed it back 
> > into the grid... BillK
...
> It is because the tiny amount of energy generated scarcely 
> covers the capital cost of the generator... 
> This is not to say it isn't worth doing, for it is a great 
> educational tool, a valuable way to enlighten the public... spike

To expand on this a bit, we could advertise that the value of the power
generated by one's workout would be deducted from the monthly gym fee.  A
few customers with more muscle than brain might take it as a challenge to
try to work off their entire bill with muscle generated power.  These will
find how difficult it is to generate one single copper penny's worth of
electric power.  Most moderns would give up before finishing the generation
of one cent, for it would be a hell of a workout.  Do calculate it for
yourself.  Ignore the energy cost of the HVAC system in the gym, and the
lights, and the TV running Richard Simmons videos.

A recurring gag in Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster is how the Edwardian
English nobles were so very profligate, wasting money everywhere in every
activity, but they don't even realize it.  No one they know had ever had a
real job, they had plenty of money and more coming in always from some
mysterious source, so they knew not and cared not what anything costs.

We are like the Woosters, except with energy.

spike




From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 17:13:51 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:13:51 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2 March 2010 15:56, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:

> Restoring and publicizing the archives would definitely be a good
> idea. Not to convert the list into a museum, but to see whether we can
> find some new angle.
>
> What I miss more is the variety of transhumanist discourse, and at
> times I have the feeling that the list is now a set of disjointed
> monologues on personal pet ideas, of dubious interest for others.
>

I fully agree on both points.

To expand a little on the subject, it should also perhaps be added that
other H+ lists are not in a much better shape, and that while I am still
fond myself of this medium, in comparison with other more fashionable ones,
mls in general are not exactly the rage of the day.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/26098fb9/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 17:30:47 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:30:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7641ddc61002170859g6c25fcag3ddb51826fff23bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<154647.10956.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003020930t33a0532s7b32441b83d5e04e@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 March 2010 19:49, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> ### I have reassured myself by extensive reading that deliberate
> forgery of climate data is well supported through analysis of the
> papers, as well as perusal of additional documents produced by FOIA
> requests.

This, OTOH, does not tell us anything about the factual existence of
global warming (data may be forged to support a perfectly true
hypothesis...).

In turn, however, this does not tell us anything on whether it is
anthropic, but above all what kind of difference the envisaged
reductions in carbon emissions would actually make (let us say, for
instance, that a runaway process is already in place...), let alone
how the related costs would compare with the costs of the warming
avoided, and/or with the costs of possible alternative measures of
geo-engineering (or adaptative bio-engineering!). And I see very
little discussion of those points.

All in all, this makes me inclined to think that climatology,
especially in the vulgarisations where somebody regularly suggests
that we are facing a likely extinction risk, is basically becoming a
religious discourse.

--
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 17:35:53 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:35:53 +0100
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 March 2010 17:48, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Energy and space relate through solar power satellites. ?Alas, that is
> looking less and less likely since another approach has come along
> that will make energy in the "half the cost of coal" range and takes a
> lot less front end investment. ?Spike knows what I am talking about.

Why, give us at least a few hints... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 17:13:19 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:13:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Chile Earthquake May Have Shortened Days on Earth
Message-ID: <619200.41936.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100302/sc_space/chileearthquakemayhaveshorteneddaysonearth

Haven't followed this anywhere else, but wonder about any possibilities here for adjusting planetary rotations.

Regards,

Dan


      


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 17:43:35 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:43:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003020930t33a0532s7b32441b83d5e04e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<154647.10956.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020930t33a0532s7b32441b83d5e04e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003020943x36a800catfb5aa1cb8c0f4df8@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> All in all, this makes me inclined to think that climatology,
> especially in the vulgarisations where somebody regularly suggests
> that we are facing a likely extinction risk, is basically becoming a
> religious discourse.

### Indeed. There already appear to be suicidal cultists as well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html

Rafal


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 17:45:03 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] generating energy with exercise equipment
In-Reply-To: <C4B17992E1934055A6E1AE2C3BFB7C98@spike>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com><4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com><ee50357e1003020425r3db4550n9cdc135f42fdafec@mail.gmail.com>
	<D642D31BB07A4FBCB2836A170D81EB82@spike>
	<C4B17992E1934055A6E1AE2C3BFB7C98@spike>
Message-ID: <392534.18198.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Well, we live next to a star -- a huge energy source -- that gives us plenty of cheap energy -- either directly or indirectly (e.g., via fossil fuels). In a sense, we're always Woosters in some way -- if only the luck of not being in a far worse situation that we're unaware of.

Regards,

Dan


----- Original Message ----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 12:12:17 PM
Subject: [ExI] generating energy with exercise equipment. was :RE: Accelerando

To expand on this a bit, we could advertise that the value of the power
generated by one's workout would be deducted from the monthly gym fee.? A
few customers with more muscle than brain might take it as a challenge to
try to work off their entire bill with muscle generated power.? These will
find how difficult it is to generate one single copper penny's worth of
electric power.? Most moderns would give up before finishing the generation
of one cent, for it would be a hell of a workout.? Do calculate it for
yourself.? Ignore the energy cost of the HVAC system in the gym, and the
lights, and the TV running Richard Simmons videos.

A recurring gag in Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster is how the Edwardian
English nobles were so very profligate, wasting money everywhere in every
activity, but they don't even realize it.? No one they know had ever had a
real job, they had plenty of money and more coming in always from some
mysterious source, so they knew not and cared not what anything costs.

We are like the Woosters, except with energy.

spike


      


From scerir at libero.it  Tue Mar  2 17:45:50 2010
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:45:50 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando
Message-ID: <31477617.2958771267551950077.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>

Damien
> > Still, I'm sure there are new ideas waiting to be explored, or old ideas
> > waiting to be examined in depth--but it's not obvious what they are. (I'm
> > waiting eagerly for Keith to tell us what his current idea for cheap 
energy
> > is.)

BillK
> Many of us have been to the gym and wondered why the exercise
> equipment isn?t hooked up to generate electricity and feed it back
> into the grid. 

Since there is a lot of noise [not just on this list :-)] I would
propose thermo-acoustic generators (generation of heat/energy
from noise). 

If heat is given to the air at a moment of greatest condensation, 
and is taken from it at the moment of greatest rarefaction, a vibration 
is encouraged. If heat is given at the moment of greatest rarefaction, 
or subtracted at the moment of greatest condensation, the vibration is 
discouraged.
By this process heat is converted into acoustic power and a self-sustained 
oscillation can be reached. For thermo-acoustic generators the process is 
reversed.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Engineering_Acoustics/Thermoacoustics
http://uw.physics.wisc.edu/~timbie/P325/Fahey_thermoacoustic_oscillations.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoacoustic_hot_air_engine
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-power-of-sound/2
http://www.mecheng.adelaide.edu.au/avc/thermoacoustics/






From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 18:03:38 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:03:38 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <724175.55151.qm@web113609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1716.1267469403.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<724175.55151.qm@web113609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003021003m704bc2d3v23ef58a50f5d7cd0@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 March 2010 22:21, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No. ?You have been repeatedly criticised for repeatedly contradicting yourself, making circular arguments and simply ignoring valid challenges to your ideas.

I would not criticise too much Gordon for the circularity of the
threads concerned.

He has done nothing else than reiterating forever with different words
statements as to what is "obvious" for him, in particular regarding
some ineffable, ill-defined property of some organic brains, the
existence of which should be an article of faith. This is hardly
original or heretic, since it has been a widespread meme in the
western culture for some 500 or 1000 years by now.

What I found surprising and made the debate mostly pointless is that
many people has taken this stance as pertaining to a factual issue,
engaging in the impossible task of "demonstrating" that such property
could be replicated, something which is impossible by definition, and
shows if anything how the dualistic mentality has still deep roots
even in our ranks - and not just in Gordon.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 17:41:51 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:41:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>

> I fully agree on both points.
>
> To expand a little on the subject, it should also perhaps be added that
> other H+ lists are not in a much better shape, and that while I am still
> fond myself of this medium, in comparison with other more fashionable ones,
> mls in general are not exactly the rage of the day.
>


Mailing lists and to some degree e-mail in general are anachronistic at this
point.  More often than not lists that were very active in the 1990s are in
severe decline at this point.  Young people are using e-mail less and less
in favor of more immediate forms of communication.

Web forums can still be successful if you can get reach a critical mass of
posters and content.



-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/64038c1f/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 18:17:47 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:17:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003020943x36a800catfb5aa1cb8c0f4df8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020930t33a0532s7b32441b83d5e04e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc61003020943x36a800catfb5aa1cb8c0f4df8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003021017x3c39ab4cs9a4f85fc9b7dfbe7@mail.gmail.com>

On 2 March 2010 18:43, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> ### Indeed. There already appear to be suicidal cultists as well:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html

Wow, now that you mention it, I have been emitting CO2 myself right
now. Should I immediately stop, perhaps, for Gaia's sake? :-)

There are a few transhumanists (see IEET) who appear to make much of
the AGW as an occasion where scientists would be listened, and
planet-scale measures commanding some technological investments would
be adopted in view of taking control of our destiny, but I think that
such reading of the AGW culture is very optimistic.

Most of the time, I just see the rant of rabid neoluddites who would
just hate as much any kind of large scale alternative to oil and gas
and who abhor the very idea of fiddling with supposed "sacred natural
equilibria"...

--
Stefano Vaj


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 18:30:28 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:30:28 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/2 Jeff Davis wrote:
> Mailing lists and to some degree e-mail in general are anachronistic at this
> point.? More often than not lists that were very active in the 1990s are in
> severe decline at this point.? Young people are using e-mail less and less
> in favor of more immediate forms of communication.
>
>

Unfortunately these users develop an attention span of 160 characters.


BillK


From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 18:42:43 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:42:43 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003021042x3ef8925fl44c053b2025f9930@mail.gmail.com>

But all attempts at moving an existing mailing list to a web forum
have been a flop, at least all those I am aware of.

Wave is very promising and very powerful, but still very beta and
poorly understood.

G.

2010/3/2 Jeff Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:
>
>> I fully agree on both points.
>>
>> To expand a little on the subject, it should also perhaps be added that
>> other H+ lists are not in a much better shape, and that while I am still
>> fond myself of this medium, in comparison with other more fashionable ones,
>> mls in general are not exactly the rage of the day.
>
>
> Mailing lists and to some degree e-mail in general are anachronistic at this
> point.? More often than not lists that were very active in the 1990s are in
> severe decline at this point.? Young people are using e-mail less and less
> in favor of more immediate forms of communication.
>
> Web forums can still be successful if you can get reach a critical mass of
> posters and content.
>
>
>
> --
> "This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
> other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
> based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
> We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
> oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
> - William S. Burroughs
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 19:07:11 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:07:11 -0800
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>

 
> ...On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
...
> Subject: Re: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 2
> 
> On 1 March 2010 17:48, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... another approach has come along 
> > that will make energy in the "half the cost of coal" range 
> and takes a 
> > lot less front end investment. ?Spike knows what I am talking about.
> 
> Why, give us at least a few hints... :-)
> 
> --
> Stefano Vaj


I can't.  I already signed non-disclosure agreements, and I always take
those things damn seriously.

spike






From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 19:07:46 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:07:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] endpoint of evolution
In-Reply-To: <413829.24091.qm@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <413829.24091.qm@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <99FA2BC4-6E2D-4969-92B6-DED3B30D40A0@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Tom Nowell wrote:
> Maybe M-brains are too prone to becoming inward-looking and ignoring the outside (I'm thinking the later portions of Accelerando here). Alternatively, maybe the Great Filter keeps smacking down civilisations before they become M-brains, and all you see are single star system civilisations popping up, looking around wondering "where is everyone?" and then disappearing into the night once more.

I think many civilizations will never leave their star system because of precisely the phenomenon you suggested- they become a civilization of navel-gazers. Just as a possible example of how that might happen, if you were to, say, think 1000 times faster than a human, so that your subjective experience of time is 1000x faster than people, communicating with a server on the opposite side of little ol' planet Earth would take about two and a half minutes. Something even a million kilometers away would be a full hour distant for you. People on Mars could only be communicated with on a timescale of days or weeks (subjectively), Saturn would take weeks or months. Traveling to the nearest star at the speed of light would place you out of the loop for 4000 years, and any civilization which attained such a high rate of thinking would never be cohesive, but rather fractured and disjointed.

If you were to think a million times faster, the opposite side of the earth would be a day and a half away, and communicating with the other side of an M-brain would take years. Such a rapid rate of thought (even when that thought is far more advanced than our own) certainly isn't impossible (at least theoretically), so it is quite possible a vast majority of civilizations develop, create all the technologies that we think are amazing (mind uploading, cognitive enhancement, strong AI, etc.) and then stay inside their star system, with an ever increasing computational capacity but permanently bound to a small region of the Universe.

I've never put much into the Great Filter idea. Someone would break through somewhere. I think rapid escalation of subjective time of communication is far more likely. Though I would think some faction would want to stay thoroughly tied to reality, rather than dive into virtual worlds.

Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 19:12:30 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:12:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501003011822j7d167d18h4489c3d405e9b742@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
	<16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002281957v243ae9bdi4f7167851d17af77@mail.gmail.com>
	<E459A630-6EA4-48C4-B028-DBBB79917C22@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002282037u34c158t29f944bad76da9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1003010759i6416b2c6s7ea281db284acfb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<54AE50CB-5259-4D9E-89BD-195E37ED5765@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501003011822j7d167d18h4489c3d405e9b742@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ED50CBB-F750-48F6-8028-24E547FE4DEE@GMAIL.COM>


On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Will Steinberg wrote:

>  any given number of people will be able to pass the Turing Test as a group.  
Of course, but I do not think they would be able to unless they were intentionally trying to do so. The actions of mobs, crowds, markets, etc. are somewhat chaotic and do not have the cohesiveness necessary to pass a Turing Test. By intention, a group of people could pass it together, of course, but that's hardly a fair assessment of whether or not these spontaneous collections of people arising without central purpose would be able to do so. I think it is more likely that we would be able to tell they are composed of a multitude rather than have a cohesive idea of "self."

Though, if one could demonstrate that they do have that capacity (and I'm skeptical), then I suppose I would have to admit that those minds can be said to exist, if only as a second-order, derivative result of the people within it (and thus not capable of independent rights of its own, as any such rights would violate the rights we normal old humans have).


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/4fecdc95/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 19:15:38 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:15:38 +0000
Subject: [ExI] generating energy with exercise equipment. was :RE:
	Accelerando
In-Reply-To: <C4B17992E1934055A6E1AE2C3BFB7C98@spike>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e1003020425r3db4550n9cdc135f42fdafec@mail.gmail.com>
	<D642D31BB07A4FBCB2836A170D81EB82@spike>
	<C4B17992E1934055A6E1AE2C3BFB7C98@spike>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003021115p2ba897d0pcba7b10132aa6865@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM, spike wrote:
> To expand on this a bit, we could advertise that the value of the power
> generated by one's workout would be deducted from the monthly gym fee. ?A
> few customers with more muscle than brain might take it as a challenge to
> try to work off their entire bill with muscle generated power. ?These will
> find how difficult it is to generate one single copper penny's worth of
> electric power. ?Most moderns would give up before finishing the generation
> of one cent, for it would be a hell of a workout. ?Do calculate it for
> yourself. ?Ignore the energy cost of the HVAC system in the gym, and the
> lights, and the TV running Richard Simmons videos.
>
>


A bit of googling finds rather a lot of interest in pedal power.
China runs on pedal cycles, as do many third world countries.

<http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Pedal-Power>

The electricity generators claim 100 to 200 watts, with up to 300
watts for a professional cyclist. So this also means a big interest in
low power electrics, like CFL lighting.

They also make the point that most efficient is direct drive to a pump
or drill, etc.
Second is direct electric connection to TV, music player, etc.
And worst is charging a battery for later re-use.

Also see:
<http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Human-Powered>


BillK


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 19:18:35 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:18:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:24 AM,   Damien Broderick
<thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I've been reluctant to mention this, but in that context (a good
> recommendation from Keith!) I might as well: if anyone wants to get
> something of the flavor of the ideas and approaches buzzing on the list
> in the mid-'90s, read my book THE SPIKE. The trouble is that these once
> hair-raising ideas are now commonplace, some decade and a half later
> (although I had to omit some of the more difficult material because I
> was aiming at a general Wired-ish audience).

I was reading The Spike again recently.  I can't think of anything
Charles Stross missed that was not covered there.  It really isn't
dated because most of the content was so far downstream.

snip

> Still, I'm sure there are new ideas waiting to be explored, or old ideas
> waiting to be examined in depth--but it's not obvious what they are.
> (I'm waiting eagerly for Keith to tell us what his current idea for
> cheap energy is.)

It's not my idea.  Spike is under an NDA on this as well but he can
express an opinion as to its technical merits.  It will be out in the
open late summer/early fall.  I can ask to include people in NDA
discussions at this stage if they have skills and knowledge that might
be useful.

> From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
>
>>...On Behalf Of Christopher Luebcke
> ? ? ? ?Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science
> isn'tsettled
>
> ? ? ? ?>...The problem has never been that people cannot adapt. It's that
> ecosystems can adapt in ways that are extremely unfriendly to people. No
> matter how well-deserved your estimation of your own genes is, your kids are
> not going to grow gills or derive nutrition from sand. Catastrophic global
> warming won't kill by heat stroke. It'll kill by war, disease and famine...

Much worse would be a sharp drop in temperature, something that we
know has happened and don't know exactly why.

> So I hear. ?Consider the kinds of oversimplification that leads to
> misunderstanding. ?One I pointed out, where the proletariat somehow turns a
> degree per century into a degree per year. ?Then there is the annoying habit
> of lumping all varieties of skeptics into one large bin of enviro-heretics,
> even though there are many subtle varieties. ?I for instance recognize that
> the surface temperature may rise a bit on average, but I seriously doubt
> that warming by itself will cause war, disease, famine etc. ?We have
> *plenty* of factors that can cause all that stuff without a couple degrees
> of warming. ?For instance, we have war, disease and famine as a result of
> human disagreement on the name of their imaginary deities. ?Humans just have
> a bad habit of killing each other.

Humans (along with every other animal I know about) have a habit of
reproducing till they overrun the ability of the environment to feed
them.

Unique to humans, they invent gods or haul old ones out of memetic
storage as a "reason" to kill neighbors.  The process is mechanistic,
switched on by gene built mental mechanisms that humans are not even
aware of.  One of the more insightful commentaries on this point is
dated over 900 years ago:

. . . the chronicler Robert the Monk has put into the mouth of Urban II:

    [...] this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the
seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your
large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes
scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder
one another, that you wage war, and that frequently you perish by
mutual wounds. Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your
quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and
controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre;
wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves.
[...] God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in
arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your
sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the Kingdom of
Heaven.

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

> Considering modern war technology, agricultural technology, pest control,
> water handling, construction skills, I honestly think we would scarcely
> notice a degree or two of warming over a human lifetime. ?We can handle it,
> farm animals can handle it, crops can be genetically engineered for a bit
> warmer and longer growing season. ?Some beasts will go extinct as beasts do,
> but some would anyway even without the warming. ?Chris we have bigger
> problems to worry about, such as maintaining the supply of cheap energy.

Exactly.  When a family is spending half its income on food, a
doubling of food prices due to higher energy cost means the family
starves.

Keith


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Tue Mar  2 19:32:47 2010
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:32:47 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100302193247.GB9M2.380226.root@hrndva-web05-z01>

Your comment about humans inventing gods as unique is presumptive and invalid. At this point in time we, either individually or as a race, don't know what other species are doing in their heads, regarding gods or other things.

And as to the rest of your thesis, an additional piece of datum,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02evo.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

---- Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote: 

> I was reading The Spike again recently.  I can't think of anything
> Charles Stross missed that was not covered there.  It really isn't
> dated because most of the content was so far downstream.

> Much worse would be a sharp drop in temperature, something that we
> know has happened and don't know exactly why.
 
> Humans (along with every other animal I know about) have a habit of
> reproducing till they overrun the ability of the environment to feed
> them.
> 
> Unique to humans, they invent gods or haul old ones out of memetic
> storage as a "reason" to kill neighbors.  The process is mechanistic,
> switched on by gene built mental mechanisms that humans are not even
> aware of.  One of the more insightful commentaries on this point is
> dated over 900 years ago:
> 
> . . . the chronicler Robert the Monk has put into the mouth of Urban II:
> 
>     [...] this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the
> seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your
> large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes
> scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder
> one another, that you wage war, and that frequently you perish by
> mutual wounds. Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your
> quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and
> controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre;
> wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves.
> [...] God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in
> arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your
> sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the Kingdom of
> Heaven.

> Exactly.  When a family is spending half its income on food, a
> doubling of food prices due to higher energy cost means the family
> starves.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 19:42:15 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:42:15 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003021142p7cd1088en7ff45d1d798561b0@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Keith Henson  wrote:
<snip>
> Exactly. ?When a family is spending half its income on food, a
> doubling of food prices due to higher energy cost means the family
> starves.
>
>


Nawwww.    As of Nov 2009, 38 million Americans (17 million
households) spent nothing on food. They got food stamps from the
government.

BillK


From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 19:23:58 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003020930t33a0532s7b32441b83d5e04e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7641ddc61002170859g6c25fcag3ddb51826fff23bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<154647.10956.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com>
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com>
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020930t33a0532s7b32441b83d5e04e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <733998.14603.qm@web111201.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

It's extraordinary to me that scientific research that provides support for AGW theory gets so much critical attention, yet accusations of fraud are accepted on this list without comment. 

I find that very disappointing, but clearly I'm in the minority. One suspects that if Gordon made the same accusation about some aspect of AGI research it wouldn't be accepted quite so uncritically.



________________________________
From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
To: rafal at smigrodzki.org; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 9:30:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

On 1 March 2010 19:49, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> ### I have reassured myself by extensive reading that deliberate
> forgery of climate data is well supported through analysis of the
> papers, as well as perusal of additional documents produced by FOIA
> requests.

This, OTOH, does not tell us anything about the factual existence of
global warming (data may be forged to support a perfectly true
hypothesis...).

In turn, however, this does not tell us anything on whether it is
anthropic, but above all what kind of difference the envisaged
reductions in carbon emissions would actually make (let us say, for
instance, that a runaway process is already in place...), let alone
how the related costs would compare with the costs of the warming
avoided, and/or with the costs of possible alternative measures of
geo-engineering (or adaptative bio-engineering!). And I see very
little discussion of those points.

All in all, this makes me inclined to think that climatology,
especially in the vulgarisations where somebody regularly suggests
that we are facing a likely extinction risk, is basically becoming a
religious discourse.

--
Stefano Vaj
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/f55dcac4/attachment.html>

From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 18:54:31 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:54:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com>

>
> Unfortunately these users develop an attention span of 160 characters.
>


Is that necessarily bad or is it one of those things that 'just is', like
languages changing
over time?  Maybe the people that are observed to have 'shortened' attention
spans already had
shortened attention spans before the advent of status updates.

Depending on how you look at it, things like instant messages are more
'natural' forms of communication
compared to the lengthy diatribes us old-timers are more used to.  When
you're having a physical conversation,
you're generally not trading huge blocks of text back and forth, staying
within the bounds of one topic.

(I'm still undecided as to whether heavy internet use has shortened my
attention span over the years.
When I look at how many books I read and how much television I watch
compared to when I was a child,
it appears my attention span has declined.  But thinking of it another way,
my attention span has greatly
lengthened with relation to computer-related material.  I never used to
spend 8 hours a day doing one thing
as I now spend doing various activities online.  I read 8 hours a day, I
just don't read *books* 8 hours a day.)

Another thing that doesn't help the transhumanist community is that the
resources for communicating with each
other are spread out and not necessarily well-advertised.  I didn't know
this list existed until today.  I assumed wta-talk
was the biggest and most active mailing list which appears not to be the
case.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/d7076712/attachment.html>

From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 19:48:55 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:48:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003021142p7cd1088en7ff45d1d798561b0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021142p7cd1088en7ff45d1d798561b0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003021148j540b2fb2q971d5db763273b1c@mail.gmail.com>

> Nawwww.    As of Nov 2009, 38 million Americans (17 million
> households) spent nothing on food. They got food stamps from the
> government.
>
>
Assuming their food stamp allowance is enough to last through the month and
they don't have to trade
any for non-food essentials like toilet paper, soap, or especially diapers.

-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/e12b2068/attachment.html>

From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 20:09:36 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:09:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Chess Room
In-Reply-To: <1ED50CBB-F750-48F6-8028-24E547FE4DEE@GMAIL.COM>
References: <4e3a29501002281117q42f7dcben9def0d23b9bbe78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501002281911o2290b25ag46b3cd2979f59407@mail.gmail.com>
	<16B90CBA-753A-4BC8-B378-4A3A6D056FE0@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002281957v243ae9bdi4f7167851d17af77@mail.gmail.com>
	<E459A630-6EA4-48C4-B028-DBBB79917C22@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501002282037u34c158t29f944bad76da9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1003010759i6416b2c6s7ea281db284acfb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<54AE50CB-5259-4D9E-89BD-195E37ED5765@GMAIL.COM>
	<4e3a29501003011822j7d167d18h4489c3d405e9b742@mail.gmail.com>
	<1ED50CBB-F750-48F6-8028-24E547FE4DEE@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501003021209i5be6aa7q1e236e9c66d5ff61@mail.gmail.com>

They would have to be intentionally trying to do so, but I think the
consciousness-giving parts of our brain might also all "strive" towards a
common purpose, if only in that they engage in some similar behavior that
leads to the mind.

Here is my proposed experiment.  We have two computer terminals.  One is
connected to one monitor and one keyboard; this is the observer's station.
 The other is connected to ten or so monitors and ten or so keyboards.  Both
screens display some sort of messaging program.  Each keyboard is connected
to a RNG, which randomly selects a keyboard to be the only active one after
the enter key is pressed on the currently active one to send a message.
 This could be done in a very easy, completely digital way.  Using the
internet, we could even have people operate from the comforts of their own
home.  Running this en masse online would be the best way to gather a lot of
data quickly.

The ten people forming the otherbrain are given a few rules.  They are told
that it is their goal to, without communicating amongst themselves, trick
the person on the other side into believing he is talking to a singular
person.  Each of the component people is encouraged not to espouse his or
her own ideas as to the otherbrain's personality (as this would lead to a
disjointed, obviously fake set of responses) but instead to go with the flow
in a manner of speaking and let their "person" develop.

I would argue a few things:

1. The mind will always reach an equilibrium where all ten people are able
to produce responses that fit for the particular emergent mind.  One might
even say that they do this by knowing what that mind is like, by being
familiar with its personality and reactions, though it seems to lack a locus
of awareness.

2. The experiment, when repeated with those ten people, will tend to form
similar minds.  This is hard to know because the people will get to know the
test and may produce the same character, but they should once again be
encouraged to have no preconceptions as to what the mind will be but instead
let it happen.  I find it hard to believe that the experiment would not
produce minds in at least some range of similarity.  That range would
provide some information about how those ten minds could form a consistent
one.

If anything, this would have interesting applications to psychology, group
intelligence, and even things like chaos theory (seeing if initial
directions of the otherbrain's development would sway the outcome of the
experiment.)

If anyone has experience enough to help set up this experiment, it could be
run on the internet pretty simply.  It is something I would like to do.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/c953b720/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 20:13:56 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:13:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <733998.14603.qm@web111201.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com> 
	<7641ddc61002171955i33b65d34i80dcef79dc21669b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com> 
	<568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com> 
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<580930c21003020930t33a0532s7b32441b83d5e04e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<733998.14603.qm@web111201.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003021213o60610ddex732f410bc180d180@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/2 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
> It's extraordinary to me that scientific research that provides support for
> AGW theory gets so much critical attention, yet accusations of fraud are
> accepted on this list without comment.

The accusation is plausible, the accuser has a good reputation here,
and climate science is more like an art. I know AGW is "important",
but I just can't get worked up about it enough to care about
investigating the claims.

-Dave


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 20:26:45 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:26:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Radical Life Extension and the Problem of Malthusian Hells
In-Reply-To: <201003020557.o225vpx0015328@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <201003020557.o225vpx0015328@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501003021226x16fcce08i47916da02508ed01@mail.gmail.com>

Ah, why can't people look on the bright side of things?  Faced with the
threat of said Malthusian hells, people will finally put the im in their
petus to find cheaper, larger scale agriculture and food production methods.
 Diseases will have to be reigned in in order to prevent catastrophes
associated with even denser populations.  Water retrieval methods will
improve, and perhaps the monopolistic control of water and food dispersal
will fade in the face of necessity.  And of course, most important of all,
there will be a very good reason for interplanetary colonization!

History has shown that necessity induces progress.  The agricultural
revolution was spurred by need for higher production.  Don't forget that
this pretty much started the industrial revolution--it wasn't that people
said "Hey!  Science!  Let's use this to farm better!"  They only took up new
farming tools and methods because they *needed *them to keep up.  You know:
NITMOI, NITMOI!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/af2177da/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 20:03:34 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:03:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

> > 
> > On 1 March 2010 17:48, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > ... another approach has come along 
> > > that will make energy in the "half the cost of
> coal" range 
> > and takes a 
> > > lot less front end investment. ?Spike knows what
> I am talking about.
> > 
> > Why, give us at least a few hints... :-)
> > 
> > --
> > Stefano Vaj
> 
> 
> I can't.? I already signed non-disclosure agreements,
> and I always take
> those things damn seriously.
> 
> spike
> 

The rest of us can speculate, though!

Barring new physics (and a serious failure of my imagination), there are only two, maybe three possible sources of abundant energy:  The sun, the atomic nucleus, and the heat inside our planet.  I count things like zero-point energy as new physics, because as far as I know it's about as realistic as perpetual motion machines.

So I'd guess either ground-based (or not far above it) solar energy or nuclear, either fusion or even some variety of fission.  Geothermal is probably not going to wash, 'alternative' energy (wind, wave, tidal, etc.) can't deliver enough energy to be a serious contender. Methane is doubtful, even though there's loads of it around, it's very difficult to collect, and is still a fossil fuel, so wouldn't be politically popular (not going to say anything about abiogenic methane).

My money would be on some process which makes ground-based solar energy much cheaper than at present, or one of the fringe fusion projects like the polywell or the focus fusion thing.  I don't see anything else worthy of serious attention by our two intrepid pioneers.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 20:33:16 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003021003m704bc2d3v23ef58a50f5d7cd0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8917.25253.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 3/2/10, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 1:03 PM
> On 1 March 2010 22:21, Ben Zaiboc
> <bbenzai at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > No. ?You have been repeatedly criticised for
> repeatedly contradicting yourself, making circular arguments
> and simply ignoring valid challenges to your ideas.
> 
> I would not criticise too much Gordon for the circularity
> of the
> threads concerned.
> 
> He has done nothing else than reiterating forever with
> different words
> statements as to what is "obvious" for him, in particular
> regarding
> some ineffable, ill-defined property of some organic
> brains, the
> existence of which should be an article of faith. This is
> hardly
> original or heretic, since it has been a widespread meme in
> the
> western culture for some 500 or 1000 years by now.
> 
> What I found surprising and made the debate mostly
> pointless is that
> many people has taken this stance as pertaining to a
> factual issue,
> engaging in the impossible task of "demonstrating" that
> such property
> could be replicated, something which is impossible by
> definition, and
> shows if anything how the dualistic mentality has still
> deep roots
> even in our ranks - and not just in Gordon.

Again someone mistakes me for a dualist. Amazing.

As far as I can tell, only Jeff Davis understands me on this point.

-gts


      


From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 20:10:35 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:10:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com><2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I don't know of anybody who seriously contents that global warming is a threat to the survival of the species.

But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of suffering. That's where my concern lies.



________________________________
From: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 6:48:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

If we look at the long course of human civilization and even humans before civilization, both human civilization and humans have gone through lots of drastic changes in climate. So, like you, I don't see the big deal for adapting. I suppose food production might have to change over decades to adapt to different conditions -- maybe by changing the ranges and times for crops or by changing the types of crops grown.

Also, if we just look at the last two or three centuries, we see a huge shift in where and how people live and how they get their food. This shift hasn't taken place as much in the Third World -- but that's mostly because of bad policies that can easily be changed. (How? Simply turn over policy makers and enforcers to me for re-education.)

This is, of course, assuming that global warming has merit and that at least some of the projected climatic shifts will take place.

Regards,

Dan

----- Original Message ----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 12:39:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
... 
> science isn'tsettled
> 
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling.  
> Can someone 
> > explain why the average temperature increasing by a degree 
> or two or 
> > half a degree in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its 
> > knees?  Are we really that delicate and non-adaptable?
> 
> My theory supposes linear growth of 1 degree per year 
> wouldn't be so bad if not for the anecdote about boiling a 
> frog to death... Conversely at >1 degree per year as input to my weather 
> model... The observation of <1 degree per year of temperature increase 
> to this weather model...Mike

Mike's post makes my point better than I did.  We are so very accustomed to
thinking of something per year, a few percent a year, another birthday per
year and so forth.  The climatologists are offering numbers that look like a
degree per century.  We just are not used talking about anything per
century, so confusion results.  A lot of teens somehow jump to the
stunningly illogical conclusion that this two degree change we are trying to
stop will show up in a few years or any day now since the Copenhagen flop.

This causes what I call the Russians vs Germans effect.  During WW2, the
Germans had better technology, so in the summers when the days were long and
warm, they beat back their foes and drove deep into Russia, but when the
vicious November storms hit, the German tanks were ill suited to the cold,
the tracks were glued to the ground in the freezing mud, the engines guzzled
fuel since they had to be left running to prevent freezing etc.  So in the
winter the Russians had the clear advantage, and drove the Germans all the
way back.  

In the global warming debate, the proposed change is very slow, but human
lifetimes are very short.  We end up with the global warming people, like
the Germans, having the advantage in the summer, but every winter, they give
up the ground they gained because people still die from the cold.  Then the
global warming ridiculers, like the Russians, regain lost ground.  The
battle surges back and forth every year, with tragic results.

spike


      
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/47054b7e/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 20:27:24 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] endpoint of evolution
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <502276.29073.qm@web113611.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> mused:

> so it is quite possible
> a vast majority of civilizations develop, create all the
> technologies that we think are amazing (mind uploading,
> cognitive enhancement, strong AI, etc.) and then stay inside
> their star system, with an ever increasing computational
> capacity but permanently bound to a small region of the
> Universe.
> 
> I've never put much into the Great Filter idea. Someone
> would break through somewhere. I think rapid escalation of
> subjective time of communication is far more likely. Though
> I would think some faction would want to stay thoroughly
> tied to reality, rather than dive into virtual worlds.

I'm ambivalent about the Great Filter myself, but I do think the Fermi Paradox probably tells us that the speed of light is indeed an unbreakable boundary (or that we are living inside a simulation, or that we are quarantined, or...).

I'm quite attracted to the idea that advanced civilisations would tread very lightly on the physical structure of the universe, and we are simply not able to detect them (the galaxy-spanning, ancient civilisation in Greg Egan's 'Incandescence' would be totally undetectable by us, for example), and maybe any desire to fiddle about with mega-engineering projects would soon focus on areas or scales that don't impinge on what we see in our telescopes.  Maybe there are very good reasons to live inside event horizons.  Maybe the real action is in the dark matter universe.  

From what we know of the evolution of life, it's very very doubtful that we are the only intelligences in the universe, or even this galaxy, but I don't think the Fermi Paradox is as paradoxical as it's made out to be.  I think SETI is a complete waste of time, simply from thinking about how BIG the place is.  Our radio front is like a ping-pong ball in the Black Forest.  It wouldn't surprise me if the galaxy could host thousands of highly advanced civilisations that knew nothing about one another.

All we can do is try our best to highly advance our own civilisation.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 21:05:33 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:05:33 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2E1AAB6351474D10A2ED34B4059E97C9@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson
> Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
> >
> > ...
> 
> I was reading The Spike again recently.  I can't think of 
> anything Charles Stross missed that was not covered there.  
> It really isn't dated because most of the content was so far 
> downstream...

Way agreed, The Spike contains really excellent material, highly relevant to
this day.  It is in a sense the best existing condensed version of the ExI
archives.  There are some really sexy parts in there too, such as the
material on page 86 of the 2001 edition, oohhh that is exciting.  I get so
turned on, it's better than sneaking to the back of the public library in
the 70s with the National Geographic.

That being said, I thought of a better way (than on p. 86 of The Spike) to
describe in a thought experiment how fast the largest known prime number is
increasing in size:

An alien spacecraft lands on Earth.  The alien recognizes the surface upon
which she has landed as a living entity, and so wishes to figure out what is
the scale of the life forms found thereon.  The entity has a mass of about 1
microgram, and concludes this is the scale of life on earth, but two minutes
later it recognizes that this life form is actually an indivual skin cell on
the surface of another larger lifeform, a verroa mite which has a mass of a
milligram, so the spacecraft's inhabitants conclude that the largest life
forms on earth are three orders of magnitude greater than originally
thought, but two minutes later it recognizes the mite is on the surface of a
bumblebee with mass three orders of magnitude greater still, one gram, but
two minutes later the alien recognizes the bumblebee is taking a rest on the
back of a raven with a mass of a kilogram, then two minutes after that,
recognizes that the raven is perched on the back of a bison with a mass of
1000 kilgrams, and two minutes later recognizes that the million kilogram
structure next to the bison, a column of cellulose with green material
attached, is a lifeform itself.  

So in ten minutes from the identification of the cell as alive, the largest
known (to the alien) life form has gone from a microgram to a milligram to a
gram to a kilogram to a megagram to a gigagram, from single cell to the
giant redwood tree, fifteen orders of magnitude in ten minutes or an average
of an order of magnitude very 40 seconds.

Like the scale of earth's life from the point of view of the alien, the size
of the largest known prime number has been increasing in size at this rate
for the past fifteen years, an order of magnitude about every 40 seconds,
requiring a new prefix every two minutes, more or less steadily since the
formation of GIMPS in 1995.  This analysis is actually on the conservative
side, as the growth rate is actually slightly faster than that, and
accelerating.

Oooh, sexxxy.  {8^D  pant pant.

Damien feel free to use the above in any future addition of The Spike.  I
would be honored sir if you do.

> > ...
> 
> It's not my idea.  Spike is under an NDA on this as well but 
> he can express an opinion as to its technical merits...Keith

This too I choose to withhold for now.  I do not wish to be kept awake at
night worrying if I accidentally revealed anything under which I am
obligated by an NDA.  I mean this not only from a legal standpoint, but
rather primarily from an ethical and moral point of view.  

I am no copyleft fan, rather I fully recognize the value of protecting
intellectual property.  I can see a world in which everything of real value
is information.  I treat every comment uttered by Keith on the phone or in
person as covered by NDA.  Until I see it posted online by him in a public
forum such as this, I refrain from comment.

But I won't send you away completely empty handed:  It's cool.  {8-]

Those of you who haven't read The Spike, do so forthwith, then return here
and let us start a discussion thereupon.  Those of you who have read it, do
let us start a discussion thereupon.

Final note: Damien did not name his book after me, he had the title The
Spike before he ever heard of me.  {8-]

spike





From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 21:10:03 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:10:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?
In-Reply-To: <972456.27246.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <180977.5020.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:

> To me, physicalism just means, in terms of mind, that
> mental processes _supervene_ on physical ones.
> 
> I'm not sure this supports dualism or what you mean by a
> dualism that would be supported by it. I know there are
> non-reductive physicalists, such as Louise Antony and
> Josephy Levine (or they were a few years ago when they
> published an essay defending this position against the likes
> of Kim:). Is that dualist? They don't seem to think so --
> save that they seem to mean mind has a domain of autonomy,
> but what does that mean in ontological terms?

In general I support non-reductive physicalism.

I believe dualists make a mistake when they conclude that because mental phenomena seem irreducible to physics, those phenomena must represent either non-physical properties of matter or a substance completely foreign to matter. 

We can quite easily reduce mental phenomena epistemically without reducing the same phenomena ontologically. I mean here that we can understand mental phenomena in scientific terms of neurological causes and effects without abandoning the common sense notion that mental phenomena have an irreducibly subjective ontology. 

Confusion arises about this subject only because when we consider anything aside from consciousness, we do *both* an epistemic and an ontological reduction. 

-gts





      


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 21:11:05 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:11:05 -0500
Subject: [ExI] endpoint of evolution
In-Reply-To: <502276.29073.qm@web113611.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<502276.29073.qm@web113611.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003021311of3d8b9cyc9ac1fbaf3b47f39@mail.gmail.com>

>
> I'm ambivalent about the Great Filter myself, but I do think the Fermi
> Paradox probably tells us that the speed of light is indeed an unbreakable
> boundary (or that we are living inside a simulation, or that we are
> quarantined, or...).
>
>
One possibility I've been thinking about lately is that working out the
details of how two sentient species should make first contact is very
difficult.  Even an exchange of scientific knowledge could be disastrous
under the right circumstances.  Maybe for that reason it's best to stay in
your own neck of the woods.

-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/1d8952ac/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 20:51:37 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Energy Hints
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <412354.41906.qm@web113613.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

There's this:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24665/

Ben Zaiboc


      


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Tue Mar  2 21:19:58 2010
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:19:58 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando - and other recommendations, too
In-Reply-To: <4B8D3DEF.1060504@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1718.1267487952.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003011942n212247dcv4cbd4d34d01b6d71@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8C9152.1050404@satx.rr.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021516590.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<4B8D3DEF.1060504@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021806520.32172@tau.ceti.pl>

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Damien Broderick wrote:

> On 3/2/2010 9:07 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> 
> > Sometimes it seems strange to me that he did not get much publicity here
> > (or that he got no pub at all, actually).
> 
> Lem is well known among sf scholars, but his work is mostly too cerebral for

"SF scholars", that's the problem. I have long stopped thinking of Lem as 
of sf writer. He has just dressed his tales about human condition in such 
costume. To treat him as sf writer is, I think, like saying that Aesop was 
a zoologist :-).

Well, I am not suggesting you have any trouble with understanding that. 
But there is some kind of misunderstanding about Lem-sf connection.

> the mass market readers of adventures-in-space.

Yes, those guys expect something that Lem could not give to them. Or 
rather, his priorities were different. I am sure he would have been able 
to satisfy masses but I am happy he did otherwise.

> Kandel's translations are
> indeed brilliant. SOLARIS has of course been made into two movies (neither
> especially effective in my view, although the Tarkovsky is famous for its
> moody cinematography).

>From what Lem himself have said, he wasn't very fond of neither version. 
Even thou I still have to see Tarkovsky's Solaris, I am willing to believe 
him (but I want to watch and have my own opinion on this). As of 
Soderbergh's one, well, Natascha McE shines (sure, I like her as a woman) 
but the rest is just a shadow of the book. Actually, I have been signaled 
(thanks, Daniel Ust) that English translation of Solaris is (probably) a 
shadow of itself. Funny, kind of "a shadow in, a shadow out" case. BTW, 
I've just learned from wikipedia that there was another Solaris, back in 
1968 by Boris Nirenburg. Never heard of it before. Interesting.

I myself (and I am not alone in this, if I can be a judge) think the best 
film adaptations of Lem were those made with lower funds. Things like:

- "Przekladaniec" ("Layer Cake", by Adrzej Wajda, 1968) - this is so cool, 
so... Lemish!

- "Test pilota Pirxa" ("Test of Pirx the Pilot" [?], joint 
Polish/Russian/Estonian/Ukrainian production by Marek Piestrak, 1978) - 
while some people laugh at cheap special effects, I like to look deeper 
into this and concentrate on depiction of humanity test, which is the 
subject here (and not some hurried action with blowups and gadgets). As 
such, the film is similar to the famous "Blade Runner" masterpiece. It is 
based on "The Inquest" short story from "Tales of Pirx the Pilot".

Ah, Solaris-the-movie - I was sure someone would mention it :-) . I have 
this strange impression, that sf cinema is going down along kind of "toy 
story for children of ages 0-100" way. There are few notable exceptions, 
like once or twice in a decade. If we talk about mainstream and anybody 
reading this cared and was interested, I would suggest comparing 
I-robot-the-movie with Asimov's original. Not that there is much to 
compare on the one side.

So, I think the case of sf movies is the case of lost opportunity. 
Especially when one thinks that film is so much different medium than a 
book. Indeed, it requires a master to make use of a medium.

> I cite Lem at several key points in THE SPIKE, and "Golem XIV" remains
> astonishingly good as a treatment of a self-augmenting AI that
> transcends/sublimes.

Yes, being astonishingly good as time goes by, that's the proof mark of 
Lem's writings. But, considering how much his writings relied on science 
and technology' state of the art, what does it tell of us mortals?

As of THE SPIKE, I will keep it in mind ;-).

> Alas, SUMMA TECHNOLOGIAE has never been translated in
> full into English.

Oh, fawk. This is a real pity. I didn't know. It's like building an arc of 
stones and "forgeting" to put the closing stone in place - and 
consequently, messing the whole. Shame on you, US market, shame!

Somehow, however, I am not that much surprised. I would say, it fits into 
a bigger picture.

> I recall that an enthusiast started to translate some key
> chapters and put them on the net a decade or so back, but I've lost track of
> that attempt.

Seems like he is stuck a little... Hard to judge, but I mean, you mean 
this, right?

http://www.fprengel.de/Lem/Summa/contents.htm

I think this effort is worth a closer look.

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 dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 21:03:54 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:03:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com><2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I was merely responding to the "bring civilization to its knees" comment made earlier. And I do not mean to make light of the fact that any disruption in ecosystems might cause suffering -- to humans and non-humans. But my point was more that such disruptions have happened before and ask why this alledged one is different and needs special attention? (I use "alleged" because there's much uncertainty here -- and the doom and gloom predictions have often not panned out. This is even leaving aside the "climategate" scandal.)

Let's turn this around: What do you think is the case here? What do think will happen? What do you think should be done?

Regards,

Dan


From: Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 3:10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled


I don't know of anybody who seriously contents that global warming is a threat to the survival of the species.

But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of suffering. That's where my concern lies.


From: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 6:48:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

If we look at the long course of human civilization and even humans before civilization, both human civilization and humans have gone through lots of drastic changes in climate. So, like you, I don't see the big deal for adapting. I suppose food production might have to change over decades to adapt to different conditions -- maybe by changing the ranges and times for crops or by changing the types of crops grown.

Also, if we just look at the last two or three centuries, we see a huge shift in where and how people live and how they get their food. This shift hasn't taken place as much in the Third World -- but that's mostly because of bad policies that can easily be changed. (How? Simply turn over policy makers and enforcers to me for re-education.)

This is, of course, assuming that global warming has merit and that at least some of the projected climatic shifts will take place.

Regards,

Dan

----- Original Message ----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 12:39:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
... 
> science isn'tsettled
> 
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling. ?
> Can someone 
> > explain why the average temperature increasing by a degree 
> or two or 
> > half a degree in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its 
> > knees? ?Are we really that delicate and non-adaptable?
> 
> My theory supposes linear growth of 1 degree per year 
> wouldn't be so bad if not for the anecdote about boiling a 
> frog to death... Conversely at >1 degree per year as input to my weather 
> model... The observation of <1 degree per year of temperature increase 
> to this weather model...Mike

Mike's post makes my point better than I did.? We are so very accustomed to
thinking of something per year, a few percent a year, another birthday per
year and so forth.? The climatologists are offering numbers that look like a
degree per century.? We just are not used talking about anything per
century, so confusion results.? A lot of teens somehow jump to the
stunningly illogical conclusion that this two degree change we are trying to
stop will show up in a few years or any day now since the Copenhagen flop.

This causes what I call the Russians vs Germans effect.? During WW2, the
Germans had better technology, so in the summers when the days were long and
warm, they beat back their foes and drove deep into Russia, but when the
vicious November storms hit, the German tanks were ill suited to the cold,
the tracks were glued to the ground in the freezing mud, the engines guzzled
fuel since they had to be left running to prevent freezing etc.? So in the
winter the Russians had the clear advantage, and drove the Germans all the
way back.? 

In the global warming debate, the proposed change is very slow, but human
lifetimes are very short.? We end up with the global warming people, like
the Germans, having the advantage in the summer, but every winter, they give
up the ground they gained because people still die from the cold.? Then the
global warming ridiculers, like the Russians, regain lost ground.? The
battle surges back and forth every year, with tragic results.

spike


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/4877ab2a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 21:30:47 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:30:47 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com><e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com><2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike><217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl><e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com><cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com><ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>

 
________________________________

	From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis
	Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
	

		>>Unfortunately these users develop an attention span of 160
characters...
		

	>Is that necessarily bad or is it one of those things that 'just
is', like languages changing over time?  Maybe the people that are observed
to have 'shortened' attention spans already had short... Jeff Davis (the new
one)

Welcome Jeff!

Yes it is necessarily a bad thing.  I whacked off your comment at 160
characters, after giving the spaces for free.  I and plenty of others have
concluded that real thoughts cannot be adequately expressed in 160 character
tweets.  It is a fine medium for HOW R U, and most of what passes today for
political commentary, but this evanescent medium is inadequate for anything
that interests me.  So I have refused to tweet.

I am quick to point out that you are a different Jeff Davis from the well
known and loved long time ExI poster here.  Have you a nickname?  Have you
proposal for how we differentiate you from our veteran poster Jeff Davis?  I
think it unwise for the two of you to share a handle.

In any case, welcome sir!  Do tell us something, anything, (if you wish)
about the new Jeff Davis please, such as where are you from, what turns you
on intellectually, etc.

spike

{8-] 



From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 22:25:01 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] endpoint of evolution
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003021311of3d8b9cyc9ac1fbaf3b47f39@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<502276.29073.qm@web113611.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<cb794c521003021311of3d8b9cyc9ac1fbaf3b47f39@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <374806.9312.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Neil deGrasse Tyson was on John Stewart last night and made much a similarly sobering observation (towards the end of the clip).

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-1-2010/neil-degrasse-tyson



________________________________
From: Jeff Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 1:11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] endpoint of evolution




>I'm ambivalent about the Great Filter myself, but I do think the Fermi Paradox probably tells us that the speed of light is indeed an unbreakable boundary (or that we are living inside a simulation, or that we are quarantined, or...).
>
>

One possibility I've been thinking about lately is that working out the details of how two sentient species should make first contact is very difficult.  Even an exchange of scientific knowledge could be disastrous under the right circumstances.  Maybe for that reason it's best to stay in your own neck of the woods.
 -- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers. We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/d2c00973/attachment.html>

From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 22:27:39 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:27:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003021427w5d513fc8ge0dbe2e273434cd5@mail.gmail.com>

>
> Welcome Jeff!
>
> Yes it is necessarily a bad thing.  I whacked off your comment at 160
> characters, after giving the spaces for free.  I and plenty of others have
> concluded that real thoughts cannot be adequately expressed in 160
> character
> tweets.  It is a fine medium for HOW R U, and most of what passes today for
> political commentary, but this evanescent medium is inadequate for anything
> that interests me.  So I have refused to tweet.
>


We still have other mediums of communication.  A lot of what needs to be
said can
be said under such limitations.  If people don't feel the need to express
themselves
in more than 160 characters maybe the problem is that they don't have
anything to say
that requires more space.  After reading some of the drivel people post on
Myspace I'm thankful
for the brevity.

I don't want to be stuck in the position of an old dinosaur that's still
sitting around using
e-mail for everything when everyone else has moved on.  :-)

Any way you look at it, mailing lists are in a state of decline because
e-mail is becoming less
popular as a medium.



> I am quick to point out that you are a different Jeff Davis from the well
> known and loved long time ExI poster here.  Have you a nickname?  Have you
> proposal for how we differentiate you from our veteran poster Jeff Davis?
>  I
> think it unwise for the two of you to share a handle.
>


I changed my display name to a fuller version which should help with that
problem.

Being a doppleganger is the curse of my existence.  I'm always running into
situations
with multiple Jeffs, getting mail for the several other Jeff Davis's in my
city, and being
told I look like someone else.  A local meetup group I participate in now
has 3 different
Jeffs despite never drawing a crowd of more than 10 people on average.




>
> In any case, welcome sir!  Do tell us something, anything, (if you wish)
> about the new Jeff Davis please, such as where are you from, what turns you
> on intellectually, etc.
>

I'm 30 years old, male, married, and from an intellectually backwards
mid-sized Ohio
city.

I love discussing big ideas.  Traditionally the go-to person for discussing
'big ideas' has
been the local priest, but over time I've discovered priests are completely
ill-equipped
to deal with the kinds of questions I consider important and thus I've lost
most interest in religion.
They have much less to say on the possibility of godlike AI than they do
say, marriage counseling
which I'm not in need of.  The last one had never even heard of World Of
Warcraft and didn't
know about the affluence gap between Facebook and Myspace.  Hard to take
such a person seriously.

One notable thing about me is that I'm entirely body-negative.  It's not
*my* body I have a problem with,
overall, all human bodies have their issues.  It's the very idea of being
embodied.  The only 'I' that has
any meaning for me is my mind, and having it trapped in a very fragile body
is an accident waiting to happen,
like putting an egg in a cement mixer.  I don't identify with my body at
all.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/3c2fd37c/attachment.html>

From wood.sarah.m at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 22:01:51 2010
From: wood.sarah.m at gmail.com (Sarah Wood)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:01:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
Message-ID: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>

Hello all -
Having barely dipped my toes in the murky waters of transhumanism, I  
have a request. I would like to know what are, in your opinion, the  
(three? five?) most important foundational texts that one should read  
to become versed in the basic principles and vocabulary of the subject.

Please forgive (and redirect) me if this is not the appropriate forum.

Sarah







From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 22:19:21 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com><2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

> Let's turn this around: What do you think is the case here? What do think will 
> happen? What do you think should be done?


I think that there will probably be some fairly serious ecological disruptions over the next several decades; the root issues will be sea level rise and ecosystem disruption. Sea level rise has obvious consequences, not just for the people and agriculture displaced, but for the people uphill--imagine a few million starving Bangladeshis overwhelming your border, for example. Beyond sea level, the other changes are generally tied to weather system disruption, and result in threats to water security, crop failures and changes in migratory patters (for fish, game and fowl). 

If the ecological changes are a real possibility, and most climatologists think they are, there's actually probably not that much that can be done about it. I mean, we shouldn't just say to hell with it and double down on greenhouse gas emission, but it's not like we can just turn the thermostat down once we agree to. The recent and rapid changes in Arctic ice cover alone are probably enough to eventually cause or contribute to some fairly serious climate disruptions, and there probably isn't anything that can be done about it.

So what do we do?

- Develop cheap, renewable, and distributed sources of energy. We need electrification of the developing world to happen the way communication technology is spreading--not with massive infrastructure projects (e.g. land lines), but by developing inexpensive, individually-ownable, mass-producible systems (e.g. cell phones). Wind, solar, fuel cell, hydrodynamic, whatever--power to the people, literally, and power they can take with them if they have to move around.
- Continue the already promising development of crops that are resistant to various environmental risks (e.g. drought-resistant grains, salt-resistant rice, etc). Agriculture they can take with them if they have to move around.
- Water security is a very serious concern. Given the proximity of most of the world's population to oceans that are probably coming up to meet them, I'd say investment in (small, distributable) desalinization technology would probably be a good move as well.
- Encourage economic development and education. This is what will create cultures of people who can be self-sufficient and adaptable even in trying times.

Those are the types of things that I think ought to happen. I'm not suggesting who's responsible, who should pay for them, who should execute them.

I also think that those types of developments, should they happen, would turn out to be a boon if in fact no GW scenarios come to pass.

Thanks for asking.




________________________________
From: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 1:03:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled


I was merely responding to the "bring civilization to its knees" comment made earlier. And I do not mean to make light of the fact that any disruption in ecosystems might cause suffering -- to humans and non-humans. But my point was more that such disruptions have happened before and ask why this alledged one is different and needs special attention? (I use "alleged" because there's much uncertainty here -- and the doom and gloom predictions have often not panned out. This is even leaving aside the "climategate" scandal.)
 
Let's turn this around: What do you think is the case here? What do think will happen? What do you think should be done?
 
Regards,
 
Dan


From: Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 3:10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled


I don't know of anybody who seriously contents that global warming is a threat to the survival of the species.

But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of suffering. That's where my concern lies.


From: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 6:48:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

If we look at the long course of human civilization and even humans before civilization, both human civilization and humans have gone through lots of drastic changes in climate. So, like you, I don't see the big deal for adapting. I suppose food production might have to change over decades to adapt to different conditions -- maybe by changing the ranges and times for crops or by changing the types of crops grown.

Also, if we just look at the last two or three centuries, we see a huge shift in where and how people live and how they get their food. This shift hasn't taken place as much in the Third World -- but that's mostly because of bad policies that can easily be changed. (How? Simply turn over policy makers and enforcers to me for re-education.)

This is, of course, assuming that global warming has merit and that at least some of the projected climatic shifts will take place.

Regards,

Dan

----- Original Message ----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 12:39:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
... 
> science isn'tsettled
> 
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling.  
> Can someone 
> > explain why the average temperature increasing by a degree 
> or two or 
> > half a degree in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its 
> > knees?  Are we really that delicate and non-adaptable?
> 
> My theory supposes linear growth of 1 degree per year 
> wouldn't be so bad if not for the anecdote about boiling a 
> frog to death... Conversely at >1 degree per year as input to my weather 
> model... The observation of <1 degree per year of temperature increase 
> to this weather model...Mike

Mike's post makes my point better than I did.  We are so very accustomed to
thinking of something per year, a few percent a year, another birthday per
year and so forth.  The climatologists are offering numbers that look like a
degree per century.  We just are not used talking about anything per
century, so confusion results.  A lot of teens somehow jump to the
stunningly illogical conclusion that this two degree change we are trying to
stop will show up in a few years or any day now since the Copenhagen flop.

This causes what I call the Russians vs Germans effect.  During WW2, the
Germans had better technology, so in the summers when the days were long and
warm, they beat back their foes and drove deep into Russia, but when the
vicious November storms hit, the German tanks were ill suited to the cold,
the tracks were glued to the ground in the freezing mud, the engines guzzled
fuel since they had to be left running to prevent freezing etc.  So in the
winter the Russians had the clear advantage, and drove the Germans all the
way back.  

In the global warming debate, the proposed change is very slow, but human
lifetimes are very short.  We end up with the global warming people, like
the Germans, having the advantage in the summer, but every winter, they give
up the ground they gained because people still die from the cold.  Then the
global warming ridiculers, like the Russians, regain lost ground.  The
battle surges back and forth every year, with tragic results.

spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/51e23c44/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 23:03:48 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 23:03:48 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003021503j532ee265ob9d365684f126d95@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Sarah Wood  wrote:
> Having barely dipped my toes in the murky waters of transhumanism, I have a
> request. I would like to know what are, in your opinion, the (three? five?)
> most important foundational texts that one should read to become versed in
> the basic principles and vocabulary of the subject.
>
>

I'll have a go.

What is transhumanism?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism>

The Principles of Extropy
<http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm>

Transhumanist Declaration
Transhumanist Values
Transhumanist FAQ
<http://humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy>

If you want books to read, then try these:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transhumanist_books>

And, of course, the most excellent 'The Spike' by Damien Broderick.


Best wishes, BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 23:26:09 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:26:09 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003021427w5d513fc8ge0dbe2e273434cd5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com><2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike><217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl><e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com><cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com><ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com><cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com><B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>
	<cb794c521003021427w5d513fc8ge0dbe2e273434cd5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2933A9D10E434718A03CCD3D031A580E@spike>

 


________________________________

	From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery P.
Davis
	Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 2:28 PM
	To: ExI chat list
	Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat

		Welcome Jeff!
		
...
	
	> I don't want to be stuck in the position of an old dinosaur that's
still sitting around using e-mail for everything when everyone else has
moved on.  :-)


Dont worry Jeffery, you won't be left behind.  This kind of forum creates an
archive that can be very useful many years down the road.  Twitter and some
of these other fora don't really do that, and it's a good thing they don't.

	
	> Any way you look at it, mailing lists are in a state of decline
because e-mail is becoming less popular as a medium...

It has its enduring value, analgous to telephones today.

	>...I changed my display name to a fuller version which should help
with that problem...

Ja it does.  Another of our Jeffs signs -Jef, so I assume that is why he
does that, to prevent being conflated with Jeff Davis the first.

	
	>...Being a doppleganger is the curse of my existence.  I'm always
running into situations with multiple Jeffs, getting mail for the several
other Jeff Davis's in my city...

In this case it is good, for we hold both of our other two Jeffs in high
esteem.  Can we call you Jeffery?  Then we have Jef, Jeff and Jeffery.  I
know how it goes with common names.  I am Greg Jones, so nearly 30 yrs ago I
became Spike Jones.  Then later I found out there was a proto-Weird Al
Yankovich sort from the 1950s who had that name.  Doh! 


	>...and being told I look like someone else...

Me too, Jimmy Stewart.  I am deeply flattered by that, since Stewart is one
of my all time favorite actors, and also a fine person off the set.  There
was a most hilarious skit on the short-lived Dana Carvey show in which
Stewart was a guest star.  He dressed up as Dana Carvey and Carvey dressed
up as Stewart, then they played each other in a skit in which the
star-struck Carvey played by Stewart was interviewing the veteran actor
Stewart, played by Carvey.  The Stewart character suggests to the young
actor an exercise in which the actors play each other.  So now Stewart is
dressed as Carvey, playing himself, and Carvey is doing likewise.  That was
cutting edge comedy twenty years ago, and is still hilarious.

We have a lady who occasionally posts here who is a body double for Sandra
Bullock.  


		>>...In any case, welcome sir!  Do tell us something,
anything, (if you wish)...


	>...I'm 30 years old, male, married, and from an intellectually
backwards mid-sized Ohio city...

Part of my youth was misspent in Ironton Ohio, coal country. 
	
	>...I love discussing big ideas...

Sound like you have come to the right place.  Do read this at your
convenience, as it is still the best outline of what we are about here:

http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm


  >...Traditionally the go-to person for discussing 'big ideas' has been the
local priest...

Indeed?

>...but over time I've discovered priests are completely ill-equipped to
deal with the kinds of questions I consider important and thus I've lost
most interest in religion...

Same here, with the long painful process of becoming a flaming atheist
reaching completion when I was about the age you are now.


	>... didn't know about the affluence gap between Facebook and
Myspace.  Hard to take such a person seriously...

Uhoh, I am sooo not hip.  Do explain the affluence gap between Facebook and
Myspace.  I refuse to participate in either, but didn't realize one was for
rich and other for poor.  Is that what you meant?

spike






From max at maxmore.com  Tue Mar  2 23:39:46 2010
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:39:46 -0600
Subject: [ExI] META: Overposting, and warning of potential topic moratorium
Message-ID: <201003022339.o22NdwSI000654@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

I have sent one warming of overposting. Please watch the volume of 
your posts and be sure not to exceed 8 in any 24-hour period.

Also: In response to suggestions from list members -- in agreement 
with my own sense about what is needed to maintain interest in this 
List -- I was about to declare a temporary moratorium on posts 
related to the consciousness/identity/Searle discussion. However, it 
appears to have died down over the last day or so. If it flares up 
again, I *will* be imposing a moratorium of at least two weeks.

Thank you,

Max More
Extropy-Chat Moderator


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



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  2 23:41:21 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:41:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B15CDAE45A0A4DDA8A3DCAF359F377EF@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of 
> Sarah Wood
> Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
> 
> ...I would like to know what 
> are, in your opinion, the (three? five?) most important 
> foundational texts that one should read to become versed in 
> the basic principles and vocabulary of the subject.
> 
> Please forgive (and redirect) me if this is not the appropriate forum.
> 
> Sarah

Welcome Sarah!

These are all older works, but you wanted foundation texts, so I would
nominate in this order: 

1.  Extropian Principles:

http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm

2.  The Spike, by Damien Broderick, who hangs out here,

3.  The Selfish Gene by Dawkins

4.  Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler

and for space 5, perhaps an old personal favorite: Godel Escher Bach, an
Eternal Golden Braid by Hofstadter.

Feel free to tell us something about you.

spike




From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 23:56:23 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:56:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <2933A9D10E434718A03CCD3D031A580E@spike>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>
	<cb794c521003021427w5d513fc8ge0dbe2e273434cd5@mail.gmail.com>
	<2933A9D10E434718A03CCD3D031A580E@spike>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003021556t4f1ac48wbfb62bafab7f8fee@mail.gmail.com>

>        > Any way you look at it, mailing lists are in a state of decline
> because e-mail is becoming less popular as a medium...
>
> It has its enduring value, analgous to telephones today.
>


Well of course *we* think that, given that we're using e-mail to conduct
this
discussion.  The question is whether up-and-coming generations feel that
way.

It seems to me the need to have an e-mail address is slowly going away.
I've encountered
an increasing number of sites that ask you to link a facebook account rather
than authenticate an
e-mail address.

I don't even know the e-mail address of a lot of people I interact with
frequently online, it's just never come up.
I've never asked and they've never offered.



>
> In this case it is good, for we hold both of our other two Jeffs in high
> esteem.  Can we call you Jeffery?  Then we have Jef, Jeff and Jeffery.  I
> know how it goes with common names.  I am Greg Jones, so nearly 30 yrs ago
> I
> became Spike Jones.  Then later I found out there was a proto-Weird Al
> Yankovich sort from the 1950s who had that name.  Doh!
>


You can call me whatever you want, just don't call me late for dinner!

<rimshot>

I actually don't have any particular attachment to my name, either.  If it
wasn't
such a hassle I'd probably change my name about as often as I change my
e-mail
address...once every 2-3 years.  It's kind of strange people have particular
attachments
to names that were given to them by others.


Uhoh, I am sooo not hip.  Do explain the affluence gap between Facebook and
> Myspace.  I refuse to participate in either, but didn't realize one was for
> rich and other for poor.  Is that what you meant?
>


One can't be expected to know *everything* about internet culture, of
course.  It's
a general ignorance I was lamenting, considering how internet culture is
starting to drive
popular culture.

Facebook is frequented by a more affluent audience that fled from Myspace
when the former
became open-registration.  Myspace is now primarily frequented by black
urban youth and
poor whites.  You might even argue the Myspace exodus was a form of white
flight as the medium
became more popular with black youth.  Vast simplification, but that's
basically how the cards fall.
You see a lot of upper middle-class folks on Facebook of the kind you almost
never found on myspace.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/3f0eface/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Mar  3 00:19:49 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:19:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100302191949.hijatboao4skkgwk@webmail.natasha.cc>

Welcome to the list Sarah.

Thank you for asking this question.?

Here are my suggestions:

1.? The Wikipedia article  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism[1] is a fairly good  
summary; however, it does have some flaws. The two flaws that stand  
out are that it skims over, very quickly, the philosophical beginnings  
of transhumanism and that its historical summation is not completely  
accurate.

2. "Transhumanism - Towards a Futurist Philosophy"  
http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm[2] is the essential reading.

3.? "The Global Spiral" special issue on transhumanism  
-?"Transhumanism Answers Its Critics" is, in my opinion,  
quintessential reading for anyone wanting to know about  
transhumanism!? It explains transhumanism by responding to specific  
criticisms of several high-profile academics.? Here is the  
introduction:  
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10693/Default.aspx[3]?  
?I especially like "True Transhumanism"  
http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/10685/Default.aspx[4]  
and "Trite Truths About Technology: A Reply to Ted Peters"  
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10681/Default.aspx[5]?  
(You can easily search on this site for the each transhumanist's  
responsive paper, which?is listed in the?introduction.)

4.? Two Transhumanist FAQs:? http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm[6]? and  
http://humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/faq[7]

5.? And last but not least!? Transhumanism is about people and  
culture.? This is a worn-out site in dire need to upgrading, but it  
has legs:? http://www.transhuman.org/[8]? and the arts, of course:?  
http://www.transhumanist.biz/[9]

I suggest all of these because they provide a diverse set of ideas  
within transhumanism.? I especially suggest the Metanexus collection  
published in January of 2009 because they include criticisms and  
responses to criticisms in a thought-provoking way, rather than just  
reading a Declaration or Manifesto.

Best,

Natasha
Natasha Vita-More[10]

Quoting Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com>:

> Hello all -
> Having barely dipped my toes in the murky waters of transhumanism, I
> have a request. I would like to know what are, in your opinion, the
> (three? five?) most important foundational texts that one should read
> to become versed in the basic principles and vocabulary of the subject.
>
> Please forgive (and redirect) me if this is not the appropriate forum.
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat[11]


Links:
------
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
[2] http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm
[3] http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10693/Default.aspx
[4] http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/10685/Default.aspx
[5] http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10681/Default.aspx
[6] http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm
[7] http://humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/faq
[8] http://www.transhuman.org/
[9] http://www.transhumanist.biz/
[10] http://www.natasha.cc
[11] http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/ab397f48/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 00:21:06 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:21:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003021556t4f1ac48wbfb62bafab7f8fee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com> 
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com> 
	<B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>
	<cb794c521003021427w5d513fc8ge0dbe2e273434cd5@mail.gmail.com> 
	<2933A9D10E434718A03CCD3D031A580E@spike>
	<cb794c521003021556t4f1ac48wbfb62bafab7f8fee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003021621m52fb7e96x946afd4ee69d127f@mail.gmail.com>

Welcome, Jeffery!

2010/3/2 Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:
>
>> ? ? ?? > Any way you look at it, mailing lists are in a state of decline
>> because e-mail is becoming less popular as a medium...
>>
>> It has its enduring value, analgous to telephones today.
>
>
> Well of course *we* think that, given that we're using e-mail to conduct
> this
> discussion.? The question is whether up-and-coming generations feel that
> way.

E-mail isn't "cool", but neither is electricity. I'm with Spike on the
continuing usefulness of e-mail.

> It seems to me the need to have an e-mail address is slowly going away.
> I've encountered
> an increasing number of sites that ask you to link a facebook account rather
> than authenticate an
> e-mail address.

I'll be a cold day in hell before I give a site access to my Facebook account.

> I don't even know the e-mail address of a lot of people I interact with
> frequently online, it's just never come up.
> I've never asked and they've never offered.

So what do you use for private point-to-point e-comm? Text messaging?
Facebook mail? Neither holds a candle to e-mail.

> Facebook is frequented by a more affluent audience that fled from Myspace
> when the former
> became open-registration.? Myspace is now primarily frequented by black
> urban youth and
> poor whites.? You might even argue the Myspace exodus was a form of white
> flight as the medium
> became more popular with black youth.? Vast simplification, but that's
> basically how the cards fall.
> You see a lot of upper middle-class folks on Facebook of the kind you almost
> never found on myspace.

Curious, given that both are free... I started with Myspace but never
really liked it. When I found Facebook, I never looked back. Still
don't rely on it heavily, though.

-Dave


From wood.sarah.m at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 00:03:13 2010
From: wood.sarah.m at gmail.com (Sarah Wood)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:03:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <B15CDAE45A0A4DDA8A3DCAF359F377EF@spike>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
	<B15CDAE45A0A4DDA8A3DCAF359F377EF@spike>
Message-ID: <1347A2B9-03EB-4F1D-A3EB-29C52663A9FD@gmail.com>



On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:41 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Feel free to tell us something about you.

Thank you. I live in South Florida, where it is currently 72 degrees  
with a lovely ocean breeze. I work for a small publishing company,  
editing several periodicals pertaining to military vehicles.

And in the interest of sparking further discussion, I will share with  
you the reading recommondations made to me by one of my former  
professors with whom I still keep in touch:

Sure! Ranges from the modestly sane to the totally wacky. Also this is  
a topic where it's hard to tell what's "plausible fiction" and what's  
"implausible nonfiction".

Ray Kurzweil is a major presence in transhumanism discussions. You  
could read his Age of Spiritual Machines and move on to The  
Singularity Is Near. If you want the short version on the Singularity,  
sometimes known as "the geek version of the Rapture", read Vernor  
Vinge's online essay that invented the term and the concept:http:// 
mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html. Kevin Kelly's Out of Control is  
another book on singularity-type ideas, much more skeptical or  
concerned. If you want out and out skepticism, read Bill Joy's online  
manifesto, "The Future Doesn't Need Us", which is all over the place.

Simon Young's Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto, is a good  
overview of "polemical transhumanism", e.g., people who advocate  
transhumanism as a political and scientific objective. Kurzweil is  
also a promoter of transhumanism, but Vinge isn't necessarily: his  
idea about the Singularity is that it's inevitable but that the  
precise nature of its transformations are by nature unpredictable.

Hans Moravec is a kind of transhumanist founder--he's a roboticist who  
taught at CMU for many years and promoted the idea of uploading our  
consciousness into what he called "bush robots", meaning robots that  
would not have humanoid forms (and therefore would not limit our  
capabilities or possibilities to what he sees as the clumsiness of the  
humanoid form).

Francis Fukuyama, the moderately well-known conservative figure who  
became a darling in the waning years of the Reagan Revolution for his  
argument that we had reached the "end of history" past which no  
possible alternatives to liberal democracy could ever present  
themselves, wrote a surprising and rather odd book about transhumanism  
called Our Posthuman Future, in which he suddenly perceives  
transhumanism as the one thing which could trump liberal democracy,  
not entirely in a good way. I wouldn't start with it, but if you're  
sufficiently interested, it's worth a look.

Transhumanist stuff dovetails with the literature on nanotechnology,  
AI and genetic engineering at some point or another--but that's  
another difference between transhumanists of various kinds, namely,  
which technology they tend to favor or see as critical to the project  
of transhumanism. Anyway, you can follow the path into those  
literatures and find a lot of transhumanist-oriented work as well as  
some more skeptical or hostile views of transhumanism.

There's some influential science fiction on the subject, too: William  
Gibson, Bruce Sterling and Charles Stross most notably. Stross' recent  
novel Accelerando is practically a guided tour of work on  
transhumanism and complexity theory. Vinge's Rainbow's End is another  
good work in the genre. I also liked John Wright's The Golden Age, but  
it's less closely tied into the literature on transhumanism.

Take a look at YouTube or his own site of the work of the performance  
artist Stelarc, who is a transhumanist.

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com>  
wrote:
Do you have any reading recommendations? I thought you might have some  
stuff from your History of the Future course.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/e5b4e6b4/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 00:29:27 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:29:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <20100302191949.hijatboao4skkgwk@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com> 
	<20100302191949.hijatboao4skkgwk@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003021629j10d4a700w432eb8cdb325cc03@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/2  <natasha at natasha.cc>:
>
> 1.? The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism is a
> fairly good summary; however, it does have some flaws. The two flaws that
> stand out are that it skims over, very quickly, the philosophical beginnings
> of transhumanism and that its historical summation is not completely
> accurate.

Have you tried filling it out and correcting it?

-Dave


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar  3 00:37:34 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:37:34 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <1347A2B9-03EB-4F1D-A3EB-29C52663A9FD@gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>	<B15CDAE45A0A4DDA8A3DCAF359F377EF@spike>
	<1347A2B9-03EB-4F1D-A3EB-29C52663A9FD@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8DAF4E.20008@satx.rr.com>

On 3/2/2010 6:03 PM, Sarah Wood wrote:

>I will share with you the reading recommondations made to me by one of 
my former professors with whom I still keep in touch

Who was the prof?

Damien Broderick


From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Mar  3 00:42:27 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:42:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003021629j10d4a700w432eb8cdb325cc03@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
	<20100302191949.hijatboao4skkgwk@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<ffd22f9d1003021629j10d4a700w432eb8cdb325cc03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100302194227.imvhdlp5uso8g0oo@webmail.natasha.cc>

One needs to form a gang to do this.

Quoting Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com>:

> 2010/3/2  <natasha at natasha.cc>:
>>
>> 1.? The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism is a
>> fairly good summary; however, it does have some flaws. The two flaws that
>> stand out are that it skims over, very quickly, the philosophical beginnings
>> of transhumanism and that its historical summation is not completely
>> accurate.
>
> Have you tried filling it out and correcting it?
>
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>





From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 00:54:55 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:54:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] endpoint of evolution
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003021654y422ce56fo23ad5c5f01e72a19@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:08 PM,  JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Tom Nowell wrote:
>> Maybe M-brains are too prone to becoming inward-looking and ignoring the outside (I'm thinking the later portions of Accelerando here). Alternatively, maybe the Great Filter keeps smacking down civilisations before they become M-brains, and all you see are single star system civilisations popping up, looking around wondering "where is everyone?" and then disappearing into the night once more.
>
> I think many civilizations will never leave their star system because of precisely the phenomenon you suggested- they become a civilization of navel-gazers. Just as a possible example of how that might happen, if you were to, say, think 1000 times faster than a human, so that your subjective experience of time is 1000x faster than people, communicating with a server on the opposite side of little ol' planet Earth would take about two and a half minutes. Something even a million kilometers away would be a full hour distant for you. People on Mars could only be communicated with on a timescale of days or weeks (subjectively), Saturn would take weeks or months. Traveling to the nearest star at the speed of light would place you out of the loop for 4000 years, and any civilization which attained such a high rate of thinking would never be cohesive, but rather fractured and disjointed.
>
> If you were to think a million times faster, the opposite side of the earth would be a day and a half away, and communicating with the other side of an M-brain would take years. Such a rapid rate of thought (even when that thought is far more advanced than our own) certainly isn't impossible (at least theoretically), so it is quite possible a vast majority of civilizations develop, create all the technologies that we think are amazing (mind uploading, cognitive enhancement, strong AI, etc.) and then stay inside their star system, with an ever increasing computational capacity but permanently bound to a small region of the Universe.
>
> I've never put much into the Great Filter idea. Someone would break through somewhere. I think rapid escalation of subjective time of communication is far more likely. Though I would think some faction would want to stay thoroughly tied to reality, rather than dive into virtual worlds.

You reconstructed my argument against Jupiter brains from September 1991.

http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/JupiterBrains/#KH031223

The general problem has been discussed on his list quite a bit.

http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-May/043807.html

http://postbiota.org/pipermail/extropy/extropy-chat/2006-May/026617.html

Also on sl4 http://www.sl4.org/archive/0403/8203.html

An unsolved problem related to this topic is what size of brain is
optimal?  Nobody has come up with an answer, even a parametric answer
in almost 20 years.

Keith Henson


From wood.sarah.m at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 00:40:44 2010
From: wood.sarah.m at gmail.com (Sarah Wood)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:40:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <4B8DAF4E.20008@satx.rr.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
	<B15CDAE45A0A4DDA8A3DCAF359F377EF@spike>
	<1347A2B9-03EB-4F1D-A3EB-29C52663A9FD@gmail.com>
	<4B8DAF4E.20008@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <B9E136CD-A9DA-45FA-B62D-825EC93857DE@gmail.com>

Timothy Burke. Swarthmore College.

On Mar 2, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>  
wrote:

> On 3/2/2010 6:03 PM, Sarah Wood wrote:
>
>> I will share with you the reading recommondations made to me by one  
>> of
> my former professors with whom I still keep in touch
>
> Who was the prof?
>
> 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  Wed Mar  3 01:08:02 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:08:02 -0600
Subject: [ExI] endpoint of evolution
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003021654y422ce56fo23ad5c5f01e72a19@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003021654y422ce56fo23ad5c5f01e72a19@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8DB672.2020006@satx.rr.com>

On 3/2/2010 6:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote:

> An unsolved problem related to this topic is what size of brain is
> optimal?  Nobody has come up with an answer, even a parametric answer
> in almost 20 years.

I'm pretty sure Anders and Robert Bradbury, among others. kicked this 
around and came up with some numbers. The relevant parameters are 
presumably processing speed limits and the speed of light. On the face 
of it, an orbital gas of spheres that each comprise a Mind (with its own 
many dedicated partitions) would be optimal, and those in turn would 
form a sort of community perhaps comprising slow tides or fluxes of 
megameme mentalities. Allow the latency to grow too great and you'll 
risk the Revolt of the Modules.

Damien Broderick


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 01:19:07 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:19:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003021719l1d5846a4obba01b5341d53182@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:10 PM,  <jameschoate at austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Your comment about humans inventing gods as unique is presumptive and invalid. At this point in time we, either individually or as a race, don't know what other species are doing in their heads, regarding gods or other things.

Assuming you are not just joking, can you think of any way to detect
"inventing gods" in other species?

Keith Henson


From spike66 at att.net  Wed Mar  3 01:19:29 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:19:29 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003021503j532ee265ob9d365684f126d95@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021503j532ee265ob9d365684f126d95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <788EB90652934CDA89EEFAB94A0BC5AE@spike>

 
>...On Behalf Of BillK
> ...
> If you want books to read, then try these:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transhumanist_books>
> 
> And, of course, the most excellent 'The Spike' by Damien Broderick.
> 
> Best wishes, BillK

Why isn't The Spike on that list?  I realize it is mostly about
technological change and the singularity, but it has a lot of good
transhumanist stuff in there.  Also conspicuously missing is AC Clarke's
Profiles of the Future.  I realize Profiles is nearly fifty years old, but
that in itself is a remarkable tribute to the man, that we are reading and
discussing it still.

Any wiki-hipsters here who would edit those in, please?

spike




From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 01:46:55 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:46:55 +1100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003021003m704bc2d3v23ef58a50f5d7cd0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1716.1267469403.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<724175.55151.qm@web113609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003021003m704bc2d3v23ef58a50f5d7cd0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31003021746q12166cf8o81ef12c9d01ddff9@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 March 2010 05:03, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 March 2010 22:21, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> No. ?You have been repeatedly criticised for repeatedly contradicting yourself, making circular arguments and simply ignoring valid challenges to your ideas.
>
> I would not criticise too much Gordon for the circularity of the
> threads concerned.
>
> He has done nothing else than reiterating forever with different words
> statements as to what is "obvious" for him, in particular regarding
> some ineffable, ill-defined property of some organic brains, the
> existence of which should be an article of faith. This is hardly
> original or heretic, since it has been a widespread meme in the
> western culture for some 500 or 1000 years by now.
>
> What I found surprising and made the debate mostly pointless is that
> many people has taken this stance as pertaining to a factual issue,
> engaging in the impossible task of "demonstrating" that such property
> could be replicated, something which is impossible by definition, and
> shows if anything how the dualistic mentality has still deep roots
> even in our ranks - and not just in Gordon.

Incredible as it may seem, you can make logical deductions about
magical or non-existent things. If I have four unicorns and acquire
another two unicorns, then I will have six unicorns. If the unicorns
have the quality of instantiating three distinct magical persons in
one, then with my six unicorns I will have eighteen magical persons.
But if the maximum number of such magical persons in the Universe is
three, then with my six unicorns I will still have only three magical
persons. If the Holy Book says that that a unicorn can only generate
two magical persons, then either the Holy Book is wrong or the
premises in the thought experiment just described are wrong. If it is
claimed that logical consistency is not something God need follow,
then at that point we have to throw up our hands and end the
discussion.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 01:55:41 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:55:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] EP and scale
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003011124s1f9e708i81bd6b1fb68f9095@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003011124s1f9e708i81bd6b1fb68f9095@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003021755p2c7a0574w491e032d29702e16@mail.gmail.com>

Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
> (Will Steinberg)
>
> > At first your hint seemed off-puttingly specific, but then I realized:
> > yes, of course, you can say the same of just about all uniquely human
> > behavior.

I wrote that, not Will. Assuming that's what the parenthetical meant.

Sorry for the delay, incidentally. Working through a huge backlog here.


Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
> People read and particularly post on mailing list to improve their
> status in the eyes of their peers.

Oh, yes. Makes sense. Surely you aren't implying that's the only
reason, but I don't find it hard to believe that it's the main one.

I wonder how one would go about curtailing status-seeking behavior in
Extropy-Chat posts...


Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
> Consider the coherence length and the size of a brain. ?At the speed
> of light, how far can a signal get in 300 fs? ?How far for typical
> nerve signal propagation speeds?

There are those leading questions again.

About 90 micrometers, for the former. I don't have time to look up the latter!


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar  3 02:19:57 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:19:57 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <788EB90652934CDA89EEFAB94A0BC5AE@spike>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>	<ee50357e1003021503j532ee265ob9d365684f126d95@mail.gmail.com>
	<788EB90652934CDA89EEFAB94A0BC5AE@spike>
Message-ID: <4B8DC74D.3070303@satx.rr.com>

On 3/2/2010 7:19 PM, spike wrote:
>
>> >...On Behalf Of BillK
>> >  ...
>> >  If you want books to read, then try these:
>> >  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transhumanist_books>

> Also conspicuously missing is AC Clarke's
> Profiles of the Future.

And one we discussed briefly here the other day, Ed Regis's GREAT MAMBO 
CHICKEN AND THE TRANSHUMAN CONDITION. Again, a bit old, but full of 
nutritious yummies.

Wiki lists can be modified/extended by anyone, of course.

Damien Broderick



From moulton at moulton.com  Wed Mar  3 02:59:24 2010
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 3 Mar 2010 02:59:24 -0000
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
Message-ID: <20100303025924.8426.qmail@moulton.com>

On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 11:15 -0600, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
Hi Fred,
> 
> We are working on a book based on some early posts. 
> 
Interesting.


> Fred, would you like to assist with the archive?  Anyone?
>  
I suspect that I and many other people who would be interested in helping set up an archive.

On a tangential point,  who is the list admin who handles technical questions?  The list seems to be blocking incoming email from some comcast email relays; I think:
   mta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
   omta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
and possibly others.  Could the appropriate person check on that.

Thanks

Fred


From kanzure at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 03:22:29 2010
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:22:29 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <20100303025924.8426.qmail@moulton.com>
References: <20100303025924.8426.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af71003021922h49f214c7ufd24354ec10596c9@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:59 PM,  <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 11:15 -0600, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>> Fred, would you like to assist with the archive? ?Anyone?
>>
> I suspect that I and many other people who would be interested in helping set up an archive.

Yep, I'd do it in a heart beat, if anyone actually has any of the
emails from before October 2003. I don't have any of these emails,
otherwise they would already be up on the net ;-) privacy issues be
damned.

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


From moulton at moulton.com  Wed Mar  3 03:42:17 2010
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 3 Mar 2010 03:42:17 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
Message-ID: <20100303034217.52175.qmail@moulton.com>


On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:23 -0800, Christopher Luebcke wrote:
> It's extraordinary to me that scientific research that provides support
> for AGW theory gets so much critical attention, yet accusations of fraud
> are accepted on this list without comment. 
 
I have been recovering from a cold and am thus a few days behind on several items.  One item I am concerned about is the use of the term "fraud".  I strongly urge that we avoid using the term "fraud" as a synonym for "dishonest" or "devious" or even "sloppy" or "unprofessional".  We need to be precise in our language.  And typically persons who provide solid evidence will have their claim taken more seriously. So let us all agree to improve the quality of the discourse

Since Phil Jones has been mentioned in various messages I am providing the links to the panel where Phil Jones appeared in the UK.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAj_lZv4Gxc
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0oGnqtVXo
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBInhAVeixk
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tskv-rX8F4
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KUm4AEZ5E

Everyone can watch and listen and make their own decision about whether they believe Phil Jones or not.

Fred



From moulton at moulton.com  Wed Mar  3 04:02:53 2010
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 3 Mar 2010 04:02:53 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
Message-ID: <20100303040253.84742.qmail@moulton.com>


Although not specifically a "Transhumanist Book" I want to mention a book which influenced many in the early Extropian and Transhumanist crowd.

Title: The Retreat to Commitment
Author: W. W. Bartley
Publisher: Open Court

This is a very insightful book and I enjoyed it however it is not an "easy read".  So for someone whois really interested in philosophy I recommend the book.  For both those who read the book as well as everyone else I recommend the excellent piece by Max which covers Bartley's idea of pancritical rationalism:
http://www.maxmore.com/pcr.htm

It just struck me that Max delivered this paper at Extro 1 in 1994; more than a decade and a half ago.

Fred


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 05:46:36 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 00:46:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/2 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:

> imagine a few million starving Bangladeshis overwhelming your
> border, for example.

and:

> The recent and rapid changes in Arctic ice cover

### Try to answer the following questions:

1) How much surface area has Bangladesh been losing per year in the
last decade (the same decade that the IPCC until recently claimed to
be the hottest decade on record), as measured in square kilometers per
year?

2) What is the net change in ice coverage over our planet's oceans since 1995?

Once you dig up the actual answers to these questions, you will be in
a position to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion of
"millions of Bangladeshis" and "fairly serious climate disruptions".

Rafal


From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 07:44:09 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 23:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Rafal,

If you would like to argue that Bangledeshis are not at high risk if the sea level rises significantly, or that it is not the case that Arctic ice cover is drastically falling, do please be my guest.

The careful reader will in fact note that at no point, not once, during our lively exchange, have I staked a claim that any particular forecast for climate change is correct. I have stated only that I believe that significant climate change over the next several decades is likely.

Again, I fully encourage you to take your deep analysis and do something productive with it. Perhaps you should find someone who claims that global ice coverage, or Bangladesh's net land area, has shrunk over the last 10 years, and argue with them. 



________________________________
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 9:46:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

2010/3/2 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:

> imagine a few million starving Bangladeshis overwhelming your
> border, for example.

and:

> The recent and rapid changes in Arctic ice cover

### Try to answer the following questions:

1) How much surface area has Bangladesh been losing per year in the
last decade (the same decade that the IPCC until recently claimed to
be the hottest decade on record), as measured in square kilometers per
year?

2) What is the net change in ice coverage over our planet's oceans since 1995?

Once you dig up the actual answers to these questions, you will be in
a position to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion of
"millions of Bangladeshis" and "fairly serious climate disruptions".

Rafal
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/450b578f/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 07:54:21 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 08:54:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003021629j10d4a700w432eb8cdb325cc03@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
	<20100302191949.hijatboao4skkgwk@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<ffd22f9d1003021629j10d4a700w432eb8cdb325cc03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003022354ie8911a1h652f770c84c56d55@mail.gmail.com>

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article is maintained by a jealous editor
who will delete all new contributions that do not fit his own agenda.
He tries to be objective, but he has a moderate anti-transhumanist
bias. This is a general problem with Wikipedia: it is theoretically
open to everyone for editing, but in practice it is a dictatorship of
a few admins who consider it as their personal property.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/3/2 ?<natasha at natasha.cc>:
>>
>> 1.? The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism is a
>> fairly good summary; however, it does have some flaws. The two flaws that
>> stand out are that it skims over, very quickly, the philosophical beginnings
>> of transhumanism and that its historical summation is not completely
>> accurate.
>
> Have you tried filling it out and correcting it?
>
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From giulio at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 08:06:09 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:06:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003030006w2f2c3b10k34c001d450331011@mail.gmail.com>

Welcome Sarah,

Besides all excellent books that have been mentioned by others, I wish
to recommend:

The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil. I do not like too much
the more recent The Singularity is Near, which is basically a
compilation of older content, but TAoSM is great.

Citizen Cyborg by James Hughes (if you are politically inclined to the
Left). Many other posters may not agree with this recommendation.

Robot by Moravec, especially the final chapters

All fiction by Greg Egan and Charlie Stross

And of course all the unpublished books being written or to be written
by members of this list, starting with Max' book (any recent
intelligence?).

Note: there are some anti-transhumanist writers who understand very
well what transhumanism is about, and formulate it very clearly. For
example Francis Fukuyama's gives a very good definition: "For the last
several decades, a strange liberation movement has grown within the
developed world. Its crusaders aim much higher than civil rights
campaigners, feminists, or gay-rights advocates. They want nothing
less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints.
As "transhumanists" see it, humans must wrest their biological destiny
from evolution's blind process of random variation and adaptation and
move to the next stage as a species."

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all -
> Having barely dipped my toes in the murky waters of transhumanism, I have a
> request. I would like to know what are, in your opinion, the (three? five?)
> most important foundational texts that one should read to become versed in
> the basic principles and vocabulary of the subject.
>
> Please forgive (and redirect) me if this is not the appropriate forum.
>
> Sarah


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 10:53:49 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:53:49 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Old extropy-chat archives
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003030253k2ae7d5a3sd23857ee66d09445@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/3/10, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> Yep, I'd do it in a heart beat, if anyone actually has any of the
>  emails from before October 2003. I don't have any of these emails,
>  otherwise they would already be up on the net ;-) privacy issues be
>  damned.
>
>


I appreciate that many people think privacy doesn't exist anymore in
our Brave New World of the internet, Facebook, Google, etc.

But in the case of old Exi archives you have to give some
consideration to what the position was when these old emails were
written.

The current Exi-chat list is a public list, indexed by Google, so
outrageous comments made nowadays will be on record forever.

The Extropy-chat list started in 1991 and I believe it was originally
a private list, so posters at that time would have had some
expectation of privacy.
Remember Google wasn't founded until 1998.

The extropy-chat list went through several changes and at some stage
became a public list. The present public archives go back to Oct 2003.

First, there is the technical problem of how much of the old archives
can actually be retrieved. Some are probably on old floppy disks that
have not been read in years. Just rebuilding the archives is likely to
be a significant effort.

Secondly, there is the question of what weight should be given to the
early expectations of privacy.

>From a legal point of view (libel, slander, etc.) then the statute of
limitations has long expired. The time limit for legal action varies
between states and countries, but the norm is one or two years, with a
few extending to three years.

So, it would be a personal decision whether to expose the old archives
to public view. Some posters to the archives have died and some have
'disappeared', so it will not be possible to get permission from
everyone. Even if some posters were found that objected to
publication, it is a moral question whether they should be allowed to
prevent publication. (Remember that even back then messages could be
copied and circulated elsewhere, so the privacy wasn't 100%).

Attitudes have changed over the intervening years. It is a difficult decision.


BillK


From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 11:29:04 2010
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI))
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 08:29:04 -0300
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com><4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com><e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com><2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike><217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl><e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01e101cabac4$bd2586f0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>

<Stefano Vaj>
To expand a little on the subject, it should also perhaps be added that 
other H+ lists are not in a much better shape, and that while I am still 
fond myself of this medium, in comparison with other more fashionable ones, 
mls in general are not exactly the rage of the day.

</Stefano Vaj>

Could you be so kind to enumerate some of these better shaped other lists? 



From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 11:49:03 2010
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI))
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 08:49:03 -0300
Subject: [ExI] Radical Life Extension and the Problem of Malthusian Hells
References: <201003020557.o225vpx0015328@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4e3a29501003021226x16fcce08i47916da02508ed01@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <020f01cabac7$885c2980$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>

<Will Steinberg>
Ah, why can't people look on the bright side of things?  Faced with the 
threat of said Malthusian hells, people will finally put the im in their 
petus to find cheaper, larger scale agriculture and food production methods. 
Diseases will have to be reigned in in order to prevent catastrophes 
associated with even denser populations.  Water retrieval methods will 
improve, and perhaps the monopolistic control of water and food dispersal 
will fade in the face of necessity.  And of course, most important of all, 
there will be a very good reason for interplanetary colonization!
History has shown that necessity induces progress.  The agricultural 
revolution was spurred by need for higher production.  Don't forget that 
this pretty much started the industrial revolution--it wasn't that people 
said "Hey!  Science!  Let's use this to farm better!"  They only took up new 
farming tools and methods because they needed them to keep up.  You know: 
NITMOI, NITMOI!
</Will Steinberg>

Yes, please. These apocalypse-monger people never seem to acknowledge that 
technology doesn't stand still. I'd like to add that not only necessity 
induces progress, but progress itself induces more progress. Technology is a 
cumulative game.
And while these people whine, the world keeps getting better and better. 



From sparge at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 11:57:38 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:57:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <788EB90652934CDA89EEFAB94A0BC5AE@spike>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003021503j532ee265ob9d365684f126d95@mail.gmail.com> 
	<788EB90652934CDA89EEFAB94A0BC5AE@spike>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003030357y1b8e6e43w12b29f13d7b1b8ba@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:19 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transhumanist_books>
>>
>> And, of course, the most excellent 'The Spike' by Damien Broderick.
>
> Why isn't The Spike on that list?

It wasn't on the list because it wasn't included in the category
"Transhumanist books". I fixed that by adding:

[[Category:Transhumanist books]]

to its page.

>?I realize it is mostly about
> technological change and the singularity, but it has a lot of good
> transhumanist stuff in there. ?Also conspicuously missing is AC Clarke's
> Profiles of the Future. ?I realize Profiles is nearly fifty years old, but
> that in itself is a remarkable tribute to the man, that we are reading and
> discussing it still.
>
> Any wiki-hipsters here who would edit those in, please?

I also added Great Mambo Chicken, but that was a bit more work. Since
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transhumanist_books> is a
generated page containing a list of pages in that category, I had to
create a stub page for Mambo Chicken. Even though it looks trivial, it
took me half an hour or so to figure out what needed to be in there.
The next one should go faster.

-Dave


From kanzure at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 12:07:47 2010
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:07:47 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <01e101cabac4$bd2586f0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<01e101cabac4$bd2586f0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>
Message-ID: <55ad6af71003030407i740f6148q6ab13e04f3a2b285@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote:
> <Stefano Vaj>
> To expand a little on the subject, it should also perhaps be added that
> other H+ lists are not in a much better shape, and that while I am still
> fond myself of this medium, in comparison with other more fashionable ones,
> mls in general are not exactly the rage of the day.
>
> </Stefano Vaj>
>
> Could you be so kind to enumerate some of these better shaped other lists?

http://heybryan.org/mailing_lists.html

Have fun. This message is 140-characters compliant.

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


From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 12:16:09 2010
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI))
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:16:09 -0300
Subject: [ExI] endpoint of evolution
References: <502276.29073.qm@web113611.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <022701cabacb$50ba3b30$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>

<Ben Zaiboc>From what we know of the evolution of life, it's very very 
doubtful that we are the only intelligences in the universe, or even this 
galaxy, but I don't think the Fermi Paradox is as paradoxical as it's made 
out to be.  I think SETI is a complete waste of time, simply from thinking 
about how BIG the place is.  Our radio front is like a ping-pong ball in the 
Black Forest.  It wouldn't surprise me if the galaxy could host thousands of 
highly advanced civilisations that knew nothing about one another.
</Ben Zaiboc>

I allways wonder about that too. One thesis that I hold is that in order to 
to be seen from a big distance, someone has to waste copious amounts of 
precious energy that could be put to better use. Therefore we can't detect 
an advanced civilisation just because they don't want to be seen. Not 
because they are hiding but because they learned not to waste energy.
And let's suppose that some of these hypothetical highly advanced 
civilisations are looking for others. Are we wasting energy enough so we 
could be detected from at least four or five digits of light years (assuming 
that they could be this close to us)?



From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 13:23:40 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 05:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 9
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <353736.14764.qm@web113605.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

> From: Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com>
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
> Message-ID: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed;
> delsp=yes
> 
> Hello all -
> Having barely dipped my toes in the murky waters of
> transhumanism, I? 
> have a request. I would like to know what are, in your
> opinion, the? 
> (three? five?) most important foundational texts that one
> should read? 
> to become versed in the basic principles and vocabulary of
> the subject.
> 
> Please forgive (and redirect) me if this is not the
> appropriate forum.


Hi, Sarah, and welcome (and yes, this is definitely the appropriate forum).

I'm answering this before reading any other replies to your post, so there may be some repetition (I expect so!), but I didn't want to be influenced by anyone else's recommended reading list.

My top recommended reads for someone new to transhumanism:

Anything and everything by Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec. (some transhumanists don't agree with all of Ray's ideas, but you need to know about them)

The Spike, by Damien Broderick (which I can safely bet my mind/soul/ghost/life on someone having already recommended!)

Beyond Humanity by Paul & Cox

Creation: Life and how to make it, by Steve Grand

Ending Aging, by Aubrey de Grey

Plus, of course, a good trawl of the internet for sites such as:

http://www.hplusmagazine.com/
http://www.aleph.se/andart/
http://lesswrong.com/
http://humanityplus.org/
http://www.crnano.org/about_us.htm
http://transhumangoodness.blogspot.com/
http://humanityplus-uk.com/wordpress/
http://www.foresight.org/
http://www.imminst.org/
http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.htm
http://www.singinst.org/
http://www.betterhumans.com/
http://www.extropy.org/

etc.

I hope that helps.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 13:24:01 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 05:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <98957.39652.qm@web113601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> asked:
> 
> Hello all -
> Having barely dipped my toes in the murky waters of
> transhumanism, I? 
> have a request. I would like to know what are, in your
> opinion, the? 
> (three? five?) most important foundational texts that one
> should read? 
> to become versed in the basic principles and vocabulary of
> the subject.
> 
> Please forgive (and redirect) me if this is not the
> appropriate forum.


Hi, Sarah, and welcome (and yes, this is definitely the appropriate forum).

I'm answering this before reading any other replies to your post, so there may be some repetition (I expect so!), but I didn't want to be influenced by anyone else's recommended reading list.

My top recommended reads for someone new to transhumanism:

Anything and everything by Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec. (some transhumanists don't agree with all of Ray's ideas, but you need to know about them)

The Spike, by Damien Broderick (which I can safely bet my mind/soul/ghost/life on someone having already recommended!)

Beyond Humanity by Paul & Cox

Creation: Life and how to make it, by Steve Grand

Ending Aging, by Aubrey de Grey

Plus, of course, a good trawl of the internet for sites such as:

http://www.hplusmagazine.com/
http://www.aleph.se/andart/
http://lesswrong.com/
http://humanityplus.org/
http://www.crnano.org/about_us.htm
http://transhumangoodness.blogspot.com/
http://humanityplus-uk.com/wordpress/
http://www.foresight.org/
http://www.imminst.org/
http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.htm
http://www.singinst.org/
http://www.betterhumans.com/
http://www.extropy.org/

etc.

I hope that helps.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 13:38:08 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 05:38:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <936439.21436.qm@web113618.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Welcome Jeff!

> I am quick to point out that you are a different Jeff Davis
> from the well
> known and loved long time ExI poster here.? 


How do you know, Spike, /How do you know/?? <cue Twilight Zone music>

Maybe this is a born-again Jeff Davis, maybe he's actually a Time Lord, and has been regenerated as... Jeff Davis! (Oops, i mean "Jeffery P. Davis").

Jefferey P. Davis wrote:

> I love discussing big ideas.  Traditionally the go-to person for discussing 'big ideas' has been the local priest, but over time I've discovered priests are completely ill-equipped to deal with the kinds of questions I consider important and thus I've lost most interest in religion.


Well done, sir.  It's always nice to meet people who kept the operator's manual for their brain.


> The last one had never even heard of World Of Warcraft and didn't know about the affluence gap between Facebook and Myspace.  Hard to take such a person seriously.


Uh-oh.  I didn't know about the affluence gap between FB and Myspace. But I do know how to catch up quick!  Which is more to the point, I think, these days.  It took me about 10 seconds to find out about this affluence gap, and I'm sure that's not a great performance among the people on this list.  I was taught long ago (from a professional librarian) that the most important skill is knowing how to find stuff out, and that's more true today than ever before.  Never mind the 10 commandments (or is it 12? I never remember), knowing regular expressions and advanced search terms will save your soul!


> One notable thing about me is that I'm entirely body-negative ...


That's interesting.  I presume you mean 'physical embodiment', because, afaik, /some/ form of embodiment is essential to your mind.  Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with the concept of multiple alternative bodies, that you're not actually dependent on for survival, but that allow you to experience, and act upon, the world?  And, of course, virtual worlds.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 14:12:56 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:12:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003030612p3d0ad077g9eb1127353e60cb5@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all -
> Having barely dipped my toes in the murky waters of transhumanism, I have a
> request. I would like to know what are, in your opinion, the (three? five?)
> most important foundational texts that one should read to become versed in
> the basic principles and vocabulary of the subject.
>
> Please forgive (and redirect) me if this is not the appropriate forum.
>
>

If you're interested in fiction, many of the noteworthy novels are available
online for free under open redistribution licenses:

Everyone In Silico
Postsingular
Accelerando
Down And Out In The Magic Kingdom
Manna
The Metamorphosis Of Prime Intellect


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/09635999/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 14:22:52 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:22:52 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030622v1c1c8227t80a52d4bee56852d@mail.gmail.com>

On 2 March 2010 23:01, Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> Having barely dipped my toes in the murky waters of transhumanism, I have a
> request. I would like to know what are, in your opinion, the (three? five?)
> most important foundational texts that one should read to become versed in
> the basic principles and vocabulary of the subject.

Languages? ;-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 14:25:44 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:25:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>

On 2 March 2010 20:07, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> I can't. ?I already signed non-disclosure agreements, and I always take
> those things damn seriously.

That's very bad... for your lawyer. :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 14:27:14 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:27:14 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <936439.21436.qm@web113618.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<936439.21436.qm@web113618.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003030627w6d645151oa2cc042c21e8c9cf@mail.gmail.com>

That's interesting.  I presume you mean 'physical embodiment', because,
> afaik, /some/ form of embodiment is essential to your mind.  Perhaps you'd
> be more comfortable with the concept of multiple alternative bodies, that
> you're not actually dependent on for survival, but that allow you to
> experience, and act upon, the world?  And, of course, virtual worlds.



Fungible, cheap, commodity 'bodies' are something I'm okay with.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/e7d239ae/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 14:32:35 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:32:35 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>

On 2 March 2010 21:03, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Barring new physics (and a serious failure of my imagination), there are only two, maybe three possible sources of abundant energy: ?The sun, the atomic nucleus, and the heat inside our planet.

Yes. Personally, I am a staunch fan, in the order, of some kind or
other of fusion, of space-based solar power, and of very deep
geothermy.

While my understanding of the technical aspects is amateurish at best,
one has plenty of other plausible reasons to have personal preferences
in what to hope for...

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 14:46:56 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:46:56 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?
In-Reply-To: <180977.5020.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <972456.27246.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<180977.5020.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030646m510dd74fx69e948bca6c865b6@mail.gmail.com>

On 2 March 2010 22:10, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> We can quite easily reduce mental phenomena epistemically without reducing the same phenomena ontologically. I mean here that we can understand mental phenomena in scientific terms of neurological causes and effects without abandoning the common sense notion that mental phenomena have an irreducibly subjective ontology.

We can perhaps. But why ever should we?

The real crux of the neverending "debate" which has given place to
some complaint is that the "common sense" or not of non-falsifiable
statementz is a cultural byproduct which cannot really be either
confirmed or disproved, and we are bound to tracing its genealogy and
verifying who may still adhere to some version thereof, and who does
not find it very compelling any more.

Let us take a computer specialised in... examining Turing-test
candidates. Let us say that its performance are equal or superior to
that of human examiners. Let us say that it is instructed to decide
whether it is itself a good candidate or not. If its answer is "yes",
as far as I am concerned it is by definition as conscious as yourself
or myself (see the paradox of philosophical zombies wrongly persuaded
to be conscious, and subvocalising, firing synapses, taking attitudes,
etc., to this effect).

You have obviously faith-based reasons to believe otherwise, but we
should realise once and forever that there are no conceivable ways to
demonstrate that you are wrong, since this has to do with personal,
factual-invariant interpretations and views of the world.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From aware at awareresearch.com  Wed Mar  3 15:15:17 2010
From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:15:17 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030646m510dd74fx69e948bca6c865b6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <972456.27246.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<180977.5020.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030646m510dd74fx69e948bca6c865b6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5741003030715m47b1303dm64c87955538e24a3@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 March 2010 22:10, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We can quite easily reduce mental phenomena epistemically without reducing the same phenomena ontologically. I mean here that we can understand mental phenomena in scientific terms of neurological causes and effects without abandoning the common sense notion that mental phenomena have an irreducibly subjective ontology.

> You have obviously faith-based reasons to believe otherwise, but we
> should realise once and forever that there are no conceivable ways to
> demonstrate that you are wrong, since this has to do with personal,
> factual-invariant interpretations and views of the world.

At this point, the issue becomes not that such a belief is held (and
defended), but why?  Given Occam's Razor, or its very successful,
generally applicable, pragmatic cousin, Max Entropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_maximum_entropy

- Jef


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 15:30:00 2010
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 08:30:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003021148j540b2fb2q971d5db763273b1c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021142p7cd1088en7ff45d1d798561b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021148j540b2fb2q971d5db763273b1c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd41003030730r1e0797f8nd0b4cc0f624d64a5@mail.gmail.com>

So as to nip any confusion in the bud, Jeff Davis aka
"heavensblade23 at gmail.com" should NOT TO BE CONFUSED with the other
Jeff Davis aka  "jrd1415 at gmail.com".

That is all.

Best, jeff davis

      "Everything's hard til you know how to do it."
                                     Ray Charles

On 3/2/10, Jeff Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nawwww.    As of Nov 2009, 38 million Americans (17 million
>> households) spent nothing on food. They got food stamps from the
>> government.
>>
>>
> Assuming their food stamp allowance is enough to last through the month and
> they don't have to trade
> any for non-food essentials like toilet paper, soap, or especially diapers.
>
> --
> "This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
> other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
> based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
> We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
> oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
> - William S. Burroughs
>


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 15:33:20 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:33:20 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Surrogates, movie
Message-ID: <580930c21003030733o4a4ecba6h8bf11af4867ba96@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 February 2010 04:19, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> I found the movie mildly entertaining, but not terribly engaging or
> intellectually stimulating.
> ...
> The tone is lightly anti-transhumanist,
> alas.

I saw the film yesterday night, and my conclusion is "yes and no".

The end is slightly moralistic, but the plot is quite merciless in
exposing bioluddist ideas, practices and possible vested interests
behind it.

In fact, [SPOIL!] existing surrogates are eventually destroyed, yes,
but contrary to the wish of the Prophet neither the relevant
technology nor their users are eliminated, and the "abuse" of RW
avatars is presented in a way which is quite consistent with a more
general criticism of a life spent indifferently immersed in pop
literature in print, as a TV-coach potato or as a compulsive
videogamer, which is a time-honoured theme, not especially
anti-technological per se IMHO.

In fact, there is even a transhumanist angle on the excessive
diversion of technological efforts towards low-cost simulacra as a
compensation for diminishing real-world breakthroughs and adventure,
from, say, human enhancement to space exploration to geo-engineering
to improvements in everyday quality of life.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 15:41:37 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:41:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003021148j540b2fb2q971d5db763273b1c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021142p7cd1088en7ff45d1d798561b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021148j540b2fb2q971d5db763273b1c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030741ra8e6564ob77632971357a748@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/2 Jeff Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:
> Assuming their food stamp allowance is enough to last through the month and
> they don't have to trade
> any for non-food essentials like toilet paper, soap, or especially diapers.

Wow, we might decide to grow gills, but a lack of toilet paper, soap
and especially diapers would really spell extinction for our
species... :-)

But, seriously, I have no doubts that wars might well be fought over them.

The question is exactly to which point the cost of
temperature-lowering measures would be offset by the damages avoided.

Because resources are *already* scarce, the world is already full of
people starving or - perhaps even worse in terms of political
instability - seeing their way of life under threat for a multitude of
reasons having little to do with climate.

And what we invest in the fight against AGW, taking for granted all
the claims of its supporters, become unavailable for anything else.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 15:50:23 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:50:23 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <01e101cabac4$bd2586f0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8B13D1.7090800@satx.rr.com>
	<e321aa4b1002281725g3376fd05n8fb5a757e730e5a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1002281735o7c92fe65mb4047141590eea83@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DC85FF12B364314B8D498D7B56DC041@spike>
	<217528.45419.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021432330.32172@tau.ceti.pl>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<01e101cabac4$bd2586f0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030750n4894d354yb1e198803b40f7@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 March 2010 12:29, Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)
<cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com> wrote:
> <Stefano Vaj>
> To expand a little on the subject, it should also perhaps be added that
> other H+ lists are not in a much better shape, and that while I am still
> fond myself of this medium, in comparison with other more fashionable ones,
> mls in general are not exactly the rage of the day.
>
> </Stefano Vaj>
>
> Could you be so kind to enumerate some of these better shaped other lists?

In most languages that I know the statement such as "other H+ lists
are not in a much better shape" does not really imply that they do
appear to be in a slightly better shape.

I would even say that in normal usage it implies quite the contrary, in fact.

But I am not English mother tongue, so you tell me.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 16:06:47 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:06:47 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003021556t4f1ac48wbfb62bafab7f8fee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>
	<cb794c521003021427w5d513fc8ge0dbe2e273434cd5@mail.gmail.com>
	<2933A9D10E434718A03CCD3D031A580E@spike>
	<cb794c521003021556t4f1ac48wbfb62bafab7f8fee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003030806s527348c7h3122c8ec983c5a0b@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/2/10, Jeffery P. Davis wrote:
<snip>
> Facebook is frequented by a more affluent audience that fled from Myspace
> when the former became open-registration.  Myspace is now primarily
> frequented by black urban youth and poor whites.  You might even argue
> the Myspace exodus was a form of white flight as the medium
>  became more popular with black youth.  Vast simplification, but that's
> basically how the cards fall.
> You see a lot of upper middle-class folks on Facebook of the kind you almost
> never found on myspace.
>
>

Well, yes, maybe, but.......
You have to be very careful with social analysis. It really is very
mixed-up, nothing is black or white (to coin a phrase).

Myspace was first and everybody flocked to the latest social gimmick,
because all their friends went there.
Then Facebook appeared with different features and some people tried
it out. Traffic boomed and Facebook traffic passed Myspace a year or
two ago. But people don't delete their Myspace accounts, (just in
case), and still check them occasionally. People actively use the
social system that their friends use, so momentum is moving more and
more people to Facebook.

This report from Oct 2009, says
<http://mashable.com/2009/10/12/myspace-traffic-plummets/>

MySpace?s U.S. Traffic Falls Off a Cliff
Despite some recent innovations by the former king of social
networking (as well as a CEO replacement), it looks like the MySpace
exodus is rapidly accelerating. Can MySpace?s freefall be stopped?
Numbers released by web analytics firm Compete.com paint a terribly
bleak picture for the future of MySpace (MySpace). According to the
Compete numbers, MySpace?s U.S. traffic dropped from 55.6 million
unique visitors in August to 50.2 million in September. It has nearly
shed off 20% of its U.S. traffic since June.
-------------------------

So it looks like Myspace is dying and *everyone* is moving to Facebook.

To turn a mass changeover like this into 'white flight' seems a bit
misleading to me. It will become more obvious over time whether the
split into two groups is correct, or whether it was just a temporary
snapshot in time during a wholesale move.

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar  3 16:09:37 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:09:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <e68fc1101003030006w2f2c3b10k34c001d450331011@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003030006w2f2c3b10k34c001d450331011@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8E89C1.90109@satx.rr.com>

On 3/3/2010 2:06 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote:

> And of course all the unpublished books being written or to be written
> by members of this list, starting with Max' book

I should have mentioned the recent book I edited, for the long 
perspective that underlies transhumanism:

YEAR MILLION: Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge (Atlas & Co.)

which contains several excellent essays by current or former members of 
this list, as well as contributions from other men and women who 
understand the long prospect of the next million years of intelligence 
in the galaxy. All the essays are original to the anthology.

Damien Broderick


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 16:11:49 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:11:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003030806s527348c7h3122c8ec983c5a0b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>
	<cb794c521003021427w5d513fc8ge0dbe2e273434cd5@mail.gmail.com>
	<2933A9D10E434718A03CCD3D031A580E@spike>
	<cb794c521003021556t4f1ac48wbfb62bafab7f8fee@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003030806s527348c7h3122c8ec983c5a0b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030811v7448ec6dw6a6e652e15d5f9a7@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 March 2010 17:06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, yes, maybe, but.......
> You have to be very careful with social analysis. It really is very
> mixed-up, nothing is black or white (to coin a phrase).

Mmhhh, not aware, as a matter of fact, of similar demographics in Europe...

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 16:24:46 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:24:46 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/2 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
> But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of suffering.
> That's where my concern lies.

Disruption as in...? Reduction in the aggregate mass of living
organisms? Reduction of complexity? Rapid change? Mass extinction of
some species?

Any "historical" global warming-related examples of such disruptions?

And what about the accounting for the suffering obviously involved in
avoiding them, as in, e.g., efforts invested in energy savings rather
than in saving human lives?

Those are not rhetorical questions, and beg serious answers. While I
do my best to keep an open mind on the issue, when I try to educate
myself on such issues I usually get my fair rate of doom mongering and
precautionary principle preaches.

But yes, it would be a pity to see Venise go eventually under water...

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 16:31:06 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:31:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] EP and scale
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003030831m741b9537h870f18f04415fc0@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:29 AM,  Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:

>> > At first your hint seemed off-puttingly specific, but then I realized:
>> > yes, of course, you can say the same of just about all uniquely human
>> > behavior.
>
> I wrote that, not Will. Assuming that's what the parenthetical meant.
>
> Sorry for the delay, incidentally. Working through a huge backlog here.

Sorry for the misatribution.
>
> Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
>> People read and particularly post on mailing list to improve their
>> status in the eyes of their peers.
>
> Oh, yes. Makes sense. Surely you aren't implying that's the only
> reason, but I don't find it hard to believe that it's the main one.
>
> I wonder how one would go about curtailing status-seeking behavior in
> Extropy-Chat posts...

It's not obvious that you want to do that.  You very well may want
*rational* status-seeking behavior.

However, admitting that seeking status is a human motivation and that
I (being a human) was motivated by it (even if not consciously) got me
chastised from the bench by a federal judge.  Of course, federal
judges are spectacular examples of people who chose status over
income.

It seems "normals" don't like to know where there motivations come
from.  Exactly why is still a bit of a question.  Possibly it gets
into sex taboos since motivations come from reproductive success (over
evolutionary times).

> Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
>> Consider the coherence length and the size of a brain. ?At the speed
>> of light, how far can a signal get in 300 fs? ?How far for typical
>> nerve signal propagation speeds?
>
> There are those leading questions again.
>
> About 90 micrometers, for the former. I don't have time to look up the latter!

Takes all of 30 seconds
http://www.biologymad.com/NervousSystem/nerveimpulses.htm

At the fastest, 100m/sec or one part in 3 million of light speed.
90x10^-6/3x10^6 = 30x10^-12 meters, or .03 nm.  A water molecule is
close enough to 0.1 nm so the coherence length is small compared to a
water molecule at brain signal speeds.

Not saying that aspects of brains don't depend on QM effects, but the
numbers don't look good for coherence.

Keith


From wood.sarah.m at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 14:29:23 2010
From: wood.sarah.m at gmail.com (Sarah Wood)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:29:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030622v1c1c8227t80a52d4bee56852d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030622v1c1c8227t80a52d4bee56852d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAD7B4BC-EF6B-4BFD-A7E2-65BBB830B388@gmail.com>

English and French, please!

On Mar 3, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 March 2010 23:01, Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Having barely dipped my toes in the murky waters of transhumanism,  
>> I have a
>> request. I would like to know what are, in your opinion, the  
>> (three? five?)
>> most important foundational texts that one should read to become  
>> versed in
>> the basic principles and vocabulary of the subject.
>
> Languages? ;-)
>
> -- 
> Stefano Vaj
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From ddraig at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 15:33:07 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:33:07 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <B15CDAE45A0A4DDA8A3DCAF359F377EF@spike>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com> 
	<B15CDAE45A0A4DDA8A3DCAF359F377EF@spike>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003030733g2b8895dfh404309cd933126ad@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 March 2010 10:41, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> and for space 5, perhaps an old personal favorite: Godel Escher Bach, an
> Eternal Golden Braid by Hofstadter.

Hey coool, I borrowed this from the library yesterday.
I started reading it years ago but was too young to get my head around
it (13? 14?) so thought I might as well get back into it.

nice synch :)

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


From ddraig at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 15:43:53 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:43:53 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003030743mc1cedefr99522e6f0ae98767@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 March 2010 09:01, Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, just read the thread.

wow, no one has mentioned the book which was suggested to me (by
Mitchell Porter)  in 1993 when I first came across this stuff:

F.M. Esfandiary's "Are you Transhuman?"

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


From kanzure at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 16:42:24 2010
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:42:24 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <98957.39652.qm@web113601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<98957.39652.qm@web113601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af71003030842w14ee497cy4fe8548247b81151@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Plus, of course, a good trawl of the internet for sites such as:
>
> http://www.hplusmagazine.com/
> http://www.aleph.se/andart/
> http://lesswrong.com/
> http://humanityplus.org/
> http://www.crnano.org/about_us.htm
> http://transhumangoodness.blogspot.com/
> http://humanityplus-uk.com/wordpress/
> http://www.foresight.org/
> http://www.imminst.org/
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.htm
> http://www.singinst.org/
> http://www.betterhumans.com/
> http://www.extropy.org/

And if you want to go deeper into the nitty-gritty...

accelerating trends and people to stalk
http://acceleratingfuture.com/

transhuman tech
http://humanityplus.org/

transhuman tech mailing list (very high signal to noise ratio)
http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt
http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/neuro

diy transhuman tech magazine
http://hplusmagazine.com/

do-it-yourself personal/human augmentation and enhancement
http://groups.google.com/group/diytranshumanist

List of DIYbio articles
http://openwetware.org/wiki/DIYbio/FAQ#Has_DIYbio_been_in_the_news.3F

Frequently asked questions about DIYbio
http://openwetware.org/wiki/DIYbio/FAQ

DIY hardware on the web
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/toys-tools/hackerspace-your-garage-downloading-diy-hardware-over-web
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/diy-bio-growing-movement-takes-aging

do-it-yourself biology
http://diybio.org/

do-it-yourself biology mailing list
http://groups.google.com/group/diybio

various hackerspaces mailing lists
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo

open manufacturing - "we bring software development methods to the
physical world"
http://openmanufacturing.org/
http://openmanufacturing.net/

open manufacturing mailing list
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing

open source hardware incubator/co-op (personal plug!)
http://gnusha.org/
http://replab.org/ self-replicating fablab project

adciv - advanced civilization wiki
http://adciv.org/

a collection of open source hardware design projects
http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Design

skdb (apt-get for hardware)
http://designfiles.org/dokuwiki/skdb

me me me
http://heybryan.org/

a collection of STL files
http://thingiverse.com/

another hardware repository (sort of)
http://harkopen.com/

something similar to skdb
http://bildr.org/

instructions for projects
http://instructables.com/

an open source 3D printer (goo squirter)
http://reprap.org/

and again
http://makerbot.com/

and again
http://fabathome.org/

living on the high seas
http://seasteading.org/

electronics part search engine
http://octopart.com/

open source 2-axis CNC printer
http://mechmate.com/

a lot of resources on psych drugs
http://erowid.org/

a lot of resources on nootropics ;-)
http://imminst.org/ (especially in the forum)

a community of academic labs and wiki pages
http://openwetware.org/

a spoof on "the pirate bay" (i think it's serious)
http://theproductbay.org/

n=1 cancer treatment
http://pinkarmy.org/

free software for everyone
http://ubuntu.com/
http://debian.org/

an incubator/co-op for open source tech
http://gnusha.org/
http://replab.org/

open source medicine community
http://groups.google.com/group/opensourcemedicine

makerbot, a kit based on reprap
http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot

mailing list for thingiverse.com
http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse

longevity, anti-aging, cryonics, and not dying
http://designfiles.org/papers/longevity/
http://designfiles.org/papers/stem-cells/
http://mfoundation.org/
http://sens.org/
http://fuckdeath.org/
http://fightaging.org/
http://maxlife.org/
http://longevity-science.org/
http://thelongevityfoundation.org/
http://alcor.org/

In the synthetic biology area-
http://syntheticbiology.org/
http://biobricks.org/
http://partsregistry.org/

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


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 16:51:15 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:51:15 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <BAD7B4BC-EF6B-4BFD-A7E2-65BBB830B388@gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030622v1c1c8227t80a52d4bee56852d@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAD7B4BC-EF6B-4BFD-A7E2-65BBB830B388@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030851u272592ud3d19023d14893f5@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 March 2010 15:29, Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> English and French, please!

Yes, it was just (half of) a joke.

I would have to think a little more about it, but I should like in the
meantime to take the opportunity to remind everybody that the Associazione
Italiana Transumanisti has established at
http://www.transumanisti.it/8.aspa Universal Transhumanist
Bibliography, which ideally should include all
writings published in volume in any language a) pertaining to transhumanist
ideas or scientific, philosophical, technological, artistic or political
issues which are critical in such perspective b) pertaining to subjects more
generally related to futurism, technoscientific developments and their
impact on societies, and posthuman change.

The items can be extracted and/or ordered by language, author, title, time
of publication, genre, orientation, subject, and offer links for the
purchase of the books in prints and to the relative online versions, if any.

This being obviously a work in progress, we are always grateful to anybody
who may care to point out any title missing or any inaccuracy.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/1e9dc005/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 16:56:14 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:56:14 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030851u272592ud3d19023d14893f5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A94BE48-7632-4945-B18A-0178520FB4EE@gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030622v1c1c8227t80a52d4bee56852d@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAD7B4BC-EF6B-4BFD-A7E2-65BBB830B388@gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030851u272592ud3d19023d14893f5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003030856j3aa8d987od3bd53b240c7a824@mail.gmail.com>

The list contains, for example, one of the best transhumanist books in
French written by our friend Remi Sussan:
	
141 - Ed.orig.: Les utopies posthumaines. Contre-culture,
cyberculture, culture du caos, R?mi Sussan (2005)  Omniscience
[fran?ais] - saggistica, H+

2010/3/3 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> On 3 March 2010 15:29, Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>> English and French, please!
>
> Yes, it was just (half of) a joke.
>
> I would have to think a little more about it, but I should like in the
> meantime to take the opportunity to remind everybody that the Associazione
> Italiana Transumanisti has established at http://www.transumanisti.it/8.asp
> a Universal Transhumanist Bibliography, which ideally should include all
> writings published in volume in any language a) pertaining to transhumanist
> ideas or scientific, philosophical, technological, artistic or political
> issues which are critical in such perspective b) pertaining to subjects more
> generally related to futurism, technoscientific developments and their
> impact on societies, and posthuman change.
>
> The items can be extracted and/or ordered by language, author, title, time
> of publication, genre, orientation, subject, and offer links for the
> purchase of the books in prints and to the relative online versions, if any.
>
> This being obviously a work in progress, we are always grateful to anybody
> who may care to point out any title missing or any inaccuracy.
>
> --
> Stefano Vaj


From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 16:56:20 2010
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:56:20 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9991003030856t7ececd9dta4991f5b1eb7c50d@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/3/2 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
> > But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of
> suffering.
> > That's where my concern lies.
>
> Disruption as in...? Reduction in the aggregate mass of living
> organisms? Reduction of complexity? Rapid change? Mass extinction of
> some species?
>
> Any "historical" global warming-related examples of such disruptions?
>

In human history, no, because the current CO2 levels are unprecedented in
the last dozen million years or so.

In more ancient times, the PETM event (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum )
might be a good example. It was a period of "sudden" global warming (6 ?C
over 20,000 years) associated with major changes in marine and terrestrial
life.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/1cd1431e/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Mar  3 16:37:51 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 08:37:51 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <98957.39652.qm@web113601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<98957.39652.qm@web113601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D05E259872A148688EB34B3CADF7D52B@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
> 
> Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> asked:
> > 
> > Hello all -
> > ...most important foundational texts that one should read 
> > to become versed in the basic principles and vocabulary of the 
> > subject...
> > ...
> 
> The Spike, by Damien Broderick (which I can safely bet my 
> mind/soul/ghost/life on someone having already recommended!)...
> Ben Zaiboc


Try to get the later edition (2001) if you can find it.  There were
improvements and updates from the original 1997 edition.  I noted with
curiosity that the Wiki page specifies the 1997 edition, but I didn't see
why.

Regarding the Wiki page additions, thanks Dave Sill!  The problem with
helping us internet non-hipsters is that next time we need help we call on
you again.  And again, and again...  We never actually learn how to fix
things, but rather THERE'S TROUBLE!  Call the Sillmeister!

{8^D

spike





From spike66 at att.net  Wed Mar  3 17:20:04 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:20:04 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030741ra8e6564ob77632971357a748@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com><ee50357e1003021142p7cd1088en7ff45d1d798561b0@mail.gmail.com><cb794c521003021148j540b2fb2q971d5db763273b1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030741ra8e6564ob77632971357a748@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E9DFBA04B4714F4AB0466C39DD3CE406@spike>

 

...
> 
> ...but a lack of toilet 
> paper, soap and especially diapers would really spell extinction for our
species... :-)
> 
> But, seriously, I have no doubts that wars might well be fought over them.
> 
> The question is exactly to which point the cost of 
> temperature-lowering measures would be offset by the damages
avoided...Stefano Vaj

I don't know what, if anything, to make of this.  A couple committed murder
suicide, leaving a note that they feared global warming.  Possibly an
example of what I mentioned yesterday, where the proletariat has been told
degree per century, but somehow they understand it as a degree per year?
The little girl survived:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Bab
y-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html

spike






From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 17:30:06 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 18:30:06 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <4902d9991003030856t7ececd9dta4991f5b1eb7c50d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9991003030856t7ececd9dta4991f5b1eb7c50d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030930h18e88fe4k8ec6bd130b4b53a9@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/3 Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>

> In human history, no, because the current CO2 levels are unprecedented in
> the last dozen million years or so.
>

Is this also true for temperature levels? One wonders, because Greenland
seems far from having become green again...

In more ancient times, the PETM event (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum )
> might be a good example. It was a period of "sudden" global warming (6 ?C
> over 20,000 years) associated with major changes in marine and terrestrial
> life.
>

The Wikipedia entry however suggests that such change led to an *increased*
biological production "assisted by higher global temperatures and
CO2levels, as well as an increased nutrient supply (which would result
from
higher continental weathering due to higher temperatures and rainfall;
volcanics may have provided further nutrients)". :-/

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/b7747f04/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Mar  3 17:07:04 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:07:04 -0800
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com><BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>

 

>...On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
> 
> On 2 March 2010 20:07, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> > I can't. ?I already signed non-disclosure agreements, and I always 
> > take those things damn seriously.
> 
> That's very bad... for your lawyer. :-)
> 
> --
> Stefano Vaj

My lawyer will have no problem making the next payment on her Mercedes.  We
just wrote a check for $44k, owwww, and we haven't even won the case yet.
More on that later, after the verdict comes in.  Actually my attitude
towards NDAs is more ethical than it is legal.  I have heard that NDAs can
usually be broken if challenged in court, but I wouldn't do that on other
grounds.  If I stole someone's intellectual property, I would tunnel under
the prison wall to break in, then I would refuse to leave.  Intellectual
property is property.

A few years ago here we had a good debate on copyleft.  I didn't participate
much, but read it all.  We had several of the
information-wants-to-be-freers, and almost as many
information-creators-want-to-be-paiders, with well thought out and well
written arguments on both sides.  Now that some time has passed, are there
any comments about that debate?  I started out more on the side of the
copyrighters and moved still further into their camp.

Is that topic worth revisiting?  Has anyone comments on that debete here a
few years ago?  New guys are welcome to jump in.

I will start it: I now think that society is justified in providing a legal
means of protecting information as property; in most cases current
intellectual property law is adequate and not overly restrictive.  I
recognize there are absurdities with protocol patenting, but I don't see a
better way.

Your turn. 

spike


  



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 17:35:47 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 18:35:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <E9DFBA04B4714F4AB0466C39DD3CE406@spike>
References: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021142p7cd1088en7ff45d1d798561b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021148j540b2fb2q971d5db763273b1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030741ra8e6564ob77632971357a748@mail.gmail.com>
	<E9DFBA04B4714F4AB0466C39DD3CE406@spike>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030935r498124eap2c16256eb4ebe843@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 March 2010 18:20, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> A couple committed murder
> suicide, leaving a note that they feared global warming.  Possibly an
> example of what I mentioned yesterday, where the proletariat has been told
> degree per century, but somehow they understand it as a degree per year?
> The little girl survived:
>

Yes, I think Rafal has already pointed to this article.

One wonders OTOH whether they committed suicide out of personal fear for
global warming ("better a clean, quick death than being boiled alive") or in
order to avoid contributing thereto with their continuing metabolism, and
perhaps indirect energy consumption.

I must say that I find the second possibility even more disquieting, but all
in all more likely.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/b9e9b115/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 17:43:11 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 18:43:11 +0100
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
Message-ID: <580930c21003030943j77326b18r2fe500642e8d03d8@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 March 2010 18:07, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Is that topic worth revisiting?  Has anyone comments on that debete here a
> few years ago?  New guys are welcome to jump in.
>
> I will start it: I now think that society is justified in providing a legal
> means of protecting information as property; in most cases current
> intellectual property law is adequate and not overly restrictive.  I
> recognize there are absurdities with protocol patenting, but I don't see a
> better way.
>
> Your turn.
>

I am far from claiming to have the magic bullet solving the problem to
everybody's satisfaction, but while I have not much sympathy for cartels
such as the RIAA or the MPAA or the BSA, the problem remains of finding
alternative business (and/or social) models motivating and remunerating
creative efforts.

This is even more crucial, if possible, for industrial property (read:
patents, utility models, industrial design, microchips masks, software) than
for copyright.

--
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/f410a3a2/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 17:49:25 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:49:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030935r498124eap2c16256eb4ebe843@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021142p7cd1088en7ff45d1d798561b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021148j540b2fb2q971d5db763273b1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030741ra8e6564ob77632971357a748@mail.gmail.com>
	<E9DFBA04B4714F4AB0466C39DD3CE406@spike>
	<580930c21003030935r498124eap2c16256eb4ebe843@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003030949r12353b26p91ebe36925ddddbb@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/3/10, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> One wonders OTOH whether they committed suicide out of personal fear for
> global warming ("better a clean, quick death than being boiled alive") or in
> order to avoid contributing thereto with their continuing metabolism, and
> perhaps indirect energy consumption.
>
> I must say that I find the second possibility even more disquieting, but all
> in all more likely.
>
>

Can you believe anything written in popular newspapers?

The whole story is built around a note found by the police.
Can I have more evidence please?

He was 56, his wife was 23.
Were they having marital / financial problems?
It is not that uncommon for a man to kill his family when his wife
says she wants to leave and take the children with her. There have
been cases like that recently in the UK. The global warming story
sounds very odd to me.

BillK


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 18:19:57 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:19:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com><BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
Message-ID: <511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I lean toward the view, echoing Stephen Kinsella*, that intellectual property is not property at all. As such, it's not defensible via or consistent with libertarian property rights theory. (However, I would not use the charge of ideological unreliability against libertarians who take the contradictory position.)

Regards,

Dan

* Especially as given in his _Against Intellectual Property_. His site is at:

http://www.stephankinsella.com/

_Against Intellectual Property_ in HTML is at:

http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/against-intellectual-property/

----- Original Message ----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 12:07:04 PM
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again

>...On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
> 
> On 2 March 2010 20:07, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> > I can't. ?I already signed non-disclosure agreements, and I always 
> > take those things damn seriously.
> 
> That's very bad... for your lawyer. :-)
> 
> --
> Stefano Vaj

My lawyer will have no problem making the next payment on her Mercedes.? We
just wrote a check for $44k, owwww, and we haven't even won the case yet.
More on that later, after the verdict comes in.? Actually my attitude
towards NDAs is more ethical than it is legal.? I have heard that NDAs can
usually be broken if challenged in court, but I wouldn't do that on other
grounds.? If I stole someone's intellectual property, I would tunnel under
the prison wall to break in, then I would refuse to leave.? Intellectual
property is property.

A few years ago here we had a good debate on copyleft.? I didn't participate
much, but read it all.? We had several of the
information-wants-to-be-freers, and almost as many
information-creators-want-to-be-paiders, with well thought out and well
written arguments on both sides.? Now that some time has passed, are there
any comments about that debate?? I started out more on the side of the
copyrighters and moved still further into their camp.

Is that topic worth revisiting?? Has anyone comments on that debete here a
few years ago?? New guys are welcome to jump in.

I will start it: I now think that society is justified in providing a legal
means of protecting information as property; in most cases current
intellectual property law is adequate and not overly restrictive.? I
recognize there are absurdities with protocol patenting, but I don't see a
better way.

Your turn. 

spike


      


From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 18:25:25 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <212824.72698.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Disruption as in reduction of arable land--or even dislocation of arable land and climate patterns shift.

Again, to go back to Bangladesh, it's one of the most densely populated countries in the world, and a majority of it is at an elevation above sea level of one meter or less. I don't believe it's controversial to state that a sea level rise of half a meter over the next 50-100 years is potentially catastrophic. And it's not because people just sit around and die. They get up and move. 

Of course I don't give a damn about the aggregate mass of living organisms. I've made it absolutely clear that my concern is with human suffering. And no, I don't have "global warming" examples of this type of disruption. I just don't think it's arguable that significant changes in sea level or other climate factors will disrupt farming, fishing, infrastructure and freshwater supplies. The argument can't really be that climate change won't hurt anybody, is it?

The best question is how to balance what might seem like black hole investments against potential but uncertain climate change effects. That's one of the reasons, as I stated earlier, that I prefer investment in the development of adaptive technologies and skills. While not without opportunity cost, those kinds of investments will tend to pay off regardless of what happens to the climate.

And just for the record, I think that cap-and-trade is probably as close as you're going to find to an actual, large-scale scam in all of this. And I'm not a fan of carbon credits or carbon-trading schemes. I don't see the creation of artifical markets as benefitting anyone but those who obtained the rights to operate those markets (think Enron and California's energy "market").



________________________________
From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 8:24:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

2010/3/2 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
> But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of suffering.
> That's where my concern lies.

Disruption as in...? Reduction in the aggregate mass of living
organisms? Reduction of complexity? Rapid change? Mass extinction of
some species?

Any "historical" global warming-related examples of such disruptions?

And what about the accounting for the suffering obviously involved in
avoiding them, as in, e.g., efforts invested in energy savings rather
than in saving human lives?

Those are not rhetorical questions, and beg serious answers. While I
do my best to keep an open mind on the issue, when I try to educate
myself on such issues I usually get my fair rate of doom mongering and
precautionary principle preaches.

But yes, it would be a pity to see Venise go eventually under water...

-- 
Stefano Vaj
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/f00f6698/attachment.html>

From pjmanney at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 18:25:40 2010
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:25:40 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: I need a favor...
In-Reply-To: <29666bf31003010704x18fdc7dasb10d0399fb10016c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29666bf31003010704x18fdc7dasb10d0399fb10016c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29666bf31003031025x6a79bf58rb9d6b2044acecbb4@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you all so much.  Because of our chat-room communities, I now
have all six papers and I'm ready to kick some school administration
ass.  Special thanks to Bill K, Nathan, Keith, Jata, Sky, etc.  You
guys ROCK!

Now if you'll all put in a positive thought to our accelerated science
track, who knows?  Here's hoping STEM education isn't just a talking
point and instead can bring real knowledge and inspiration to our
kids.

Take care all,
PJ


From sparge at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 18:40:01 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:40:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <D05E259872A148688EB34B3CADF7D52B@spike>
References: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<98957.39652.qm@web113601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<D05E259872A148688EB34B3CADF7D52B@spike>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003031040t216c7ef9o3380d23ef0d408e7@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Regarding the Wiki page additions, thanks Dave Sill! ?The problem with
> helping us internet non-hipsters is that next time we need help we call on
> you again. ?And again, and again... ?We never actually learn how to fix
> things, but rather THERE'S TROUBLE! ?Call the Sillmeister!

Spike, I'm an IT professional...that's the story of my life. :-) I'm
glad to help, when I can.

-Dave


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 18:45:39 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:45:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><588495.24073.qm@web111212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002201700n25179a9h63c3667a0e42739@mail.gmail.com><568542.51093.qm@web111205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61002230646r1123c6b2xe37b543382197232@mail.gmail.com><658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com><2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <906567.26664.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I'm not so sure about sea level changes. I've read the projected one meter change by 2100?a few years ago, which doesn't seem all that much and looks like the kind of change that, while it might be disruptive if it happened over a short time span, would be fairly easy to deal with just by letting people voluntarily interact. (As always, whatever the social question is, freedom is almost the answer or part of the answer.*)

I also believe not much can be done -- and maybe, given the nature of current theory, not much should be done. (Why on the latter? If we look back a few decades, there were different projections and were people at that time to have aggressively acted on those projections -- say by attempting to thwart global cooling via a massive dump of methane in the atmosphere, who knows how things would've turned out by now.)

Some of your proposals don't sound too bad. I think a big problem with "massive infrastructure projects"?is they are government or centrally planned projects. Were governments removed, it's unlikely voluntary individuals would create such huge, unmanagable nightmares because the cooperating individuals would be more closely coupled to the costs and the information. (On the former, government projects can redistribute costs via taxation and monetary policy -- which creates a huge incentives problem and a positive feedback loop.)

I think this also applies to crops. A lot of monoculture is really there because of massive subsidies of agribusiness. Remove these and it's likely much farming would change to something more sustainable and flexible. Either way, a voluntary system in this area -- i.e., a free market -- would allow individual actors to adjust more quickly to local information and incentives as opposed to politically connected combines and companies merely shaking the political money tree when something doesn't go right.

Likewise with water: if local people are closely coupled with costs, benefits, and information -- and this goes for everyone; there's no defensible reason taxpayers in Seattle, WA?should pay so wealthy retirees can have green lawns in Phoenix, AZ -- then they will be more adept at dealing with the problem in myriad ways from moving to conserving to developing new ways of extracting water to finding substitutes.

Regards,

Dan

* The other part is turning over statists to me for re-education.



________________________________
From: Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 5:19:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled


>?Let's turn this around: What do you think is the case here? What do think will?
>?happen? What do you think should be done?


I think that there will probably be some fairly serious ecological disruptions over the next several decades; the root issues will be sea level rise and ecosystem disruption. Sea level rise has obvious consequences, not just for the people and agriculture displaced, but for the people uphill--imagine a few million starving Bangladeshis overwhelming your border, for example. Beyond sea level, the other changes are generally tied to weather system disruption, and result in threats to water security, crop failures and changes in migratory patters (for fish, game and fowl).?

If the ecological changes are a real possibility, and most climatologists think they are, there's actually probably not that much that can be done about it. I mean, we shouldn't just say to hell with it and double down on greenhouse gas emission, but it's not like we can just turn the thermostat down once we agree to. The recent and rapid changes in Arctic ice cover alone are probably enough to eventually cause or contribute to some fairly serious climate disruptions, and there probably isn't anything that can be done about it.

So what do we do?

- Develop cheap, renewable, and distributed sources of energy. We need electrification of the developing world to happen the way communication technology is spreading--not with massive infrastructure projects (e.g. land lines), but by developing inexpensive, individually-ownable, mass-producible systems (e.g. cell phones). Wind, solar, fuel cell, hydrodynamic, whatever--power to the people, literally, and power they can take with them if they have to move around.
- Continue the already promising development of crops that are resistant to various environmental risks (e.g. drought-resistant grains, salt-resistant rice, etc). Agriculture they can take with them if they have to move around.
- Water security is a very serious concern. Given the proximity of most of the world's population to oceans that are probably coming up to meet them, I'd say investment in (small, distributable) desalinization technology would probably be a good move as well.
- Encourage economic development and education. This is what will create cultures of people who can be self-sufficient and adaptable even in trying times.

Those are the types of things that I think ought to happen. I'm not suggesting who's responsible, who should pay for them, who should execute them.

I also think that those types of developments, should they happen, would turn out to be a boon if in fact no GW scenarios come to pass.

Thanks for asking.




________________________________
From: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 1:03:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled


I was merely responding to the "bring civilization to its knees" comment made earlier. And I do not mean to make light of the fact that any disruption in ecosystems might cause suffering -- to humans and non-humans. But my point was more that such disruptions have happened before and ask why this alledged one is different and needs special attention? (I use "alleged" because there's much uncertainty here -- and the doom and gloom predictions have often not panned out. This is even leaving aside the "climategate" scandal.)

Let's turn this around: What do you think is the case here? What do think will happen? What do you think should be done?

Regards,

Dan


From: Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 3:10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled


I don't know of anybody who seriously contents that global warming is a threat to the survival of the species.

But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of suffering. That's where my concern lies.


From: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 6:48:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

If we look at the long course of human civilization and even humans before civilization, both human civilization and humans have gone through lots of drastic changes in climate. So, like you, I don't see the big deal for adapting. I suppose food production might have to change over decades to adapt to different conditions -- maybe by changing the ranges and times for crops or by changing the types of crops grown.

Also, if we just look at the last two or three centuries, we see a huge shift in where and how people live and how they get their food. This shift hasn't taken place as much in the Third World -- but that's mostly because of bad policies that can easily be changed. (How? Simply turn over policy makers and enforcers to me for re-education.)

This is, of course, assuming that global warming has merit and that at least some of the projected climatic shifts will take place.

Regards,

Dan

----- Original Message ----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 12:39:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
... 
> science isn'tsettled
> 
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling. ?
> Can someone 
> > explain why the average temperature increasing by a degree 
> or two or 
> > half a degree in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its 
> > knees? ?Are we really that delicate and non-adaptable?
> 
> My theory supposes linear growth of 1 degree per year 
> wouldn't be so bad if not for the anecdote about boiling a 
> frog to death... Conversely at >1 degree per year as input to my weather 
> model... The observation of <1 degree per year of temperature increase 
> to this weather model...Mike

Mike's post makes my point better than I did.? We are so very accustomed to
thinking of something per year, a few percent a year, another birthday per
year and so forth.? The climatologists are offering numbers that look like a
degree per century.? We just are not used talking about anything per
century, so confusion results.? A lot of teens somehow jump to the
stunningly illogical conclusion that this two degree change we are trying to
stop will show up in a few years or any day now since the Copenhagen flop.

This causes what I call the Russians vs Germans effect.? During WW2, the
Germans had better technology, so in the summers when the days were long and
warm, they beat back their foes and drove deep into Russia, but when the
vicious November storms hit, the German tanks were ill suited to the cold,
the tracks were glued to the ground in the freezing mud, the engines guzzled
fuel since they had to be left running to prevent freezing etc.? So in the
winter the Russians had the clear advantage, and drove the Germans all the
way back.? 

In the global warming debate, the proposed change is very slow, but human
lifetimes are very short.? We end up with the global warming people, like
the Germans, having the advantage in the summer, but every winter, they give
up the ground they gained because people still die from the cold.? Then the
global warming ridiculers, like the Russians, regain lost ground.? The
battle surges back and forth every year, with tragic results.

spike



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/7e619f2f/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 18:32:08 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:32:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <4902d9991003030856t7ececd9dta4991f5b1eb7c50d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9991003030856t7ececd9dta4991f5b1eb7c50d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <621423.16976.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

While true on the _known_ rise in CO2 levels, it's not true in terms of climate change in historical times, no?

Regards,

Dan

From: Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 11:56:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled


On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

2010/3/2 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
>
>> But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of suffering.
>> That's where my concern lies.
>
>Disruption as in...? Reduction in the aggregate mass of living
>organisms? Reduction of complexity? Rapid change? Mass extinction of
>some species?
>
>Any "historical" global warming-related examples of such disruptions?
>

In human history, no, because the current CO2 levels are unprecedented in the last dozen million years or so.

In more ancient times, the PETM event ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum ) might be a good example. It was a period of "sudden" global warming (6 ?C over 20,000 years) associated with major changes in marine and terrestrial life.

Alfio


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/185d5b0c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Mar  3 18:39:20 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:39:20 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <936439.21436.qm@web113618.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<936439.21436.qm@web113618.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A7EC114D46E74DE9B63904BC1AF84FD3@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
> 
> "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
> > I am quick to point out that you are a different Jeff Davis 
> from the well known and loved long time ExI poster here.
> 
> How do you know, Spike, /How do you know/?? <cue Twilight Zone music>...

In my misspent youth, I took theology training at the college level, a skill
I found really useful was in spotting when a different writer comes in.
There are a bunch of tricks in the toolkit for doing this.  I was an
innovator.  The college had just gotten a computer, the awesome VAX11-750!
Oy vey, I am such a geezer.  I converted the text into ASCII, then wrote a
script which noted whenever a word was introduced which had never been used
previously in the text.  Whenever a new writer comes in, there is a spike in
the number of new words right at that point.  In those days, anyone who
could write a script was automatically consigned to social hell, cut off
forever from the rest of normal humanity.  I enjoyed this.

A sudden jump in new word frequency isn't always a new writer, but just as a
new vocabulary signature comes in with a new writer, so also comes a new
memeset.  In that sense there is a meta version of the word frequency
algorithm.

If we managed to get a bunch of us to write a story in series as Lee and
Anders attempted a few months ago, we could remove all the notations of
where a new writer started, and I would challenge us: I could find them all,
with 90%-ish accuracy.  We could do it two ways: where we intentionally
tried to match the style of the previous writer to hide the breaks, and
where we didn't.  I think I could still find most of the discontinuities in
the former, for I have another trick I haven't told you about.

The original Jeff Davis has been a friend and admired writer here for so
many years, I was able to spot immediately a sudden alteration of style and
substance.

> ...thus I've lost most interest in religion...

I lost the sense that religion is discussing matters that are objectively
true.  There is still interesting stuff in Religion Inc.  They do make a
buttload of money.  I always admire that, if done honestly and openly.

> ...Never mind the 10 commandments (or is it 12? I never remember)...Ben
Zaiboc

Monte Python routine:  Moses descending from the mountain with three stone
tablets, addressing the people.  "I bring you fifteen commandmCRASH...  TEN!
I bring you TEN commandments!"

Did you ever actually count the commandments?  I get 11:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1-17&version=KJV

The various religions have all insisted there are ten, and to make it so,
they have gone various paths with interesting consequences.  The Catholic
tradition generally combines the first two.  The protestant tradition
generally combines the last two.  Consider the result: in the Catholic
tradition, they combine 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, and 2.
Thou shalt not make any graven image, etc.  If those are one commandment,
then it is OK to have and make graven images, so long as the proles do not
worship them as gods.  In the protestant tradition, images of the "Virgin"
Mary are discouraged or disallowed under the second commandment.

The protestant tradition on the other hand is just as determined that there
be ten commandments.  I like the number 11 better myself, being prime, but
they say it must be ten, so they are forced to choose two others to combine.
They choose commandments 10 and 11.  That too has its consequences.
Combining 10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife and 11) thou shalt
not covet thy neighbors ox, ass etc, equates thy neighbors ox and ass with
thy neighbor's wife!  She becomes equivalent to his other property and
servants.

This leaves us with two other intriguing possibilities if we really insist
there be exactly ten commandments.  We could combine both 1 and 2 as in the
Catholic tradition, and commandments 10 and 11 as the Protestants do.  Then
we have nine, and we are free to add another thou shalt not.  What do we
want to universally disallow?  Alternately we can divide both 1 and 2, and
divide 10 and 11.  Then to get back to ten, we must toss out one of the
others.  Which sin do we now wish to allow?

Well, lets see.  Both my mother and father can at times be assholes.  No
wait, let's not go there, they are decent folks.  Can we now take the lord's
name in vain?  I wouldn't want him taking my goddam name in vain, even if he
is imaginary.  

Perhaps we can combine two (preferably adjacent) commandments.  Which two,
and what would be the result?

spike







From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 19:13:51 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:13:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 12
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1764.1267635085.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1764.1267635085.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003031113s61791a71u5a821c38003bb9b6@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:51 AM,  Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

snip

> I should have mentioned the recent book I edited, for the long
> perspective that underlies transhumanism:
>
> YEAR MILLION: Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge (Atlas & Co.)

Hmm.  I consider it possible there could be human derived
intelligences a million years from now.

But I consider it unlikely there will be any physical state humans
left by the end of the century.

Perhaps someone should write a story "The Last to Transcend."

Keith


From ablainey at aol.com  Wed Mar  3 19:16:49 2010
From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:16:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com><BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike><580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
Message-ID: <8CC891D33393042-70F8-73@webmail-d066.sysops.aol.com>


 OK, I will chime in for the Free side (I may change without warning or explanation).
As someone that creates original Art, Music, Scientific theories, Writings, Inventions, Software and a few other things that could fall under I.P.
I have found that the whole protection system stifles my creativity and offers nothing but distraction and concern. 
I have unreleased albums, unfinished books, unpublished theories, books and unrealised inventions cluttering my shelves. When they should be out in the world making it a better place.

My own personal view is that the protection system is not the source of the problem. Reward is the real issue and this always comes down to cold hard cash.
The sooner we do away with the stuff, the quicker we can get to creation for altruism and social merit.

 
How many world changing inventions are locked away out of fear that the idea will be stolen or un rewarded?

A


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: 'ExI chat list' <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:07
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again



I will start it: I now think that society is justified in providing a legal
means of protecting information as property; in most cases current
intellectual property law is adequate and not overly restrictive.  I
recognize there are absurdities with protocol patenting, but I don't see a
better way.

Your turn. 

spike


 
=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/890fd898/attachment.html>

From wood.sarah.m at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 19:37:52 2010
From: wood.sarah.m at gmail.com (Sarah Wood)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:37:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com><BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
Message-ID: <C31A28AA-A89B-4B0A-8B3C-09951181B3E9@gmail.com>


On Mar 3, 2010, at 12:07 PM, spike wrote:
> I will start it: I now think that society is justified in providing  
> a legal
> means of protecting information as property; in most cases current
> intellectual property law is adequate and not overly restrictive.  I
> recognize there are absurdities with protocol patenting, but I don't  
> see a
> better way.
>
> Your turn.

Additional problems arise when a copyright-holder takes an  
inconsistent approach towards reproduction of its material.

Take, for example, the Bundesarchiv - the German national archive,  
which is one of the most digitized archives in the world. The BA has  
an agreement with Wiki to make available hundreds of thousands of  
large, high res photographs without watermarks. Now, if I want to  
publish one of those same photographs in a photo-journal, I must first  
purchase a print, and then further purchase reproduction rights, for a  
total cost of about ?50 per image. This of course all has a  
significant impact on my COGS. When my book is printed and I send out  
review copies, a kind reviewer will then promptly inform his  
readership that these images may be seen for free at such and such a  
URL. Ouch.

I am of two minds about this. As a graduate student in LIS, I was  
virtually indoctrinated to believe that information wants to be free,  
and I still do cling to the notion to a certain extent. As a  
publishing professional, however, I also want to sell books -  and I  
want to sell books with pictures that people have seen before. Now, if  
I think an image is so indispensable to my subject matter that it's  
prior dissemination ceases to be relevant, well .... then why should I  
have to pay for it when others do not?

As a counterpoint, the United States NARA has no charges whatsoever  
associated with copying its images. However, it is also barely  
digitized - so getting images means traveling to DC and digging  
through dusty boxes of moldering documents while wearing white gloves.  
I guess everything has its price!

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 19:41:39 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <8CC891D33393042-70F8-73@webmail-d066.sysops.aol.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com><BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike><580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<8CC891D33393042-70F8-73@webmail-d066.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <287853.56459.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Well, what stops one from just putting stuff out there without intellectual property?(IP) protection now -- save for the threat that someone might bring up an IP case against one?

Also, how does one judge "original" here? It seems to me this would always be arbitrary and there are enough IP cases around where it's not an instance of, say, a photocopy or a high quality recording, but of something that looks or sounds?similar to something else. Well, the problem is, everything is, in some way, similar to (and different from) everything else. Unless one is going to bite the bullet and allow any difference at all to qualify -- in which case, someone's photocopy of Stephen King's latest novel or someone's bad camcorder recording of the remake of "The Crazies" is going to be a totally different work -- one is going to have really fuzzy boundaries -- and, unlike many other areas of life, these boundaries will cost people in terms of time, money, and maybe even prison time.

One problem for IP is while it is literally impossible for two people to dispose of the same physical property in the same way at the same time, this is not so with IP. For instance, let's say I find a hunk a gold on Mars and put it in my pocket -- and let's say everyone agrees it's mine. Fine. You can't really have the same hunk of gold in your pocket at the same time in the same way. But let's say, instead, I come up with a new way of finding hunks of gold -- maybe some new search process. There's no way that this prevents you or anyone else from coming up with the same. Nor does my having the process in my head prevent you from having it in yours. This seems a way IP it radically unlike physical property -- and calls into question treating it like other property.

(And I think the exclusivity problem is the or a major reason for property rights in the first place: once something can only be exclusively used, then issues of conflict over its use arise and these lead (inexorably?) to rights theory.)

I don't know about cash or its absence being the issue. That's kind of like blaming rape on people not wanting to give sex on demand. The problem, rather, is an inappropriate use of the property concept.

Regards,

Dan


From: "ablainey at aol.com" <ablainey at aol.com>
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 2:16:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] intellectual property again

OK, I will chime in for the Free side (I may change without warning or explanation).
As someone that creates original Art, Music, Scientific theories, Writings, Inventions, Software and a few other things that could fall under I.P.
I have found that the whole protection system stifles my creativity and offers nothing but distraction and concern. 
I have unreleased albums, unfinished books, unpublished theories, books and unrealised inventions cluttering my shelves. When they should be out in the world making it a better place.

My own personal view is that the protection system is not the source of the problem. Reward is the real issue and this always comes down to cold hard cash.
The sooner we do away with the stuff, the quicker we can get to creation for altruism and social merit.


How many world changing inventions are locked away out of fear that the idea will be stolen or un rewarded?

A

-----Original Message-----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: 'ExI chat list' <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:07
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again

I will start it: I now think that society is justified in providing a legal means of protecting information as property; in most cases current intellectual property law is adequate and not overly restrictive.  I recognize there are absurdities with protocol patenting, but I don't see a

better way.



Your turn. 



spike


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/c9bed92c/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar  3 19:44:11 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:44:11 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Moses
In-Reply-To: <A7EC114D46E74DE9B63904BC1AF84FD3@spike>
References: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<936439.21436.qm@web113618.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<A7EC114D46E74DE9B63904BC1AF84FD3@spike>
Message-ID: <4B8EBC0B.40807@satx.rr.com>

On 3/3/2010 12:39 PM, spike wrote:

> Monte Python routine:  Moses descending from the mountain with three stone
> tablets, addressing the people.  "I bring you fifteen commandmCRASH...  TEN!
> I bring you TEN commandments!"

I like this version:

Moses descends from the mountain.

"Guys, I've got good news and I've got bad news."

"What's the good news?"

"I talked Him down from 30 commandments to 10."

General rejoicing. Then: "So what's the bad news already?"

"Adultery's still in."




From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 19:51:13 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:51:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <C31A28AA-A89B-4B0A-8B3C-09951181B3E9@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<C31A28AA-A89B-4B0A-8B3C-09951181B3E9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003031151v375c329agaf208e44806f052c@mail.gmail.com>

I've been struggling for an original thought here since I've done this
discussion so many times on so many different forums.

How about a humble suggestion: Create a tax break for releasing creative
works into the public domain.  There's currently no real incentive to ever
release anything into the public domain.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/2e09bbab/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 19:51:34 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <C31A28AA-A89B-4B0A-8B3C-09951181B3E9@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com><BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<C31A28AA-A89B-4B0A-8B3C-09951181B3E9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <802784.60913.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Some funny things happen?with copyrights. For instance, the folks at mises.org found that many economics classics by Austrian or related economists now deceased?were published by small presses that went under. This is partly because, among the Establishment, these economists were unpopular, so they rarely got approved for the bigger presses. The windfall is that the copyrights were not renewed, so a lot of this stuff is public domain and mises.org has taken to making them available online for free. Had these same writers been taken up by the bigger publishing houses, they might have enjoyed a little more money, but given the small audience and brief press runs, they would now be out of print and likely unavailable for free download if they were available in any form at all -- certainly, the copyrights would've been renewed. In other words, the failure to renew copyrights has actually given these works a new life.

Regards,

Dan


----- Original Message ----
From: Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 2:37:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] intellectual property again

On Mar 3, 2010, at 12:07 PM, spike wrote:
> I will start it: I now think that society is justified in providing a legal
> means of protecting information as property; in most cases current
> intellectual property law is adequate and not overly restrictive.? I
> recognize there are absurdities with protocol patenting, but I don't see a
> better way.
> 
> Your turn.

Additional problems arise when a copyright-holder takes an inconsistent approach towards reproduction of its material.

Take, for example, the Bundesarchiv - the German national archive, which is one of the most digitized archives in the world. The BA has an agreement with Wiki to make available hundreds of thousands of large, high res photographs without watermarks. Now, if I want to publish one of those same photographs in a photo-journal, I must first purchase a print, and then further purchase reproduction rights, for a total cost of about ?50 per image. This of course all has a significant impact on my COGS. When my book is printed and I send out review copies, a kind reviewer will then promptly inform his readership that these images may be seen for free at such and such a URL. Ouch.

I am of two minds about this. As a graduate student in LIS, I was virtually indoctrinated to believe that information wants to be free, and I still do cling to the notion to a certain extent. As a publishing professional, however, I also want to sell books -? and I want to sell books with pictures that people have seen before. Now, if I think an image is so indispensable to my subject matter that it's prior dissemination ceases to be relevant, well .... then why should I have to pay for it when others do not?

As a counterpoint, the United States NARA has no charges whatsoever associated with copying its images. However, it is also barely digitized - so getting images means traveling to DC and digging through dusty boxes of moldering documents while wearing white gloves. I guess everything has its price!


      


From ablainey at aol.com  Wed Mar  3 20:28:24 2010
From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:28:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003031151v375c329agaf208e44806f052c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com><BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike><580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com><A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike><C31A28AA-A89B-4B0A-8B3C-09951181B3E9@gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003031151v375c329agaf208e44806f052c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8CC8927353B19EF-DA0-794@webmail-d039.sysops.aol.com>


 Likewise, It's another topic that has been done to death, resurrected and then massacred again.
I like the tax break idea. Its like a social credit for your contribution to mankind. It would undoubtedly lead to arguments of value and reward, but something is better than nothing. If a country took up the idea it could lead to an influx of creative people, especially young folks trying to start out.



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:51
Subject: Re: [ExI] intellectual property again


I've been struggling for an original thought here since I've done this discussion so many times on so many different forums.

How about a humble suggestion: Create a tax break for releasing creative works into the public domain.  There's currently no real incentive to ever release anything into the public domain.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/89220df2/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 20:07:33 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:07:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003031151v375c329agaf208e44806f052c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<C31A28AA-A89B-4B0A-8B3C-09951181B3E9@gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003031151v375c329agaf208e44806f052c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91537.42296.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I don't know if there's never an incentive. Perhaps you meant to say a money incentive, but even in that case there are examples of things where people make money but can use IP. The food and fashion industries abound such examples as recipes and fashions, for the most part, do not fall under IP protection in the US and most countries -- to my knowledge. Yet, people seem to make money as?fashion designers and as chefs. At least, it seems, most of these folks aren't working pro bono.

Regards,

Dan


From: Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 2:51:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] intellectual property again

I've been struggling for an original thought here since I've done this discussion so many times on so many different forums.

How about a humble suggestion: Create a tax break for releasing creative works into the public domain.? There's currently no real incentive to ever release anything into the public domain.
-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers. We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs 



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/8fd8aaf8/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 20:52:54 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 21:52:54 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <212824.72698.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<212824.72698.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003031252x350ae609sc41c4e722fb81937@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/3 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>

> That's one of the reasons, as I stated earlier, that I prefer investment in
> the development of adaptive technologies and skills.
>

It could be argued that "arable land" is in itself a disruption of
ecosystems, but I think that we could easily form a consensus amongst
transhumanists for the "development of adaptative technologies" - which
*would* include, btw, the ability to grow human beings with gills, or to
implement large-scale geo-engineering projects.

But of course the devil is in the details. If, for instance, evidence
suggested that, be it for our own emission, we are now facing a runaway
warming process no matter what, probably we could accept the "ecological
disruption" involved in firing up most of our fissile stuff to put in the
sky, Project Orion-style, enough solar power satellites to cool down entire
habitats... OTOH, one would probably require some evidence that this is
actually the case before proceeding.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/4f9360f8/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 20:59:16 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:59:16 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Accelerando, The Spike, war and energy
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030935r498124eap2c16256eb4ebe843@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003021118g55aae850gb312775300c3de60@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021142p7cd1088en7ff45d1d798561b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021148j540b2fb2q971d5db763273b1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030741ra8e6564ob77632971357a748@mail.gmail.com>
	<E9DFBA04B4714F4AB0466C39DD3CE406@spike>
	<580930c21003030935r498124eap2c16256eb4ebe843@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003031259t218a3892hf3b187b2d88a513b@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/3/10, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> One wonders OTOH whether they committed suicide out of personal fear for
> global warming ("better a clean, quick death than being boiled alive") or in
> order to avoid contributing thereto with their continuing metabolism, and
> perhaps indirect energy consumption.
>
>

There is more detail in the Argentinian press (in Spanish).

It appears that recently the man was very depressed and looked ill and
had been behaving increasingly erratically, talking about the earth
going to melt. In his youth he inherited a fortune but was now quite
poor. He called himself a healer and sold home remedies to make a
living. He was accused by the girl's father of 'abducting' the girl
three years ago when she was 19 or 20. He complained to the police,
but they said they could do little, due to her age. The girl was
completely dominated by the much older man. He kept the family indoors
so that the neighbours hardly knew they had children.
It looks as though the man planned the murders carefully then
committed suicide. He left money for the funerals and legal expenses
and a note ranting about the government and global warning.  It seems
to be a very sad case about a man who lost everything, became very
depressed and killed his family.


BillK


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 21:10:52 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:10:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <91537.42296.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<C31A28AA-A89B-4B0A-8B3C-09951181B3E9@gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003031151v375c329agaf208e44806f052c@mail.gmail.com>
	<91537.42296.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003031310u72fc71eaw112bd43a01ca050d@mail.gmail.com>

Would the idea of a Singularity-inducing doodad or Godlike AI fall under the
category of intellectual property?  Seems like an odd and dangerous idea
that technology that powerful could be privately-owned.

Personally the thrill in transhumanism is being able to take part in these
events and not the enabling technologies being hoarded by the elite while
the other 99%
of us simmer in impotent rage.

-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/7523ec7f/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 21:37:36 2010
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:37:36 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <621423.16976.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9991003030856t7ececd9dta4991f5b1eb7c50d@mail.gmail.com>
	<621423.16976.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9991003031337j665b0e4fmbad482b5f871953f@mail.gmail.com>

If you mean in human history, AFAIK there hasn't been a global raise of
1?C/century in historical times. Before that, I'm not sure that even ice age
recovery rates can match that.

Alfio


2010/3/3 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>

> While true on the _known_ rise in CO2 levels, it's not true in terms of
> climate change in historical times, no?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>  *From:* Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>
>
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Sent:* Wed, March 3, 2010 11:56:20 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science
> isn'tsettled
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2010/3/2 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
>> > But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of
>> suffering.
>> > That's where my concern lies.
>>
>> Disruption as in...? Reduction in the aggregate mass of living
>> organisms? Reduction of complexity? Rapid change? Mass extinction of
>> some species?
>>
>> Any "historical" global warming-related examples of such disruptions?
>>
>
> In human history, no, because the current CO2 levels are unprecedented in
> the last dozen million years or so.
>
> In more ancient times, the PETM event (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum )
> might be a good example. It was a period of "sudden" global warming (6 ?C
> over 20,000 years) associated with major changes in marine and terrestrial
> life.
>
> Alfio
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/edde757b/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 21:46:49 2010
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:46:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030930h18e88fe4k8ec6bd130b4b53a9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9991003030856t7ececd9dta4991f5b1eb7c50d@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030930h18e88fe4k8ec6bd130b4b53a9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9991003031346ucfc46e3h4c292a8359b39aa0@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/3 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>

> 2010/3/3 Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>
>
> In human history, no, because the current CO2 levels are unprecedented in
>> the last dozen million years or so.
>>
>
> Is this also true for temperature levels?
>

Not yet, the temperatures takes a much longer time to raise because of the
thermal capacity of the oceans. Current temperatures are still within
"normal" ranges for interglacial periods.


>
> One wonders, because Greenland seems far from having become green again...
>

Greenland is out of equilibrium and is slowly melting. Actually, Greenland
is a leftover of the last ice age and would not form at the present
temperature, even at pre-industrial levels as far as I know...  Anyway,
given its mass, It will take a much longer time than Arctic ice to melt.
Antarctic ice will take even longer.


>
> In more ancient times, the PETM event (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum )
>> might be a good example. It was a period of "sudden" global warming (6 ?C
>> over 20,000 years) associated with major changes in marine and terrestrial
>> life.
>>
>
> The Wikipedia entry however suggests that such change led to an *increased*
> biological production "assisted by higher global temperatures and CO2levels, as well as an increased nutrient supply (which would result from
> higher continental weathering due to higher temperatures and rainfall;
> volcanics may have provided further nutrients)". :-/
>

Glorious times ahead! :-) One thing that I noticed is that at the PETM time,
the ice age/interglacial cycle hadn't started yet, while the current global
warming may have the possibility of breaking the cycle. Now, what would
happen in that case, if good or bad, I haven't the foggiest idea...

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/fa1ff04d/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Mar  3 21:51:59 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:51:59 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003031252x350ae609sc41c4e722fb81937@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com><2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike><62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com><5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike><942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com><574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com><212824.72698.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003031252x350ae609sc41c4e722fb81937@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B3ECAADEEFF940C886F3CF2244F72BBF@spike>


	From: ... Stefano Vaj
...	
...If, for instance, evidence suggested that, be it for our own emission, we
are now facing a runaway warming process no matter what, probably we could
accept the "ecological disruption" involved in firing up most of our fissile
stuff to put in the sky...Stefano Vaj
	
Ja I get your point Stefano, but when I see comments in the lamestream press
about runaway warming processes, I must wonder if the writers really
understand three critically important concepts.  

	- First, do they get the notion of negative feedback system
stabilization in nature?  Nature has a bunch of feedback mechanisms that are
not at all obvious, even to those studying the systems.  Negative feedback
loops are everywhere in nature.  The skies would be safer if aircraft had as
many.  

	- Secondly, do they recognize that we have a long history which
indicates that huge changes in climate haven't happened in the past?  

	- Third, do they understand the fourth power relationship of emitted
black body radiation to temperature?  The fourth power is a really
hyperactive function: if the black body temperature rises just a little, the
emitted energy to space increases as the fourth power.  I am amazed that
relationship, and how it is such a powerful factor in keeping the
temperature of a planet within a reasonably narrow band, plus or minus
10-ish Kelvin for the history of life on this rock.

I suspect that if sometime in the future we intentionally try to change the
climate, we will be amazed at how hard it is to do, and how many stabilizing
feedback loops keep showing up, kinda like bugs in whatever software I am
trying to write, always at least one more.

spike





From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 00:31:50 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:31:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
In-Reply-To: <201003020645.o226jQHg027524@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <201003020645.o226jQHg027524@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003031631y4d5d5597gb404523483a3f21d@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> Damn, this was good:
> "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded
>
> We need transhumanist rap songs...
>
>

I suppose the closest thing we have right now is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8&feature=related

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/bbdc541d/attachment.html>

From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 00:41:35 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:41:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com><580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com><BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>

> I lean toward the view, echoing Stephen Kinsella*, that intellectual property is not property at all. As such, it's not defensible via or consistent with libertarian property rights theory. (However, I would not use the charge of ideological unreliability against libertarians who take the contradictory position.)-Dan 
> ......http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/against-intellectual-property/
I read the article, and I still think that IP is a requirement, in fact I say it is the root of all property rights. Property is a result of men using their mind to create something in the world which did not exist before. All creations of new things in their mind is theirs to do with as they wish. Men have to think to live, and they have to control how they act and what they can think in order to properly think, so you control your thoughts and creations both mental and physical as a result.

A few things: 1. Facts about reality cannot be patented. The example from the article about the man learning their is oil on his neighbor's land through trespass and then spilling the beans to everyone is not a good example for this reason. The fact there is oil on Jed's land is a fact of reality. Regardless of whether or not Jed had told anyone, it is still just a fact, just as physical formulae are facts. Actually, Jed's plan to buy his neighbor's land strikes me as bordering on fraud, as there is an obviously important piece of information about their land that Jed knows and is withholding. It is akin to knowing that a certain drug can cause dangerous side effects and omitting that information when selling it to someone. Such a strategy is lying, which is a form of initiation of force against the other person (as you are divorcing their actions from reality intentionally).

2. Scarcity has nothing to do with it, nor does "first occupier." You have to create something to own it. Standing on some land does not make you create anything. You haven't changed it to some productive use, you haven't applied your mind to create some values from it. As a result you do not own it. If you build a fence, and start tilling the land, then you own the land, as you are using it for productive purpose, and are in the process of transforming it. If you pick an apple of a tree, it is yours, as it was not owned by anyone before, and now you are using it for a particular purpose (presumably to eat).

What is important here though is that if I come up with a new way of doing something, I can do anything I wish with it. I own that process (if it is genuinely new), and so can patent it and prevent others from copying my idea and benefiting from my idea, when I didn't want them to be able to use it. The key here is that it is essentially impossible to prove that you had no knowledge of my idea, so while you may be innocent of stealing my idea (and it was new to you), you have to assume it was likely a copy of my idea (as I owned it since it came from my mind).

Generally, ideas aren't patented or copyrighted, like in conversations, but you probably should cite the ideas of someone else if you employ them (out of respect). Often it simply isn't in the creator's interest to control the use of something. Jonas Salk gave away the polio vaccine for free, because he just wanted to wipe polio off the face of the Earth, and that was the fastest way to do it, as far as he was concerned. Just an example.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 00:51:38 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:51:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <A7EC114D46E74DE9B63904BC1AF84FD3@spike>
References: <mailman.1742.1267574194.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<936439.21436.qm@web113618.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<A7EC114D46E74DE9B63904BC1AF84FD3@spike>
Message-ID: <62c14241003031651jfb183den687d3611c3cf10c3@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:39 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we can combine two (preferably adjacent) commandments. ?Which two,
> and what would be the result?
>

Combine steal and murder - both essentially end ownership; one of
property, the other of life.  In our transhumanist future, bodies
(reference-universe avatars) will be mostly just property anyway,
right?


From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Thu Mar  4 00:43:50 2010
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
In-Reply-To: <2d6187671003031631y4d5d5597gb404523483a3f21d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <380183.95358.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Really? That's it? Come on..I'm pretty sure there is better than this:)

Anna

--- On Wed, 3/3/10, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Received: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 7:31 PM
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Max More
> <max at maxmore.com>
> wrote:
> 
> Damn, this was good:
> 
> "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap
> Anthem
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded
> 
> 
> 
> We need transhumanist rap songs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the closest thing we have right now is...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8&feature=related
> 
> 
> 
> John? : )
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


      __________________________________________________________________
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 01:16:03 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 18:16:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030811v7448ec6dw6a6e652e15d5f9a7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>
	<cb794c521003021427w5d513fc8ge0dbe2e273434cd5@mail.gmail.com>
	<2933A9D10E434718A03CCD3D031A580E@spike>
	<cb794c521003021556t4f1ac48wbfb62bafab7f8fee@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003030806s527348c7h3122c8ec983c5a0b@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003030811v7448ec6dw6a6e652e15d5f9a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003031716k5e38bcfdqf7fe1195e216b758@mail.gmail.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

Rue the day, kiddo. The sigma dropped by at least 50% when Eliezer, Anders,
Robin Hanson, Eugen Leitel, Hal Finney, Robert Bradbury and some others left
the room. You have no idea. A pity the archives don't go back that far.

>>>

And don't forget about Greg Burch!  I greatly respected him for his
knowledge of history, political science and of course, the law (being that
he is a legal eagle).  Hey Max, what happened to your good buddy?  : )

Giulio wrote:

Too bad, because this list used to represent one of the most exciting
discussion spaces on the net, probably the most exciting. What could
we do to restart a Golden Age?

>>>

I remember people saying we were going through a "new golden age" about a
year or two ago...  I can imagine a group of folks here getting uploaded and
then complaining that their virtual universe was so much more interesting
and enriching wayyy back ten milliseconds ago...  ; )

BillK wrote:

> The main difference with the old Extropy list is that everybody got older.
> And their sphere of action moved away from the old ways. In some cases
> it may be that their 'philosophy' changed and some of their old ways
> became an embarrassment that they would rather not discuss. Their new
> outlook expresses itself in different ways in different environments.

Yes.  I agree.  I'm attending church once again.

John Clark wrote

Getting older really sucks, but it beats the alternative. I've been on this
list for 15 years but I'm far from one of the original members. From day 1
15 years ago when I was the resident newbe I've been hearing about how much
better the list was back in the good old days. It's like a ninety year old
man telling us how much happier people were during the Great Depression;
well I can easily believe that you personally were happier, back then you
were a lusty teenager now you're a decrepit old man.

>>>

I've been on the list since 1999 (anyone here remember the ancient period
known as the 20th century??) and I do remember how we had some peak
periods.  But the list in my view is still generally going strong and will
have many rich years/even decades ahead of it.  John, I agree with you! hee
Yep, we will all in good time be just like like the Dana Carvey character,
"The Grumpy Old Man."  "Back before the Singularity we had meat bodies that
fell apart on us left and right, and we LIKED it that way, Gosh
Darnnitt!!!"  ; )

Jeff Davis wrote

Mailing lists and to some degree e-mail in general are anachronistic at this
point.  More often than not lists that were very active in the 1990s are in
severe decline at this point.  Young people are using e-mail less and less
in favor of more immediate forms of communication.

>>>

I just don't see Twitter-type applications as the answer, but then if we all
had truly user friendly keyboards attached to our cell phones, maybe we
could make things work.  But there is something to be said about
thoughtfully written email replies, as compared to a lightning fast tweet
that gets shot out into the net.

I loved this thread!  : )

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/defe2801/attachment.html>

From kat at mindspillage.org  Thu Mar  4 01:22:45 2010
From: kat at mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:22:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003021556t4f1ac48wbfb62bafab7f8fee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002281643n4c73e23bx11bafc0f0bed1da0@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003020656k34d9c89q44e0e6b967c3d652@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020913h44eb8469k78047c46443b7f1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003020941j735356a3y319ccd62f14eacf5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003021030u7cd176c1s857f46b82beae64c@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003021054l3c5fcbc7g23e525dfed4d6e9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0C5CE5918AA4739928B5F983E68ECA7@spike>
	<cb794c521003021427w5d513fc8ge0dbe2e273434cd5@mail.gmail.com>
	<2933A9D10E434718A03CCD3D031A580E@spike>
	<cb794c521003021556t4f1ac48wbfb62bafab7f8fee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8e253f561003031722m3b327ac5yf48097ac15bc713d@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/2 Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:


>> Uhoh, I am sooo not hip. ?Do explain the affluence gap between Facebook
>> and
>> Myspace. ?I refuse to participate in either, but didn't realize one was
>> for
>> rich and other for poor. ?Is that what you meant?
>
>
> One can't be expected to know *everything* about internet culture, of
> course.? It's
> a general ignorance I was lamenting, considering how internet culture is
> starting to drive
> popular culture.
>
> Facebook is frequented by a more affluent audience that fled from Myspace
> when the former
> became open-registration.? Myspace is now primarily frequented by black
> urban youth and
> poor whites.? You might even argue the Myspace exodus was a form of white
> flight as the medium
> became more popular with black youth.? Vast simplification, but that's
> basically how the cards fall.
> You see a lot of upper middle-class folks on Facebook of the kind you almost
> never found on myspace.

Probably the best site to read on this, if you're interested, is danah boyd's:

http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html

(If you're impatient with very qualitative research you may not find
it satisfying, but you probably won't find a better place to start.)

-Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: kat at wikimedia.org * Personal: kat at mindspillage.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage
IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 03:47:53 2010
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:17:53 +1030
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
Message-ID: <710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 March 2010 03:37, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> I will start it: I now think that society is justified in providing a legal
> means of protecting information as property; in most cases current
> intellectual property law is adequate and not overly restrictive. ?I
> recognize there are absurdities with protocol patenting, but I don't see a
> better way.
>
> Your turn.
>
> spike

I'm firmly on the free side. I see that people have already made a lot
of the standard arguments against intellectual property, good work.

I want to offer a longer perspective, a perspective of the playing out
of the 21st century.

The short version:
We are increasingly and will eventually entirely *be* information. If
we allow ownership of information, we eventually lose ownership of
ourselves.

The long version:
I think we can probably more or less agree that information and
information systems aren't going to become any less important as the
century wears on. Particularly, more and more of the infrastructure of
our lives is going to be made out of information. We're not going to
become less dependent on the global network(s) (in fact clearly we
will become very much more dependent, very quickly). For individuals,
increasingly all our communications, our purchases, our
entertainments, are reliant on the extended internet, and will share
the fundamental properties of information; particularly, endless
reproduction in full fidelity for a price approaching zero. As time
wears on, the bricks & mortar world is going to be increasingly drawn
into this, as we gain the ability to "print out" physical objects (and
food? clothing? etc etc). And, we will become increasingly dependent
on technologies based in massive, ongoing data collection and
interpretation (eg: healthcare must go this way). Will we eventually
teleport via copying ourselves across the internet? Will we eventually
upload ourselves? Before that, our entire social identity will be
embedded firmly in the infosphere and at its mercy.

In that context, a regime of intellectual property ownership and
restriction is intensely political. What is at stake is our ability as
individuals to live freely in the world, nothing less than that.

Right now, we are seeing books begin their inexorable move into
virtual space, and what we see is massive restriction. If you're using
a Kindle, you can no longer resell your books, lend them to others, or
anything else that relies on the principle of first sale. Furthermore,
you cannot do the simple and clearly valuable things that should just
be a feature of the environment; transfer them to any other computing
device as determined by you, process and transform them as you like
(as you could a text file). Now this sucks, and drives a lot of people
crazy, but hey, we're not really losing anything that we could do
before.

However, as we become more dependent on technologies that render
everything into information, the ramifications of this kind of closed,
locked up approach to information (information as carefully managed
real-world object analogues) will begin to really cause serious issues
to individuals. What happens when your social network is based in a
closed, owned environment, and those with power decide to change
things to your detriment (eg: lock you out)? This already happens in
the social networking sphere, and for some people real damage (to
relationships) occurs. What happens when your health care is based in
massive (lifelong) ongoing data collection & mining, but the formats
and software used to store and work with that data (or even the data
itself) can be owned, and the people that own it decide to act against
your interests (eg: legally restricting you from taking that data
elsewhere, legally restricting you from using that data in a way that
they don't approve of)? What about if our material needs (food,
clothing, etc) become dependent on the information infrastructure,
closed and restricted, and people who own it decide to act against
your interests, so you find you can't eat?

What if you are physically and/or mentally augmented, but all your
augmentations are based in closed owned information controlled by
people who decide to act against your interests (do you want to have
to jail-break your metacortex)? What if your lifespan is now augmented
beyond what should have "naturally" occurred, but relies on ongoing
intervention (implants? monitoring? etc) which is entirely
proprietary, such that you cannot change provider? What if you are an
upload, and find that not only is the environment you live in
privately owned and controlled, not only is your personal data format
proprietary, but the data, the pattern which comprises you, is
entirely owned by someone else? What if stepping through that
teleporter renders you, as a side effect, property of a corporation?
This sounds far fetched, but you just have to look at the battle over
the ownership of genomic information to see that we are on that
trajectory.

Transhumanism, from a social individual point of view, to me, is about
morphological freedom. It is about establishing the freedom of all
individuals to proceed into the future under their own determination,
and the laws of the natural world be damned; we will be what we can
imagine and will to become. But, that project is clearly tied
inexorably and completely into a world where everything important is
essentially information. If that world of platonic information is
owned and fenced by powers who don't have to respect individual
freedoms, then we are moving ourselves into a future of inescapable
slavery of the many to the few, a catastrophe.

I honestly don't see how any extropian or transhumanist who is looking
at the future with an honest eye can countenance a future like this.
The copyfight happening now is not a mundane economic squabble, it is
a political fight for our futures, and one whose importance I think is
very difficult to overstate. Don't accept it!

-- 
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 04:11:26 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:11:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2DDF758E-5A90-40F6-9E30-F20B7A7E8E28@GMAIL.COM>


On Mar 3, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Emlyn wrote:

> I honestly don't see how any extropian or transhumanist who is looking
> at the future with an honest eye can countenance a future like this.
> The copyfight happening now is not a mundane economic squabble, it is
> a political fight for our futures, and one whose importance I think is
> very difficult to overstate. Don't accept it!
> 
> -- 
> Emlyn
Every example you gave can be answered with one short answer: own your choices.

If you decide to buy a metacortex from a company which does not guarantee complete freedom of use and alteration by you or anyone else, then you have to live with those consequences. If you buy your memory storage, your upload services, your teleportation services, your ebooks, your movies, music, etc. from companies which do not grant you certain rights or priveleges, you  chose to pay for them, with those restrictions, and so must abide by those contracts.

To have any other answer is to absolve personal responsibility. I do not like massive overuse of patents, copyrights, etc., and so I think I am going to begin to move toward purchasing from companies that allow easy transference of data. Already many media companies are working to develop a type of universal ownership, where you can see any movie or song you've ever purchased, anywhere, whether on the internet, in hotels, or on demand in your home, for free (that is, for no more than the cost of the purchase in the first place). Why are they doing this? Because they realize that their is enormous money to be made by reassuring people that when they buy something, they don't just own the DVD, but they own the right to access that content on any device anywhere, now or in the future. Such a strategy eliminates all these stupid lawsuits, all the bad press, and a major incentive for downloading of pirated materials (that is, you can use them anywhere).

The existence of IP doesn't mean it has to be enforced, and you can certainly give your business to those corporations that are more liberal, and work to change the system through market forces and campaigns. But ultimately, you are choosing to enter into these agreements, and so you need to accept the responsibility of your actions. Whether it is the principle of Self-Transformation (versions 2.6 and 3) or the principle of Spontaneous Order (v2.6) or Self-Direction (v3), the principles of extropy have always placed emphasis on personal responsibility. Disliking the consequences of people's bad decisions is no reason to say that they should not be held responsible.

Such is my pro-IP response to your argument.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Mar  4 05:08:44 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:08:44 -0600
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8F405C.6000907@satx.rr.com>

On Mar 3, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Emlyn wrote:

> I honestly don't see how any extropian or transhumanist who is looking
> at the future with an honest eye can countenance a future like this.
> The copyfight happening now is not a mundane economic squabble, it is
> a political fight for our futures, and one whose importance I think is
> very difficult to overstate. Don't accept it!

So I should abandon any hope or expectation of being recompensed for my 
published writing, because otherwise I'm conniving with the Enemies of 
the Future. Didn't Stalin have similar opinions along these lines?

In fact, I've just about given up any hope of making a living from my 
work; all my stuff is instantly pirated (not that this deprives me of 
much, I suppose), the conglomerate hogs only want to publish shit "by" 
or about celebrities or mashups with ZOMBIES or VAMPIRES at the end of 
the title, etc etc. Damned if I know what the answer is; I'd personally 
be happy if everyone in the world agreed to pay a tiny amount whenever 
they downloaded or borrowed something I created (and I would do the same 
in turn, of course), but that doesn't seem likely. Australia's Public 
Lending Right and Educational Lending Right is a device for paying the 
creators on a sort of rude statistical basis, and could be generalized, 
but of course in that case Evil Gummints are involved. And while it's 
very wicked for governments to steal from honest workers, it's 
apparently virtuous for everyone to steal from me, for example. Because 
we have to prepare for Pie in the Sky By and By.

Damien Broderick


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 05:52:13 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 00:52:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/3 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
> Rafal,
> If you would like to argue that Bangledeshis are not at high risk if the sea
> level rises significantly, or that it is not the case that Arctic ice cover
> is drastically falling, do please be my guest.

### I note you didn't check the facts, as I suggested you should do.
Well, anyway: Bangladesh has not been losing land surface, in fact,
according to Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic
Information Services (CEGIS), it has been gaining about 20 square
kilometers per year, despite continued rise in sea levels (which has
been going on since the last ice age but this is another story).
Obviously then, Bangladeshis are not at risk, despite statistically
significant rises in sea levels. World ice cover, including both the
Arctic and the Antarctic, is of course more relevant to global climate
than the Arctic alone, and it has remained essentially unchanged since
1995, as may be expected given the lack of statistically significant
global warming which was confirmed by e.g. Dr Phil Jones.

----------------------------
> The careful reader will in fact note that at no point, not once, during our
> lively exchange, have I staked a claim that any particular forecast for
> climate change is correct. I have stated only that I believe that
> significant climate change over the next several decades is likely.

### It's amazing how much you rely on innuendo. You mention millions
of Bangladeshi climate refugees storming our borders, you make claims
of precipitous ice loss, right before issuing sky-is-falling
predictions ("fairly serious climate disruptions"), then promptly deny
staking any claims on Bangladesh or ice cover. Yet, still you believe
in "significant climate change" that awaits us - but wait, where is
the basis for this prediction? If you don't stake a claim that any
particular forecast is correct, if you admit to ignorance of climate
science in general, how do you know anything about the future?

The simple fact is that nobody, even persons very well versed in
climate science (much more than I), can make any well-grounded,
specific, reliable predictions of climate. Nobody knows enough about
the literally hundreds of forcings that shape climate to peer into the
future - not even zettaflop computers could do it. Maybe in twenty or
thirty years there will be enough understanding of climate to allow
predictions but for now it is, as you might say, "productive", to
simply admit ignorance and limit predictions to the general statement
that historical conditions, both warmer and colder, will continue
reoccurring. In other words, business as usual.

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 06:07:57 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 01:07:57 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <B3ECAADEEFF940C886F3CF2244F72BBF@spike>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<212824.72698.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003031252x350ae609sc41c4e722fb81937@mail.gmail.com>
	<B3ECAADEEFF940C886F3CF2244F72BBF@spike>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003032207h2535bca3v273b8af3c762e421@mail.gmail.com>

Spike wrote:

>
>        - First, do they get the notion of negative feedback system
> stabilization in nature?  Nature has a bunch of feedback mechanisms that are
> not at all obvious, even to those studying the systems.  Negative feedback
> loops are everywhere in nature.  The skies would be safer if aircraft had as
> many.
>        - Secondly, do they recognize that we have a long history which
> indicates that huge changes in climate haven't happened in the past?

### Exactly, spike - if climate was unstable in the warming direction
due to the presence of positive feedback effects, then significant
episodes of warming above current levels would have happened already,
simply because of random drift being amplified by the feedbacks - this
is the general property of metastable systems with significant
positive feedbacks and tipping points, they go on exploring their
configuration space. Since such warming did not occur for tens of
millions of years, this essentially precludes the existence of strong
positive feedbacks capable of warming the planet. We know very well
that in the absence of positive feedback CO2 levels would be unable to
cause any harmful warming, therefore we also know that CO2 can at most
cause slight increases in temperature, which along with its dramatic
fertilizing effect on plants would be mildly beneficial for humans.

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 06:11:11 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 01:11:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <4902d9991003031337j665b0e4fmbad482b5f871953f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9991003030856t7ececd9dta4991f5b1eb7c50d@mail.gmail.com>
	<621423.16976.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4902d9991003031337j665b0e4fmbad482b5f871953f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003032211k5149f071vb20926ca9cc4eef9@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/3 Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>:
>  a global raise of
> 1?C/century

### Where did you get *this* canard? Realclimate?

Rafal


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 06:52:06 2010
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:22:06 +1030
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <4B8F405C.6000907@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8F405C.6000907@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc1003032252p76a1d95cv1c01ca0a71e676ca@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 March 2010 15:38, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Emlyn wrote:
>
>> I honestly don't see how any extropian or transhumanist who is looking
>> at the future with an honest eye can countenance a future like this.
>> The copyfight happening now is not a mundane economic squabble, it is
>> a political fight for our futures, and one whose importance I think is
>> very difficult to overstate. Don't accept it!
>
> So I should abandon any hope or expectation of being recompensed for my
> published writing, because otherwise I'm conniving with the Enemies of the
> Future. Didn't Stalin have similar opinions along these lines?

Comparing my position to Stalin doesn't quite give me a technical win, dammit.

I've not mentioned anything about people being paid for work. There
are lots of ways to be paid for work, only loosely related to IP laws
unless you are actually an IP lawyer. Do you think there is no viable
business model for writers that doesn't include inflicting massive
restrictions on your readers?

> In fact, I've just about given up any hope of making a living from my work;
> all my stuff is instantly pirated (not that this deprives me of much, I
> suppose),

This is key. Is piracy depriving you of income? ie: would those people
have bought your work otherwise? Conversely, are some people turned on
to your work by reading a pirated copy, who later buy a copy, but
never would have otherwise?

> the conglomerate hogs only want to publish shit "by" or about
> celebrities or mashups with ZOMBIES or VAMPIRES at the end of the title,
> etc.

Well this sounds more like it; your industry is doing something shit.
But is that caused somehow by problems with our intellectual property
regime? I've been reading stuff from Cory Doctorow, whose contention
is that having his work freely available boosts his sales. He
describes paper books and free ebooks as highly complementary; people
who have one also want the other. OTOH, he might be selling well
because he's famous for his political views, so might be a bad
example, idk.

> Damned if I know what the answer is; I'd personally be happy if
> everyone in the world agreed to pay a tiny amount whenever they downloaded
> or borrowed something I created (and I would do the same in turn, of
> course), but that doesn't seem likely.

I'm starting to come around to that way of thinking; a general creator
tax mightn't be the worst thing in the world. After all, we all
benefit from creative work being available.

> Australia's Public Lending Right and
> Educational Lending Right is a device for paying the creators on a sort of
> rude statistical basis, and could be generalized,

I'm suspicious of that statistical approach, and I think it breaks
down online because you can't track who's copying what. Maybe we'd be
better off with a voting system (eg: hyperlink in your pdf which says
"vote for this work" and points back to a website run by the govt dept
in question)?

> but of course in that case
> Evil Gummints are involved. And while it's very wicked for governments to
> steal from honest workers, it's apparently virtuous for everyone to steal
> from me, for example. Because we have to prepare for Pie in the Sky By and
> By.
>
> Damien Broderick

Well, you'll hate this, but no one's stealing from you, because you
still have the thing. They may very well not be paying you, but that's
a separate matter, discussed above. As to Pie in the Sky By and By,
this shit is here and now. Liberal Democracies are introducing rules
that allow individuals to be entirely cut off the net for copying
stuff (with very little due process, so in fact its being cut of at
the whim of higher powers), to track & log individual's behaviour like
never before (in the name of protecting IP, or else to protect the
children), and are about to start mandatory "filtering" (ie:
censoring) of the internet for entire populations, again in the name
of the children although I suspect actually at the behest of the
content owners (this is a sore point for me because it's happening
here). Again, we're going to be dependent on this infrastructure, and
eventually it just will not be possible to opt out. I think the net is
the greatest tool for individual liberty ever to be devised, with the
proviso that handing total control of it to a massively powerful
minority can turn it into the greatest tool for oppression ever
devised, or in the best case simply break so that we lose all the
gains we've made and can make from what is, well, a
social/political/economic revolution unfolding.

I contend that this kind of restrictive control, and the increasingly
draconian intellectual copyright regime, are parts of the same puzzle.
The net lets everyday people richly interact with each other in a way
unmediated by powerful third parties. That's not cool if you're
invested in the status quo. The quest by goverment and large corporate
interests to lock down the net is about maintaining/returning control
over all our individual interactions back to those powers. Next time
you hear these people harp on about protecting writers and musicians,
think about when they've ever given a shit about you any other time.
These people would make you use the service entrance of their
mansions, don't kid yourself, they couldn't give a flying fuck about
hairy bohemians and their meagre incomes. This is about power, you're
just a pawn.

-- 
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 07:13:32 2010
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:43:32 +1030
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <2DDF758E-5A90-40F6-9E30-F20B7A7E8E28@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DDF758E-5A90-40F6-9E30-F20B7A7E8E28@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <710b78fc1003032313p200f9e79o215822b8f03c96ab@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 March 2010 14:41, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Emlyn wrote:
>
>> I honestly don't see how any extropian or transhumanist who is looking
>> at the future with an honest eye can countenance a future like this.
>> The copyfight happening now is not a mundane economic squabble, it is
>> a political fight for our futures, and one whose importance I think is
>> very difficult to overstate. Don't accept it!
>>
>> --
>> Emlyn
> Every example you gave can be answered with one short answer: own your choices.

Nice in theory.

>
> If you decide to buy a metacortex from a company which does not guarantee complete freedom of use and alteration by you or anyone else, then you
> have to live with those consequences. If you buy your memory storage, your upload services, your teleportation services, your ebooks, your movies,
> music, etc. from companies which do not grant you certain rights or priveleges, you ?chose to pay for them, with those restrictions, and so must abide
> by those contracts.

Here, different kinds of IP come into play.

In the world of copyright, you are right. Don't want to abide by the
license restrictions of the copyright owner? Buy a substitute. Now
there are other great arguments for getting rid of copyright
(specifically, it's a monopoly extended by the state, which doesn't
appear to serve any purpose except to make money for people who
already have vast amounts of it, to the detriment of the general
population of individuals).

But patents are a massive issue, because patents will lock up entire
areas of innovation. If a metacortex relies on some basic
technologies, all of which require permission from a patent holder,
then there might not be a way to get a liberated metacortex. In a
world where such a thing is available, there's a good chance it is a
necessary condition of existence, or at least leaves those without
them at a massive disadvantage. Combined with only being able to buy
closed commercial products, it's a scary future.

>
> To have any other answer is to absolve personal responsibility. I do not like massive overuse of patents, copyrights, etc., and so I think I am going to
> begin to move toward purchasing from companies that allow easy transference of data. Already many media companies are working to develop a type of
> universal ownership, where you can see any movie or song you've ever purchased, anywhere, whether on the internet, in hotels, or on demand in your
> home, for free (that is, for no more than the cost of the purchase in the first place). Why are they doing this? Because they realize that their is enormous
> money to be made by reassuring people that when they buy something, they don't just own the DVD, but they own the right to access that content on
> any device anywhere, now or in the future. Such a strategy eliminates all these stupid lawsuits, all the bad press, and a major incentive for downloading
> of pirated materials (that is, you can use them anywhere).
>

Well, but isn't this an argument against your own position? You're
saying here that these companies are developing ubiquitous, relatively
open services in response to people going around them and just taking
copies. What would have happened if people *couldn't* just duplicate
copies amongst themselves? How likely are the above developments in
that alternate universe? Note that it has been technically possible
for many years to do this stuff; the only reason it hasn't happened is
because the content industry have been fighting it tooth and nail.

> The existence of IP doesn't mean it has to be enforced, and you can certainly give your business to those corporations that are more liberal, and work to change the system through market forces and campaigns.

I try to. They're few and far between. I far prefer to use open
source, and consume and produce creative common licensed or public
domain information. That's not always practical, unfortunately.

> But ultimately, you are choosing to enter into these agreements, and so you need to accept the responsibility of your actions. Whether it is the
> principle of Self-Transformation (versions 2.6 and 3) or the principle of Spontaneous Order (v2.6) or Self-Direction (v3), the principles of extropy
> have always placed emphasis on personal responsibility. Disliking the consequences of people's bad decisions is no reason to say that they
> should not be held responsible.

You can say this is an individual's choice, but that doesn't make it
so, especially if said individuals are beholden to an intellectual
property regime which restricts their choices, in practical terms, to
a very small set, laden with boobytraps. I guess people in the eastern
bloc had choices - take what the state provides or go without - but we
wouldn't call it choice, we'd call it oppression. If I am forced into
a situation where I cannot make choices commensurate with my
interests, where the other parties are in collusion with the
government against me, that's not freedom.

And all of this is only one tiny facet of this argument; I haven't
even mentioned the massive good that comes to individuals from
information being free.

-- 
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Mar  4 07:18:55 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:18:55 -0600
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1003032252p76a1d95cv1c01ca0a71e676ca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>	<4B8F405C.6000907@satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc1003032252p76a1d95cv1c01ca0a71e676ca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8F5EDF.7060004@satx.rr.com>

On 3/4/2010 12:52 AM, Emlyn wrote:

>> >  So I should abandon any hope or expectation of being recompensed for my
>> >  published writing, because otherwise I'm conniving with the Enemies of the
>> >  Future. Didn't Stalin have similar opinions along these lines?

> Comparing my position to Stalin doesn't quite give me a technical win, dammit.

I'm glad you appreciated my irony. I've always wanted the chance to 
scream "The communists are coming! It's all a communist plot!" And being 
able to do so in Texas makes it irresistable.

Damien Broderick
[boho, maybe, but not remotely hairy these days, alas]



From giulio at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 07:30:12 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:30:12 +0100
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <4B8F405C.6000907@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8F405C.6000907@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003032330p6a1fa19dy83e771fac3570f22@mail.gmail.com>

I have enjoyed Damien's books a lot. If Damien is forced to become a
full-time truck driver because he cannot make a living with writing, I
will not be able to read his books. So, it is in my best interest that
Damien is able to make his living as a writer.

I think the current IP system is broken and can only become more
broken. A new system should be fair and flexible for both creators and
consumers. These Australia's Public Lending Right and Educational
Lending Right sound interesting, I will do some research.

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Emlyn wrote:
>
>> I honestly don't see how any extropian or transhumanist who is looking
>> at the future with an honest eye can countenance a future like this.
>> The copyfight happening now is not a mundane economic squabble, it is
>> a political fight for our futures, and one whose importance I think is
>> very difficult to overstate. Don't accept it!
>
> So I should abandon any hope or expectation of being recompensed for my
> published writing, because otherwise I'm conniving with the Enemies of the
> Future. Didn't Stalin have similar opinions along these lines?
>
> In fact, I've just about given up any hope of making a living from my work;
> all my stuff is instantly pirated (not that this deprives me of much, I
> suppose), the conglomerate hogs only want to publish shit "by" or about
> celebrities or mashups with ZOMBIES or VAMPIRES at the end of the title, etc
> etc. Damned if I know what the answer is; I'd personally be happy if
> everyone in the world agreed to pay a tiny amount whenever they downloaded
> or borrowed something I created (and I would do the same in turn, of
> course), but that doesn't seem likely. Australia's Public Lending Right and
> Educational Lending Right is a device for paying the creators on a sort of
> rude statistical basis, and could be generalized, but of course in that case
> Evil Gummints are involved. And while it's very wicked for governments to
> steal from honest workers, it's apparently virtuous for everyone to steal
> from me, for example. Because we have to prepare for Pie in the Sky By and
> By.
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 07:31:14 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <490029.56109.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Rafal, I wasn't arguing with you about the facts as you suggested they would be; I didn't claim to, and said quite clearly that that wasn't what I was responding to. You might be disappointed, but you shouldn't be surprised.

Nevertheless, I would expect you to know the following about Bangladesh, in ascending order of importance:

1. There is some disagreement about whether Bangladesh has being gaining land area or holding steady.
2. The land area in Bangladesh is extremely dynamic; it is losing land and gaining land at the same time. Some of the lost land was arable, but pretty much none of the new land, which is new delta accumulations, can be used for anything.
3. It is a glaring fallacy to assume that because Bangladeshis have not been adversely affected by sea level rise to date (which is quite debatable) that they would therefore not be at risk if the sea level continues to rise into the future. 

That last point is crucial and unassailable. You cannot possibly mean that no change in sea level, no matter how great, would put Bangladeshis at risk, can you? Would one meter per day do it? One meter per year? One meter per decade? Per 50 years? Per century? You may not believe that a sea level rise rapid enough to put them at risk is likely, but to simply state that they are not at risk is careless.

Regarding sea ice: It is not at all clear that world sea ice cover is more important than Arctic ice. I don't give a damn about the average temperature of the ocean (or anything else). I care about events that indicate an increased potential for disruptive (read: suffering-generating) climate change. I'm sure you're aware of the significants climatologists place on the more-rapid-than-expected Arctic melt, so I can only assume that you feel that you're right, they're wrong and there's no problem. But it's not like you've uncovered some dark secret that nobody wants to talk about.

> You mention millions of Bangladeshi climate refugees storming our borders

I was speaking to a general "you" when I said that; "you" in that case would be India or Burma.

>  you make claims of precipitous ice loss

There is a precipitous loss of ice in the Arctic, which is what I said.

> then promptly deny staking any claims on Bangladesh or ice cover

I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.

> If you don't stake a claim that any particular forecast is correct, 
> if you admit to ignorance of climate science in general, how d
> you know anything about the future?

You gotta play the odds, baby.





________________________________
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 9:52:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

2010/3/3 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
> Rafal,
> If you would like to argue that Bangledeshis are not at high risk if the sea
> level rises significantly, or that it is not the case that Arctic ice cover
> is drastically falling, do please be my guest.

### I note you didn't check the facts, as I suggested you should do.
Well, anyway: Bangladesh has not been losing land surface, in fact,
according to Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic
Information Services (CEGIS), it has been gaining about 20 square
kilometers per year, despite continued rise in sea levels (which has
been going on since the last ice age but this is another story).
Obviously then, Bangladeshis are not at risk, despite statistically
significant rises in sea levels. World ice cover, including both the
Arctic and the Antarctic, is of course more relevant to global climate
than the Arctic alone, and it has remained essentially unchanged since
1995, as may be expected given the lack of statistically significant
global warming which was confirmed by e.g. Dr Phil Jones.

----------------------------
> The careful reader will in fact note that at no point, not once, during our
> lively exchange, have I staked a claim that any particular forecast for
> climate change is correct. I have stated only that I believe that
> significant climate change over the next several decades is likely.

### It's amazing how much you rely on innuendo. You mention millions
of Bangladeshi climate refugees storming our borders, you make claims
of precipitous ice loss, right before issuing sky-is-falling
predictions ("fairly serious climate disruptions"), then promptly deny
staking any claims on Bangladesh or ice cover. Yet, still you believe
in "significant climate change" that awaits us - but wait, where is
the basis for this prediction? If you don't stake a claim that any
particular forecast is correct, if you admit to ignorance of climate
science in general, how do you know anything about the future?

The simple fact is that nobody, even persons very well versed in
climate science (much more than I), can make any well-grounded,
specific, reliable predictions of climate. Nobody knows enough about
the literally hundreds of forcings that shape climate to peer into the
future - not even zettaflop computers could do it. Maybe in twenty or
thirty years there will be enough understanding of climate to allow
predictions but for now it is, as you might say, "productive", to
simply admit ignorance and limit predictions to the general statement
that historical conditions, both warmer and colder, will continue
reoccurring. In other words, business as usual.

Rafal
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100303/5df750ef/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 08:53:27 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 03:53:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <490029.56109.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com>
	<490029.56109.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003040053k10e5176cv149d592b01ecbb75@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/4 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:

 You cannot possibly mean that
> no change in sea level, no matter how great, would put Bangladeshis at risk,
> can you? Would one meter per day do it? One meter per year? One meter per
> decade? Per 50 years? Per century? You may not believe that a sea level rise
> rapid enough to put them at risk is likely, but to simply state that they
> are not at risk is careless.

### We are talking about realistic scenarios related to manmade
climate warming, not about sea level changes caused by lasers fired at
the Antarctic by mischievous aliens, or other such situations. In
realistic scenarios Bangladesh is not at risk.

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

> Regarding sea ice: It is not at all clear that world sea ice cover is more
> important than Arctic ice.

### Of course it is. World sea ice cover is more of a global
phenomenon, it is better correlated with global temperatures. Arctic
ice cover is more likely to be influenced by local phenomena, like
prevailing winds.

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

>I don't give a damn about the average temperature
> of the ocean (or anything else).

### You should. If the ocean warms, it expands and could flood.

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

I care about events that indicate an
> increased potential for disruptive (read: suffering-generating) climate
> change. I'm sure you're aware of the significants climatologists place on
> the more-rapid-than-expected Arctic melt, so I can only assume that you feel
> that you're right, they're wrong and there's no problem.

### Name the climatologists who claim that changes in Arctic sea ice
can cause disruptive rises in sea level. Just give me references to
peer-reviewed literature making this claim.

You seem care about the wrong events.

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

> I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh
> had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover
> had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.

### Yeah, that's the point of innuendo - not making any clear claims.

Rafal


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 09:28:35 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 01:28:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] common sense
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030646m510dd74fx69e948bca6c865b6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <901517.34565.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Wed, 3/3/10, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

>> We can quite easily reduce mental phenomena
>> epistemically without reducing the same phenomena
>> ontologically. I mean here that we can understand mental
>> phenomena in scientific terms of neurological causes and
>> effects without abandoning the common sense notion that
>> mental phenomena have an irreducibly subjective ontology.
> 
> We can perhaps. But why ever should we?

We should for the sake of saving the notion of "common sense". 

> Let us take a computer specialised in... examining
> Turing-test candidates. Let us say that its performance are equal or
> superior to that of human examiners. Let us say that it is instructed
> to decide whether it is itself a good candidate or not. If its answer
> is "yes",  as far as I am concerned it is by definition as conscious
> as yourself or myself (see the paradox of philosophical zombies wrongly
> persuaded to be conscious, and subvocalising, firing synapses, taking
> attitudes, etc., to this effect).
> 
> You have obviously faith-based reasons to believe
> otherwise

Nah, I have no "faith-based reasons". 

I just happen to know a little bit about how to program computers to make them look conscious. 

In pseudo-code:

If input equals "Given that your performance seems equal to that of a human, do you have a mind?" then output "Yes indeed, I have a mind just like Stefano has a mind."

Call me crazy, Stefano, but somehow I think that code above does not really give the computer a mind like you have a mind. What do you think?

PS. Shhh! The subject of conscious minds has become taboo here on ExI. We're not supposed to talk about such things.

-gts 


      


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 10:48:44 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:48:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] common sense
In-Reply-To: <901517.34565.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <580930c21003030646m510dd74fx69e948bca6c865b6@mail.gmail.com>
	<901517.34565.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501003040248k627afdc5u7e8fea96f3b1da8f@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Wed, 3/3/10, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>  If input equals "Given that your performance seems equal to that of a
> human, do you have a mind?" then output "Yes indeed, I have a mind just like
> Stefano has a mind."
>


Well then Gordon, I will give credence to your views if you can prove to me
that you are not such a program.

Nobody is calling you crazy for thinking *this* program will not produce a
mind, except, I guess, your Straw Man.  What you are saying is not being
argued, and is in fact obvious.

The fact that you can program a fake mind does not in anyway preclude the
fact that a real one could be programmed.  I do see how you think the brain
may have special components which may prevent today's computers from
emulating it.  This is probably true.  I do not see how you believe that the
brain will *always* have some inextricable property allowing it
consciousness.  The very nature of our universe tells us we can mimic
anything in that manner.  Maybe a mechanism in the brain prevents any
large-scale objects from forming a mind because it only takes place at
microscopic levels.  In this case, we can make our brain out of tiny beer
cans.  It's a bit hasty of people to say that ANY medium could mimic
neurons, because we do not fully comprehend the phenomena involved.
 However, SOME medium absolutely could.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/df798c48/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 11:57:56 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:57:56 +1100
Subject: [ExI] common sense
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501003040248k627afdc5u7e8fea96f3b1da8f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c21003030646m510dd74fx69e948bca6c865b6@mail.gmail.com> 
	<901517.34565.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4e3a29501003040248k627afdc5u7e8fea96f3b1da8f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31003040357r2337ea29rb2304b49ea8c35f8@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/4 Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> --- On Wed, 3/3/10, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ?If input equals "Given that your performance seems equal to that of a
>> human, do you have a mind?" then output "Yes indeed, I have a mind just like
>> Stefano has a mind."
>
>
> Well then Gordon, I will give credence to your views if you can prove to me
> that you are not such a program.
> Nobody is calling you crazy for thinking this program will not produce a
> mind, except, I guess, your Straw Man. ?What you are saying is not being
> argued, and is in fact obvious.
> The fact that you can program a fake mind does not in anyway preclude the
> fact that a real one could be programmed. ?I do see how you think the brain
> may have special components which may prevent today's computers from
> emulating it. ?This is probably true. ?I do not see how you believe that the
> brain will always?have some inextricable property allowing it consciousness.
> ?The very nature of our universe tells us we can mimic anything in that
> manner. ?Maybe a mechanism in the brain prevents any large-scale objects
> from forming a mind because it only takes place at microscopic levels. ?In
> this case, we can make our brain out of tiny beer cans. ?It's a bit hasty of
> people to say that ANY medium could mimic neurons, because we do not fully
> comprehend the phenomena involved. ?However, SOME medium absolutely could.

A digital computer with enough memory can emulate (perfectly simulate)
anything that can be described algorithmically; that is, described in
a finite number of instructions. This is the Church-Turing thesis, and
generally held to be true. What is less certain is whether everything
in the universe can be described algorithmically. Everything we know
of so far can, but that does not mean everything can. Maybe the as yet
undiscovered theory of quantum gravity is non-algorithmic, and maybe
our brains utilise quantum gravity effects in order to do what they
do. It's far-fetched - there is in fact no evidence for it - but it's
not impossible. If it's the case, it means that the brain is "not
computable". A computer program might be able to display some of the
behaviour that a human displays, but there will come a point where it
fails: it may be unable to match a human in using natural language,
for example, and therefore would reveal itself as the computer in a
Turing test.

Gordon does not have a problem with the emulation, but he has a
problem with the associated consciousness. It isn't immediately
obvious, but there are several lines of reasoning which lead to the
conclusion that an emulation *would* necessarily have the associated
consciousness of the brain being emulated. These arguments are
unnecessary, but still valid, if one assumes from the start that
consciousness is just an epiphenomenon supervening on intelligence.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 14:04:12 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 06:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> 
> 
> I'm firmly on the free side. 

> I want to offer a longer perspective

> 
> The short version:
> We are increasingly and will eventually entirely *be*
> information. If
> we allow ownership of information, we eventually lose
> ownership of
> ourselves.

etc.

Emlyn, that was the best post I've read for a long time.

Please accept a Standing Ovation!

Ben Zaiboc


      


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 16:10:40 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:10:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>
>>
>> I'm firmly on the free side.
>
>> I want to offer a longer perspective
>
>>
>> The short version:
>> We are increasingly and will eventually entirely *be*
>> information. If
>> we allow ownership of information, we eventually lose
>> ownership of
>> ourselves.
>

### I don't understand. Shouldn't it be "If we forbid the ownership of
information, and if we are information,  then we forbid the ownership
of ourselves."? Without IP we will have, among others, no defense
against unauthorized copying of us (i.e. making of slave copies).

Rafal


From spike66 at att.net  Thu Mar  4 15:59:41 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:59:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <4B8F5EDF.7060004@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>	<4B8F405C.6000907@satx.rr.com><710b78fc1003032252p76a1d95cv1c01ca0a71e676ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8F5EDF.7060004@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <A3410E495F814C0E858CD515F4F425A5@spike>

> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
...
> Subject: Re: [ExI] intellectual property again
> 
> On 3/4/2010 12:52 AM, Emlyn wrote:
> ...
> > Comparing my position to Stalin doesn't quite give me a 
> technical win, dammit.
> 
> I'm glad you appreciated my irony...

Using Hitler as an insult is completely worn out, but the concept of
comparing people to well-known personalities is a coming wave I fear.  I
could imagine the terms Gore, Nixon, and Obama becoming insults.

>... I've always wanted the 
> chance to scream "The communists are coming! It's all a 
> communist plot!" And being able to do so in Texas makes it 
> irresistable... Damien Broderick

Damien having *you* sound that particular alarm would make it simultaneously
hilarious and terrifying.  Hilarious because of the irony, terrifying
because you have inherent credibility: would be a lot better than I at
recognizing them.

{8^D

spike



 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Mar  4 17:04:47 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:04:47 -0600
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8FE82F.4040201@satx.rr.com>

On 3/4/2010 10:10 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

>>  The short version:
>>  We are increasingly and will eventually entirely*be*
>>  information. If
>>  we allow ownership of information, we eventually lose
>>  ownership of ourselves.

> ### I don't understand. Shouldn't it be "If we forbid the ownership of
> information, and if we are information,  then we forbid the ownership
> of ourselves."? Without IP we will have, among others, no defense
> against unauthorized copying of us (i.e. making of slave copies).

That was my thought also. "First they take away ownership of your work 
product, then they take away ownership of yourself." It really doesn't 
matter if they are plutocrats, gummints or Stalinist dictators who do 
it, it's always for the Greater Good. (The bogus "Think of the 
children!" plea.)

Which seems to me a very different proposition from deciding by 
democratic means (if that's still possible and has any meaning nowadays) 
to allocate some of our wealth, effort, dedication, cleverness in common 
ways to maximize our well-being.

Damien Broderick


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 17:14:17 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:14:17 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <4B8FE82F.4040201@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8FE82F.4040201@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003040914g6e04af67x834a5f73eb85ec6b@mail.gmail.com>

>That was my thought also. "First they take away ownership of your work
product, then they take away ownership of yourself." It really doesn't
matter if they are plutocrats, gummints or Stalinist dictators >who do it,
it's always for the Greater Good. (The bogus "Think of the children!" plea.)

This recent thread of discussion seems to revolve around the idea that human
rights derive from property rights (specifically, self-ownership) which
is something I find strange and that I'm not sure I agree with.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/d067c919/attachment.html>

From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 17:56:55 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003040053k10e5176cv149d592b01ecbb75@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com>
	<490029.56109.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040053k10e5176cv149d592b01ecbb75@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <390703.80706.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

What would you consider a realistic scenario for sea level rise over the next, say, 50-100 years? About 17 percent of Bangladesh is at an elevation of one meter or less; a sea level rise of even have that this century (which is entirely realistic) would still displace millions and destroy a large area of food-producing land. 

And of course we shouldn't limit that consideration to Bangladesh, it provides the most striking example, but low-lying coastal regions around the world are subject to the same risks.

Is it perhaps that you believe that there are no "realistic scenarios related to manmade climate warming" at all, and therefore that which will never exist will pose no threat? Otherwise I really can't understand how you can discount it.

> Name the climatologists who claim that changes in Arctic sea ice can cause 
> disruptive rises in sea level

If I had made that claim, I would be happy to provide evidence. Again, please read carefully.

> I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh
> had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover
> had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.

### Yeah, that's the point of innuendo - not making any clear claims.


No, Rafal, I never implied (or used innuendo to suggest) that global sea ice was already shrinking, or that Bangladesh was already losing land area.

It's utterly pointless for you to ascribe to me a position which I have not claimed, argue against it, and insist that I secretly do hold it when I very explicitly explain that I do not. I half-expect you to next start explaining my role in the conspiracy.



________________________________
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 12:53:27 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

2010/3/4 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:

You cannot possibly mean that
> no change in sea level, no matter how great, would put Bangladeshis at risk,
> can you? Would one meter per day do it? One meter per year? One meter per
> decade? Per 50 years? Per century? You may not believe that a sea level rise
> rapid enough to put them at risk is likely, but to simply state that they
> are not at risk is careless.

### We are talking about realistic scenarios related to manmade
climate warming, not about sea level changes caused by lasers fired at
the Antarctic by mischievous aliens, or other such situations. In
realistic scenarios Bangladesh is not at risk.

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

> Regarding sea ice: It is not at all clear that world sea ice cover is more
> important than Arctic ice.

### Of course it is. World sea ice cover is more of a global
phenomenon, it is better correlated with global temperatures. Arctic
ice cover is more likely to be influenced by local phenomena, like
prevailing winds.

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

>I don't give a damn about the average temperature
> of the ocean (or anything else).

### You should. If the ocean warms, it expands and could flood.

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

I care about events that indicate an
> increased potential for disruptive (read: suffering-generating) climate
> change. I'm sure you're aware of the significants climatologists place on
> the more-rapid-than-expected Arctic melt, so I can only assume that you feel
> that you're right, they're wrong and there's no problem.

### Name the climatologists who claim that changes in Arctic sea ice
can cause disruptive rises in sea level. Just give me references to
peer-reviewed literature making this claim.

You seem care about the wrong events.

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

> I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh
> had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover
> had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.

### Yeah, that's the point of innuendo - not making any clear claims.

Rafal
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/694f4a8b/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Mar  4 17:40:06 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:40:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science
	isn'tsettled.
In-Reply-To: <212824.72698.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<658705.86279.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011049x145a253fo1c043fb7e4a2d74a@mail.gmail.com>
	<561175.72992.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003011926h7a76d240lfbf6eb8db2ec9ca7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<212824.72698.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6F5375ED-ED13-456A-8770-EC0A06893F83@bellsouth.net>

On Mar 3, 2010, Christopher Luebcke wrote:

> I don't believe it's controversial to state that a sea level rise of half a meter over the next 50-100 years is potentially catastrophic



I'd say that remark is controversial as hell! Half a meter sea level rise in a century and it's catastrophic? The sea level has risen 410 feet in the last 20 thousand years and far from being catastrophic the human race has thrived as no species in the history of the Earth ever has during that time.

> And it's not because people just sit around and die. They get up and move.

Exactly, if the sea rises half a meter in the next century then on average people might have to move a  hundred feet inland per decade or so, not exactly the end of the world.

> I just don't think it's arguable that significant changes in sea level or other climate factors will disrupt farming, fishing, infrastructure and freshwater supplies.

If conditions change (and they always do) then people will need to adapt, just as they've always done.

It seems to me the climate change thing should be broken down into 4 questions, we can only be certain about one of the answers.

1) Is the world getting warmer?
2) If it is getting warmer are humans the cause for a major part of it?
3) If the world is getting warmer is that a bad thing?
4) If it is a bad thing with today's technology is there any cure that is not worse than the decease?

The answers are; probably, possibly, probably not, and no.  

> The argument can't really be that climate change won't hurt anybody, is it?

Climate change is nothing new, climate has never been static, and like any change there will be winners and losers. However I can not find one speck of evidence that the exact temperature the Earth is at right now is the perfect temperature for maximizing human well being.  

> I don't give a damn about the aggregate mass of living organisms

Perhaps you should, it gives a pretty good indication of how productive a ecosystem can be. If you picked any time at random during the last 100 million years the chances are almost certain it would be  warmer than now, and pretty good that it would be much warmer; and during that time the aggregate mass of living organisms was at least as large as today. 

 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/97d91ad2/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu Mar  4 18:08:20 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:08:20 -0800
Subject: [ExI] commies are coming!  was:  RE:  intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <A3410E495F814C0E858CD515F4F425A5@spike>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>	<4B8F405C.6000907@satx.rr.com><710b78fc1003032252p76a1d95cv1c01ca0a71e676ca@mail.gmail.com><4B8F5EDF.7060004@satx.rr.com>
	<A3410E495F814C0E858CD515F4F425A5@spike>
Message-ID: <D9BA783E8C684C71881F350A1FC9A213@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of spike
> Subject: Re: [ExI] intellectual property again
> 
> > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> ...
> >... I've always wanted the
> > chance to scream "The communists are coming! It's all a  communist 
> >plot!" ... Damien Broderick


I spotted a commie on YouTube!  Do listen to him, and pay particular
attention to his body language.  Very effective.

This tuneful commie is performing the Russian pop classic entitled, "I Am So
Very Happy Because I Am Back Home In Holy Russia, Even Though My Walls Are
Orange and Festooned With Odd Looking Quasi-Decorative Metal Work Made By
Happy Russian Laborers Who Work For Fair Wages and Are Not Starving As the
Repressed Laborers In Capitalist Nations":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM

spike



From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 19:01:22 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:01:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1003032313p200f9e79o215822b8f03c96ab@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DDF758E-5A90-40F6-9E30-F20B7A7E8E28@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003032313p200f9e79o215822b8f03c96ab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <304623C5-57B5-4E7A-B426-341F126CC83E@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Emlyn wrote:
> But patents are a massive issue, because patents will lock up entire
> areas of innovation. If a metacortex relies on some basic
> technologies, all of which require permission from a patent holder,
> then there might not be a way to get a liberated metacortex. In a
> world where such a thing is available, there's a good chance it is a
> necessary condition of existence, or at least leaves those without
> them at a massive disadvantage. Combined with only being able to buy
> closed commercial products, it's a scary future.

But even given that it will put you at a disadvantage, you still have the option, you can survive without it, just as humans have for thousands of years. You just may not want to. In which case you'll accept the restrictions that come along with your decision.

> Well, but isn't this an argument against your own position? You're
> saying here that these companies are developing ubiquitous, relatively
> open services in response to people going around them and just taking
> copies. What would have happened if people *couldn't* just duplicate
> copies amongst themselves? How likely are the above developments in
> that alternate universe? Note that it has been technically possible
> for many years to do this stuff; the only reason it hasn't happened is
> because the content industry have been fighting it tooth and nail.

Part of it is a result of piracy, but a major incentive is that people don't like being restricted, and are doing everything they can to avoid such restrictions (including simply not buying their products, or only watching shows on Hulu because they don't feel the investment in DVDs is worth it when in a few years they will no longer have access to those, as DVD players may well be defunct, etc.). It doesn't take piracy. Never buying CDs but only listening to radio, or Pandora, or watching videos on Youtube. All those are avenues that are legal, and are at least partially supported by the strict enforcement of IP by companies.

People want to buy content, not particular instances of the content, and there is significant public pressure to change to that way of doing things. It is, at least in part, why Hulu has done so well, as I can watch it pretty much anywhere, anytime. And the companies that come out with open services first will get big public support (and make more money). That's why they are all working together (as they realize that if they did it separately, they might end up losing money).

> You can say this is an individual's choice, but that doesn't make it
> so, especially if said individuals are beholden to an intellectual
> property regime which restricts their choices, in practical terms, to
> a very small set, laden with boobytraps. I guess people in the eastern
> bloc had choices - take what the state provides or go without - but we
> wouldn't call it choice, we'd call it oppression. If I am forced into
> a situation where I cannot make choices commensurate with my
> interests, where the other parties are in collusion with the
> government against me, that's not freedom.
> 
> And all of this is only one tiny facet of this argument; I haven't
> even mentioned the massive good that comes to individuals from
> information being free.
My view is informed by my outlook on the origin of property rights (in a person's control over their own mind and body, and their need to produce to survive, and be able to control their actions), which makes IP a requirement. IP is a form of property right, and just because my property rights impede your ability to say, enter my home without permission, that doesn't mean I shouldn't have property rights in the first place. It just means you have no right to enter my home unannounced. People in the eastern bloc were operating under a government which did not respect legitimate rights, and instead made up lots of them, or ignored them completely, thereby initiating force against its people. They didn't have choice, because they were operating under threat of force. IP is not a threat of force, it is the enforcement of a right. Initiation of force is the violation of rights, so enforcement of IP cannot be initiation of force. Which is why I take the position I do.

However, this does NOT mean I think everyone should enforce IP all the time. Many, many times it would be better, both for the IP rights holder and for everyone else, if they gave up their right to their intellectual property. Jonas Salk is an example. Apple, now, has been knocked down a lot in my eyes for its filing of lawsuits against HTC for violation of patents, such as on "multi-touch screens". That's a ridiculous patent in the first place, and Apple needs to just get over it. Loss of public support because of a-hole-ish actions are one major reason why many companies should simply ignore infringement on their patents (they lose respect and business, and besmirch their own names).

So I fully agree that there are some major benefits of letting a lot of information go free. But ultimately, whether it does or not is up to the creator, and while you can try to convince them it would be better for everyone (including them) if they let it go free out into the world, it is still, ultimately, their decision to make. And we have to respect that it is not our decision to make for them.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Mar  4 18:41:58 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:41:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming  (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <901517.34565.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <901517.34565.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C260E4A1-E77D-4E1C-AA4B-B42B2FF19C61@bellsouth.net>

I noticed that Gordon Swobe has renamed his never ending Chinese Room thread, I believe Max expected a bit more from him than a simple renaming during the 2 week moratorium, after which it is hoped that somebody may actually have something new to say on the subject. Apparently Swobe is so obsessed he just can't stop, I wonder if he really thought a name change would fool people?

It is after all Max's list not Swobe's, but Swobe is of course free to start a list of his own.

 John K Clark
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/c45a2c4d/attachment.html>

From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 19:17:19 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:17:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <304623C5-57B5-4E7A-B426-341F126CC83E@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DDF758E-5A90-40F6-9E30-F20B7A7E8E28@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003032313p200f9e79o215822b8f03c96ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<304623C5-57B5-4E7A-B426-341F126CC83E@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003041117i348e10b5o6cdfde5f14b85fd7@mail.gmail.com>

> But even given that it will put you at a disadvantage, you still have the
> option, you can survive without it, just as humans have for thousands of
> years. You just may not want to. In which case you'll accept the
> restrictions that come along with your decision.
>


That's kind of like saying 'If you don't like the rat race there's always
subsistence farming.'  Technically a choice, but avoids the heart of the
matter.

-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/76d69c15/attachment.html>

From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 19:47:42 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:47:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003041117i348e10b5o6cdfde5f14b85fd7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DDF758E-5A90-40F6-9E30-F20B7A7E8E28@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003032313p200f9e79o215822b8f03c96ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<304623C5-57B5-4E7A-B426-341F126CC83E@GMAIL.COM>
	<cb794c521003041117i348e10b5o6cdfde5f14b85fd7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A6F809D0-071D-4D01-8494-80D686437356@GMAIL.COM>


On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Jeffery P. Davis wrote:
> That's kind of like saying 'If you don't like the rat race there's always subsistence farming.'  Technically a choice, but avoids the heart of the matter.
In your example, it is true that if you don't like what is needed to live a certain lifestyle, then you either need to get over it or choose a different one. That is simple logic. In regards to IP, and contracts generally (on which I think this line of discussion is based), if someone agrees to a contract (oh, idk, say a mortgage), and then later they decide they don't like it (because, say, the interest rate goes up), they still have to abide by the contract and accept responsibility for entering into it. 

Similarly, given the background of IP as a sort of contract (the company informs you at the beginning of the types of restrictions they'll place on their product), you have to abide by it, regardless of whether or not you change your mind later. Agreement with that contract was implicit in the act of purchase. Now, you can try to negotiate your differences, to revise the contract, etc. but that all is voluntary stuff that comes later, and the other party is under no obligation to agree. The alternative is to simply refuse to agree to the proposed contract. It's up to you.

That you enter into a contract with terms and conditions upon the purchase of an item plays a fundamental role in IP. Its why they have the messages at the beginning of movies, on CD cases, in user agreements for all sorts of things, etc. "You were duly informed."


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 20:06:50 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:06:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <A6F809D0-071D-4D01-8494-80D686437356@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DDF758E-5A90-40F6-9E30-F20B7A7E8E28@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003032313p200f9e79o215822b8f03c96ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<304623C5-57B5-4E7A-B426-341F126CC83E@GMAIL.COM>
	<cb794c521003041117i348e10b5o6cdfde5f14b85fd7@mail.gmail.com>
	<A6F809D0-071D-4D01-8494-80D686437356@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003041206t3011169bjece58d7fee222fa4@mail.gmail.com>

> That you enter into a contract with terms and conditions upon the purchase
> of an item plays a fundamental role in IP. Its why they have the messages at
> the beginning of movies, on CD cases, in user agreements for all sorts of
> things, etc. "You were duly informed."
>


There's a warning on hairdryers too, it says 'Do not use in bathtub.'

If I want to take something I've bought and make a copy of it, or tear it
apart to see how it works, there's not a lot that can be done to stop me.  I
don't see where morality enters the picture unless I'm depriving someone of
income.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/16b6f4e7/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Mar  4 20:19:35 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:19:35 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Cory on getting the future wrong
Message-ID: <4B9015D7.8020700@satx.rr.com>

Nothing astonishing here for us, but always worth saying:

<http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2010/03/cory-doctorow-making-smarter-dumb.html>


From scerir at libero.it  Thu Mar  4 20:35:59 2010
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:35:59 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] Josephson Brains was Re: Is the brain a digital computer?
Message-ID: <22655120.2385841267734959985.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>

Patrick Crotty, Daniel Schult, Ken Segall (Colgate University) Josephson 
junction simulation of neurons 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2892
http://physicsandcake.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/quantum-neural-networks-1-the-
superconducting-neuron-model/

Stuart:
This is actually a very cool idea. I see how Josephson junctions do act a lot 
like biological neurons. But there are also other features of JJs that are 
"value added". One thing that springs to mind is that Josephson junctions are 
also used in super-conducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDS) because 
they are extraordinarily sensitive to minute magnetic fields. SQUIDS can even 
measure the tiny magnetic fields produced by biological brains. The 
implications of this ability are quite interesting. Artificial brains that 
could detect or perhaps even read the thoughts of other brains might be 
possible. Kind of like built- in ESP. I will have to think about it more, but I 
wanted to separate it from the noise of the other thread. Thanks Serafino.

# See also 'Quasi-Quantum Computing in the Brain?', by Pentti O. A. Haikonen, 
Cognitive Computation, published online: 23 February 2010, downloadable here 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/lq0538r831j8m86w/fulltext.pdf    http://www.
springerlink.com/content/lq0538r831j8m86w/
But, at the end, he writes: "It has been speculated that in the brain, the 
quantum superposition, entanglement and collapse could play a role as these 
might improve the computing power of the brain. On the other hand, it has been 
argued that the brain cannot support the required quantum coherence. The 
principles of quasi-quantum computing might still be applicable to the brain as 
these do not call for any exotic physical conditions for their operation. The 
communication between neurons may rely, in one way or other, on kinds of 
superposition states that collapse to final states aided by learned 
entanglement rules. At the moment, this hypothesis remains to be verified by 
further research. It also remains to be seen if this quasi-quantum approach 
will have any value for practical applications and for the theory of computing, 
or if this approach will merely remain an intellectual curiosity."
It seems Haikonen has 'hella' informations about conscious machines, and there 
emotions .... http://personal.inet.fi/cool/pentti.haikonen/
[hella seems to be the new SI prefix meaning 10^27, like in hella-gram] 


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 20:47:57 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:47:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] free will again
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003041247la08f027v6ca5b7a024bdc5ec@mail.gmail.com>

*************************
Free will is an illusion, biologist
says
Physorg.com Mar. 3, 2010
*************************
University of Pennsylvania
biologist Anthony Cashmore argues
that belief in free will is akin to
religious beliefs, since neither
complies with the laws of the
physical world, representing a
continuing belief in vitalism or
magic. He says free will is an
illusion derived from consciousness,
but consciousness has an
evolutionary advantage of...
http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=11895&m=21115

**********

I think Minsky put it better but the main point is that this isn't a
useful subject here or elsewhere.

Keith


From spike66 at att.net  Thu Mar  4 20:32:05 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:32:05 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <390703.80706.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike><942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com><574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com><339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com><225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com><490029.56109.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003040053k10e5176cv149d592b01ecbb75@mail.gmail.com>
	<390703.80706.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D232D61A235F47BABEA7FEDA94E4CA4D@spike>

...On Behalf Of Christopher Luebcke
...
	Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science
isn'tsettled
	
	
	>...What would you consider a realistic scenario for sea level rise
over the next, say, 50-100 years? About 17 percent of Bangladesh is at an
elevation of one meter or less; a sea level rise of even have that this
century (which is entirely realistic) would still displace millions and
destroy a large area of food-producing land... 


Isn't there a European nation that is way down there in elevation?  The
Netherlands?  Why could not the people of Bangladesh embrace the technology
the Europeans pioneered a long time ago, build dikes, levies, windmills,
water handling technology, and so forth.  They have plenty of time to get it
done.  Failing that, they could dig out soil, make the high places higher
and give the lower places back to the sea.  

It isn't so much the Bangladesh people who are at risk, but rather their
low-technology lifestyles, a bit like the native Americans when the European
agriculturists started showing up in the 17th century.  Their style of
galloping around twanging arrows at bison was greatly at risk, and whole
tepee thing had to go.  These were replaced by pickup trucks, rifles and
travel trailers, which do the same jobs only better.

spike









From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Mar  4 22:45:17 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:45:17 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Cryonics: Comparing Organizations
Message-ID: <20100304174517.ft4j73v4gcggg0sg@webmail.natasha.cc>

Does anyone have the most recent comparative information* on different  
cryonics organizations?

* Number of members
* Use of state-of-the-art technology
* Reliability of suspension services
* Business knowledge and competitive edge
* Company/organization's relationships with personnel
* Organization relationship with its members

Many thanks,
Natasha



From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 22:45:52 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming  (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <C260E4A1-E77D-4E1C-AA4B-B42B2FF19C61@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <454572.2655.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No, John, I renamed it because I want to talk about the importance of saving our notion of "common sense". 

By the way I hope for the sake of those around you that you don't seem as nasty in person as do online.

-gts

--- On Thu, 3/4/10, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> From: John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming  (Was: common sense)
> To: gordon.swobe at yahoo.com, "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 1:41 PM
> I noticed
> that Gordon Swobe has renamed his never ending Chinese Room
> thread, I believe Max expected a bit more from him than a
> simple renaming during the 2 week moratorium, after which it
> is hoped that somebody may actually have something new to
> say on the subject. Apparently Swobe is so obsessed he just
> can't stop, I wonder if he really thought a name change
> would fool people?
> It is after all Max's list not Swobe's,
> but Swobe is of course free to start a list of his
> own.
> ?John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


      


From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 22:21:12 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <D232D61A235F47BABEA7FEDA94E4CA4D@spike>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com><5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike><942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com><574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com><339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com><225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com><490029.56109.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><7641ddc61003040053k10e5176cv149d592b01ecbb75@mail.gmail.com>
	<390703.80706.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<D232D61A235F47BABEA7FEDA94E4CA4D@spike>
Message-ID: <718726.7574.qm@web111215.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I agree wholeheartedly that the Bangladeshis should be planning now to adapt to further sea level rises (and to some degree so does the Bangladeshi government). Such actions should lower the risks of upheaval and suffering, but I don't believe they'll eliminate the increased risk of such that sea level rise provides.

> Their style of galloping around twanging arrows at bison was greatly at risk, and whole> tepee thing had to go.

Certainly. Of course the other thing that went was about 4 out of every 5 teepee dwellers, thus significantly reducing the need for travel trailers.




________________________________
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 12:32:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

...On Behalf Of Christopher Luebcke
...
    Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science
isn'tsettled
    
    
    >...What would you consider a realistic scenario for sea level rise
over the next, say, 50-100 years? About 17 percent of Bangladesh is at an
elevation of one meter or less; a sea level rise of even have that this
century (which is entirely realistic) would still displace millions and
destroy a large area of food-producing land... 


Isn't there a European nation that is way down there in elevation?  The
Netherlands?  Why could not the people of Bangladesh embrace the technology
the Europeans pioneered a long time ago, build dikes, levies, windmills,
water handling technology, and so forth.  They have plenty of time to get it
done.  Failing that, they could dig out soil, make the high places higher
and give the lower places back to the sea.  

It isn't so much the Bangladesh people who are at risk, but rather their
low-technology lifestyles, a bit like the native Americans when the European
agriculturists started showing up in the 17th century.  Their style of
galloping around twanging arrows at bison was greatly at risk, and whole
tepee thing had to go.  These were replaced by pickup trucks, rifles and
travel trailers, which do the same jobs only better.

spike







_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/017cd093/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 22:51:08 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:51:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <C260E4A1-E77D-4E1C-AA4B-B42B2FF19C61@bellsouth.net>
References: <901517.34565.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<C260E4A1-E77D-4E1C-AA4B-B42B2FF19C61@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003041451r41ad2e04xfe80159a18689125@mail.gmail.com>

John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>

>   I noticed that Gordon Swobe has renamed his never ending Chinese Room
> thread, I believe Max expected a bit more from him than a simple renaming
> during the 2 week moratorium, after which it is hoped that somebody may
> actually have something new to say on the subject. Apparently Swobe is so
> obsessed he just can't stop, I wonder if he really thought a name change
> would fool people?
> >>>
>

I think we should build a transhumanist conference about Mr. Gordon Swobe.
; )  I need to learn website design so I can create a proper parody site...

I personally think Gordon should have the right to continue his thread as
long as he keeps his postings down to the required 8 entries per 24 hour
period.

I believe in freedom of speech here, as long as one is at least somewhat
on-topic with transhumanism (slander and hate speech of course must not be
tolerated).  : )

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/e5df6ff1/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 23:14:37 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <2d6187671003041451r41ad2e04xfe80159a18689125@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <779771.5478.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I've only over-posted once, and that happened several weeks ago when I took the day off and had nothing better to do.

Clark creates the illusion of my over-posting by starting each of his posts (in his own special thread) with "Since my last post Gordon has posted X number of times". 

He pretends to have a conversation with me in that thread but I have no conversation with him. He talks to himself there like he has some sort of mental illness, but I think it's actually an attempt to falsely characterize my views and slander my name. 

-gts



--- On Thu, 3/4/10, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 5:51 PM
> John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that Gordon Swobe has renamed his never
> ending Chinese Room thread, I believe Max expected a bit
> more from him than a simple renaming during the 2 week
> moratorium, after which it is hoped that somebody may
> actually have something new to say on the subject.
> Apparently Swobe is so obsessed he just can't stop, I
> wonder if he really thought a name change would fool
> people?
> 
> >>>
> 
> ?
> I think we should build a transhumanist conference
> about Mr. Gordon Swobe.? ; )? I need to learn website
> design so I can create a proper parody site...
> ?
> I personally think?Gordon should have the right to
> continue his thread as long as he keeps his postings down to
> the required?8 entries per 24 hour period.? 
> ?
> I believe in freedom of speech here,?as long as one
> is at least somewhat on-topic with transhumanism?(slander
> and?hate speech of course must not be tolerated).? :
> )
> ?
> John
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


      


From wood.sarah.m at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 00:19:48 2010
From: wood.sarah.m at gmail.com (Sarah Wood)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 19:19:48 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
Message-ID: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>

Having chosen Moravec as an entry point, my first impression is that  
he is to a large extent simply reproducing an entrenched Western  
narrative about body transcendence & mortification, albeit secularized  
and couched in languages of efficiency or functionality.

Thoughts?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/a6429f5d/attachment.html>

From lacertilian at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 00:22:31 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 16:22:31 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <715CB28C-42FF-49C1-8054-C5324BAC62AD@bellsouth.net>
References: <e321aa4b1002221852x5d10a80erbd06cf9ff6a6b4cb@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31002270238y38102a63je148e549d4f69df@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e321aa4b1002272009r66d0b093w6a67849397206496@mail.gmail.com> 
	<CE35A5DE-F04E-4899-A4F5-2F0E75FF742D@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281025l6d85448an25ecee0570ed4a3e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<D837693A-8346-496B-9537-BD4E55D62594@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003011122o2d8ce004i3fff730c57dd12d@mail.gmail.com> 
	<715CB28C-42FF-49C1-8054-C5324BAC62AD@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003041622x2448596am261d93494b697572@mail.gmail.com>

Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>:
> Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com>:
>> I would not consider electrical charge distribution to be a structural
>> property. That's an electrical property.
>
> How can you separate one from the other? ?Think of a bunch of charged amino acids joined together. ?Can you change their charge distribution without changing their structure? ?No. ?The two are inextricably bound together. ?Good thing too, or life wouldn't even exist.

It doesn't work on molecular scales! I was talking about cellular
scales, which-- ah, forget it. Trying to argue for clear
categorization is never a winning proposition. "It's all arbitrary",
is always the conclusion. We're already a couple layers of trivia away
from the topic, anyway.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> I'm measuring with the only tool any of us have in detecting other minds,
> the way they act; admittedly this tool is not perfect but it's all we have
> to work with.

So, you observed my behavior. Well of course you observed my behavior!
That is, as you say, literally the only way to measure anything. I was
interested in what you were looking for *in* my behavior to indicate
the presence of mind-like activity.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> And you sure didn't act like you had a mind on Tuesday, so
> with as much confidence as I can say anything about minds other than my own
> I can state that objectively your mind did not exist on Tuesday.

See, you take for granted that I "sure didn't act" like I had a mind.
I had a pulse, didn't I? What could possibly make my heart beat in
just that way aside from my mind? (Don't get clever! I know you could
just build a machine.)

This is why I gave such a broad definition earlier. In other words:


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> ... and a mind can not exist without thoughts ...

A mind can exist without thoughts. The brain does more than think, and
the mind is the aggregate of all that the brain does. Therefore, the
mind is more than thinking.

I don't think, "oh, now I'm blinking" every time I blink. That would
be a huge waste of processing power. My mind just automatically sends
a periodic bare-minimum "blink" signal to my eyelids, based on all
kinds of factors that I don't know about (or need to know about).


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> If you changed a biological neuron to a electronic neuron once a second it
> would take about 3000 years to change over the entire brain to the
> computerized version. That may seem like a long time but it depends entirely
> on the time scale used, from a cosmological viewpoint 3000 years would be
> virtually instantaneous. And there is no preferred time scale, it's just as
> valid to look at natural phenomena at the nanosecond level as the billion
> year level.

I see nothing to disagree with. This is just one of those "more
gradual uploading methods" I was talking about.

Syntax dictates that I should have expected an argument, here, which
supports the statement: "if mind scanning does not preserve objective
continuity, then there must necessarily be a preferred rate of change
in the universe".

I accept unconditionally that there is no preferred rate of change in
the universe, but I also believe mind scanning fails to blah blah
blah. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that that statement is false.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com>:
>> The rate of change doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. What
>> matters is whether or not the old brain is in constant communication
>> with the new "brain" right up until the old brain is completely gone
>
> I agree, otherwise the new electronic brain would be missing the last
> thoughts the old biological brain had.

Whoa whoa! Hold on. Not necessarily. The whole premise behind mind
scanning is that we can copy thoughts from one medium to another. This
would mean that you can copy all the thoughts out of brain 1 and into
brain 2, whether or not the two brains are in communication.

Maybe you're implying that an operation of that sort would qualify as
"communication" in and of itself. That isn't how I was using the word,
though. I'm talking about a complex ongoing neural interaction, not a
one-way data dump.

P.S.  I'm responding to a couple three-day-old posts here. Good thing
time scales don't matter!


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 00:37:18 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 16:37:18 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <779771.5478.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <2d6187671003041451r41ad2e04xfe80159a18689125@mail.gmail.com> 
	<779771.5478.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003041637t67fbd0cche68b33acc5b240d1@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... illusion ... pretends ... mental illness ... falsely characterize ... slander ...

Jeez, Gordon. Simmer down. It's just a bit of friendly libel. Seems
like everything you've written the past couple days has been pure
unadulterated defensiveness.

No one is out to get you. Only your ideas have been under attack.
Ideas are expendable. It isn't the end of the world if, facing
opposition from all sides, you're forced to give an inch of rhetorical
ground. Cut your losses, catch your breath, and figure out some way to
repair your good name that doesn't require slandering someone else's.


From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Mar  5 00:46:31 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:46:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>

I'm not sure why you would chose Moravec as an entry point. It would  
not be my choice at all.  Transhumanism is not about robots and bush  
people.  Transhumanism is a philosophical worldview.  If you lens is  
robotics, again, I would not single out Moravec, but engage a  
collection of sciences and technologies through which the  
transhumanist goal or future could be or has the potential of being  
established.

And I agree with you about the Western narrative, by I do not agree  
that it is a bad thing.  Body transcendence is not the aim of  
transhumanism - whether a body is used or not is NOT the point!   
Uploading is not the GOAL of transhumanism!

This is why transhumanism gets a bad rap.  I oppose Moravec's  
particular vision, no matter how imaginative it is.  We will not forgo  
the biological body for no body, but transform the biological body for  
semi and non-biological bodies in real time and in synthetic  
environments.

To assume Moravec's vision of uploads (by the way a more contemporary  
phrase for transferring the brain's content to an artificial system is  
"whole brain emulation"), is the entry point and the ground rule of  
transhumanism is simply not correct.

Natasha


Quoting Sarah Wood <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com>:

> Having chosen Moravec as an entry point, my first impression is that
> he is to a large extent simply reproducing an entrenched Western
> narrative about body transcendence & mortification, albeit secularized
> and couched in languages of efficiency or functionality.
>
> Thoughts?





From spike66 at att.net  Fri Mar  5 01:23:56 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:23:56 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1003041637t67fbd0cche68b33acc5b240d1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187671003041451r41ad2e04xfe80159a18689125@mail.gmail.com>
	<779771.5478.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<e321aa4b1003041637t67fbd0cche68b33acc5b240d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A6EB499884A84164874DABDB573128DE@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Spencer Campbell
> ...
> ...No one is out to get you...


I am!  I have reverse paranoia: I am out to get everyone.  I fear that
regardless of how careful I am, my plot will eventually succeed and I will
get all six billion of you.

spike






From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 01:30:22 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:30:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <A6EB499884A84164874DABDB573128DE@spike>
References: <2d6187671003041451r41ad2e04xfe80159a18689125@mail.gmail.com>
	<779771.5478.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<e321aa4b1003041637t67fbd0cche68b33acc5b240d1@mail.gmail.com>
	<A6EB499884A84164874DABDB573128DE@spike>
Message-ID: <62c14241003041730x3d6ef836j773accc4d6098426@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:23 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> ...On Behalf Of Spencer Campbell
>> ...
>> ...No one is out to get you...
>
> I am! ?I have reverse paranoia: I am out to get everyone. ?I fear that
> regardless of how careful I am, my plot will eventually succeed and I will
> get all six billion of you.

We're more than that now.

What happens to you plan if you develop multiple personalities?

"Someone keeps breaking into my house an eating all the food...  oh,
that someone is me."


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 02:10:59 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:10:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1003041637t67fbd0cche68b33acc5b240d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <745622.86673.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No, Spencer, you don't get it. John Clark created that thread of his to stuff the search engines. 

He falsely characterizes my views while using my name sometimes four or five times or more in a single message. I once saw him use my complete name three times in two sentences! He posts his obnoxious messages to the same thread so it will appear in the search engines when people search on my name. 

I object to the deplorable behavior that I see here from this character who goes by the name of John K. Clark. I consider it conduct unbecoming an extropian.

To your point, Spencer, I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that you and other people here disagree with me. It reminds me of a similar situation from about 10 years ago... I mentioned this to Stathis here recently: In 1999 I exposed some health risks associated with a substance that some people at the time considered a fountain of youth. Some hopeful dreamers on a discussion list like this resisted my contrarian views, but I felt concerned for their health and persisted. The subject took up a lot of bandwidth and so it became temporarily verboten, similar to this situation now. I suppose I manage to get myself into a good row once every 10 years :-) 

-gts




      


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 02:34:19 2010
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:04:19 +1030
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>

On 5 March 2010 02:40, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I'm firmly on the free side.
>>
>>> I want to offer a longer perspective
>>
>>>
>>> The short version:
>>> We are increasingly and will eventually entirely *be*
>>> information. If
>>> we allow ownership of information, we eventually lose
>>> ownership of
>>> ourselves.
>>
>
> ### I don't understand. Shouldn't it be "If we forbid the ownership of
> information, and if we are information, ?then we forbid the ownership
> of ourselves."? Without IP we will have, among others, no defense
> against unauthorized copying of us (i.e. making of slave copies).
>
> Rafal


This is a good, and difficult point that Rafal raises.

Rafal's position assumes that our human rights derive from property
rights (h/t Jeffery Davis). Is that even supportable from a
libertarian perspective?

Having a read of this article on self-ownership,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
I don't find myself terribly enlightened. There seems to be a
conflation of the idea of self-ownership, and of the sovereign
individual, which to me appear to be very different things.

I agree that personal sovereignty is desirable. We should have power
over ourselves comparable to a sovereign state over its territory
(putting aside our feelings about sovereign states for the minute).
But, self ownership implies the ability to sell oneself. Does
sovereignty require that? Does the rights-based-in-property-rights
position require the ability to sell oneself into slavery?

I don't want people to have to deconstruct my position here, so I need
to state a fundamental principle which I hold, that I don't think
libertarians hold, and it is that of assymetric power relations.
Simply, i think we are always in a situation where power is
distributed unevenly (in many more or less intertwined pareto
distributions, no?) and that, unfettered, those with more power will
impose their will on those with less. Our social world is an uneven
playing field par excellence. To not take this into account is to
build a theory naive to the real world.

I think the libertarian idea that we can begin with property rights
and derive everything else from them is elegant, but doesn't work
(from a utilitarian point of view), largely because of its parsimony.
It is too simple, and ignores power.

I tend much more toward rule utilitarianism. I think we need to
enforce a set of more or less inviolable rules that safeguard some
basic rights of individuals, directly; these are human rights which
together comprise basic individual sovereignty, and whose purpose is
to protect the individual from others with more power who would
otherwise oppress that individual (violate their sovereignty). Part of
that protection is actually to deny individuals the ability to sell
themselves into slavery! More precisely, I would say that there should
be no ability to enforce a contract that includes servitude of one
party to another. Probably many human rights can be framed in terms of
classes of unenforceable contracts.

I flat out deny that in a landscape of strongly assymetrical power
relations, we can simply assume that all contracts are entered into
freely. Those with more power will coerce those with less power, in
myriad ways, into contracts which run counter to the interests of the
less powerful party. This is the very nature of power, it is what it
means to have power. Even when more powerful parties don't exercise
their power, it still warps the landscape, it is still apparent to the
less powerful party and constrains their actions. For example, anyone
in a management position should go ask an underling if they think the
manager is doing a good job; do you get an honest answer, or a
political answer?

So back to the matter at hand, I hold sovereignty over the self as
basic, not derived from property rights. I don't have to "own" myself
to not be enslaveable; rather, it should be impossible for me to enter
into a binding contract which causes me to be enslaved, and the state
or other equivalent holder of a monopoly on force should intervene on
my behalf should I find myself enslaved. Similarly with other breaches
of individual sovereignty.

So then what of digital copies of uploads? This will depend very
strongly on the legal status of a copy. Is it someone else, or is it
me? If it is me, then copies made by another party of me, without all
of my preexisting copies' consent and that new copy's consent, is a
breach of my individual sovereignty and action must be taken if I will
it, and there is no prior agreement into which I (or my copies) can
enter which will change that fact. On the other hand, if the copy is a
new person, then the same considerations apply, but only regarding the
sovereignty of the copy; I (the original) have no say in the matter
(although sovereignty over reproduction might be covered by basic
human rights).

Copyright should not apply to copies of oneself, it makes no sense.
Even though you are your pattern, are you the creator of your pattern?
Not really. It is created by, what, evolution + the transformations
imposed by the technical process of uploading + the cultural
environment in which you exist + some input by you, but only in a very
indirect way. We are not The Lord who mysteriously created Himself :-)
. We are not our own creative work in the sense copyright would
require.

But we do have an expectation of individual sovereignty. This should
obtain for any sentient (feeling) creature, be it animal or machine,
created or evolved. Individual sovereignty is sufficient to guard our
freedom in a world where we are information, I believe.

-- 
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog


From sparge at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 02:58:08 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:58:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <745622.86673.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <e321aa4b1003041637t67fbd0cche68b33acc5b240d1@mail.gmail.com> 
	<745622.86673.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003041858s7854b5a2m5e82a7983d6b9416@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, Spencer, you don't get it. John Clark created that thread of his to stuff the search engines.

You can prove that, right? You're not just slandering John...

-Dave


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 02:59:29 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:59:29 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 4, 2010, at 9:34 PM, Emlyn wrote:
> I agree that personal sovereignty is desirable. We should have power
> over ourselves comparable to a sovereign state over its territory
> (putting aside our feelings about sovereign states for the minute).
> But, self ownership implies the ability to sell oneself. Does
> sovereignty require that? Does the rights-based-in-property-rights
> position require the ability to sell oneself into slavery?

Ownership is the right to control. Self-ownership is complete control over yourself, which is a given from the nature of human beings, and a requirement of survival.

> I tend much more toward rule utilitarianism.
Well there is one major difference, I reject utilitarianism as an origin for rights, instead opting with a logical derivation from the the nature of person's (which to some extent I have already given). That is, almost certainly, the root of our differences on this issue.

>  Part of that protection is actually to deny individuals the ability to sell
> themselves into slavery! More precisely, I would say that there should
> be no ability to enforce a contract that includes servitude of one
> party to another. Probably many human rights can be framed in terms of
> classes of unenforceable contracts.

You do have the right to enslave yourself. It's stupid as all get-out to do so, but I see no logical reason it should be impossible. If you enter into the contract without threat of physical force, it was your decision.

> I flat out deny that in a landscape of strongly assymetrical power
> relations, we can simply assume that all contracts are entered into
> freely. Those with more power will coerce those with less power, in
> myriad ways, into contracts which run counter to the interests of the
> less powerful party.

How can you coerce someone without actually using coercion, i.e. physical force or threat of force? Saying "I'll fire you if you don't do X" might be one example you might be thinking of (and quite possibly an obvious possible example). But either that is perfectly fine (as X was included under your business contract, or there is a clause saying he can fire you for any reason at all) or it is a violation of your contractual obligation with your employer (that is, it is not in the job description, and according to the contract, you cannot be fired or reprimanded unless you are not meeting job criteria). It isn't coercion if it is within their right to act in that way. Only violations of actual rights (i.e. property rights, personal sovereignty; or put another way, stealing, murder, assault, fraud) are instances of coercion or force. Without actual force, you are always free, at least in any civilized society such as ours, to choose differently than another would like you to.

> So back to the matter at hand, I hold sovereignty over the self as
> basic, not derived from property rights. I don't have to "own" myself
> to not be enslaveable; rather, it should be impossible for me to enter
> into a binding contract which causes me to be enslaved, and the state
> or other equivalent holder of a monopoly on force should intervene on
> my behalf should I find myself enslaved. Similarly with other breaches
> of individual sovereignty.

Why exactly is it impossible for you to be able to enter into such a contract voluntarily? It is plainly obvious there are ENORMOUS risks involved in doing so, to anyone with half a brain. So if you go ahead and do it anyways (so long as actual force or threat of force wasn't involved), you deserve what you get, in my opinion.

The major problem I see with your position, is that you essentially have every conceivable decision as being under duress, as there are always power relations involved (power meaning influence, not force), so all interactions with others are not free. Any boundary between free and not free is meaningless in such a case, so I don't see how contracts could ever be enforced. You get around it by invoking personal sovereignty, but it really seems to me that that is just a teensy-bit limited form of self-ownership, with all it implies.

Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From spike66 at att.net  Fri Mar  5 03:13:53 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 19:13:53 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <62c14241003041730x3d6ef836j773accc4d6098426@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187671003041451r41ad2e04xfe80159a18689125@mail.gmail.com><779771.5478.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com><e321aa4b1003041637t67fbd0cche68b33acc5b240d1@mail.gmail.com><A6EB499884A84164874DABDB573128DE@spike>
	<62c14241003041730x3d6ef836j773accc4d6098426@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DE22B20DEF144F4386DEEAEC33304476@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty

> >> ...On Behalf Of Spencer Campbell
> >> ...
> >> ...No one is out to get you...
> >
> > I am! ?I have reverse paranoia: I am out to get everyone. ?
> ...
> What happens to you plan if you develop multiple personalities?

That is normal transhumanist behavior.  If we upload, then make multiple
copies, the copies diverge eventually because of differing external
influences.

Anyway, the doctor said I was paranoid schizophrenic because I thought they
were out to get me and I had multiple personalities.  She gave me pills,
told me to take one a day.  The pills work really well on the PS, but the
major side effect is memory loss.  So I took one, which cured the two
original maladies.  Soon I thought I was just me, and no one was out to get
me.  I went around with a delightful if somewhat creepy expression, like
that singing commie I posted earlier.  

A problem soon arose however: the memory loss caused me to forget that I had
taken my pill, so just to be safe I took another one.  Then I didn't take
any more that day because the second one caused me to forget that I had any
pills.  But it also overshot on both the other scales, so I went from cured
to actually reverse paranoid and reverse schizophrenic.  So now I am out to
get everyone and I think a whole bunch of actual different people are really
only me. 

Problem is, now I don't remember who any of my actual people are and who it
is that I am supposed to get.  The other day, just to be on the safe side, I
got somebody.  But then I couldn't remember what I was supposed to do to him
once I got him, so I had to let him go.  Good thing, because he might have
been one of me.

spike


 



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Mar  5 05:20:12 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 00:20:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Meta: A request for clarification
In-Reply-To: <779771.5478.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <779771.5478.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <82BD16C1-EF64-4421-9924-6C298F217219@bellsouth.net>

Gordon Swobe is correct when he says "I have no conversation with him", for months he has refused to talk not only with me but with anybody who asks hard questions about his very naive theories that he can't answer; but that hasn't stopped Swobe from posting an astonishing amount of verbiage in that time. Since I cannot talk to him I was forced to talk about him, or at least his ideas.

But now things have changed, despite Max's two week moratorium the man seems determined to keep the good old Swobe gibberish engine going at full throttle. So my question to Max is, does the moratorium apply to everyone except Swobe and must his illogical posts now go unchallenged? 

I have one more thing to say, it's not a complaint it's just an observation; If I had called a fellow poster "nasty" and "obnoxious" and "deplorable" when I was unable to counter an argument they had made and if I had then said "He talks to himself there like he has some sort of mental illness" howls of protests against me would have been made, protests full of a rather pompous Latin phrase for name calling. Again let me emphasize that I'm not complaining, I'm a big boy and have been called worse, but it would be nice if I were allowed to defend myself.

 John K Clark




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/354fe685/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 06:00:53 2010
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:30:53 +1030
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>

On 5 March 2010 13:29, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 9:34 PM, Emlyn wrote:
>> I agree that personal sovereignty is desirable. We should have power
>> over ourselves comparable to a sovereign state over its territory
>> (putting aside our feelings about sovereign states for the minute).
>> But, self ownership implies the ability to sell oneself. Does
>> sovereignty require that? Does the rights-based-in-property-rights
>> position require the ability to sell oneself into slavery?
>
> Ownership is the right to control. Self-ownership is complete control over yourself, which is a given from the nature of human beings, and a requirement of survival.

Well that's definitional, but can you cede this self control
irrevocably (ie: without the ability to take it back against the
wishes of the entity to whom you ceded it)?

>
>> I tend much more toward rule utilitarianism.
> Well there is one major difference, I reject
> utilitarianism as an origin for rights, instead opting
> with a logical derivation from the the nature of
> person's (which to some extent I have already given).
> That is, almost certainly, the root of our differences
> on this issue.

Definitely, and that's why I went into that territory.

btw, I think with regard to self-ownership (in a self-as-property
sense) it is a stretch to somehow call it based in nature. It's a
socially constructed view of person, for a start, and an arbitrary
ideal chosen as a starting point (exactly as human rights are). I
think to claim otherwise requires some pretty serious handwaving.

However, I wont damn libertarians based on that. You have to start
with some principle, the universe gives us nothing but the promise of
a bounded existence.

>
>> ?Part of that protection is actually to deny individuals the ability to sell
>> themselves into slavery! More precisely, I would say that there should
>> be no ability to enforce a contract that includes servitude of one
>> party to another. Probably many human rights can be framed in terms of
>> classes of unenforceable contracts.
>
> You do have the right to enslave yourself. It's stupid
> as all get-out to do so, but I see no logical reason it
> should be impossible. If you enter into the contract
> without threat of physical force, it was your decision.

If you deny the existence of asymmetrical power relationships then
yes, it's illogical. But I build my position on that assumption, and
am willing to offer all of human existence up to this point in time as
evidence. (note: don't bother too much to argue this point right here,
I'll go into more detail below)

>
>> I flat out deny that in a landscape of strongly assymetrical power
>> relations, we can simply assume that all contracts are entered into
>> freely. Those with more power will coerce those with less power, in
>> myriad ways, into contracts which run counter to the interests of the
>> less powerful party.

> How can you coerce someone without actually using > coercion, i.e. physical force or threat of force?

Coerce is a contentious word. If you define coerce to mean the threat
of force, then sure, you can't coerce without force by definition.
What I meant by coerce is something like "strongly influence with
extreme prejudice" (someone throw me a more exact word?).

> Saying "I'll fire you if you don't do X" might be one
> example you might be thinking of (and quite possibly
> an obvious possible example). But either that is
> perfectly fine (as X was included under your
> business contract, or there is a clause saying he can
> fire you for any reason at all) or it is a violation of
> your contractual obligation with your employer (that
> is, it is not in the job description, and according to
> the contract, you cannot be fired or reprimanded
> unless you are not meeting job criteria). It isn't
> coercion if it is within their right to act in that way.
> Only violations of actual rights (i.e. property rights,
> personal sovereignty; or put another way, stealing,
> murder, assault, fraud) are instances of coercion or
> force. Without actual force, you are always free, at
> least in any civilized society such as ours, to choose
> differently than another would like you to.

Yes, but this all assumes there is no such thing as power relations.
So the example you give above is true for someone who doesn't need the
job; they can in principle rationally weigh costs and benefits, and
either party can terminate the contract according to its conditions as
desired.

But the real world is not like this.

Much more common is that an employee is quite dependent apon a job.
They might be an unskilled worker who will take no transferable skills
to the job market. Or they might be indebted and thus be unable to
tolerate even a short period without an income. Or they may be highly
trained and experienced workers who have highly specialized skills,
for which there is a very limited market (perhaps for example a rocket
scientist!)

Such a person is in an unequal power relationship with an employer who
believes they can replace the employee easily. So, although there is
no force, it is very easy to imagine scenarios where such employees
trade away benefits (holidays? overtime? health insurance? permanent
employee status?) simply because their employer "requests" it of them.
The request is perceived as an order with which they must comply,
because of the power relationship. This person will understand that
the change is not in their interest, that they are now worse off. They
will feel forced to make the decision they make. That is power being
exercised.

Similarly, individuals with prized and or rare skills can extort
employers, the power relationship running the other way. This happens
a lot in software development. Think of the lone developer who is the
only person who understands the system, who hides knowledge to that
end. If that person asks for a raise, or extra holidays, or whatever,
they'll get it, and it'll look like a rational transaction, but their
employer may in fact feel forced, they may feel that the employee is
holding them hostage (because if the system goes down, they go out of
business). They are forced. This is power.

I'm not necessarily defending the weaker parties in these situations.
Being deep in debt is at least partly the fault of the debter, and the
ensuing powerlessness is foreseeable. The company with the all
powerful lone developer should have taken steps much earlier to have
not been in the situation. And yet the situation obtains, the power is
real, and calling people foolish or stupid or whatever doesn't change
that reality.

>> So back to the matter at hand, I hold sovereignty over the self as
>> basic, not derived from property rights. I don't have to "own" myself
>> to not be enslaveable; rather, it should be impossible for me to enter
>> into a binding contract which causes me to be enslaved, and the state
>> or other equivalent holder of a monopoly on force should intervene on
>> my behalf should I find myself enslaved. Similarly with other breaches
>> of individual sovereignty.
>
> Why exactly is it impossible for you to be able to
> enter into such a contract voluntarily?

I think it should probably be possible to enter into such a contract
(disingenuous as it may be), but it should not be possible to be bound
to that agreement (exactly as is the case now in free societies - you
cannot be bound by such a contract).

> It is plainly
> obvious there are ENORMOUS risks involved in
> doing so, to anyone with half a brain. So if you go
> ahead and do it anyways (so long as actual force or
> threat of force wasn't involved), you deserve what
> you get, in my opinion.

This is where we differ, and it is because of my contention that we
exist in a network of uneven power relations. If you could sell
yourself into slavery, very quickly many of the poorer people in the
world would be slaves. Why? Because they are dependent in some way or
another on some interaction with an entity far more powerful than them
(employer? credit agency? loanshark? walmart?), who will merely have
to say "Become my slave and I'll waive your debt" or "all employed
positions are redundant, but we are taken on slaves, sign up here" or
"become a slave and win this iphone!". It doesn't matter, again, if
you say these people are somehow bad or foolish for taking up such
"offers", the fact remains that it would happen, en-masse, and it
would be due to the exercise of power, be it not directly violent, by
the powerful over the weak.

>
> The major problem I see with your position, is that
> you essentially have every conceivable decision as
> being under duress, as there are always power
> relations involved (power meaning influence, not
> force), so all interactions with others are not free.

Yes! You understand me.

Now I don't say that all decisions are under duress. Actors of
relatively similar power will have free relations, absent the
influence of third parties. Duress, and just as importantly the
foreseeable possibility of duress, comes into play where power is
radically uneven. To maintain a free society, therefore, the project
is to mitigate uneven power relationships. eg: the separation of
powers in a democracy is designed to hamstring attempts to wield
necessary government powers as general purpose power outside of its
intended bounds.

> Any boundary between free and not free is
> meaningless in such a case, so I don't see how
> contracts could ever be enforced.

In fact some would agree entirely with this. I think there is nuance
here though; there is some range where relative powers are close
enough to treat as equal. We can proceed on the assumption that actors
are more or less in this range, leave it as the responsibility of
individuals that they don't fall into terribly asymmetric situations,
and try to rectify egregious examples of power imbalance where they
are being obviously abused. But it's always going to be messy and
imperfect.

> You get around it
> by invoking personal sovereignty, but it really seems
> to me that that is just a teensy-bit limited form of
> self-ownership, with all it implies.

It might be, but I think there's significant difference, which is the
inability to alienate yourself (or be alienated from) your rights. I
think that's a crucial difference because of an asymmetrical power
landscape.

-- 
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog


From max at maxmore.com  Fri Mar  5 06:12:32 2010
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:12:32 -0600
Subject: [ExI]  Meta: A request for clarification
Message-ID: <201003050612.o256CfLe007376@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

John: Please note that I have *not* (yet) declared a moratorium. What 
I said was this:

>I was about to declare a temporary moratorium on posts related to 
>the consciousness/identity/Searle discussion. However, it appears to 
>have died down over the last day or so. If it flares up again, I 
>*will* be imposing a moratorium of at least two weeks.

I haven't seen a flare up -- just a very few posts that I think are 
within tolerable levels. I cannot agree that Mr. Swobe has since then 
gone at it "full throttle", though I have noticed a few posts not 
actually on the topic but addressing his dispute with you.

I strongly recommend that you let it drop. If the (fruitless) 
argument gets going again, I will put the moratorium into effect. 
(Or, I may put all participants on moderation, but that would be a 
major pain for your busy moderator...)

Max


>Gordon Swobe is correct when he says "I have no conversation with 
>him", for months he has refused to talk not only with me but with 
>anybody who asks hard questions about his very naive theories that 
>he can't answer; but that hasn't stopped Swobe from posting an 
>astonishing amount of verbiage in that time. Since I cannot talk to 
>him I was forced to talk about him, or at least his ideas.
>
>But now things have changed, despite Max's two week moratorium the 
>man seems determined to keep the good old Swobe gibberish engine 
>going at full throttle. So my question to Max is, does the 
>moratorium apply to everyone except Swobe and must his illogical 
>posts now go unchallenged?
>
>I have one more thing to say, it's not a complaint it's just an 
>observation; If I had called a fellow poster "nasty" and "obnoxious" 
>and "deplorable" when I was unable to counter an argument they had 
>made and if I had then said "He talks to himself there like he has 
>some sort of mental illness" howls of protests against me would have 
>been made, protests full of a rather pompous Latin phrase for name 
>calling. Again let me emphasize that I'm not complaining, I'm a big 
>boy and have been called worse, but it would be nice if I were 
>allowed to defend myself.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>




From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 06:30:52 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 01:30:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Thread renaming (Was: common sense)
In-Reply-To: <DE22B20DEF144F4386DEEAEC33304476@spike>
References: <2d6187671003041451r41ad2e04xfe80159a18689125@mail.gmail.com>
	<779771.5478.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<e321aa4b1003041637t67fbd0cche68b33acc5b240d1@mail.gmail.com>
	<A6EB499884A84164874DABDB573128DE@spike>
	<62c14241003041730x3d6ef836j773accc4d6098426@mail.gmail.com>
	<DE22B20DEF144F4386DEEAEC33304476@spike>
Message-ID: <62c14241003042230u5fb034aao8a60a7b016b4673f@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:13 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Problem is, now I don't remember who any of my actual people are and who it
> is that I am supposed to get. ?The other day, just to be on the safe side, I
> got somebody. ?But then I couldn't remember what I was supposed to do to him
> once I got him, so I had to let him go. ?Good thing, because he might have
> been one of me.

That's called Catch & Release

If you had left some kind of subdermal RFID chip, it'd be Tag & Release

If they re-sign an agreement to stay at your property, that's Lease & ReLease

If they resign the agreement, you really should release them from the
obligation.


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Mar  5 06:07:30 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 01:07:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] free will again
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003041247la08f027v6ca5b7a024bdc5ec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003041247la08f027v6ca5b7a024bdc5ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0B78E577-F889-448B-9CC8-3AEEC1DD1095@bellsouth.net>

On Mar 4, 2010,  Keith Henson wrote:

> Anthony Cashmore argues that belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs

I disagree, religious beliefs are just wrong but the idea of free will is so bad it's not even wrong. And calling something an illusion adds nothing because illusion, unlike free will, is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomena.

 John K Clark 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/ea0779dd/attachment.html>

From eric at m056832107.syzygy.com  Fri Mar  5 07:19:15 2010
From: eric at m056832107.syzygy.com (Eric Messick)
Date: 5 Mar 2010 07:19:15 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Copying and merging awareness.
Message-ID: <20100305071915.5.qmail@syzygy.com>

Here are some thoughts on some possibilities provided by uploading
technology.  I hope they can spawn some interesting discussion.

Brief summary:

Given uploading, we can split brain power to perform two or more tasks
at once, and later rejoin the resulting entities.

Medium summary:

It's easy to imagine splitting into two parts by copying, and those
copies can be given control of different real or virtual bodies to
perform two tasks simultaneously.  Those two individuals will diverge
over time.  It would be nice to be able to merge those changes
together to rejoin the two individuals into a single entity.

Can it be done?

I propose that merging the data for synaptic connection strength would
merge the long term memories.  Merging the electro-chemical activity
which represents awareness should be possible as well, though the
method may be dependent on the details of how awareness is generated.

What would it be like after the merge?

Longer discussion:

Cognitive function in humans can be divided into various categories
based on the timescale of action of the function.

At the short end of the time scale, we have awareness and action,
which operate continuously during waking states.  Senses relay
information which we are aware of as it arrives.  Intention is
translated into action which occurs immediately.  Much of our behavior
fits within this category.

For tasks which require brief storage we have short term memory.
Capacity is limited, and it fades quickly unless it is repeated or
felt to be important.  Example: what phone number am I dialing?  We
are continuously aware of what is in our short term memory.

Certain items fall out of our awareness, yet are retained for a longer
period, generally minutes to hours.  Unless reinforced these too fade
within a day or so.  I will refer to this as medium term memory.
Example: where did I park the car?

When items are reinforced by repetition or emotional impact they enter
our long term memory.  These can be recalled many years later, and
form the basis for the continuity of our identity.

Neurons also have functional features which can be categorized by
timescale.  I propose that these neural functions implement the
cognitive functions described above.

Again, at the short end of the time scale we have the electro-chemical
firing patterns of neurons.  These are ephemeral, except as they
affect the longer time scale functions below.  We know that sense
information and action commands are relayed via electro-chemical
action potentials traveling along axons.  It makes sense that
awareness and intent, which must link to the body through action
potentials, would be implemented using the same action potentials.

Where feedback loops exist, sustained repeated firing patterns may
occur.  Within the proper structures, these may be the implementation
of short term memory.  Since we are aware of the contents of our short
term memory, it makes sense that it would also be implemented via
action potentials, just as we have postulated that awareness is
implemented.

Where firing patterns persist, chemical changes occur to synapses
altering the strength of the connection between neurons.  This is
called potentiation.  These changes involve the binding of
small molecules to receptors associated with the synapses, and the
changes revert as the molecules diffuse away from their binding sites.
Unless other machinery is activated, no lasting change will remain.
These types of changes match the features of the medium term memory
described above.  While there may be no active electro-chemical signal
which we would be aware of, if we stimulate part of the circuit it
will re-establish the original firing pattern, allowing us to recall
the memory.

Where reinforcement is strong, more permanent changes occur.  More
receptors are added to synapses, and additional synapses between the
same neurons may be created.  These structural changes are permanent,
and known to be necessary for the formation of long term memories.

So, what can we do with this information?

It suggests a plausible scenario for splitting and rejoining
awareness.

To split, take a snapshot of both the synaptic and electro-chemical
states.  Copy this information to a new processor, or start a new
thread on the same processing system.  Electro-chemical states of the
two threads are isolated to prevent signals from one instance from
intruding on and confusing the other instance.

Each thread creates delta records describing the changes to the
snapshot state.  Those records can later be applied in parallel to the
snapshot to create the merged data-set.

Synaptic strength updates could either be isolated, to be merged
later, or both instances could update and use the same database.  One
instance could remember what the other instance had done.  Just this
sharing of data could be enough to keep the instances well
synchronized.  You can draw the isolation line either at long term
memories, or medium term memories.

A stronger form of synchronization would merge the electro-chemical
data representing awareness.  It would probably be best to paralyze
the bodies controlled by merging instances to prevent spurious action.

Imagine what it would be like to suddenly become aware of what your
other self is thinking.  At the same time, you become aware of your
other self becoming aware of what you were thinking.  You transition
from remembering one stream of action to remembering two.

Fancier possibilities include the ability to edit one data-set to
remove undesired pieces.  If you spawn a copy to preform some
uninteresting task, you can merge back only the briefest impression
of doing it, along with any long term learning allowing you to perform
it better next time.  Care would need to be taken to keep the copy
from resenting the not to be remembered drudgery.  You don't want to
dwell on the thought that you're once again going to be the work copy
rather than the pleasure copy.

Well, that's enough for now.

-eric


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 13:35:55 2010
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1267790402.25188.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <130224.65928.qm@web113603.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:

> See, you take for granted that I "sure didn't act" like I
> had a mind.
> I had a pulse, didn't I? What could possibly make my heart
> beat in
> just that way aside from my mind? (Don't get clever! I know
> you could
> just build a machine.)
> 

The heart beats all by itself.  No need to be connected to a brain, the heart only needs a brain to regulate its beating, and that's minimal.  Most regulation is through chemical signals in the blood.  The heart is pretty independent, really, no need for minds to be involved at all.

I doubt that any routine functioning of organs, limbs, etc. is indicative of a mind.  Intelligent behaviour is, though.


> John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> > ... and a mind can not exist without thoughts ...
> 
> A mind can exist without thoughts. The brain does more than
> think, and
> the mind is the aggregate of all that the brain does.
> Therefore, the
> mind is more than thinking.
 
I have to take issue with this.  The brain does more than think, yes. It secretes hormones, for instance.  But 'thinking' is what a mind *is*.  

To make an analogy with a car:  
A car pumps petrol, keeps track of the time, plays music, opens and closes windows, and it also moves.  A car's purpose is transport.  Moving is what transport *is*. The other things are incidental and while they may support moving they are not essential to transport the way moving is. Transport cannot exist without moving.

(Just to be clear, in this analogy, Car = Brain, Moving = Thinking, Transport = Mind)

The mind is thinking, and nothing more.  I don't see how 'a mind without thoughts' means anything, it's an oxymoron.


Ben Zaiboc


      


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 14:09:26 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:09:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003050609t1895c007xc18a8b6fac01e10f@mail.gmail.com>

> Well that's definitional, but can you cede this self control
> irrevocably (ie: without the ability to take it back against the
> wishes of the entity to whom you ceded it)?
>


Just to take this a little further, if rights derive from self-ownership, is
there
any reason under that assumption that I shouldn't be able to sell the right
to kill, butcher, and consume my body?


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/9eb5589f/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 14:13:46 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:13:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003050609t1895c007xc18a8b6fac01e10f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com> 
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com> 
	<cb794c521003050609t1895c007xc18a8b6fac01e10f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003050613x477a799xa814c80e3b58c443@mail.gmail.com>

010/3/5 Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:
>
> Just to take this a little further, if rights derive from self-ownership, is
> there
> any reason under that assumption that I shouldn't be able to sell the right
> to kill, butcher, and consume my body?

Nope. But it's against eBay's rules.

-Dave


From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 14:35:08 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:35:08 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/3/10, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> Yes. Personally, I am a staunch fan, in the order, of some kind or
>  other of fusion, of space-based solar power, and of very deep
>  geothermy.
>
>


A conference put on by the new Advanced Research Projects Agency for
Energy (ARPA-E) 01-03 March 2010 was packed with companies exhibiting
intriguing approaches to clean energy.

See:
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10463851-54.html>
and
<http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/24883/>

Some highlights:
Transonic Combustion, based in Camarillo, CA, has developed a gasoline
fuel injection system that can improve the efficiency of gasoline
engines by 50 to 75 percent, beating the fuel economy of hybrid
vehicles.

American Superconductor, of Devens, MA, is developing massive 10
megawatt wind turbines that are only possible with the use of
extremely lightweight superconducting generators. (Today's turbines
typically generate around 2 to 3 megawatts.)

A group out of Michigan State University is developing a natural gas
electricity generator for use in hybrid vehicles. The goal: give
natural gas cars the same driving range as conventional gasoline cars,
making way for their wide adoption.

Oscilla Power, based in Salt Lake City, UT, plans to start testing a
novel wave power generator. Wave power is notoriously difficult to
harness because of the damage waves can cause to mechanical systems.
Oscilla has found a way to use an inexpensive iron-aluminum alloy to
generate electrical current, without the need for any moving parts.

Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), spun out of Xerox PARC, is
developing a new form of refrigeration that could be three times as
efficient as existing forms. It's based on thermoacoustics, a
technology that works for cooling at extremely low temperatures (such
as for liquefying gases), but hasn't been used for cooling at room
temperature (what you need for household refrigeration). The company
thinks it's found a way around previous limits to the technology.

FloDesign Wind Turbines has already received a Department of Energy
grant to further develop a wind turbine that uses principles of jet
engines to improve turbine performance.

Start-up MTPV, which was spun out of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, is seeking to commercialize a technology for converting
heat into electricity. The idea is to use waste heat from industrial
processes, such as making glass or steel, to make electricity. A
prototype thermophotovoltaic system uses a chip sandwiched with a
traditional solar cell. Heat makes one layer "glow" electromagnetic
energy that is then converted into electricity using a photovoltaic
cell,

Xtreme Energetics is building a solar concentrator that uses glass to
concentrate light onto a solar cell to boost the output.

Makani Power is developing a system for capturing wind energy at high
altitudes. The vision is to put 35-meter-long tethered blades only
slightly higher than land wind turbines. Using a "kite" approach
provides more area to deploy wind power devices while using less
material.

Plasma Kinetics is looking to further develop a system that uses disks
made mostly from magnesium to store hydrogen molecules. About 10,000
of these disks, which would take up about as much space as a car back
seat, would allow for a driving range of over 200 miles

Planar Energy, based in Orlando, Fla., is developing a method for
manufacturing batteries from thin metal films, which does away with
the traditional liquid electrolyte.

FastCap Systems and other companies are working on ultracapacitors.
These storage devices can't hold as much electrical energy as
batteries, but they are able to rapidly discharge and they last longer
than chemical batteries. FastCap Systems' design uses a "shag carpet"
of nanotubes to store energy placed on top of a  conductive substrate

General Compression has designed a system that compresses air using
wind turbines and pumps it underground. When power is needed, the
compressed underground air is released into a gas turbine to make
electricity.
-------------------------

Lots more ideas asking for funding at the summit!


BillK


From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Mar  5 14:41:21 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:41:21 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ UK 2010: Call for posters
Message-ID: <A4A42718E23F40AA98C13B59D9247524@DFC68LF1>

 
This is a call for poster submissions for the Humanity+ UK 2010 one-day
conference, to be held on Saturday April 24th at Conway Hall, London
(details below).
 
In addition to the exciting list of speakers listed below, there will be a
networking room at the conference with limited space for poster
presentations, on topics relevant to the themes of the conference. If you
would like to be considered to give such a poster presentation, please send
a 100-200 word summary of the work or ideas you would present, to Amon
Twyman ( <mailto:amon at doctrinezero.com> amon @ doctrinezero.com), by 5:00pm
on Wednesday March 31st. You will receive confirmation of acceptance or
otherwise, with full instructions for poster format, venue and schedule
details by Wednesday April 14th.
 
If you have any questions about poster submission, please do not hesitate to
contact the address above. For any other questions or registration for the
conference, please see our website via the link below.
 
Thanks!
The Humanity+ UK Team
 
***************************************************
 
How will accelerating technological change affect human mental and physical
capabilites as well as the environment in which we live? What challenges and
opportunities does the human race face in this age of unprecedented change?
How can we help shape the future, spread the benefits and mitigate the risks
of the coming technological revolutions?
 

Humanity+ UK2010, a one-day conference in London on 24 April 2010, gathers
together some leading thinkers to discuss these topics. Speakers include:
 

*) Max More, on "Singularity Skepticism: Exposing Exponential Errors";
*) Anders Sandberg, on "Making humans smarter via cognitive enhancers";
*) Rachel Armstrong, on "The impact of living technology on the future of
humanity";
*) Aubrey de Grey, on "Human regenerative engineering ? theory and
practice";
*) David Pearce, on "The Abolitionist Project: Can biotechnology abolish
suffering throughout the living world?";
*) Amon Twyman, on "Augmented perception and Transhumanist Art";
*) Natasha Vita-More, on "DIY Enhancement";
*) David Orban, on "The Singularity University", and "The Internet of
Things";
*) Nick Bostrom, on "Reducing Existential Risks".
 

For more details, including speaker biographies, see
<http://humanityplus-uk.com/> http://humanityplus-uk.com

PLEASE NOTE: People attending this event need to REGISTER via the event
website,  <http://humanityplus-uk.com/> http://humanityplus-uk.com.
Attendance costs ?25 (or ?15 for non-waged), but is free to registered
members of H+ UK.

The event website also provides:

*) an option to join H+ UK
*) an option to register to join some of the speakers for dinner and further
conversation in the evening
*) blog postings by and about the speakers.

For information about the event venue, see
<http://www.conwayhall.org.uk/where.htm>
http://www.conwayhall.org.uk/where.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/2e47c4d8/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 14:59:33 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:59:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:35 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A conference put on by the new Advanced Research Projects Agency for
> Energy (ARPA-E) 01-03 March 2010 was packed with companies exhibiting
> intriguing approaches to clean energy.
>
> See:
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10463851-54.html>
> and
> <http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/24883/>
>
> Some highlights:
> Transonic Combustion, based in Camarillo, CA, has developed a gasoline
> fuel injection system that can improve the efficiency of gasoline
> engines by 50 to 75 percent, beating the fuel economy of hybrid
> vehicles.

I had a 3-cylinder Geo Metro ten years ago that routinely got better
than 55 MPG, so beating the current hybrids doesn't impress me.
Looking at Transonics' web site, I can't see what they're doing that's
different than any of the current direct injection systems. I'm
skeptical that they'll be able to achieve the improvements they claim.

I didn't find any of the other possibilities to be very exciting, either.

-Dave


From sparge at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 15:34:08 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:34:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003050734v382cc763tc569f3ebb55bd07c@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:35 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A conference put on by the new Advanced Research Projects Agency for
> Energy (ARPA-E) 01-03 March 2010 was packed with companies exhibiting
> intriguing approaches to clean energy.
>
> See:
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10463851-54.html>
> and
> <http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/24883/>

Here's an ARPA-E project that could be significant:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=shift-happens-will-artificial-photo-2010-03-03

Shift happens: Will artificial photosynthesis power the world?

One drinking-water bottle could provide enough energy for an entire
household in the developing world if Dan Nocera has his way. A chemist
from M.I.T. and founder of the company Sun Catalytix, Nocera has
developed a cobalt-based catalyst that allows him to store energy the
same way plants do: by splitting water.

"Almost all the solar energy is stored in water splitting," Nocera
told the inaugural ARPA-E conference on March 2. Solar Catalytix is
among five companies awarded government funding to develop "direct
solar fuels," dubbed "electrofuels" by ARPA-E, the new Advanced
Research Projects Agency for transformational energy technologies. "We
emulated photosynthesis for large-scale storage of solar energy."

According to Nocera, his new system can work at ambient temperatures
and pressures, without corrosion in a simple glass of water, even
polluted water. "If you need pure water for energy storage, they'll
drink it," Nocera said. "Use puddle water instead." In fact, Nocera
has been running his prototype on untreated water from the Charles
River in Boston. And it's cheap, not $12,000 per kilowatt like
commercial electrolyzers that do the same thing. "That's not going to
help the energy situation for the U.S. or poor people of the world."

...

-Dave


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Mar  5 15:54:55 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:54:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Dave Sill
> ...
> I had a 3-cylinder Geo Metro ten years ago that routinely got 
> better than 55 MPG, so beating the current hybrids doesn't impress me.
> ... -Dave


This is one of the reasons why I don't get too worked up about peak oil.  If
we are willing to make some not-terribly-painful sacrifices, our
transportation oil use can go way down.  My brother in law had a metro.  His
had over 100k miles on it before he got it, but since he was only driving
six miles round trip a day, it was adequate.  He also could beat 50 mpg,
until he broke a piston ring and went from three cylinders to two.  Two
small pistons.  Then it had even less power, but still would get about 40
MPG, so he kept flogging it to work and back.  Drove it almost five years
with those remaining two cylinders.  After the failure it wasn't fast: it
would hit about 50 mph on level ground in still air, if you were patient.

If we settle for slow, light cars, we can get high fuel economy.  Our
current Detroits are such comical overkill, our grandchildren will laugh and
envy.

spike









From amon at doctrinezero.com  Fri Mar  5 14:13:38 2010
From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:13:38 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ UK 2010: Call for posters
Message-ID: <5bae33f11003050613y6fce84d3u1ae165e591393c5d@mail.gmail.com>

This is a call for poster submissions for the *Humanity+ UK 2010* one-day
conference, to be held on Saturday April 24th at Conway Hall, London
(details below).

In addition to the exciting list of speakers listed below, there will be a
networking room at the conference with limited space for poster
presentations, on topics relevant to the themes of the conference. If you
would like to be considered to give such a poster presentation, please send
a 100-200 word summary of the work or ideas you would present, to Amon
Twyman (amon @ doctrinezero.com <amon at doctrinezero.com>), by 5:00pm on
Wednesday March 31st. You will receive confirmation of acceptance or
otherwise, with full instructions for poster format, venue and
schedule details by Wednesday April 14th.

If you have any questions about poster submission, please do not hesitate to
contact the address above. For any other questions or registration for the
conference, please see our website via the link below.

Thanks!
The Humanity+ UK Team

***************************************************

How will accelerating technological change affect human mental and physical
capabilites as well as the environment in which we live? What challenges and
opportunities does the human race face in this age of unprecedented change?
How can we help shape the future, spread the benefits and mitigate the risks
of the coming technological revolutions?


Humanity+ UK2010, a one-day conference in London on 24 April 2010, gathers
together some leading thinkers to discuss these topics. Speakers include:


*) Max More, on "Singularity Skepticism: Exposing Exponential Errors";
*) Anders Sandberg, on "Making humans smarter via cognitive enhancers";
*) Rachel Armstrong, on "The impact of living technology on the future of
humanity";
*) Aubrey de Grey, on "Human regenerative engineering ? theory and
practice";
*) David Pearce, on "The Abolitionist Project: Can biotechnology abolish
suffering throughout the living world?";
*) Amon Twyman, on "Augmented perception and Transhumanist Art";
*) Natasha Vita-More, on "DIY Enhancement";
*) David Orban, on "The Singularity University", and "The Internet of
Things";
*) Nick Bostrom, on "Reducing Existential Risks".


For more details, including speaker biographies, see
http://humanityplus-uk.com

PLEASE NOTE: People attending this event need to REGISTER via the event
website, http://humanityplus-uk.com. Attendance costs ?25 (or ?15 for
non-waged), but is free to registered members of H+ UK.

The event website also provides:

*) an option to join H+ UK
*) an option to register to join some of the speakers for dinner and further
conversation in the evening
*) blog postings by and about the speakers.

For information about the event venue, see
http://www.conwayhall.org.uk/where.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/403c82fc/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Mar  5 17:27:34 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:27:34 -0800
Subject: [ExI] paul ehrlich want to hit back at us again
Message-ID: <37D30A8DEB4C451EBB0FF51D76FE9A1B@spike>

Dr. Paul Ehrlich, a local guy and author of The Population Bomb, is back in
the news.  His comments are startling to say the least. 
 
These include a concept I mentioned a few days ago: all those who do not buy
the entire global warming full meal deal, but who question *any* aspect, are
tossed into a huge bucket with creationists and all skeptics, and are
labeled "merciless enemies" by Dr. Ehrlich:
 
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/05/climate-scientists-plan-hit-skepti
cs/?test=latestnews
 
spike
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/809b70fc/attachment.html>

From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 17:38:43 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:38:43 -0500
Subject: [ExI] paul ehrlich want to hit back at us again
In-Reply-To: <37D30A8DEB4C451EBB0FF51D76FE9A1B@spike>
References: <37D30A8DEB4C451EBB0FF51D76FE9A1B@spike>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003050938k16e20bccm1ebbcff3f38838e7@mail.gmail.com>

>These include a concept I mentioned a few days ago: all those who do not
buy the entire global warming full meal deal, but who question *any* aspect,
are tossed into a huge bucket with creationists and >all skeptics, and are
labeled "merciless enemies" by Dr. Ehrlich:

To be honest it's hard to tell the difference between people that have a
legitimate gripe with part of the science, and people that are concern
trolling to support an agenda.



-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/ff55befa/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Mar  5 17:36:20 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:36:20 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1003041622x2448596am261d93494b697572@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002221852x5d10a80erbd06cf9ff6a6b4cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e31002270238y38102a63je148e549d4f69df@mail.gmail.com>
	<e321aa4b1002272009r66d0b093w6a67849397206496@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE35A5DE-F04E-4899-A4F5-2F0E75FF742D@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281025l6d85448an25ecee0570ed4a3e@mail.gmail.com>
	<77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com>
	<D837693A-8346-496B-9537-BD4E55D62594@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003011122o2d8ce004i3fff730c57dd12d@mail.gmail.com>
	<715CB28C-42FF-49C1-8054-C5324BAC62AD@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003041622x2448596am261d93494b697572@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <384574C2-74C8-4A9C-AA0B-8FA21EC776AF@bellsouth.net>

On Mar 4, 2010,  Spencer Campbell wrote:
> 
> So, you observed my behavior. Well of course you observed my behavior!
> That is, as you say, literally the only way to measure anything. I was
> interested in what you were looking for *in* my behavior to indicate
> the presence of mind-like activity.

I was looking for intelligent behavior, and no I don't have a definition of intelligence but I have something much better, examples.

> See, you take for granted that I "sure didn't act" like I had a mind.
> I had a pulse, didn't I?

Who cares?

> What could possibly make my heart beat in just that way aside from my mind?

Nerve impulses, and not all nerve impulses are involved in mind. If you doubt this then try willing your heart to stop, don't worry it's a perfectly safe activity.

> The brain does more than think

Yea, it occupies space has mass and although I don't know this from first hand experience it probably has a taste too, but none of these properties are involved when we talk about immortality, it's the ability to think that we want to continue. And anyway I'm not interested in the brain, I'm interested in what the brain does, the mind.

> I don't think, "oh, now I'm blinking" every time I blink. That would
> be a huge waste of processing power.

That's why mind is not involved in blinking, only the brain.

> Syntax dictates that I should have expected an argument, here, which
> supports the statement: "if mind scanning does not preserve objective
> continuity, then there must necessarily be a preferred rate of change
> in the universe". I accept unconditionally that there is no preferred rate of change in
> the universe, but I also believe mind scanning fails to blah blah
> blah. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that that statement is false.

That is unclear, if the statement is "I also believe mind scanning fails" then you are correct.

> The whole premise behind mind scanning is that we can copy thoughts from one medium to another. This would mean that you can copy all the thoughts out of brain 1 and into brain 2

Yes.

> whether or not the two brains are in communication.

No.

> I'm talking about a complex ongoing neural interaction, not a one-way data dump.

I don't understand, an old experienced brain would have lots to say to a brand new blank brain, but what would the blank brain have to say to the old brain that is relevant in this matter? In fact what would a blank brain have to say period?

 John K Clark



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/3a7bc975/attachment.html>

From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 18:12:05 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:12:05 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <384574C2-74C8-4A9C-AA0B-8FA21EC776AF@bellsouth.net>
References: <e321aa4b1002221852x5d10a80erbd06cf9ff6a6b4cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE35A5DE-F04E-4899-A4F5-2F0E75FF742D@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281025l6d85448an25ecee0570ed4a3e@mail.gmail.com>
	<77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com>
	<D837693A-8346-496B-9537-BD4E55D62594@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003011122o2d8ce004i3fff730c57dd12d@mail.gmail.com>
	<715CB28C-42FF-49C1-8054-C5324BAC62AD@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003041622x2448596am261d93494b697572@mail.gmail.com>
	<384574C2-74C8-4A9C-AA0B-8FA21EC776AF@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003051012i5033eaa2u2cb291d0a6887bee@mail.gmail.com>

> I don't think, "oh, now I'm blinking" every time I blink. That would
> be a huge waste of processing power.
>
>
> That's why mind is not involved in blinking, only the brain.
>


 Couldn't you make a comparison to the subroutines of a program?

-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/a6351e3e/attachment.html>

From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 18:00:10 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] paul ehrlich want to hit back at us again
In-Reply-To: <37D30A8DEB4C451EBB0FF51D76FE9A1B@spike>
References: <37D30A8DEB4C451EBB0FF51D76FE9A1B@spike>
Message-ID: <159210.54584.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

> These include a concept I mentioned a few days ago: all those who do not buy the entire global warming full meal deal, but who question *any* aspect, are tossed into a huge bucket with creationists and all skeptics, and are labeled "merciless enemies" by Dr. Ehrlich:

Spike, I read the article (the full one at the Washington Times--ugh), and what you're implying, while it may be true, is not in the article. Context is important:

""Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails"

Ehrlich (of whom I'm no great fan) is not making the statement you're ascribing to him. Are you aware of him making claims elsewhere that any and all criticism of climate research should be treated exactly the same way? Are you aware of any scientists working in the field who've made such a claim? 



________________________________
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 9:27:34 AM
Subject: [ExI] paul ehrlich want to hit back at us again


Dr. Paul Ehrlich, a 
local guy and author of The Population Bomb, is back in the news.  His 
comments are startling to say the least. 
 
These include a 
concept I mentioned a few days ago: all those who do not buy the entire global 
warming full meal deal, but who question *any* aspect, are tossed into a huge 
bucket with creationists and all skeptics, and are labeled "merciless enemies" 
by Dr. Ehrlich:
 
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/05/climate-scientists-plan-hit-skeptics/?test=latestnews
 
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/95784fa7/attachment.html>

From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 18:38:09 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:38:09 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist ideals
Message-ID: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>

For one second alight your computronium towers and consider our good friends
the *h.p.,* also known as regular people.  If we do expect to have something
like a singularity within the next century, or at least a turning towards
this sort of thing, good old Common Joes must be factored into the equation.
 Joe is most people.  From what I see, there are two major problems
regarding a shift to scientific ideals.  This is of course assuming that
said shift is something we want, which I am assuming for easier progress in
the future.  I'm sure we could preserve the thing we've got going where
common folk use the products of technological progress without understanding
them like we have with the internet today, but I fear this would lead
straight to a Fahrenheit 451 style 4-wall TV sort of thing.  It's the duty
of us intellectuals to enlighten the masses and provide fuel for the
Rerenaissance.  Anyway, here are the two problems.  I'm just going to ask
the questions as not to make a super-lengthy post, but these are real,
serious obstacles to any sort of singularitan future:

Problem 1 (The Thinkularity): How do we get from today, where religion is
widespread and science is often seen as "the badguy" to a world where people
embrace mindnets and space travel and good energy solutions?

Problem 2 (Post-Thinkularity):  Are there unforeseen complications with the
entire world doing away with free will and all that stuff associated with
positivism?  Might we see an increase in crimes because people see that they
are no longer bound by choice (heh, bound by choice)?  And will the
relatively "cold" mindset associated with science in comparison to religion
cause more people to lose their proverbial marbles?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/dbc094df/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 19:59:27 2010
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:59:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <695185.82474.qm@web59902.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Murderers?might live to be 150 or so, rapists can use super-cialis... and so forth. 
The world is filled not?only with Joes, but with Mansons?as well; and their minds are filled with eons of bad memes.


?


??Might we see an increase in crimes because people see that they are no longer bound by choice (heh, bound by choice)? 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/29838a40/attachment.html>

From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 20:45:23 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:45:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>

>
> Problem 2 (Post-Thinkularity):  Are there unforeseen complications with the
> entire world doing away with free will and all that stuff associated with
> positivism?  Might we see an increase in crimes because people see that they
> are no longer bound by choice (heh, bound by choice)?  And will the
> relatively "cold" mindset associated with science in comparison to religion
> cause more people to lose their proverbial marbles?
>


I see a bit of a contradiction here.  If people don't make choices, then how
can they can choose to become murderers after we do away with the fiction of
free-will?

Free will may be a fiction, but it's a useful fiction.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/34772516/attachment.html>

From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Fri Mar  5 20:49:34 2010
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:49:34 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
 ideals
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>

I see an overly broad generalization... that of making choices is free will.

---- "Jeffery P. Davis" <heavensblade23 at gmail.com> wrote: 

> I see a bit of a contradiction here.  If people don't make choices, then how
> can they can choose to become murderers after we do away with the fiction of
> free-will?
> 
> Free will may be a fiction, but it's a useful fiction.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 21:06:58 2010
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:06:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
Message-ID: <4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/5 Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>

> I see a bit of a contradiction here.  If people don't make choices, then
> how can they can choose to become murderers after we do away with the
> fiction of free-will?
>

"I'm not choosing to become a murderer, it's just what was fated, so I can't
do anything about it and have got to be a murderer."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/9ce92cc5/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 20:43:54 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003050613x477a799xa814c80e3b58c443@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003050609t1895c007xc18a8b6fac01e10f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003050613x477a799xa814c80e3b58c443@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <432535.63667.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I presume eBay isn't the only place to buy roast leg-of-Davis. Season to taste! :@

Regards,

Dan


----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 9:13:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] intellectual property again

010/3/5 Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:
>
> Just to take this a little further, if rights derive from self-ownership, is
> there
> any reason under that assumption that I shouldn't be able to sell the right
> to kill, butcher, and consume my body?

Nope. But it's against eBay's rules.

-Dave


      


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 21:11:53 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:11:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003051311h3241c2c5se40d033a1f747934@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/5 Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>
>
> I see a bit of a contradiction here.  If people don't make choices, then
>> how can they can choose to become murderers after we do away with the
>> fiction of free-will?
>>
>
> "I'm not choosing to become a murderer, it's just what was fated, so I
> can't do anything about it and have got to be a murderer."
>
>
Which is why I go to on to say free will may be a fiction, but it's still a
useful way of looking the world.  :-)


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/fe288a7b/attachment.html>

From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 21:15:23 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

No, that's a description of somebody making an excuse about why they chose to act the way they did.

The pointless defense you're looking for is, "I was not, am not, and will never be in control of my actions." Such a person needs to be permanently locked away, so that the rest of us can get on with our illusion-filled, largely homicidal-maniac-free lives.



________________________________
From: Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 1:06:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist ideals




2010/3/5 Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>

I see a bit of a contradiction here.  If people don't make choices, then how can they can choose to become murderers after we do away with the fiction of free-will?
>

"I'm not choosing to become a murderer, it's just what was fated, so I can't do anything about it and have got to be a murderer."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/774c70f6/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 21:21:32 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003051311h3241c2c5se40d033a1f747934@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003051311h3241c2c5se40d033a1f747934@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <107757.56752.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

If it's a fiction, then why is it useful at all? One would think there must be some truth in it.

This reminds me of the sort of shallow pragmatism some seem to hold -- as in "I believe X because it works." Well, the next question to ask is Why does X work? -- at least for those who don't just want to sleepwalk through life. :)

Regards,

Dan



________________________________
From: Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 4:11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist ideals




2010/3/5 Jeffery P. Davis?<heavensblade23 at gmail.com> 
>
>
>I see a bit of a contradiction here.? If people don't make choices, then how can they can choose to become murderers after we do away with the fiction of free-will?
>>
>
>
>"I'm not choosing to become a murderer, it's just what was fated, so I can't do anything about it and have got to be a murderer."
>

Which is why I go to on to say free will may be a fiction, but it's still a useful way of looking the world.? :-) 


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers. We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs 



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/3ef9146e/attachment.html>

From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 21:21:33 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:21:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B4DB636A-25BC-4830-9D92-11400E48C706@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Will Steinberg wrote:
> Problem 1 (The Thinkularity): How do we get from today, where religion is widespread and science is often seen as "the badguy" to a world where people embrace mindnets and space travel and good energy solutions?

On this question, I think the only real answer is to try to convince people they're wrong, keep trying to publicize extropian and transhumanist ideas, etc. As technology advances, I think that bioluddite vs. transhumanism will come to play as important in a role in politics as views on economics do today. The way I see it is either we, i.e. transhumanists, win the battle for ideas, or humanity dies. The exact strategy, for now, is amorphous, but as these issues come more and more into the forefront of people's minds, it will get more and more obvious. I'm thinking the forming of think tanks, political parties/organizations, lobbying groups, etc. will play a major role. As well as books, tv, and other media.

> Problem 2 (Post-Thinkularity):  Are there unforeseen complications with the entire world doing away with free will and all that stuff associated with positivism?  Might we see an increase in crimes because people see that they are no longer bound by choice (heh, bound by choice)?  And will the relatively "cold" mindset associated with science in comparison to religion cause more people to lose their proverbial marbles?

I don't get why people say free will is a fiction, in any meaningful sense of the word. We deal with people as macroscopic entities, with thoughts, beliefs, ideas, etc., and it is literally impossible for us to deal with them, or ourselves, in any other manner. So while physics might be deterministic, viewing people as collections of particles, or synapses (the necessary region where determinism exists), isn't meaningful at all. The world without free will is a world of particles and fields, not of macroscopic entities and things with beliefs, values, ideas, concepts, symbols, knowledge, etc. That "higher" world, the world in which we must operate and exist (and I think always will), is one in which determinism does not exist (do to the abstraction). And in that world, you have free will, are responsible for your actions, and all the rest.

That being said, I don't see anything that might go wrong if everyone dumped their religious views, or beliefs in a metaphysical soul, etc. in favor of a naturalist view of themselves, of ideas, concepts, etc. It strikes me as a definite plus.

Btw, what exact definition of positivism are you using? There are a number of different ways of looking at the term (logical positivism, Comte's positivism, scientific positivism aka 'scientism', etc.).

Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From spike66 at att.net  Fri Mar  5 21:28:17 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:28:17 -0800
Subject: [ExI] paul ehrlich want to hit back at us again
In-Reply-To: <159210.54584.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <37D30A8DEB4C451EBB0FF51D76FE9A1B@spike>
	<159210.54584.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <79E334D3B0A04921A5D3EF66C23097F8@spike>


	...On Behalf Of Christopher Luebcke
...
	
	>...Spike, I read the article (the full one at the Washington
Times--ugh), and what you're implying, while it may be true, is not in the
article. Context is important:
	
	>...""Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a
gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded,
merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a
Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails"...

Hi Chris, thanks, ja do let us consider the context of the statement and its
implications.  First of all, I disagree with Dr. Ehrlich, we ARE in a
gentlepersons' debate, at least as far as scientists are concerned, for
scientists generally are not and should not be political activists.
Scientists are poorly suited to...:

"...a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies..."

Scientists do not work that way, we do not rumble.  We study, we think, we
model.  We generally are not politicians, the class that is far better
suited to "...play by entirely different rules..."  Political activism is
best left to the politicians.  Do let us advise, but not get into political
street fights.  We are gentlepersons, best suited to a gentlepersons'
debate.


	>...Ehrlich (of whom I'm no great fan) is not making the statement
you're ascribing to him. Are you aware of him making claims elsewhere that
any and all criticism of climate research should be treated exactly the same
way? Are you aware of any scientists working in the field who've made such a
claim?... Christopher

OK I see your point and I agree.  

My own experience was from a college class in Environment and Man I took in
college.  Ehrlich's book Population Bomb was on the reading list, but the
professor suggested we read that book with an open mind and a critical eye,
which I did.  By that time the book was about 11 yrs old, and already there
were several predictions that clearly were not just wrong but laughable.

Regarding Ehrlich's comments, it is the lamestream press that is most guilty
of lumping all brands of climate skeptics together, tossing in creationists,
truthers, birthers, those who believe climate change is real but beneficial,
and those who mostly accept in principle the notion of gradual climate
change and only want to benefit humanity while making an honest but
outrageously huge buttload of money off of it.

spike




From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 21:03:41 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <595807.11587.qm@web111207.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Will: "Free will" isn't something that you can do away with. If it's real, it's not going to become fictional. If it's unreal, then there's nothing to do away with.

What could be a better argument for the existence of free will than to assert that people will behave differently if they believe they don't have one? Seriously, you're proposing that people are going to make decisions because they've decided that they don't make decisions?

Jeff: Aside from the problem of defining "will", in what sense one might have "will", what it would mean for one's "will" to be "free", and what it would be for one's "will" not to be "free", anyone can assert that free will is a fiction because that statement, if true, would have absolutely zero consequences for anybody. I can equally assert that free will is a fact, because the statement has an undefined term as its subject and makes no verifiable claims.


________________________________
From: Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 12:45:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist ideals




>
>Problem 2 (Post-Thinkularity):  Are there unforeseen complications with the entire world doing away with free will and all that stuff associated with positivism?  Might we see an increase in crimes because people see that they are no longer bound by choice (heh, bound by choice)?  And will the relatively "cold" mindset associated with science in comparison to religion cause more people to lose their proverbial marbles?
>


I see a bit of a contradiction here.  If people don't make choices, then how can they can choose to become murderers after we do away with the fiction of free-will?

Free will may be a fiction, but it's a useful fiction.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers. We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/57ec512f/attachment.html>

From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Fri Mar  5 21:37:12 2010
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:37:12 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
 ideals
In-Reply-To: <B4DB636A-25BC-4830-9D92-11400E48C706@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <20100305213712.PGA4V.194796.root@hrndva-web17-z02>

Actually you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, you can only drown the nag. What you want to do is get people to question themselves. Even if you get people to admin they were wrong they'll hold you responsible for it. Whatever you were trying to accomplish dies right there.

You answer your own question. People don't have free will because they're not willing to question and risk. They're afraid of the unknown. People, all people, are caught in a weird little self-actualizing fantasy. They look around the work with a tinted view, then make decisions based on that view that are self-actualizing, and then look at the consequences and holler about how that's the way the world is. The whole time the vast majority of what they take for a given is their own creation because they don't want to take responsibility for the choice. You can't have free will if you don't want to take responsibility for having the choice.

De Omnibus Dubitandum.

The funny, ironic aspect is that once you decide to question everything once you can never stop and you realize how little you know and how little you control. At that point you realize that in many things there is no 'free will'. If free will isn't universal then it isn't free.

---- JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote: 

> On this question, I think the only real answer is to try to convince people they're wrong,

> I don't get why people say free will is a fiction, in any meaningful sense of the word. We deal with people as macroscopic entities, with thoughts, beliefs, ideas, etc., and it is literally impossible for us to deal with them, or ourselves, in any other manner.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 22:22:51 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] paul ehrlich want to hit back at us again
In-Reply-To: <79E334D3B0A04921A5D3EF66C23097F8@spike>
References: <37D30A8DEB4C451EBB0FF51D76FE9A1B@spike>
	<159210.54584.qm@web111204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<79E334D3B0A04921A5D3EF66C23097F8@spike>
Message-ID: <613997.92481.qm@web111203.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

> scientists generally are not and should not be political activists.

I fully agree. However, you must consider, first, that almost all of the arguments against AGW are coming from non-scientists, and second, that there is a marked tendency to personally target the scientists themselves, what with hacking, death threats, and (more commonly) accusations of fraud and general malfeasance, deliberately made in the most public and aggressive way possible.

I don't know the full context of what Ehrlich said because the article didn't provide any further quotes from him, but I find it extremely unlikely that he was talking about debating with other scientists. Almost none of the debate (at least measured by volume) is happening within scientific circles, but overlapping circles of popular opinion, cable news and politics.

I do agree that scientists are best at science, not PR or policy-making, and I hope that if we can tone down some of the accusations of fraud and conspiracy, and instead have our public figures focus on the merits of the science in question, then maybe they'll be able to spend more time doing what they're cut out for.

> it is the lamestream press that is most guiltyof lumping all brands of climate skeptics together, tossing in creationists,
truthers, birthers, those who believe climate change is real but beneficial,
and those who mostly accept in principle the notion of gradual climate
change and only want to benefit humanity while making an honest but
outrageously huge buttload of money off of it.

Again, I heartily agree. We are biologically inclined to pay attention to loud voices with urgent messages, and "attention" equates to page views and Nelson ratings.




________________________________
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 1:28:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] paul ehrlich want to hit back at us again


    ...On Behalf Of Christopher Luebcke
...
    
    >...Spike, I read the article (the full one at the Washington
Times--ugh), and what you're implying, while it may be true, is not in the
article. Context is important:
    
    >...""Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a
gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded,
merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a
Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails"...

Hi Chris, thanks, ja do let us consider the context of the statement and its
implications.  First of all, I disagree with Dr. Ehrlich, we ARE in a
gentlepersons' debate, at least as far as scientists are concerned, for
scientists generally are not and should not be political activists.
Scientists are poorly suited to...:

"...a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies..."

Scientists do not work that way, we do not rumble.  We study, we think, we
model.  We generally are not politicians, the class that is far better
suited to "...play by entirely different rules..."  Political activism is
best left to the politicians.  Do let us advise, but not get into political
street fights.  We are gentlepersons, best suited to a gentlepersons'
debate.


    >...Ehrlich (of whom I'm no great fan) is not making the statement
you're ascribing to him. Are you aware of him making claims elsewhere that
any and all criticism of climate research should be treated exactly the same
way? Are you aware of any scientists working in the field who've made such a
claim?... Christopher

OK I see your point and I agree.  

My own experience was from a college class in Environment and Man I took in
college.  Ehrlich's book Population Bomb was on the reading list, but the
professor suggested we read that book with an open mind and a critical eye,
which I did.  By that time the book was about 11 yrs old, and already there
were several predictions that clearly were not just wrong but laughable.

Regarding Ehrlich's comments, it is the lamestream press that is most guilty
of lumping all brands of climate skeptics together, tossing in creationists,
truthers, birthers, those who believe climate change is real but beneficial,
and those who mostly accept in principle the notion of gradual climate
change and only want to benefit humanity while making an honest but
outrageously huge buttload of money off of it.

spike


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/372073d4/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  5 23:22:17 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:22:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003051522y43ef0ac0m7fcf92a3a5effa22@mail.gmail.com>

Natasha wrote:
To assume Moravec's vision of uploads (by the way a more contemporary phrase
for transferring the brain's content to an artificial system is "whole brain
emulation"), is the entry point and the ground rule of transhumanism is
simply not correct.
>>>

I remember being in a Immortality Institute chatroom where a *19* year-old
young man went on and on about how he wanted to "get rid of his damn meat
body and be uploaded!"  Transhumanist body image problems, anyone??

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/30e123f2/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Sat Mar  6 00:36:03 2010
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:36:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Genetic test for most effective diet
Message-ID: <201003060036.o260aJq4015397@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

The company, Inherent Health, offers several DNA tests. One of these 
is supposed to show you whether you will lose weight more quickly 
from a low-carb or a low-fat diet. This is based on differences in 
three genes, FABP2, PPARG and ADRB2.

Although it's clear that some genetic tests are valid, I'm very 
unsure about this one. I saw only one study cited. Anyone know 
whether the claimed study is supported or contradicted by other research?

The company's info on this is here:

http://www.inherenthealth.com/our-tests/weight-management.aspx

A story on the test is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35693184/ns/technology_and_science-science/wid/11915773/

Max


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



From kanzure at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 00:41:18 2010
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:41:18 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Genetic test for most effective diet
In-Reply-To: <201003060036.o260aJq4015397@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <201003060036.o260aJq4015397@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af71003051641q741f656kee6b45e92b79ad7c@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> The company, Inherent Health, offers several DNA tests. One of these is
> supposed to show you whether you will lose weight more quickly from a
> low-carb or a low-fat diet. This is based on differences in three genes,
> FABP2, PPARG and ADRB2.
>
> Although it's clear that some genetic tests are valid, I'm very unsure about
> this one. I saw only one study cited. Anyone know whether the claimed study
> is supported or contradicted by other research?
>
> The company's info on this is here:
>
> http://www.inherenthealth.com/our-tests/weight-management.aspx
>
> A story on the test is here:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35693184/ns/technology_and_science-science/wid/11915773/

Another interesting development is Greg Benford and Genescient re:
nutrigenomics. I was in an audience of his once:

http://designfiles.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/greg-benford.html

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


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 00:42:21 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P. Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:42:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <2d6187671003051522y43ef0ac0m7fcf92a3a5effa22@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<2d6187671003051522y43ef0ac0m7fcf92a3a5effa22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb794c521003051642p2f8767d6y598771da6f62103c@mail.gmail.com>

>
> I remember being in a Immortality Institute chatroom where a *19* year-old
> young man went on and on about how he wanted to "get rid of his damn meat
> body and be uploaded!"  Transhumanist body image problems, anyone??
>
>

I feel the same way and I don't think I have body image problems.  I'm
reasonably satisfied with my particular body, at least as much as would be
expected when having serious health problems.


-- 
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/95744cf1/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Mar  6 01:33:59 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:33:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003051642p2f8767d6y598771da6f62103c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<2d6187671003051522y43ef0ac0m7fcf92a3a5effa22@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003051642p2f8767d6y598771da6f62103c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100305203359.6yjcfyyfwwwgsgcg@webmail.natasha.cc>

John wrote:


> I remember being in a Immortality Institute chatroom where a *19* year-old
> young man went on and on about how he wanted to "get rid of his damn meat
> body and be uploaded!"  Transhumanist body image problems, anyone??

Not at all!  I enjoy sports too much.  Sure, I've gotten on in the  
years and work to retard as much aging as possible, but I have no  
interest in being a bodiless thingy when there could be so many, many  
possible alternatives to bodily design - shape, consistency, material,  
transparency, etc.  As a very basic example which are rather mundane  
but at least are imaginative, just look at some of the marvelous body  
designs in Section Life.  My dear friend Elif Ayiter designs amazing  
entity forms.

www.flickr.com/people/alpha_auer/
www.citrinitas.com/
mutamorphosis.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/elif-ayiter/
visualcomplexity.com

While a biological body is so 20th Century, that doesn't mean that a  
body is passe.

Best to you John,
Natasha



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Mar  6 01:43:40 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:43:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <20100305203359.6yjcfyyfwwwgsgcg@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<2d6187671003051522y43ef0ac0m7fcf92a3a5effa22@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb794c521003051642p2f8767d6y598771da6f62103c@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305203359.6yjcfyyfwwwgsgcg@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <20100305204340.1x7dynb3kswooo4k@webmail.natasha.cc>

I meant to write Second Life (although Section Life could be a term  
for copying segments of the brain's memory).

Quoting natasha at natasha.cc:

> John wrote:
>
>
>> I remember being in a Immortality Institute chatroom where a *19* year-old
>> young man went on and on about how he wanted to "get rid of his damn meat
>> body and be uploaded!"  Transhumanist body image problems, anyone??
>
> Not at all!  I enjoy sports too much.  Sure, I've gotten on in the
> years and work to retard as much aging as possible, but I have no
> interest in being a bodiless thingy when there could be so many, many
> possible alternatives to bodily design - shape, consistency, material,
> transparency, etc.  As a very basic example which are rather mundane
> but at least are imaginative, just look at some of the marvelous body
> designs in Section Life.  My dear friend Elif Ayiter designs amazing
> entity forms.
>
> www.flickr.com/people/alpha_auer/
> www.citrinitas.com/
> mutamorphosis.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/elif-ayiter/
> visualcomplexity.com
>
> While a biological body is so 20th Century, that doesn't mean that a
> body is passe.
>
> Best to you John,
> Natasha
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat





From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 02:14:13 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:14:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
Message-ID: <62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> If we settle for slow, light cars, we can get high fuel economy. ?Our
> current Detroits are such comical overkill, our grandchildren will laugh and
> envy.

You mean the way we envy our [great-]grandparents who shoveled chunks
of coal into boilers to drive steam engines?


From sparge at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 02:27:24 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:27:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You mean the way we envy our [great-]grandparents who shoveled chunks
> of coal into boilers to drive steam engines?

No, more like the way we wish we could still flush a turd with a
single push of the handle.

-Dave


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 02:34:25 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:34:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14241003051834y2cf7a2cu21c5ea058235517e@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You mean the way we envy our [great-]grandparents who shoveled chunks
>> of coal into boilers to drive steam engines?
>
> No, more like the way we wish we could still flush a turd with a
> single push of the handle.

My counter analogy was concerned about locomotive power (figuratively
and literally)

OTOH, your observation is about another type of "going"  :)


From Frankmac at ripco.com  Sat Mar  6 03:31:59 2010
From: Frankmac at ripco.com (Frank McElligott)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:31:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Peter Thiel Explains How to Invest in the Singularity |
	Epicenter | Wired.com
Message-ID: <000501cabcdd$99abfc20$ad753644@sx28047db9d36c>

Ran across this from before the crash of 2008, seems we had a prophet but no one heard him.

It's a good read still

Frank


http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2007/09/peter-thiel-exp/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100305/bb7f0377/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Mar  6 03:27:06 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:27:06 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com><ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com><ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com><57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <12A54B19746F44929513731F6EA07F76@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Energy hints
> 
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > If we settle for slow, light cars, we can get high fuel 
> economy. ?Our 
> > current Detroits are such comical overkill, our grandchildren will 
> > laugh and envy.
> 
> You mean the way we envy our [great-]grandparents who 
> shoveled chunks of coal into boilers to drive steam engines?


No not at all.  In some ways we may see a generation which will look
backward to a time when transportation was better in an important way than
it is for them, but in a sense we already do that now.  Production cars from
40 years ago are generally faster than modern cars, if measured by quarter
mile times at the dragstrip.  Modern cars are actually better in so many
ways, more comfortable, more reliable, cheaper to run etc, but not faster.
Do go hang out at the local dragstrip to see what I mean.

I extrapololate that into the future and can foresee cars that can drive
themselves to some extent, reconfigure themselves to maximize the comfort of
individual drivers, automatically play their favorite music and so forth, be
a dream car in all but one important area, speed.  They could be really
advanced yet be slower than today's cars.

There are likely plenty of people on this list who remember grandpa's V8
that would go like a bat outta hell.  In my case, he had a '65 Chevy Malabu:
lotsa power, light, faster than stink, fun to drive.

spike


 



From spike66 at att.net  Sat Mar  6 03:35:49 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:35:49 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike><62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <173B5D6C0ADE42AAAA3828FADFB993EB@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Dave Sill
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Energy hints
> 
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Mike Dougherty 
> <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You mean the way we envy our [great-]grandparents who 
> shoveled chunks of coal into boilers to drive steam engines?
> 
> No, more like the way we wish we could still flush a turd 
> with a single push of the handle.
> 
> -Dave

Dave, you know that it is a really easy modification to make your toilet a
single flush, ja?  You are smart enough to fix computers and such; toilets
are about a tenth of a percent as complicated.  Look in there, figure out
how it works, use your imagination.  Get a plastic tube and extend that
vertical overflow pipe, then adjust the float that operates the cutoff valve
so that the tank fills almost to the top.  Then it will become a
one-flusher, and stay cleaner.

A waste disposal plant operator told me what happened when the lawmakers
really got serious about forcing the introduction of the low water use
toilets: the effluvient arrived at the plant in a form that was too
concentrated to be processed efficiently.  Solution: the waste plant added
fresh water back into the effluvient before it went into the processing
tank.  Fresh water costs money of course, so they increased the bills to the
customers.  Problem solved.

Sigh.

spike



From sparge at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 04:30:08 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:30:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <12A54B19746F44929513731F6EA07F76@spike>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<12A54B19746F44929513731F6EA07F76@spike>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003052030r7b3c3227p199d0628e42b798f@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> No not at all. ?In some ways we may see a generation which will look
> backward to a time when transportation was better in an important way than
> it is for them, but in a sense we already do that now. ?Production cars from
> 40 years ago are generally faster than modern cars, if measured by quarter
> mile times at the dragstrip.

1970 Corvette
3425 lbs
300-460 HP
390 HP quarter mile: 15.0 s

2010 Corvette
3217 lbs
430-650 HP
430 HP quarter mile: 12.2 s

>?Modern cars are actually better in so many
> ways, more comfortable, more reliable, cheaper to run etc, but not faster.

Not completely true: modern cars handle *much* better than classics
due to improved suspensions and better, lower-profile tires.

> Do go hang out at the local dragstrip to see what I mean.

You're seeing heavily modified, non-roadworthy, dedicated race cars.
Of course most these are older because most people can't afford to gut
a late model car and make a dragster out of it.

> There are likely plenty of people on this list who remember grandpa's V8
> that would go like a bat outta hell. ?In my case, he had a '65 Chevy Malabu:
> lotsa power, light, faster than stink, fun to drive.

I had a big block '69 Plymouth that was like that, but it doesn't hold
a candle to my current car, a 4-cyl turbo sedan that could easily out
accelerate and outhandle it--as well as '69 Ferrari.

-Dave


From sparge at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 04:35:50 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:35:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <173B5D6C0ADE42AAAA3828FADFB993EB@spike>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<173B5D6C0ADE42AAAA3828FADFB993EB@spike>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003052035w19f50663g86712898b8b135b5@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:35 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Dave, you know that it is a really easy modification to make your toilet a
> single flush, ja?

Oh, yeah, I've already re-gutted all of my toilets. But I still hear
lots of folks pining for the toilets of old. That will soon be
replaced by people reminiscing about incandescent bulbs, once they're
outlawed--and they're already getting hard to find.

-Dave


From spike66 at att.net  Sat Mar  6 05:06:08 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:06:08 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003052035w19f50663g86712898b8b135b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike><62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com>
	<173B5D6C0ADE42AAAA3828FADFB993EB@spike>
	<ffd22f9d1003052035w19f50663g86712898b8b135b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9C9044A4ADF644E298BE4450AD704FE7@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Dave Sill

> ...That will soon be replaced by people reminiscing about 
> incandescent bulbs, once they're outlawed--and they're 
> already getting hard to find. -Dave

I went to get incandescent bulbs at WalMart last week, the specialty
decorative ones in which the bulb itself is shaped like a candle flame.  I
found the bulbs but noticed all six bulbs in the package were broken.  On
the shelf were four more similar packages, all bulbs in all the packages
were broken.  I had to conclude intentional sabotage.

spike








From spike66 at att.net  Sat Mar  6 04:57:47 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 20:57:47 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003052030r7b3c3227p199d0628e42b798f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike><62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<12A54B19746F44929513731F6EA07F76@spike>
	<ffd22f9d1003052030r7b3c3227p199d0628e42b798f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E51A62204EC14F7C9C61DB8EECEF6FBE@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Dave Sill
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Energy hints
> 
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> >
> > ...?
> > Production cars from 40 years ago are generally faster than modern 
> > cars, if measured by quarter mile times at the dragstrip.
> 
> 1970 Corvette
> 3425 lbs
> 300-460 HP
> 390 HP quarter mile: 15.0 s
> 
> 2010 Corvette
> 3217 lbs
> 430-650 HP
> 430 HP quarter mile: 12.2 s
> ...
-Dave...

Ja, to get into the low twelves requires the supercharged ZR1.

http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1033487_gm-bumps-price-of-2010-corvette-z
r1-up-2910-to-107830

Over a hundred thousand bucks!  I don't even take that kind of unobtanium
into consideration, and Dave if you are anywhere near the price range of
that kind of stuff, then clearly I have treated you with insufficient
respect.  {8^D

Regarding my earlier comment:

>...Dave, you know that it is a really easy modification to make your toilet
a single flush, ja?...

For those of us who live in earthquake country, making this mod is a good
safety precaution as well.  In a really big earthquake it is possible, even
likely that the water mains will be shut down for a while, until they can
check for and fix breaks, then verify there is no bacteria in the water.
Could take a week or more.  

The water stored in your toilet tank (not the bowl) is perfectly safe to
drink or use in cooking after a quake.  A lot of people store earthquake
food but waaay insufficient stores of water.  Stuff that keeps a long time
usually needs water with it.  Think about it: oatmeal, pasta, condensed
soup, most canned goods, pretty much anything that keeps indefinitely.

If you live in Taxifornia, the big one is coming, it isn't if but when.  If
the tank on your toilet is orange and nasty skanky looking, it's probably
iron stains, won't hurt you.  Clean it!  If it grosses you out to think of
drinking that, don't worry, it won't anymore after you go a few hours
without water.

spike








From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 06:23:50 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 01:23:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B2D87C4-B73E-4531-A74C-A9164A5F9D4D@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Emlyn wrote:
> Well that's definitional, but can you cede this self control
> irrevocably (ie: without the ability to take it back against the
> wishes of the entity to whom you ceded it)?

Not sure, though on the face of it, I would say yes (provided there were legal structures in place to ensure you were not under duress at the time).

> btw, I think with regard to self-ownership (in a self-as-property
> sense) it is a stretch to somehow call it based in nature. It's a
> socially constructed view of person, for a start, and an arbitrary
> ideal chosen as a starting point (exactly as human rights are). I
> think to claim otherwise requires some pretty serious handwaving.

Well, see, I don't necessarily base everything in the idea of self-ownership, though I pretty much end up at that point anyway. I say that man is an animal that must use reason in order to produce the things it needs to survive. A requirement for his life is independent thought, and control of himself and his actions. Without that, he cannot survive (and as a result, anyone who prevents that, by initiating force, is violating the principle upon which their lives are based, and thus, they lose any claim to "rights" derived from what is necessary for man's survival, in principle). Obviously, this is, essentially, the principle of self-ownership. And from this, comes the fact that you own the creations of your mind (your ideas, as they are your creations) and obviously your body (your concrete productions like artwork or computer chips, etc.). That's my basis for IP, and rights in general actually.

> Much more common is that an employee is quite dependent apon a job.
> They might be an unskilled worker who will take no transferable skills
> to the job market. Or they might be indebted and thus be unable to
> tolerate even a short period without an income. Or they may be highly
> trained and experienced workers who have highly specialized skills,
> for which there is a very limited market (perhaps for example a rocket
> scientist!)
> 
> Such a person is in an unequal power relationship with an employer who
> believes they can replace the employee easily. So, although there is
> no force, it is very easy to imagine scenarios where such employees
> trade away benefits (holidays? overtime? health insurance? permanent
> employee status?) simply because their employer "requests" it of them.
> The request is perceived as an order with which they must comply,
> because of the power relationship. This person will understand that
> the change is not in their interest, that they are now worse off. They
> will feel forced to make the decision they make. That is power being
> exercised. [And another similar example after that, similar in form, though with roles reversed.]

Now, here is the key difference. At least in our society, you can always get a different job, even if it is something you are wont to do, for example, instead of being a rocket scientist, you could mop floors at a local barbershop, live in a small apartment with 6 other people, eat at soup kitchens, etc. Now, I am not saying that is the best of all worlds, but I am saying that your survival is almost certainly not an issue here. And if it ever got to be, usually that was in large part a result of your own bad decisions (and so not something I feel obligated to concern myself with, as it does not interfere with the principle I am trying to outline; they got what they chose).

So, what the real source of contention must be here is not that they are forcing your hand in the same way that a person who says "your money or your life" does, as that is no choice at all. But so long as you are still alive, and are not breaching anybody's rights (i.e. initiating force on anyone), then you still have options. And in such a case, what you are really discussing is a sharply tilted cost-benefit analysis, where, via the actions and attitudes of another person, the costs and benefits are heavily skewed in favor of your choosing on course of action over some other option. Force removes you from the realm of choice (as you are no longer in control of your actions, someone else is making you do one thing or another, as death is no choice at all, in any possible way, shape or form). In this case, you still have options, that do not include death, and no one is taking away your property, your life, or your personal sovereignty (by assaulting you, say).

By your argument then, having a set of options in which one is obviously the most beneficial choice (by a longshot) is immoral (I'm not sure if you would use that word, but since you are arguing that it can be a violation of rights, I am assuming it is an apt characterization). I don't see anything other than this in the situation at hand- power relations do not involve physical force, rather they involve the manipulation of costs and benefits so as to make a particular option far more attractive (or perhaps just less repulsive) than other options, and thereby "forcing" the hand of a rational person.

But isn't this a very odd idea of "force" or "coercion"? After all, we come across such lopsided decisions all the time in our lives- Should I go to college? Should I maintain my integrity rather than forfeiting it for some short-term gain? Should I ask her to marry me (ideally this fits in this category, haha)? Indeed, we are placed in such positions all the time in social situations, even with peers (suddenly stripping naked at the dinner table at your partners parent's house is virtually unthinkable, as it would cost so much and produce very little benefit). People control their own actions, and control their property, and as a result have influence over the world in which you live, thereby influencing your decisions. I don't see a qualitative difference between not stripping naked at the parent-in-law's house and not disobeying a request from your employer. Regardless, if you are a rational person, then you would only agree if the interaction is in your best interest (and if you are not rational, well, I don't feel the need to protect you from your mistake, that's how you learn). So long as you still have personal sovereignty, property rights, and all the rest, I don't see the basis for arguing that you have "no choice" or were "forced" when your decision was a result of your own cost-benefit analysis of the situation, and no actual physical force or threat of it was involved.

Such is my first go at trying to demonstrate that these power asymmetries are not essential, and that the essential part of the human landscape is the inviolacy of your own mind, body, and property, in regards to physical force.

> I think it should probably be possible to enter into such a contract
> (disingenuous as it may be), but it should not be possible to be bound
> to that agreement (exactly as is the case now in free societies - you
> cannot be bound by such a contract).
Then it wasn't a contract in the first place. Now, I'll admit that in such situations as a contract of slavery, it is going to be hard to demonstrate the person was not acting under duress, that is, that there was no force or threat of it involved. The decision is so crazy on the face of it that it seems almost certain that only someone under threat of force would enter into such a contract, and as a result, the contract is invalid.

> This is where we differ, and it is because of my contention that we
> exist in a network of uneven power relations. If you could sell
> yourself into slavery, very quickly many of the poorer people in the
> world would be slaves. Why? Because they are dependent in some way or
> another on some interaction with an entity far more powerful than them
> (employer? credit agency? loanshark? walmart?), who will merely have
> to say "Become my slave and I'll waive your debt" or "all employed
> positions are redundant, but we are taken on slaves, sign up here" or
> "become a slave and win this iphone!". It doesn't matter, again, if
> you say these people are somehow bad or foolish for taking up such
> "offers", the fact remains that it would happen, en-masse, and it
> would be due to the exercise of power, be it not directly violent, by
> the powerful over the weak.

Okay, now here is the problem I see with this: anyone who would enter into such an arrangement is surely undeserving of my or anyone's sympathies. Becoming a slave is worse than death, it is annihilation of your control over your body, but with you still aware inside it. Such a condition is intolerable, and entering into it so long as there was the chance to live a "free" man (even in jail) is something only someone who is insane, self-destructive, or profoundly irrational would do. In the first case the contract is void anyway, in the latter two, the person does not, in my opinion, deserve our sympathy. I take a similar view to someone who commits suicide (in a non-torture setting) - if you do that, you obviously weren't worth your mass in water, as you obviously didn't think yourself worth that much. Perhaps that is callous, but I don't see why I should care about someone if they don't even care about themselves.

> Now I don't say that all decisions are under duress. Actors of
> relatively similar power will have free relations, absent the
> influence of third parties. Duress, and just as importantly the
> foreseeable possibility of duress, comes into play where power is
> radically uneven. To maintain a free society, therefore, the project
> is to mitigate uneven power relationships. eg: the separation of
> powers in a democracy is designed to hamstring attempts to wield
> necessary government powers as general purpose power outside of its
> intended bounds.

Again, I think this depends on a faulty assumption, that power relations are somehow essential to life. What you are really discussing is everyday cost-benefit analyses, and I don't see how one could consistently apply your position, as it essentially bans all "obvious" decisions. If the decision is obvious and any other conclusion essentially inconceivable, then clearly the costs and benefits are too skewed, and your decision was not free, even for something as simply as not stripping at the dinner table.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 06:34:59 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:34:59 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003052035w19f50663g86712898b8b135b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<173B5D6C0ADE42AAAA3828FADFB993EB@spike>
	<ffd22f9d1003052035w19f50663g86712898b8b135b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31003052234q17241126m60f1ef60bf24b29d@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 March 2010 15:35, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:35 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dave, you know that it is a really easy modification to make your toilet a
>> single flush, ja?
>
> Oh, yeah, I've already re-gutted all of my toilets. But I still hear
> lots of folks pining for the toilets of old. That will soon be
> replaced by people reminiscing about incandescent bulbs, once they're
> outlawed--and they're already getting hard to find.

What's the advantage of incandescents over compact fluorescents?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Mar  6 07:11:23 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:11:23 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e31003052234q17241126m60f1ef60bf24b29d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com>
	<173B5D6C0ADE42AAAA3828FADFB993EB@spike>	<ffd22f9d1003052035w19f50663g86712898b8b135b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e31003052234q17241126m60f1ef60bf24b29d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B92001B.2090703@satx.rr.com>

On 3/6/2010 12:34 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> What's the advantage of incandescents over compact fluorescents?

Rheostats/dimmers work.


From ddraig at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 07:24:12 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:24:12 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com> 
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com> 
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/6 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
> No, that's a description of somebody making an excuse about why they chose
> to act the way they did.
> The pointless defense you're looking for is, "I was not, am not, and will
> never be in control of my actions." Such a person needs to be permanently
> locked away, so that the rest of us can get on with our illusion-filled,
> largely homicidal-maniac-free lives.


I am living with somebody like that right now.
Well, he has been hospitalised, but he keeps breaking out, and when he
does, yep, he does whatever he feels like as he feels he is not
responsible for his actions. This goes from making a mess, to not
paying to anything, right up to declaring the other day that

1: this year he will kill somebody, and
2: he is going to burn down a heap of churches.

It is interesting to watch his thought processes manifest themselves.

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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 07:33:12 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <4B92001B.2090703@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<173B5D6C0ADE42AAAA3828FADFB993EB@spike>
	<ffd22f9d1003052035w19f50663g86712898b8b135b5@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31003052234q17241126m60f1ef60bf24b29d@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4B92001B.2090703@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31003052333i5957e857g92254c4764cbad3a@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 March 2010 18:11, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On 3/6/2010 12:34 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> What's the advantage of incandescents over compact fluorescents?
>
> Rheostats/dimmers work.

It can be done with compact fluorescents, although at somewhat greater cost:

http://www.green-energy-efficient-homes.com/dimmable-compact-fluorescent-bulb.html

LED's are even more energy efficient than CFL's: up to twice as much
light output for a given power input, and lasting up to ten times as
long before needing to be replaced. They can also be electronically
dimmed quite easily. However, they are more expensive at present, and
they are not as good at rendering colours as incandescents and
fluorescents.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 07:37:10 2010
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:37:10 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com> 
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com> 
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e31003052337h2d7f7bc6i735a3f62f07946a2@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 March 2010 18:24, ddraig <ddraig at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/3/6 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
>> No, that's a description of somebody making an excuse about why they chose
>> to act the way they did.
>> The pointless defense you're looking for is, "I was not, am not, and will
>> never be in control of my actions." Such a person needs to be permanently
>> locked away, so that the rest of us can get on with our illusion-filled,
>> largely homicidal-maniac-free lives.
>
>
> I am living with somebody like that right now.
> Well, he has been hospitalised, but he keeps breaking out, and when he
> does, yep, he does whatever he feels like as he feels he is not
> responsible for his actions. This goes from making a mess, to not
> paying to anything, right up to declaring the other day that
>
> 1: this year he will kill somebody, and
> 2: he is going to burn down a heap of churches.
>
> It is interesting to watch his thought processes manifest themselves.

In some jurisdictions you get a longer sentence if you are found not
guilty on the grounds of insanity than if you are found guilty.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 10:01:54 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:01:54 +0000
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Emlyn  wrote:
<snip>
>
> In fact some would agree entirely with this. I think there is nuance
> here though; there is some range where relative powers are close
> enough to treat as equal. We can proceed on the assumption that actors
> are more or less in this range, leave it as the responsibility of
> individuals that they don't fall into terribly asymmetric situations,
> and try to rectify egregious examples of power imbalance where they
> are being obviously abused. But it's always going to be messy and
> imperfect.
>

Emlyn
You are pointing at the fundamental flaw in libertarian theology.
(So you've got no chance of reaching agreement).  :)

All their contracts, fair markets, fair dealing, etc. only works
between absolutely equal, mostly honest parties.

And, as you say, with the inherent power differences in the world,
this system is a non-starter.
If I convince a native Indian to sell me Manhattan for a handle of
beads of his own free will, that's not a fair contract. It is someone
powerful taking advantage of someone weaker. The weakness can be in
intelligence, education, general knowledge, physical or mental
disability, wealth (being poor and desperate), or even more honest
(not accustomed to dealing with a con-man), and so on.

Joshua's system assumes a world of identical Joshua's. But that
wouldn't work because they would all want to be on the same side of
the deal. Catch-22.

BillK


From giulio at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 14:10:41 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 15:10:41 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <e68fc1101003060608r37c26059sa3a39c118c17f88e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003060608r37c26059sa3a39c118c17f88e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003060610w43623c95w10881ad6d3f97302@mail.gmail.com>

Transcending the body is not only Western, and I don't find "mortification"
in Moravec. I think someday (not soon) sentient beings will have the option
to live as software without a permanent physical body, and the universe will
be a better place for this. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong in
trying to enjoy our current meat bodies.

--
Giulio Prisco
giulio at gmail.com
(39)3387219799

On Mar 5, 2010 1:20 AM, "Sarah Wood" <wood.sarah.m at gmail.com> wrote:

Having chosen Moravec as an entry point, my first impression is that he is
to a large extent simply reproducing an entrenched Western narrative about
body transcendence & mortification, albeit secularized and couched in
languages of efficiency or functionality.

Thoughts?

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100306/fba061d0/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 14:50:02 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 09:50:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e31003052234q17241126m60f1ef60bf24b29d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<173B5D6C0ADE42AAAA3828FADFB993EB@spike>
	<ffd22f9d1003052035w19f50663g86712898b8b135b5@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e31003052234q17241126m60f1ef60bf24b29d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003060650t2b0a4305p454d01e55ea2b213@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What's the advantage of incandescents over compact fluorescents?

Cost. No 5-minute warm-up before full brightness is achieved.

-Dave


From sparge at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 15:02:03 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:02:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <E51A62204EC14F7C9C61DB8EECEF6FBE@spike>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<188184.45412.qm@web113604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com> 
	<12A54B19746F44929513731F6EA07F76@spike>
	<ffd22f9d1003052030r7b3c3227p199d0628e42b798f@mail.gmail.com> 
	<E51A62204EC14F7C9C61DB8EECEF6FBE@spike>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003060702x7e50f2b8h94b5ebe447766c11@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:57 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>> ...On Behalf Of Dave Sill
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Energy hints
>>
>> 1970 Corvette
>> 3425 lbs
>> 300-460 HP
>> 390 HP quarter mile: 15.0 s
>>
>> 2010 Corvette
>> 3217 lbs
>> 430-650 HP
>> 430 HP quarter mile: 12.2 s
>
> Ja, to get into the low twelves requires the supercharged ZR1.

No, ZR1 is 11.2, Z06 is 11.6, and the 12.2 I listed was for a stock Grand Sport:

http://www.dragtimes.com/Chevrolet-Corvette-ZR1-Timeslip-17249.html
http://www.dragtimes.com/Chevrolet-Corvette-Timeslip-13319.html
http://www.dragtimes.com/Chevrolet-Corvette-Timeslip-19579.html

-Dave


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Mar  6 15:47:21 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:47:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals.
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85F91CC2-E8E3-43B0-B129-6972D69D7D72@bellsouth.net>

On Mar 5, 2010, Will Steinberg wrote:

> For one second alight your computronium towers and consider our good friends the h.p., also known as regular people.  If we do expect to have something like a singularity within the next century, or at least a turning towards this sort of thing, good old Common Joes must be factored into the equation.  Joe is most people.

Economically if we ever get to the point where Mr. Joe Average expects the singularity to happen in his lifetime then we can expect a huge increase in interest rates, because regardless of whatever crushing debt he takes on, after the singularity one of 2 things is certain to happen:

1) Paying off that huge debt will be easy.
2) The singularity will kill Mr. Joe Average.

> Are there unforeseen complications with the entire world doing away with free will and all that stuff associated with positivism?  Might we see an increase in crimes because people see that they are no longer bound by choice (heh, bound by choice)?

I can't imagine how that could make the slightest difference, free will is not an idea it's just a noise some people like to make with their mouth. Would you like to hang around with serial murderers even if they were (or were not, I'm not even sure which one is supposed to be better or which one we have now) "bound by choice"?

 John K Clark 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100306/cb7c38fd/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Mar  6 16:39:46 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 08:39:46 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread
	extropian/positivistideals
In-Reply-To: <f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02><4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AC3514F9808A415AB877F00C94A4CD75@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of ddraig
> ...
> 
> 
> I am living with somebody like that right now.
> Well, he has been hospitalised, but he keeps breaking out, 
> and when he does, yep, he does whatever he feels like as he 
> feels he is not responsible for his actions. This goes from 
> making a mess, to not paying to anything, right up to 
> declaring the other day that
> 
> 1: this year he will kill somebody, and
> 2: he is going to burn down a heap of churches.
> 
> It is interesting to watch his thought processes manifest themselves.
> 
> Dwayne


Dwayne, because you posted this on a public forum, you have filled me and a
bunch of others here with a sense of secondary responsibility.  Now I do
insist, you must take action here: make damn sure the appropriate local
authorities know about this, that they know what your roommate said.  Don't
delete this message or laugh it off just because it was me who posted it.  I
do mean it bud, this is now YOUR responsibility.  Take care of this NOW
before truly bad consequences take place, do it, do it NOW!

spike



From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 17:34:30 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 12:34:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6ACBABC5-26C3-4AC1-AE04-2EB88F1892EF@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:01 AM, BillK wrote:
> All their contracts, fair markets, fair dealing, etc. only works
> between absolutely equal, mostly honest parties.

Actually, I'd say it just needs a government that prevents punishes the use of force (including fraud). If you have that, you can't have anyone taking advantage of people's stupidity or gullibility, as then they may be liable for fraud. Without that, you are right, I think things might go to hell in a handbasket pretty quick, which is why I insist on it.

> If I convince a native Indian to sell me Manhattan for a handle of
> beads of his own free will, that's not a fair contract.

You are right, as the tribe that sold Manhattan didn't even live on the land, or have any concept of property (though I'm not sure how you should deal with such a population).


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 18:07:17 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:07:17 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <390703.80706.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com>
	<490029.56109.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040053k10e5176cv149d592b01ecbb75@mail.gmail.com>
	<390703.80706.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003061007h59892841nc22cc27e502dcbd3@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:

> What would you consider a realistic scenario for sea level rise over the
> next, say, 50-100 years?

### 2.8 to 3.5 cm/decade.

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

> Is it perhaps that you believe that there are no "realistic scenarios
> related to manmade?climate warming" at all, and therefore that which will
> never exist will pose no threat?

### Exactly. To the best of my knowledge, there is no measurable AGW
so far, and no reason to assume there will be any in the future.

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

 Otherwise I really can't understand how you
> can discount it.
>>?Name the climatologists who claim that changes in Arctic sea ice?can
>> cause
>> disruptive rises in sea level
> If I had made that claim, I would be happy to provide evidence. Again,
> please read carefully.
>> I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh
>> had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover
>> had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.

### OK, let's quote you again: "I care about events that indicate an
increased potential for disruptive (read: suffering-generating)
climate change. I'm sure you're aware of the significants
climatologists place on the more-rapid-than-expected Arctic melt,".
You said that in the context of discussing Bangladeshi climate
refugees, thus by innuendo connecting Arctic ice melt to rise in sea
level. You were trying to appeal to the authority of unnamed
"climatologists" to justify a connection between an observed event and
dire warnings of future calamity, so as to strengthen the impact of
your warning. I called you out, asking exactly what would be the
mechanism connecting Arctic ice and putative flooding in Bangladesh
and which authority claims to know this mechanism - of course, you
retreat, since this is how innuendo works. It's meant to somewhat
nebulously convey a message (here, prediction of catastrophe if we
don't follow your recipes) but worded so as to assure easy deniability
when pressed for details.

Rafal


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  6 17:42:06 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 09:42:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread
	extropian/positivistideals
In-Reply-To: <AC3514F9808A415AB877F00C94A4CD75@spike>
Message-ID: <896969.58485.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I second Spike's motion. 

Dwayne aside from your moral responsibilities you may also have placed yourself in legal jeopardy. I don't have a law degree but it seems to me that if you fail to report these threats to the authorities and this person commits a crime then this message of yours below might find its way into civil or even criminal court as evidence against you. 

Given that you lived with the perpetrator and had prior knowledge of the crime, someone could try to say that your complacency made you complicit and thus partially responsible (in civil court), or that you aided and abetted or co-conspired (in criminal court), or who knows what.

Pick up the phone and call the police.

-gts

--- On Sat, 3/6/10, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivistideals
> To: ddraig at pobox.com, "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Saturday, March 6, 2010, 11:39 AM
>  
> 
> > ...On Behalf Of ddraig
> > ...
> > 
> > 
> > I am living with somebody like that right now.
> > Well, he has been hospitalised, but he keeps breaking
> out, 
> > and when he does, yep, he does whatever he feels like
> as he 
> > feels he is not responsible for his actions. This goes
> from 
> > making a mess, to not paying to anything, right up to
> 
> > declaring the other day that
> > 
> > 1: this year he will kill somebody, and
> > 2: he is going to burn down a heap of churches.
> > 
> > It is interesting to watch his thought processes
> manifest themselves.
> > 
> > Dwayne
> 
> 
> Dwayne, because you posted this on a public forum, you have
> filled me and a
> bunch of others here with a sense of secondary
> responsibility.? Now I do
> insist, you must take action here: make damn sure the
> appropriate local
> authorities know about this, that they know what your
> roommate said.? Don't
> delete this message or laugh it off just because it was me
> who posted it.? I
> do mean it bud, this is now YOUR responsibility.? Take
> care of this NOW
> before truly bad consequences take place, do it, do it
> NOW!
> 
> 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  Sat Mar  6 18:19:47 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:19:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <4B8FE82F.4040201@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8FE82F.4040201@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003061019k5d3a96b4x965c592e6414d297@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On 3/4/2010 10:10 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>>> ?The short version:
>>> ?We are increasingly and will eventually entirely*be*
>>> ?information. If
>>> ?we allow ownership of information, we eventually lose
>>> ?ownership of ourselves.
>
>> ### I don't understand. Shouldn't it be "If we forbid the ownership of
>> information, and if we are information, ?then we forbid the ownership
>> of ourselves."? Without IP we will have, among others, no defense
>> against unauthorized copying of us (i.e. making of slave copies).
>
> That was my thought also. "First they take away ownership of your work
> product, then they take away ownership of yourself." It really doesn't
> matter if they are plutocrats, gummints or Stalinist dictators who do it,
> it's always for the Greater Good. (The bogus "Think of the children!" plea.)
>
> Which seems to me a very different proposition from deciding by democratic
> means (if that's still possible and has any meaning nowadays) to allocate
> some of our wealth, effort, dedication, cleverness in common ways to
> maximize our well-being.

### I keep plugging for my atrociously long paean to polycentric legal
systems, see http://triviallyso.blogspot.com/2010/01/of-beating-hearts-part-2.html

Does it make sense to you?

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 18:23:32 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:23:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <cb794c521003041206t3011169bjece58d7fee222fa4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<710b78fc1003031947w79e2744anf2392f2f6e7e4538@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DDF758E-5A90-40F6-9E30-F20B7A7E8E28@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003032313p200f9e79o215822b8f03c96ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<304623C5-57B5-4E7A-B426-341F126CC83E@GMAIL.COM>
	<cb794c521003041117i348e10b5o6cdfde5f14b85fd7@mail.gmail.com>
	<A6F809D0-071D-4D01-8494-80D686437356@GMAIL.COM>
	<cb794c521003041206t3011169bjece58d7fee222fa4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003061023q540763a9qaa6136b6a2c35429@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/4 Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:
>
>> That you enter into a contract with terms and conditions upon the purchase
>> of an item plays a fundamental role in IP. Its why they have the messages at
>> the beginning of movies, on CD cases, in user agreements for all sorts of
>> things, etc. "You were duly informed."
>
>
> There's a warning on hairdryers too, it says 'Do not use in bathtub.'
>
> If I want to take something I've bought and make a copy of it, or tear it
> apart to see how it works, there's not a lot that can be done to stop me.? I
> don't see where morality enters the picture unless I'm depriving someone of
> income.

### Not everything is reducible to financial loss. "Pacta servanda
sunt" means much more than "Thou shalt not steal".

Rafal


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Mar  6 18:35:21 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:35:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals.
In-Reply-To: <f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>

On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:24 AM, ddraig wrote:

> I am living with somebody like that right now.
> Well, he has been hospitalised, but he keeps breaking out, and when he
> does, yep, he does whatever he feels like as he feels he is not
> responsible for his actions. This goes from making a mess, to not
> paying to anything, right up to declaring the other day that
> 1: this year he will kill somebody, and
> 2: he is going to burn down a heap of churches.

Why are you living with such a creep? Get out now! And then tell somebody who might be able to stop him, that last part probably won't work if he's really serious, but it's your duty to try.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100306/4bf32f3a/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 18:42:46 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:42:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003061042n4bd8e623k1890ae6c71d4f6c3@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I think the libertarian idea that we can begin with property rights
> and derive everything else from them is elegant, but doesn't work
> (from a utilitarian point of view), largely because of its parsimony.
> It is too simple, and ignores power.

### I am a bit of a strange libertarian in that I don't recognize
property rights as moral primitives from which all else flows. Rather,
property rights are contingent on the interactions of embodied minds
operating to fulfill desires in the physical world, they emerge
because very frequently they work (yes, it's a utilitarian notion,
just as what you espouse yourself). Let me plug for my current
thinking about polycentric law (
http://triviallyso.blogspot.com/2010/01/of-beating-hearts-part-2.html
) as the generator of rules which, as I imagine, would produce an
order most efficiently translating desires into actions in a social
setting. It would also most likely in many situations re-discover
strong property rights, including IP, yet contingent on the desires of
in-group members. The system would not start with property rights and
derive everything else from them - instead it would start with a
procedure for integrating and weighing human desires and derive from
it property rights and other lower-order rules. It's like an
all-ass-backwards type of libertarianism, please see the post and
don't get put off by its length.

Rafal


From spike66 at att.net  Sat Mar  6 18:52:51 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:52:51 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pbs nova online
Message-ID: <55E53F5D494446C8BFFFD06BBEA85513@spike>

 
Hey cool!  Did you guys know you can get Nova and some other PBS stuff
online free?  You hafta sit thru a few commercials, but it looks like a
bargain, considering a decade ago I was paying 10 bucks per episode for some
selected Nova episodes on DVD.
 
http://www.hulu.com/watch/63744/nova-secrets-of-the-parthenon#play-all
 
Oh wait, you already knew about it?  Damn I am so tragically not hip.  {8-[
 
I don't get cable TV anymore, but I do get cable internet, so this is
important to me.
 
spike
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100306/95557dd5/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 18:57:11 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:57:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003061057p783e9045ib0bd78d3bb8047db@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 5:01 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> If I convince a native Indian to sell me Manhattan for a handle of
> beads of his own free will, that's not a fair contract.

### That Indian relinquished a minor part of his hunting range, got
beads, gave them to squaws and scored. The settlers got a messy,
wooded little rock that needed years of backbreaking labor to be
transformed into middling-quality farmland (and millions of man-years
to build into a financial center), so the transaction was quite
equitable. Who are you to tell the Indians what to do with their land?
Are you some white-man guru of sorts, who feels he can call the shots
with brown people?

Rafal


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 19:04:43 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:04:43 +0000
Subject: [ExI] pbs nova online
In-Reply-To: <55E53F5D494446C8BFFFD06BBEA85513@spike>
References: <55E53F5D494446C8BFFFD06BBEA85513@spike>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003061104h4b6f43dj6b55079db9da5b99@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/6 spike wrote:
> Hey cool!? Did you guys know you can get Nova and some other PBS stuff
> online free?? You hafta sit thru a few commercials, but it looks like a
> bargain, considering a decade ago I was paying 10 bucks per episode for some
> selected Nova episodes?on DVD.
>
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/63744/nova-secrets-of-the-parthenon#play-all
>
>

Only works for USA IP addresses.
So outsiders have to bounce in via a USA address if they want to watch.

As some compensation, did you know that the complete archives of
Popular Science magazine can now be browsed for free?

<http://www.popsci.com/announcements/article/2010-03/new-browse-137-years-popsci-archive-free>


BillK


From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Sat Mar  6 19:35:26 2010
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 20:35:26 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals.
In-Reply-To: <08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
	<08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <babd2c8d1003061135h24526096nd8f69c20c68adbc7@mail.gmail.com>

A little meta or off topic. But if anybody cares for my opinion - John K
Clark is the voice of reason. Rare voice of reason even here on this list
and here around. It is my advice to everybody to consider almost all of his
posts very seriously.

2010/3/6 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>

> On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:24 AM, ddraig wrote:
>
> I am living with somebody like that right now.
> Well, he has been hospitalised, but he keeps breaking out, and when he
> does, yep, he does whatever he feels like as he feels he is not
> responsible for his actions. This goes from making a mess, to not
> paying to anything, right up to declaring the other day that
> 1: this year he will kill somebody, and
> 2: he is going to burn down a heap of churches.
>
>
> Why are you living with such a creep? Get out now! And then tell somebody
> who might be able to stop him, that last part probably won't work if he's
> really serious, but it's your duty to try.
>
>  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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100306/ec7d3ffa/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  6 19:28:04 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Genetic test for most effective diet
In-Reply-To: <201003060036.o260aJq4015397@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <728112.5005.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Max,

> Although it's clear that some genetic tests are valid, I'm
> very unsure about this one. I saw only one study cited.
> Anyone know whether the claimed study is supported or
> contradicted by other research?

I found this pdf of a powerpoint presentation that contains references to a number of studies supporting the research:

http://nutrigenomics.ucdavis.edu/ames/downloads/debusk_and_draper_workshop2a.pdf

You'll see the relevant studies cited about half-way through the presentation. You could then look for abstracts of the original research in the PubMed database:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

I haven't looked at the abstracts but the concept seems valid to me based on the powerpoint.

-gts


      


From spike66 at att.net  Sat Mar  6 19:48:41 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:48:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of
	widespreadextropian/positivistideals
In-Reply-To: <896969.58485.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <AC3514F9808A415AB877F00C94A4CD75@spike>
	<896969.58485.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4DB539212C4944E49BE3B2A5DE98F940@spike>

 > ...On Behalf Of Gordon Swobe

> I second Spike's motion. 
> ... 
> Given that you lived with the perpetrator and had prior 
> knowledge of the crime, someone could try to say that your 
> complacency made you complicit and thus partially responsible 
> (in civil court), or that you aided and abetted or 
> co-conspired (in criminal court), or who knows what. -gts
> 
> > > ...On Behalf Of ddraig
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > I am living with somebody like that right now.
> > > Well, he has been hospitalised, but he keeps breaking
> > out... Dwayne

Ja to Gordon's post, and furthermore Dwayne, this term you used "breaking
out" caught my full and undivided.  If your roommate was committed for some
reason and he escaped, then the second call you must make is to the hospital
from which he keeps breaking out.  Do make sure the director of that
hospital knows of her escaped charge's comments.  You need not explain her
legal accountability, she already knows.

Stathis is a mental health professional if I recall correctly.  He might be
able to advise here, or suggest who to contact, but it is clear to me that
timely action is necessary to avert potential tragedy, and I do not mean
some-other-timely but rather todayly, right-nowly.

spike



From cluebcke at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  6 21:19:01 2010
From: cluebcke at yahoo.com (Christopher Luebcke)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003061007h59892841nc22cc27e502dcbd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<425539.16052.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com>
	<490029.56109.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040053k10e5176cv149d592b01ecbb75@mail.gmail.com>
	<390703.80706.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003061007h59892841nc22cc27e502dcbd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <472583.53450.qm@web111215.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Rafal,

I am simply not going to engage in an argument with you about what I was or wasn't really trying to say. Your accusation that I intentionally used innuendo to make an unjustifiable claim is one that you cannot prove, and one that I cannot disprove, because intention is not directly observable. Despite this, you've now taken up the project of revealing my hidden intentions, and are essentially accusing me of being dishonest when I inform you that you are incorrect. 

It is striking that, once again, you have been unable to disagree with a position without attacking the character of the person holding it.

If you're now going to start arguing against what you claim I really mean, rather than what I actually say, then there's no need for me to continue to participate in the conversation, because you're having it with yourself.

Enjoy,
Chris



________________________________
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>
Cc: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sat, March 6, 2010 10:07:17 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:

> What would you consider a realistic scenario for sea level rise over the
> next, say, 50-100 years?

### 2.8 to 3.5 cm/decade.

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

> Is it perhaps that you believe that there are no "realistic scenarios
> related to manmade climate warming" at all, and therefore that which will
> never exist will pose no threat?

### Exactly. To the best of my knowledge, there is no measurable AGW
so far, and no reason to assume there will be any in the future.

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

Otherwise I really can't understand how you
> can discount it.
>> Name the climatologists who claim that changes in Arctic sea ice can
>> cause
>> disruptive rises in sea level
> If I had made that claim, I would be happy to provide evidence. Again,
> please read carefully.
>> I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh
>> had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover
>> had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.

### OK, let's quote you again: "I care about events that indicate an
increased potential for disruptive (read: suffering-generating)
climate change. I'm sure you're aware of the significants
climatologists place on the more-rapid-than-expected Arctic melt,".
You said that in the context of discussing Bangladeshi climate
refugees, thus by innuendo connecting Arctic ice melt to rise in sea
level. You were trying to appeal to the authority of unnamed
"climatologists" to justify a connection between an observed event and
dire warnings of future calamity, so as to strengthen the impact of
your warning. I called you out, asking exactly what would be the
mechanism connecting Arctic ice and putative flooding in Bangladesh
and which authority claims to know this mechanism - of course, you
retreat, since this is how innuendo works. It's meant to somewhat
nebulously convey a message (here, prediction of catastrophe if we
don't follow your recipes) but worded so as to assure easy deniability
when pressed for details.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100306/ff73bfc5/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Mar  6 22:05:07 2010
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:05:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Energy hints
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003060650t2b0a4305p454d01e55ea2b213@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1732.1267556897.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<580930c21003030632l4e7a7bf7q646c319579403892@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003050635p517e30c2l112d57e409244d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003050659s7fa84705h93858002c933cebc@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B234DACAF24D3A83AEB909DB019ECF@spike>
	<62c14241003051814i2a4029b1y707fa982298705dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003051827q2735ec55lbd4c5f4922535ac2@mail.gmail.com>
	<173B5D6C0ADE42AAAA3828FADFB993EB@spike>
	<ffd22f9d1003052035w19f50663g86712898b8b135b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e31003052234q17241126m60f1ef60bf24b29d@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d1003060650t2b0a4305p454d01e55ea2b213@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <39117.12.77.168.239.1267913107.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What's the advantage of incandescents over compact fluorescents?
>

They'll keep my snake cages warm. Special "heat" bulbs are very pricey.

Regards,

MB



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Mar  7 00:52:16 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:52:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <472583.53450.qm@web111215.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<339014.22920.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003022146u245f9607ndfedb1abe8aafbd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<225489.67648.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003032152xd087f1ci3754dc387100b86e@mail.gmail.com>
	<490029.56109.qm@web111208.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040053k10e5176cv149d592b01ecbb75@mail.gmail.com>
	<390703.80706.qm@web111211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003061007h59892841nc22cc27e502dcbd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<472583.53450.qm@web111215.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003061652l180d2692q14f39430db37fa26@mail.gmail.com>

Funny how you didn't comment on my specific prediction of sea level
rise .... as if it was less important for the well-being of humanity
than the minutia of your argumentation style. Looks like facts matter
less than feelings in this discussion, now hopefully over.

Rafal

2010/3/6 Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>:
> Rafal,
> I am simply not going to engage in an argument with you about what I was or
> wasn't?really trying to say. Your accusation that I intentionally used
> innuendo to make an unjustifiable claim is one that you cannot prove, and
> one that I cannot disprove, because intention is not directly observable.
> Despite this, you've now taken up the project of revealing my hidden
> intentions, and are essentially accusing me of being dishonest when I inform
> you that you are incorrect.
> It is striking that, once again, you have been unable to disagree with a
> position without attacking the character of the person holding it.
> If you're now going to start arguing against what you claim I really mean,
> rather than what I actually say, then there's no need for me to continue to
> participate in the conversation, because you're having it with yourself.
> Enjoy,
> Chris


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Mar  7 18:08:12 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 19:08:12 +0100
Subject: [ExI] common sense
In-Reply-To: <901517.34565.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <580930c21003030646m510dd74fx69e948bca6c865b6@mail.gmail.com>
	<901517.34565.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003071008m7f2365b2wc165a8210bddb74d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 March 2010 10:28, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 3/3/10, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> We can quite easily reduce mental phenomena
> >> epistemically without reducing the same phenomena
> >> ontologically. I mean here that we can understand mental
> >> phenomena in scientific terms of neurological causes and
> >> effects without abandoning the common sense notion that
> >> mental phenomena have an irreducibly subjective ontology.
> >
> > We can perhaps. But why ever should we?
>
> We should for the sake of saving the notion of "common sense".

Common sense is simply a number of assumptions implicit in a (normally
collective) worldview. What is "obvious" changes in space and above
all in time. Some parts of it have mainly epistemological
implications, other are more emotional. Of course, we cannot ever
escape having one worldview, but it also evolves through the
relativisation of its tenets, which is mostly performed through the
deconstruction of its genealogy. Such process is of course resisted in
different degrees by any of us owing to our "faith" in the old ways to
interpret things.

> If input equals "Given that your performance seems equal to that of a human, do you have a mind?" then output "Yes indeed, I have a mind just like Stefano has a mind."
> Call me crazy, Stefano, but somehow I think that code above does not really give the computer a mind like you have a mind. What do you think?

If that system's abilities were limited to that, I would not call it a
system that has any expertise in checking Turing tests results,
something which was required by my hypothesis.

--
Stefano Vaj


From spike66 at att.net  Sun Mar  7 18:21:44 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:21:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] verrry small galaxies?
Message-ID: <E941F9E5963F430884D9AFCEFB040E5E@spike>

 
There's a good article at Science News about a subject that has puzzled me for decades, how it is that matter around a black hole sheds enough angular momentum to eventually fall in:

  <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/how-black-holes-overcome-cetrifugal-force-to-suck-in-gas/#ixzz0hW3nZ8A9> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/how-black-holes-overcome-cetrifugal-force-to-suck-in-gas/#ixzz0hW3nZ8A9 
 
The article contains what I think is an error:
 
"...At much larger distances???about 30 to 300 light-years from the center???disturbances from collisions with other galaxies and the gravitational interactions of matter within the galaxy can drive gas toward the central black hole..."
 
I think they meant accretion disks of nearby stars, rather than collisions with other galaxies.  I can't see immediately how collisions with other galaxies would be a big player in this phenom.  Where's Amara these days?  She would know the answer.
 
spike
 
 
 
 


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100307/b76eef05/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  7 18:57:52 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:57:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] common sense
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003071008m7f2365b2wc165a8210bddb74d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <235057.55893.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sun, 3/7/10, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> We can perhaps. But why ever should we?
>>
>> We should for the sake of saving the notion of "common sense".
 
> Common sense is simply a number of assumptions implicit in
> a (normally collective) worldview. What is "obvious" changes in space
> and above all in time. Some parts of it have mainly epistemological
> implications, other are more emotional. Of course, we cannot ever
> escape having one worldview, but it also evolves through
> the relativisation of its tenets, which is mostly performed
> through the deconstruction of its genealogy. Such process is of course
> resisted in different degrees by any of us owing to our "faith" in the
> old ways to interpret things.

Yes, I agree, but by "common sense" I mean also something a little more basic and literal. 

I look around and see some 6 billion or so entities who literally have senses in common with me. 

Why do you suppose, for example, that we humans like to talk about the weather, especially when we do not know one another well? It seems to me we discuss the weather because it appeals to our common sense of reality, and that our common sense of reality literally has to do with the physical senses that we share in common. We all feel the warmth of the sun, the coldness of snow and ice, the solidity of the earth beneath our feet, the colors of nature, and so on. Our common subjective sense of physical reality unites us as a species and allows us to literally make sense of the world. 

You asked why ever should we do an epistemic but not an ontological reduction of mental phenomena, and I hope you can see what I meant by my answer: we can reduce mental phenomena epistemically and causally (the job of neuroscience) but we cannot reduce those phenomena ontologically without losing our common sense. It literally makes no sense to reduce subjectivity to something objective, and for this reason I subscribe to a flavor of non-reductive physicalism in the philosophy of mind. 

-gts




      


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Sun Mar  7 20:13:00 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:13:00 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience
In-Reply-To: <130224.65928.qm@web113603.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1267790402.25188.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<130224.65928.qm@web113603.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003071213h30e7b75xfba89a26e0b534b1@mail.gmail.com>

I don't seem to have enough time to single-handedly support my side of
the argument, Swobe-style, so I think I will have to admit defeat for
now.

Just as well. Stathis and Ben made pretty solid points about six and
three days ago, respectively. I don't have any way to counter Stathis,
since I already basically agree with him, and I would have a tough
time poking a hole in that car analogy.

Lesson learned: playing devil's advocate is difficult without backup!


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Sun Mar  7 20:35:54 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:35:54 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <384574C2-74C8-4A9C-AA0B-8FA21EC776AF@bellsouth.net>
References: <e321aa4b1002221852x5d10a80erbd06cf9ff6a6b4cb@mail.gmail.com> 
	<CE35A5DE-F04E-4899-A4F5-2F0E75FF742D@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281025l6d85448an25ecee0570ed4a3e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<D837693A-8346-496B-9537-BD4E55D62594@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003011122o2d8ce004i3fff730c57dd12d@mail.gmail.com> 
	<715CB28C-42FF-49C1-8054-C5324BAC62AD@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003041622x2448596am261d93494b697572@mail.gmail.com> 
	<384574C2-74C8-4A9C-AA0B-8FA21EC776AF@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003071235s28647aa6vb44f736d5d761346@mail.gmail.com>

John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> I was looking for intelligent behavior, and no I don't have a definition of
> intelligence but I have something much better, examples.

So: you are proud to point to examples of a thing which you can't
define. I don't see the logic. If I realized that I was recognizing a
phenomenon that I don't know how to describe, I, personally, would
feel pretty strongly compelled to work on articulating it.

In short, I would want to know what it is I think I'm seeing. Gut
instinct is only the beginning of a whole process of understanding.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> That is unclear, if the statement is "I also believe mind scanning fails"
> then you are correct.

But that isn't the statement. I'm disagreeing with an implication, here.

I believe "A" and I believe "not B". Therefore, I believe "if A then
B" is a false statement.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> I don't understand, an old experienced brain would have lots to say to a
> brand new blank brain, but what would the blank brain have to say to the old
> brain that is relevant in this matter? In fact what would a blank brain have
> to say period?

Maybe I should have said "interaction" instead of "communication".

Brains don't "say" anything. They just respond. When I think of a
blank brain, I think of a big wad of totally inactive neurons. As soon
as you set one of them off, the whole thing activates; it's no longer
blank. It responds immediately.


Jeffery P. Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:
> John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
>> That's why mind is not involved in blinking, only the brain.
>
> ?Couldn't you make a comparison to the subroutines of a program?

I could!

I don't have to, since I can blink at will, but I could defend against
"try to make your heart stop beating" that way. Very easily.

I won't, though, because I resigned from this thread. Yup. Totally
done with it. I'm not even here. These very words are an illusion,
confabulated by your primitive ape-mind in a desperate ploy to justify
its own existence.


From lacertilian at gmail.com  Sun Mar  7 21:04:31 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:04:31 -0800
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <6ACBABC5-26C3-4AC1-AE04-2EB88F1892EF@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com> 
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<6ACBABC5-26C3-4AC1-AE04-2EB88F1892EF@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003071304h4ddf070cj21009e1bcdf769cd@mail.gmail.com>

JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
> Actually, I'd say it just needs a government that prevents punishes the use of force (including fraud).

How does the government punish itself for using the force necessary to
punish others?

"Who polices the police". You may begin groaning. Still, it's a valid
point. You can't just whip out a perfect system of law enforcement to
solve your problems. The law has to enforce itself. Nothing else
works; at least, not well.

Sidenote: I actually wrote a 500-600 word post for this thread a few
days ago, to the effect that intellectual property is a bad idea. I
didn't send it because it was insufficiently elegant. I may try again
later on.


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 01:40:03 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:40:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1003071304h4ddf070cj21009e1bcdf769cd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACBABC5-26C3-4AC1-AE04-2EB88F1892EF@GMAIL.COM>
	<e321aa4b1003071304h4ddf070cj21009e1bcdf769cd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91DB703E-B033-49EA-95E2-99F39369E911@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 7, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:

> How does the government punish itself for using the force necessary to
> punish others?
> 
> "Who polices the police". You may begin groaning. Still, it's a valid
> point. You can't just whip out a perfect system of law enforcement to
> solve your problems. The law has to enforce itself. Nothing else
> works; at least, not well.

Well, the government doesn't have to punish itself, because it isn't initiating force (as it is restricted only to punishing other people's initiation of force, it is, in essence, an institutionalized self-defense for the entire population). Since it can't initiate force, it cannot collect taxes, and can, at best, charge some small fee for certain types of services (like a "right to be enforced" stamp on an official contract, for example) and accept donations, those types of things.

And as for my preferred "who watches the watchmen", you'd have to make sure there are a number of internal checks and balances, preferably with a quite decentralized power structure, an ironclad constitution (no "necessary and proper" nonsense), and a way for the population to check the government (probably some form of voting, as well as an armed population, but lets not go into that as apparently that topic is dangerous round these parts).

What exactly do you mean "law that enforces itself", do you mean no government at all? Or just more obvious laws? Property rights, even in the "real" world, can be very difficult waters to navigate in the first place; it was a huge topic in the 19th Century (prior to governments claiming the right to regulate/control everything). And there are still issues today which aren't really settled. And as property rights are very important, I should think, any government at all that is involved in them will likely have a time creating laws that simply "enforce themselves", i.e. be so simple there is never any question and it is blatantly obvious to absolutely everyone all the time who is in the right and wrong. As property rights are vital for a government to enforce (if it is going to be concerned with enforcing anything, really), IP doesn't seem that much more complicated than the numerous issues involved in "material" property.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From lacertilian at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 03:31:50 2010
From: lacertilian at gmail.com (Spencer Campbell)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 19:31:50 -0800
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <91DB703E-B033-49EA-95E2-99F39369E911@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com> 
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<6ACBABC5-26C3-4AC1-AE04-2EB88F1892EF@GMAIL.COM>
	<e321aa4b1003071304h4ddf070cj21009e1bcdf769cd@mail.gmail.com> 
	<91DB703E-B033-49EA-95E2-99F39369E911@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <e321aa4b1003071931u1528f72frd7045b6502b586f@mail.gmail.com>

JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
> Well, the government doesn't have to punish itself, because it isn't initiating force (as it is restricted only to punishing other people's initiation of force, it is, in essence, an institutionalized self-defense for the entire population).

I don't buy it. The government cannot perform self-defense on behalf
of other people. Aside from that, ALMOST ALL instances of self-defense
qualify as "force".

Certain martial arts can enable you to sidestep this. Aikido, for
example. However, if you actually looked at all the aikido
practitioners in the world, I expect you would see that the vast
majority are still mostly using force even though they're told not to.

It takes at least ten years to kick that habit. Even then, we relapse.
Frequently. Take it from someone who caught his sensei invisibly
devolving into brutality during a demonstration, for no reason at all,
just enough to fail at throwing me.


JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
> What exactly do you mean "law that enforces itself", do you mean no government at all? Or just more obvious laws?

Out of the two, I would lean towards "more obvious laws". I think it
would be better to say "more natural laws", however. Laws which not
only aren't arbitrary, but clearly do not *appear* arbitrary.

Generally, people drive on the correct side of the road whether or not
you tell them to. It just makes visceral sense. If you drive on the
wrong side, you will crash into someone. Simple.

The same is not true of, say, littering, or loitering. It isn't
intuitively *obvious* to people that it isn't in their best interest
to do these things, and so it happens a lot. Statistically speaking,
you see many orders of magnitude more litterers than you do malicious
drivers.

The difference is essentially this: an arbitrary law is enforced by
consequences imposed by other people, whereas a natural law is
enforced by consequences of your own actions.

I should stress that this has nothing to do with how "good" the law
is; only how easily the population accepts it. The more natural a law
is, the fewer resources you need to devote to maintaining it. If the
law is good and right in addition to that, implement it.


JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
> As property rights are vital for a government to enforce (if it is going to be concerned with enforcing anything, really), IP doesn't seem that much more complicated than the numerous issues involved in "material" property.

And yet it is much, much more complicated, for the simple reason that
intellectual property is fundamentally easier to steal. In fact, you
can steal it just by looking at it. Nothing can stop you.

I don't think it's possible, even in theory, to construct a
self-enforcing copyright system. To me, this indicates that we may be
looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Indeed, I think you're
seeing a problem where there really isn't one.


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 03:59:26 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 22:59:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1003071931u1528f72frd7045b6502b586f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACBABC5-26C3-4AC1-AE04-2EB88F1892EF@GMAIL.COM>
	<e321aa4b1003071304h4ddf070cj21009e1bcdf769cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<91DB703E-B033-49EA-95E2-99F39369E911@GMAIL.COM>
	<e321aa4b1003071931u1528f72frd7045b6502b586f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0EBBF174-3D25-42AE-B7EC-F36DF8573413@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:31 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:
> I don't buy it. The government cannot perform self-defense on behalf
> of other people. Aside from that, ALMOST ALL instances of self-defense
> qualify as "force".

The idea is that government is simply an institution with which people place their right to defend themselves (in part), because the might of many many many people is far better than a single person defending himself alone. You have a right to respond with force when someone initiates force against you (as they are violating your rights and so can no longer claim to have rights of their own, in a limited sense). Having others defend you is also right, since you are not granting anyone a right you do not yourself have. I am NOT saying that you do not have a right to use force under any circumstances. I am saying you ONLY have a right to use force when someone violates your rights (that is, in self-defense or defense of your property), and then, legally, only can do so within certain bounds. So, you can shoot someone who attacks you, but you cannot go and burn down the house of someone who stole from you. Essentially, you retain your right to defend yourself directly in a crisis, but in non-crisis situations you agree to let the government do it (so that people don't run around killing each other claiming their rights were violated without proof).

> Out of the two, I would lean towards "more obvious laws". I think it
> would be better to say "more natural laws", however. Laws which not
> only aren't arbitrary, but clearly do not *appear* arbitrary.
> ...
> The difference is essentially this: an arbitrary law is enforced by
> consequences imposed by other people, whereas a natural law is
> enforced by consequences of your own actions.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Then all idea of property rights (or at least most of it) goes out the window as arbitrary, since many people will feel it is in their best interests to steal (however irrational that is). Similarly with very well executed murders (that is, little evidence), and all sorts of other things. You NEED laws to be enforced by other people. If you didn't, then everyone would be angels, and that is simply not true. Many many of the morally correct laws that should be imposed would meet your definition of arbitrary (unless everyone was rational and understood where their rights came from, etc., which is unlikely ever to be the case).

> And yet it is much, much more complicated, for the simple reason that
> intellectual property is fundamentally easier to steal. In fact, you
> can steal it just by looking at it. Nothing can stop you.
> 
> I don't think it's possible, even in theory, to construct a
> self-enforcing copyright system. To me, this indicates that we may be
> looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Indeed, I think you're
> seeing a problem where there really isn't one.

I agree with you on the latter point, a self-enforcing copyright system is likely impossible. But so is a self-enforcing rights respecting legal system in general. The people who break laws, only do so because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (even if they're crazy for thinking so). That is why we need police and courts, to take care of the nutjobs of the world.

And since we need that anyway, there isn't much more to an IP system. I know of no way to steal someone's intellectual property just by looking at it. You have to DO something with it in order to infringe someone's property rights. If you create a product that exactly matches various architectures or systems created by another company, you can be shown to have infringed on their patent (or not, that's what court/arbitration is for). Similarly, if you copy a book plot, or make an copy of a movie without permission, all of those things can be shown without a doubt. Now, whether it is perfectly enforceable isn't the issue, as most things people do with their content that they purchase that is protected by IP law is something that isn't that big a deal to the companies, and indeed is something everyone wants to be able to do anyway. 

This is exactly why companies are working to give us access to ALL our media everywhere, anytime, for just the cost of initial purchase. Its why "digital copy" is springing up all over on DVDs, because people want those types of things. They realize that they cannot try to sell people a movie 5 times in order to be able to watch it on their computer, their iPod, their TV, etc. etc. Because people simply won't buy those multiple copies, they'll try everything in their power to get around the protections, and there is virtually no way to prevent it or enforce your IP claims. I'm not saying they don't have them, but that ultimately, in some cases, the cost of enforcement in public discontent, time, and money is simply too high to be profitable. This is similar to how often people will not press charges if someone hits them, for example (like in the case of a fight of some kind). It simply isn't worth it. In some cases, it is, like is the case with many patents, or with a for-profit illegal movie distribution ring, something like that. In fact, there are numerous crimes committed everyday that do not get reported, even though they are perfectly legitimate, for just this reason. So I'd advise not trying the "its unenforceable" argument, as it is simply highly costly to enforce, just as with numerous legitimate crimes that people don't bother reporting every day.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From ddraig at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 10:04:44 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:04:44 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals.
In-Reply-To: <08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com> 
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com> 
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>

> Why are you living with such a creep?

Because he is a good friend of mine and he needs people to help him
while he is currently mentally ill. And none of his other friends are
supporting him. But, the latest round is just a bit much even for me.
I have very strong opinions about friendship and loyalty. Perhaps too
strong. But I have hit my limit.

> Get out now!

His sister (who owns the apartment) is evicting the pair of us. Right
now I'm unemployed and on the the 1st of next month I shall also be
homeless. I have an interesting life, it seems.  In the meantime I'm
stuck there until I 1: find a job and 2: find a house. Given that  I
am in the middle of the worst rental crisis in Melbourne's history, #1
is far more likely than #2.

> And then tell somebody
> who might be able to stop him, that last part probably won't work if he's
> really serious, but it's your duty to try.

Oh I rang his counsellor up 10 minutes after he told me this. This is
why is is back in hospital. Hopefully they will be able to keep him
there.  I have no faith in this, however, given that since the start
of november have has escaped on average twice a week.

The hospital seems to be doing a huge effort in blame-shifting. It is
my opinion that they are waiting for him to commit a serious crime so
he can be part of the criminal justice system and thus no longer their
problem.

This is a horrible hypothesis, but it fits the facts as I see them,
and nothing else I can think of does.

I am not on any of the bills and he has had the phone (and internet)
cut off, thus the delay in replying. Sorry if it has stressed anyone
out.

"but it's your duty to try."

Yes, of course.

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


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 10:31:16 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:31:16 +0100
Subject: [ExI] free will again
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003041247la08f027v6ca5b7a024bdc5ec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003041247la08f027v6ca5b7a024bdc5ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003080231m3d25cdeewad837e49cd0a4fd9@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 March 2010 21:47, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> *************************
> Free will is an illusion, biologist
> says
> Physorg.com Mar. 3, 2010
> *************************
> University of Pennsylvania
> biologist Anthony Cashmore argues
> that belief in free will is akin to
> religious beliefs, since neither
> complies with the laws of the
> physical world, representing a
> continuing belief in vitalism or
> magic. He says free will is an
> illusion derived from consciousness,
> but consciousness has an
> evolutionary advantage of...
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=11895&m=21115
>
> **********

I might be passing for a... wolframist, by now, but the way the NKS founder
deals with the subject seems to me quite pertinent and persuasive.

See http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-0750-text.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100308/94e4568f/attachment.html>

From ddraig at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 10:41:45 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:41:45 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread
	extropian/positivistideals
In-Reply-To: <896969.58485.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <AC3514F9808A415AB877F00C94A4CD75@spike>
	<896969.58485.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003080241o11a79806qbfa993fa8309a4a8@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 March 2010 04:42, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I second Spike's motion.

We can start playing bingo soon :)

> Dwayne aside from your moral responsibilities you may also have
> placed yourself in legal jeopardy. I don't have a law degree but it
> seems to me that if you fail to report these threats to the authorities
> and this person commits a crime then this message of yours below
> might find its way into civil or even criminal court as evidence against you.

I not only know this, I have repeatedly told him this.  "I will not
lie to the police for you. I will not go to gaol for you"
The problem is that anything he wants to be, he feels is so.

So he wants me to be on his side and not tell anyone. His desire of
course makes it real. So he confides in me. Not being part of his
mental universe, I then tell whoever needs to know about this stuff.

Aside form anything else (such as the potential for murder), I don't
want him out scaring the public, and this info will hopefully keep him
inside, taking his medication.


> Given that you lived with the perpetrator and had prior
> knowledge of the crime, someone could try to say that your
> complacency made you complicit and thus partially responsible
> (in civil court), or that you aided and abetted or co-conspired
> (in criminal court), or who knows what.

I actually do not care at all about legal liabilities, I don't want
anyone killed, injured, or maimed, and keeping the relevant people
informed is the best way of keeping him inside and out of reach of the
public (and vice-versa).

To my mind people existed before laws. I look after people first, laws second.

"Dwayne aside from your moral responsibilities"
Oh, yes, that bit :)

> Pick up the phone and call the police.

Called his counsellor 10 minutes after I spoke to him, about 3 days (I
think, time is a bit blurry atm) before I wrote that email.


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


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 10:44:37 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:44:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>

As somebody coming from "wet" transhumanism, I could not endorse more
the following Natasha's statement. In fact, we have just begun to tap
into the potential of biotech itself...

On 5 March 2010 01:46,  <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> I'm not sure why you would chose Moravec as an entry point. It would not be
> my choice at all. ?Transhumanism is not about robots and bush people.
> ?Transhumanism is a philosophical worldview. ?If you lens is robotics,
> again, I would not single out Moravec, but engage a collection of sciences
> and technologies through which the transhumanist goal or future could be or
> has the potential of being established.
>
> And I agree with you about the Western narrative, by I do not agree that it
> is a bad thing. ?Body transcendence is not the aim of transhumanism -
> whether a body is used or not is NOT the point! ?Uploading is not the GOAL
> of transhumanism!
>
> This is why transhumanism gets a bad rap. ?I oppose Moravec's particular
> vision, no matter how imaginative it is. ?We will not forgo the biological
> body for no body, but transform the biological body for semi and
> non-biological bodies in real time and in synthetic environments.
>
> To assume Moravec's vision of uploads (by the way a more contemporary phrase
> for transferring the brain's content to an artificial system is "whole brain
> emulation"), is the entry point and the ground rule of transhumanism is
> simply not correct.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From ddraig at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 10:48:23 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:48:23 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of
	widespreadextropian/positivistideals
In-Reply-To: <4DB539212C4944E49BE3B2A5DE98F940@spike>
References: <AC3514F9808A415AB877F00C94A4CD75@spike>
	<896969.58485.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 
	<4DB539212C4944E49BE3B2A5DE98F940@spike>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003080248l1aa90f78o4da95c8642e25018@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 March 2010 06:48, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Ja to Gordon's post, and furthermore Dwayne, this term you used "breaking
> out" caught my full and undivided. ?If your roommate was committed for some
> reason and he escaped, then the second call you must make is to the hospital
> from which he keeps breaking out.

Yes, they told me early on in the piece that I am legally required to
inform the police the moment I know where he is (such as kicking down
our front door, as he has lost his key, for example).  Which I do. I
also inform him of this as he arrives: "you know I have to call the
police. I'm calling the police"  I then call the police. I live in one
of the wealthiest parts of Melbourne. It is amazing how quickly the
police arrive.

He escapes twice a week on average.

> ?Do make sure the director of that
> hospital knows of her escaped charge's comments. ?You need not explain her
> legal accountability, she already knows.

Well, his treating doctor, the nurse on duty, and his counsellor know.
I have absolutely no faith in the hospital to do anything other than
cover it's own back.

I have never seen a hospital like this. It is horrifying.

> Stathis is a mental health professional if I recall correctly. ?He might be
> able to advise here, or suggest who to contact, but it is clear to me that
> timely action is necessary to avert potential tragedy, and I do not mean
> some-other-timely but rather todayly, right-nowly.

Oh, don't worry about that, I go out of way to help people (such as my
currently-deranged friend), the last thing I am going to do is not
make an effort to prevent a possible fatality.

I think it is more likely he will be beaten up, actually.

I don't want *that* to happen, either.

This whole thing just illustrates to me that we need a *lot* more
money to treat the mentally ill in Australia.


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


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 11:00:26 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 12:00:26 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
In-Reply-To: <B3ECAADEEFF940C886F3CF2244F72BBF@spike>
References: <201002162111.o1GLBY3S004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<2036C08C6E1F4DB4A3A762F4711CCB4B@spike>
	<62c14241003012022sf13f323l7067a426d9abe678@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FCFE6FD1122482EA0370DC0720EE992@spike>
	<942785.32216.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<574592.72869.qm@web111214.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003030824p4ae428cch75d130691b7982d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<212824.72698.qm@web111206.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<580930c21003031252x350ae609sc41c4e722fb81937@mail.gmail.com>
	<B3ECAADEEFF940C886F3CF2244F72BBF@spike>
Message-ID: <580930c21003080300v67e1008bo337341b9a884a71b@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 March 2010 22:51, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> ? ? ? ?- First, do they get the notion of negative feedback system
> stabilization in nature?

Absolutely. But the issue here is hypothetical *positive* feedback mechanisms.

In fact, I hear a few doom mongers suggesting that, "for all we know",
we might be on the verge of a threshold beyond which no reduction of
emission would actually matter, because global warming would become a
self-feeding (and possibly self-accelerating) process.

If this were true, OTOH, nothing says that we did not go through such
threshold, say, five years ago. In such case, any effort aimed at
limiting emissions would be futile, and on the contrary the sensible
approach would be to ignore all kind of short-term environmental
issues and use whatever energy sources we might have at hand to engage
in damage control programmes, geo-engineering projects, or
"thermophyle" biotech.

Thus, the "for all we know" argument does not really dictate per se
any specific course of action.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 11:15:48 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 12:15:48 +0100
Subject: [ExI] common sense
In-Reply-To: <235057.55893.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <580930c21003071008m7f2365b2wc165a8210bddb74d@mail.gmail.com>
	<235057.55893.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c21003080315l174ddd46vb1d60055079ef694@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 March 2010 19:57, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You asked why ever should we do an epistemic but not an ontological reduction of mental phenomena, and I hope you can see what I meant by my answer: we can reduce mental phenomena epistemically and causally (the job of neuroscience) but we cannot reduce those phenomena ontologically without losing our common sense. It literally makes no sense to reduce subjectivity to something objective, and for this reason I subscribe to a flavor of non-reductive physicalism in the philosophy of mind.

One might well believe that the sky would fall were we to embrace the
opposite POV, but after all the idea that all (an indeed qualified
"all") human beings and only human beings have some mythical
"objective consciousness" is a such well-delimited bias, culturally
and historically, that its likely disappearing would probably change
very little in the world history.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From giulio at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 11:40:09 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 12:40:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>

I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for
me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_,
but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position,
we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to
modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its
widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure
software.

Of course these options will become available much later than the
options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by
biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now
politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> As somebody coming from "wet" transhumanism, I could not endorse more
> the following Natasha's statement. In fact, we have just begun to tap
> into the potential of biotech itself...
>
> On 5 March 2010 01:46, ?<natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>> I'm not sure why you would chose Moravec as an entry point. It would not be
>> my choice at all. ?Transhumanism is not about robots and bush people.
>> ?Transhumanism is a philosophical worldview. ?If you lens is robotics,
>> again, I would not single out Moravec, but engage a collection of sciences
>> and technologies through which the transhumanist goal or future could be or
>> has the potential of being established.
>>
>> And I agree with you about the Western narrative, by I do not agree that it
>> is a bad thing. ?Body transcendence is not the aim of transhumanism -
>> whether a body is used or not is NOT the point! ?Uploading is not the GOAL
>> of transhumanism!
>>
>> This is why transhumanism gets a bad rap. ?I oppose Moravec's particular
>> vision, no matter how imaginative it is. ?We will not forgo the biological
>> body for no body, but transform the biological body for semi and
>> non-biological bodies in real time and in synthetic environments.
>>
>> To assume Moravec's vision of uploads (by the way a more contemporary phrase
>> for transferring the brain's content to an artificial system is "whole brain
>> emulation"), is the entry point and the ground rule of transhumanism is
>> simply not correct.
>
> --
> Stefano Vaj
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Mar  8 17:01:01 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 12:01:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Continuity of experience.
In-Reply-To: <e321aa4b1003071235s28647aa6vb44f736d5d761346@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e321aa4b1002221852x5d10a80erbd06cf9ff6a6b4cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE35A5DE-F04E-4899-A4F5-2F0E75FF742D@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281025l6d85448an25ecee0570ed4a3e@mail.gmail.com>
	<77429FAC-065F-4447-A4F3-273090F84259@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1002281618m4a628dffp3e6bbd5a4be0ce0b@mail.gmail.com>
	<D837693A-8346-496B-9537-BD4E55D62594@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003011122o2d8ce004i3fff730c57dd12d@mail.gmail.com>
	<715CB28C-42FF-49C1-8054-C5324BAC62AD@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003041622x2448596am261d93494b697572@mail.gmail.com>
	<384574C2-74C8-4A9C-AA0B-8FA21EC776AF@bellsouth.net>
	<e321aa4b1003071235s28647aa6vb44f736d5d761346@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D94A7E6F-052C-4BE4-9F52-7A87DB9D6CB6@bellsouth.net>

On Mar 7, 2010, Spencer Campbell wrote:
> 
> you are proud to point to examples of a thing which you can't define.

Yes.

> I don't see the logic.

Examples are much more important and much more fundamental than definitions, it's where we get the information to make our definitions after all, assuming we even have one that's worth a damn; most people have not even opened a dictionary since their fourth grade teacher made them and yet they manage to communicate just fine. When we were infants we learned our native language from examples not by memorizing a lot of grammatical rules and definitions.     

> If I realized that I was recognizing a phenomenon that I don't know how to describe, I, personally, would feel pretty strongly compelled to work on articulating it.

Articulate it with words, all of which are defined in a dictionary with more words that are also defined with yet more words, and round and round we go. This is the point Gordon Swobe has been repeating over and over and over again in his thread (by the way congratulations Gordon, you just reached your 3 month anniversary), but human beings must have managed to break out of this logical dead end, otherwise Evolution would not have allowed us to survive, and they did it by means of examples. They pointed to something in the real world and then they pointed to a squiggle they had just written and their children understood the connection.   

> I'm disagreeing with an implication, here.
> I believe "A" and I believe "not B". Therefore, I believe "if A then
> B" is a false statement.

No, from the above you don't have nearly enough information to make that logical jump. If you believe in "not B" then you BELIEVE B is false and A has nothing to do with it; but as to the actual truth or falsehood of B there is no way to know.

You said:

>>> if mind scanning does not preserve objective continuity, then there must necessarily be a preferred rate of change in the universe.

I agree with that statement entirely. Then you said 

>>>  I accept unconditionally that there is no preferred rate of change in the universe

I agree with that statement too. From that the only logical conclusion is that the statement "mind scanning does not preserve objective continuity" is false. If "A then B" is true then "not B then not A" is also true.

And I still don't understand why I should give a tinker's damn if objective continuity is preserved or not.

 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100308/937bede2/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Mar  8 20:54:10 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:54:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>

What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning  
the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured  
and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to  
a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests  
multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will,  
identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.

Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean  
that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future  
noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.

Morphological Freedom?   
hrart.wordpress.com/.../natasha-vita-more-us-?morphological-freedom?-4-photographs-2008-wwwnatashacc/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom ,  
www.natasha.cc/designwar.pdf

Anyway, the issue seems to be socio-political. From what I understand,  
and I could be wrong, Giulio actively favors being politically  
incorrect.   As an artist, I have been pretty much politically  
incorrect most my life! :-) and would rather build bridges these days  
by just trying to be as correct as possible (given my human intellect  
which is not much to write about) and by being kind-hearted.

Best,
Natasha


Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:

> I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for
> me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_,
> but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position,
> we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to
> modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its
> widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure
> software.
>
> Of course these options will become available much later than the
> options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by
> biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now
> politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As somebody coming from "wet" transhumanism, I could not endorse more
>> the following Natasha's statement. In fact, we have just begun to tap
>> into the potential of biotech itself...
>>
>> On 5 March 2010 01:46, ?<natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure why you would chose Moravec as an entry point. It would not be
>>> my choice at all. ?Transhumanism is not about robots and bush people.
>>> ?Transhumanism is a philosophical worldview. ?If you lens is robotics,
>>> again, I would not single out Moravec, but engage a collection of sciences
>>> and technologies through which the transhumanist goal or future could be or
>>> has the potential of being established.
>>>
>>> And I agree with you about the Western narrative, by I do not agree that it
>>> is a bad thing. ?Body transcendence is not the aim of transhumanism -
>>> whether a body is used or not is NOT the point! ?Uploading is not the GOAL
>>> of transhumanism!
>>>
>>> This is why transhumanism gets a bad rap. ?I oppose Moravec's particular
>>> vision, no matter how imaginative it is. ?We will not forgo the biological
>>> body for no body, but transform the biological body for semi and
>>> non-biological bodies in real time and in synthetic environments.
>>>
>>> To assume Moravec's vision of uploads (by the way a more   
>>> contemporary phrase
>>> for transferring the brain's content to an artificial system is   
>>> "whole brain
>>> emulation"), is the entry point and the ground rule of transhumanism is
>>> simply not correct.
>>
>> --
>> Stefano Vaj
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Mon Mar  8 21:05:04 2010
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:05:04 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <20100308210504.WHJEV.464203.root@hrndva-web22-z01>

I have two thoughts to share on this exchange...

- Sounds like a re-hash of the Schismatrix Shaper-Mechanist dichotomy

- There is no real Transhumanist dichotomy, this whole either or (ie wet|soft/dry|hard) discussion is a good example of how none of you have escaped the non-transhumanist patterns in your fundamental mental model.

---- natasha at natasha.cc wrote: 
> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning  
> the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured  
> and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to  
> a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests  
> multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will,  
> identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.
> 
> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean  
> that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future  
> noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.
> 
> Morphological Freedom?   
> hrart.wordpress.com/.../natasha-vita-more-us-?morphological-freedom?-4-photographs-2008-wwwnatashacc/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom ,  
> www.natasha.cc/designwar.pdf
> 
> Anyway, the issue seems to be socio-political. From what I understand,  
> and I could be wrong, Giulio actively favors being politically  
> incorrect.   As an artist, I have been pretty much politically  
> incorrect most my life! :-) and would rather build bridges these days  
> by just trying to be as correct as possible (given my human intellect  
> which is not much to write about) and by being kind-hearted.
> 
> Best,
> Natasha
> 
> 
> Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:
> 
> > I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for
> > me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_,
> > but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position,
> > we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to
> > modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its
> > widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure
> > software.
> >
> > Of course these options will become available much later than the
> > options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by
> > biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now
> > politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> As somebody coming from "wet" transhumanism, I could not endorse more
> >> the following Natasha's statement. In fact, we have just begun to tap
> >> into the potential of biotech itself...
> >>
> >> On 5 March 2010 01:46, ?<natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure why you would chose Moravec as an entry point. It would not be
> >>> my choice at all. ?Transhumanism is not about robots and bush people.
> >>> ?Transhumanism is a philosophical worldview. ?If you lens is robotics,
> >>> again, I would not single out Moravec, but engage a collection of sciences
> >>> and technologies through which the transhumanist goal or future could be or
> >>> has the potential of being established.
> >>>
> >>> And I agree with you about the Western narrative, by I do not agree that it
> >>> is a bad thing. ?Body transcendence is not the aim of transhumanism -
> >>> whether a body is used or not is NOT the point! ?Uploading is not the GOAL
> >>> of transhumanism!
> >>>
> >>> This is why transhumanism gets a bad rap. ?I oppose Moravec's particular
> >>> vision, no matter how imaginative it is. ?We will not forgo the biological
> >>> body for no body, but transform the biological body for semi and
> >>> non-biological bodies in real time and in synthetic environments.
> >>>
> >>> To assume Moravec's vision of uploads (by the way a more   
> >>> contemporary phrase
> >>> for transferring the brain's content to an artificial system is   
> >>> "whole brain
> >>> emulation"), is the entry point and the ground rule of transhumanism is
> >>> simply not correct.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Stefano Vaj
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 21:19:02 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:19:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <000c01cabf04$fa827af0$ef8770d0$@com>



 
> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning
> the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured
> and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to
> a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests
> multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will,
> identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.
> 
> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean
> that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future
> noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.

How does the concept of morphological freedom deal with issues like surgical
addiction?

I ran into a surgical addict on a message board years ago and the pictures
he posted of himself are not among my fondest memories.

Whether there's a distinction between implanting magnets under your
fingertips and cutting chunks out of yourself because of mental
illness depends on who you're talking to.


"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs



From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Mon Mar  8 21:34:25 2010
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:34:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <000c01cabf04$fa827af0$ef8770d0$@com>
Message-ID: <20100308213426.JPZQA.464654.root@hrndva-web22-z01>

Addiction? You mean behavior outside the -current cultural norm- don't you? If you look at the range of human activities across culture you realize that such discussions and distinctions are really expressions of the current cultural models, whether one realizes it or not.

Aztec kings used to regularly push obsidian knives through their penises to collect blood to burn, now that's a surgical addiction.

---- Jeff Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com> wrote: 

> How does the concept of morphological freedom deal with issues like surgical
> addiction?
> 
> I ran into a surgical addict on a message board years ago and the pictures
> he posted of himself are not among my fondest memories.
> 
> Whether there's a distinction between implanting magnets under your
> fingertips and cutting chunks out of yourself because of mental
> illness depends on who you're talking to.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Mar  8 21:36:21 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:36:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <20100308210504.WHJEV.464203.root@hrndva-web22-z01>
References: <20100308210504.WHJEV.464203.root@hrndva-web22-z01>
Message-ID: <20100308163621.ct9wlnlyosw8sgwc@webmail.natasha.cc>

This may very well be quite correct for all of us!

And with that in mind (pun here), one design concept I love is the  
metabrain.  I was just in NYC meeting with an NPR producer about  
transhumanist design (specifically the design of the future human) -  
should be a meaningful upcoming program.

Natasha




Quoting jameschoate at austin.rr.com:

> I have two thoughts to share on this exchange...
>
> - Sounds like a re-hash of the Schismatrix Shaper-Mechanist dichotomy
>
> - There is no real Transhumanist dichotomy, this whole either or (ie  
>  wet|soft/dry|hard) discussion is a good example of how none of you   
> have escaped the non-transhumanist patterns in your fundamental   
> mental model.
>
> ---- natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
>> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning
>> the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured
>> and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to
>> a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests
>> multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will,
>> identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.
>>
>> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean
>> that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future
>> noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.
>>
>> Morphological Freedom?
>> hrart.wordpress.com/.../natasha-vita-more-us-?morphological-freedom?-4-photographs-2008-wwwnatashacc/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom   
>> ,
>> www.natasha.cc/designwar.pdf
>>
>> Anyway, the issue seems to be socio-political. From what I understand,
>> and I could be wrong, Giulio actively favors being politically
>> incorrect.   As an artist, I have been pretty much politically
>> incorrect most my life! :-) and would rather build bridges these days
>> by just trying to be as correct as possible (given my human intellect
>> which is not much to write about) and by being kind-hearted.
>>
>> Best,
>> Natasha
>>
>>
>> Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for
>> > me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_,
>> > but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position,
>> > we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to
>> > modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its
>> > widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure
>> > software.
>> >
>> > Of course these options will become available much later than the
>> > options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by
>> > biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now
>> > politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Stefano Vaj   
>> <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> As somebody coming from "wet" transhumanism, I could not endorse more
>> >> the following Natasha's statement. In fact, we have just begun to tap
>> >> into the potential of biotech itself...
>> >>
>> >> On 5 March 2010 01:46, ?<natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>> >>> I'm not sure why you would chose Moravec as an entry point. It   
>> would not be
>> >>> my choice at all. ?Transhumanism is not about robots and bush people.
>> >>> ?Transhumanism is a philosophical worldview. ?If you lens is robotics,
>> >>> again, I would not single out Moravec, but engage a collection   
>> of sciences
>> >>> and technologies through which the transhumanist goal or future  
>>  could be or
>> >>> has the potential of being established.
>> >>>
>> >>> And I agree with you about the Western narrative, by I do not   
>> agree that it
>> >>> is a bad thing. ?Body transcendence is not the aim of transhumanism -
>> >>> whether a body is used or not is NOT the point! ?Uploading is   
>> not the GOAL
>> >>> of transhumanism!
>> >>>
>> >>> This is why transhumanism gets a bad rap. ?I oppose Moravec's particular
>> >>> vision, no matter how imaginative it is. ?We will not forgo the  
>>  biological
>> >>> body for no body, but transform the biological body for semi and
>> >>> non-biological bodies in real time and in synthetic environments.
>> >>>
>> >>> To assume Moravec's vision of uploads (by the way a more
>> >>> contemporary phrase
>> >>> for transferring the brain's content to an artificial system is
>> >>> "whole brain
>> >>> emulation"), is the entry point and the ground rule of transhumanism is
>> >>> simply not correct.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Stefano Vaj
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>
> --
>  -- -- -- --
> Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus
>
> jameschoate at austin.rr.com
> james.choate at g.austincc.edu
> james.choate at twcable.com
> h: 512-657-1279
> w: 512-845-8989
> www.ssz.com
> http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
> http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center
>
> Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
>  -- -- -- --
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>





From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Mar  8 21:38:15 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:38:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <000c01cabf04$fa827af0$ef8770d0$@com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<000c01cabf04$fa827af0$ef8770d0$@com>
Message-ID: <20100308163815.peb6n4xs9kc04c8w@webmail.natasha.cc>

Woah!  That is really stretching Jeff!

Let's reel 'er back in a bit.  Max - want to explain morphological  
freedom, since you are its originator?

Natsha

Quoting Jeff Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning
>> the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured
>> and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to
>> a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests
>> multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will,
>> identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.
>>
>> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean
>> that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future
>> noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.
>
> How does the concept of morphological freedom deal with issues like surgical
> addiction?
>
> I ran into a surgical addict on a message board years ago and the pictures
> he posted of himself are not among my fondest memories.
>
> Whether there's a distinction between implanting magnets under your
> fingertips and cutting chunks out of yourself because of mental
> illness depends on who you're talking to.
>
>
> "This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be
> other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be
> based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers.
> We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
> oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
> - William S. Burroughs
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>





From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  8 22:01:58 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:01:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <20100308163815.peb6n4xs9kc04c8w@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<000c01cabf04$fa827af0$ef8770d0$@com>
	<20100308163815.peb6n4xs9kc04c8w@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <000d01cabf0a$fa6965f0$ef3c31d0$@com>

> Woah!  That is really stretching Jeff!
> 
> Let's reel 'er back in a bit.  Max - want to explain morphological
> freedom, since you are its originator?

I'm not saying *I* don't see the difference, I'm saying your average person
might not (and by and large I think it bears remembering that they outnumber
us).  It took the general public quite some time to even accept a simple
navel ring as normative.



"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There 
may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but 
ours seems to be based on war and games. All games are basically hostile.
Winners and losers.
We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can 
oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
- William S. Burroughs



From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Mar  8 22:15:13 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:15:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <000d01cabf0a$fa6965f0$ef3c31d0$@com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<000c01cabf04$fa827af0$ef8770d0$@com>
	<20100308163815.peb6n4xs9kc04c8w@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<000d01cabf0a$fa6965f0$ef3c31d0$@com>
Message-ID: <20100308171513.lxy0sphmckwc08ok@webmail.natasha.cc>

Sorry - I was not referring to a difference, or your seeing a  
difference. I was looking at the issue of "addiction", which is not  
the same as a compulsion or habit or rictualistic act of Aztec kings.

Natasha

Quoting Jeff Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:

>> Woah!  That is really stretching Jeff!
>>
>> Let's reel 'er back in a bit.  Max - want to explain morphological
>> freedom, since you are its originator?
>
> I'm not saying *I* don't see the difference, I'm saying your average person
> might not (and by and large I think it bears remembering that they outnumber
> us).  It took the general public quite some time to even accept a simple
> navel ring as normative.
>
>
>
> "This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There
> may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but
> ours seems to be based on war and games. All games are basically hostile.
> Winners and losers.
> We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can
> oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.."
> - William S. Burroughs
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mar  8 22:26:54 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:26:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <70C9FB02-1320-488F-B1F6-DE752254B79D@bellsouth.net>

On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:01 AM, BillK wrote:

> All their [libertarian] contracts, fair markets, fair dealing, etc. only works
> between absolutely equal, mostly honest parties.

There is some truth in that, in the libertarian utopia you can only get perfect justice if the parties involved are honest and equal in power, but even without that restriction the free market can still provide pretty good justice. That's not as good as a system of regulations enforced by a national police force that is infinitely powerful and infinitely ethical, but it's still pretty good, and is rather easier to actually achieve on Planet Earth.

As for property rights, if we're talking about objects, some one person is required to control them and I agree entirely with standard libertarian philosophy on who that person should be, but when you're talking about intellectual property things become much more murky. One voice is not required to control intellectual property, and yet if it is not allowed to do so the growth of that very nifty intellectual stuff is likely to decrease. I also feel in my bones that it's true that information wants to be free and everybody should own it, but I also believe that we ourselves are information and we should be the exclusive owner of ourselves. I can't tame these contradictions and don't imagine anyone can until after the singularity. And perhaps not even then; it is not a question of how the universe works but only a question of how we think we should behave, and there is no reason to believe that will be consistent.

 John K Clark



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100308/45e2488c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Mar  8 23:33:31 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:33:31 -0800
Subject: [ExI] jeff davis and jeffery davis
In-Reply-To: <20100308163815.peb6n4xs9kc04c8w@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com><20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc><580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com><e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com><20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc><000c01cabf04$fa827af0$ef8770d0$@com>
	<20100308163815.peb6n4xs9kc04c8w@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <98BB445FEAFD438EB2C5E00CB53EF3A1@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of natasha at natasha.cc
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
> 
> Woah!  That is really stretching Jeff!
> 
> Let's reel 'er back in a bit.  Max - want to explain ... Natsha
> 
> Quoting Jeff Davis <heavensblade23 at gmail.com>:
> 

In order to avoid confusion the heavensblade Jeffery Davis has agreed to be
referred to always as Jeffery.  No harm done. {8-]

spike





From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 07:33:29 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:33:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com>

I do, indeed, favor unPCness. Our world is becoming too much of a PC
nanny-state benevolent dictatorship, and this disturbing trend must be
countered with some healthy unPCness.

As far as bridges are concerned: I am in favor of building bridges,
but they must be built from both sides. Unilaterally building a bridge
is always seen as a weakness from the other side, which replies with
more and more, less and less reasonable demands. Look at those
pathetic ex-transhumanists who have tried to build bridges, and then
have been forced into renouncing transhumanism.

No, I say we continue to affirm the disruptive, promethean, radical
and revolutionary vision of transhumanism, of which this list has been
the main, the best, and for many years the only example. I want
transhumanism to become a mass movement -- but it must remain
transhumanism. We want to win minds and hearts by kicking ass, not by
kissing it.

G.

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:54 PM,  <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning the
> future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured and
> designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to a meat
> body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests multiple shapes
> and substrates with which to house, if you will, identity for the extension
> of personal identity over time and space.
>
> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean that I
> am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future noosphere-istic type
> environment that we have long discussed.
>
> Morphological Freedom?
> ?hrart.wordpress.com/.../natasha-vita-more-us-?morphological-freedom?-4-photographs-2008-wwwnatashacc/
> , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom ,
> www.natasha.cc/designwar.pdf
>
> Anyway, the issue seems to be socio-political. From what I understand, and I
> could be wrong, Giulio actively favors being politically incorrect. ? As an
> artist, I have been pretty much politically incorrect most my life! :-) and
> would rather build bridges these days by just trying to be as correct as
> possible (given my human intellect which is not much to write about) and by
> being kind-hearted.
>
> Best,
> Natasha
>
>
> Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:
>
>> I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for
>> me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_,
>> but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position,
>> we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to
>> modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its
>> widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure
>> software.
>>
>> Of course these options will become available much later than the
>> options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by
>> biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now
>> politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 14:41:25 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:41:25 +0100
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 March 2010 01:41, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I read the article, and I still think that IP is a requirement, in fact I say it is the root of all property rights.

So what? :-)

I would contend that the best approach, before embarking in
ideological discussion upon whether IP is property, and whether
property should be considered as a foundational principle, in the
libertarian/objectivist sense, of any society we might wish to live
in, should be to analyse the *efficiency* - in economic, but above all
transhumanist respects - of the current IP system.

One would discover, for instance, that copyright, trademarks and
patents are more different in nature from one another - for the better
and the worse - than one might thing at first view.

And that paradoxical effects may exist that defeat in certain, albeit
not all, circumstances, the purpose itself of IP (say, when innovation
is stifled more than encouraged...).

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Mar  9 15:46:57 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:46:57 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com><20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc><580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com><e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com><20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>


Your post is overtly pedantic and barks up the wrong tree by lecturing to
the choir.  You don't need to do that here - do it  on the WTA list if you
want to blast watered-down transhumanism.


Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:33 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Question from a neophyte

I do, indeed, favor unPCness. Our world is becoming too much of a PC
nanny-state benevolent dictatorship, and this disturbing trend must be
countered with some healthy unPCness.

As far as bridges are concerned: I am in favor of building bridges, but they
must be built from both sides. Unilaterally building a bridge is always seen
as a weakness from the other side, which replies with more and more, less
and less reasonable demands. Look at those pathetic ex-transhumanists who
have tried to build bridges, and then have been forced into renouncing
transhumanism.

No, I say we continue to affirm the disruptive, promethean, radical and
revolutionary vision of transhumanism, of which this list has been the main,
the best, and for many years the only example. I want transhumanism to
become a mass movement -- but it must remain transhumanism. We want to win
minds and hearts by kicking ass, not by kissing it.

G.

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:54 PM,  <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning 
> the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured 
> and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to 
> a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests 
> multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will, 
> identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.
>
> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean 
> that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future 
> noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.
>
> Morphological Freedom?
> ?
> hrart.wordpress.com/.../natasha-vita-more-us-?morphological-freedom?-4
> -photographs-2008-wwwnatashacc/ , 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom , 
> www.natasha.cc/designwar.pdf
>
> Anyway, the issue seems to be socio-political. From what I understand, 
> and I could be wrong, Giulio actively favors being politically 
> incorrect. ? As an artist, I have been pretty much politically 
> incorrect most my life! :-) and would rather build bridges these days 
> by just trying to be as correct as possible (given my human intellect 
> which is not much to write about) and by being kind-hearted.
>
> Best,
> Natasha
>
>
> Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:
>
>> I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for 
>> me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_, 
>> but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position, 
>> we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to 
>> modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its 
>> widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure 
>> software.
>>
>> Of course these options will become available much later than the 
>> options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by 
>> biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now 
>> politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  9 15:31:45 2010
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] common sense
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003080315l174ddd46vb1d60055079ef694@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <106620.85518.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> One might well believe that the sky would fall were we to
> embrace the opposite POV

If we embrace the opposite point of view in which we do reduce mental phenomena to nothing but third-person objective physical facts, both epistemically and ontologically, then we have embraced type-type (or its close cousin token-token) physicalism. In the neurology of pain, for example, stimulation of C-fibers correlate with the experience of pain. The type-type physicalist reduces mental phenomena both epistemically and ontologically and declares that C-fiber stimulation IS pain. 

But common sense tells us that "pain" means something that we actually experience in the first-person. Third-person stories about C-fibers do not explain or capture the subjective first-person experience of what we mean by the word. In effect we lose the concept of pain -- the very thing that interests us in this case -- when we reduce it philosophically to nothing but its objective third-person description. Type-type physicalism defies common sense, literally.

One might ask why anyone should want to embrace type-type or token-token physicalism, and the answer seems to be that many philosophers of the materialistic persuasion cannot see that as materialists we can reduce mental phenomena scientifically to third-person descriptions while preserving their subjective reality -- and that we can do this *without* embracing dualism. We can reduce them to third-person causal descriptions without also reducing them ontologically; in this case, we can tell a true scientific story about the neurology of pain while recognizing that our epistemic reduction to objective scientific facts does not entail an ontological reduction. 

We can and should reduce mental phenomena scientifically in third-person terms, but those phenomena nevertheless have an irreducible first-person ontology. Once we accept that simple fact, the word "pain" and others like it can remain in our philosophical vocabulary. "Pain" represents just one of many possible real subjective experiences, just as common sense informs us. 

-gts




      


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  9 15:48:28 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:48:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again.
In-Reply-To: <70C9FB02-1320-488F-B1F6-DE752254B79D@bellsouth.net>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
	<70C9FB02-1320-488F-B1F6-DE752254B79D@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <51939.22862.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Actually, this is not so -- that libertarian societies, to work, require "absolutely equal, mostly honest parties" --?and not believed to be the case by most libertarian thinkers of note. Instead, what's required is that no one is forced into contracts, markets, etc. In fact, most of the mechanisms at work in a libertarian society are just what people would do when they cannot use force against others: they develop and spread habits to vet who they should deal and how to avoid dishonesty and misunderstanding. A good example of this is how the science community tends to work: findings and theories are usually published for review by all and there is no science czar to determine who's got the correct theory or whose evidence is sound. Instead, any party might examine the evidence and arguments, draw their own conclusions, and submit these for others to scrutinize -- to agree with or disagree with.

Regarding intellectual property (IP), there are disagreements amongst libertarians on this, though the more consistent libertarians tend to be anti-IP. Arguments about pragmatics on this -- i.e., what might happen if there's no IP protection in place -- tend to overlook actual evidence. Whole industries seem to flourish with no IP protection today (restaurants, fashion, etc.) and the main driver of IP protection today seems to be not to create new stuff, but to keep competitors out.

Regards,

Dan


From: John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 8, 2010 5:26:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] intellectual property again.


On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:01 AM, BillK wrote:

All their [libertarian] contracts, fair markets, fair dealing, etc. only works
>between absolutely equal, mostly honest parties.
>
There is some truth in that, in the libertarian utopia you can only get perfect justice if the parties involved are honest and equal in power, but even without that restriction the free market can still provide pretty good justice. That's not as good as a system of regulations enforced by a national police force that is infinitely powerful and infinitely ethical, but it's still pretty good, and is rather easier to actually achieve on Planet Earth.

As for property rights, if we're talking about objects, some one person is required to control them and I agree entirely with standard libertarian philosophy on who that person should be, but when you're talking about intellectual property things become much more murky. One voice is not required to control intellectual property, and yet if it is not allowed to do so the growth of that very nifty intellectual stuff is likely to decrease. I also feel in my bones that it's true that information wants to be free and everybody should own it, but I also believe that we ourselves are information and we should be the exclusive owner of ourselves. I can't tame these contradictions and don't imagine anyone can until after the singularity. And perhaps not even then; it is not a question of how the universe works but only a question of how we think we should behave, and there is no reason to believe that will be consistent.

?John K Clark


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/674db000/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  9 17:17:25 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:17:25 -0800
Subject: [ExI] scientific american article on sacred vs secular in the brain
Message-ID: <07A5F120CC50421AA588EADC1F5EBEB4@spike>

I am seeing more articles regarding which parts of the brain are active when
doing various activities.  This article claims the same parts of the brain
are working during thoughts about secular and sacred.  Does this surprise
you?  Does me.  The two sure feel different to me:
 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=belief-in-the-brain
 
spike
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/7482a376/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 17:22:15 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:22:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again.
In-Reply-To: <51939.22862.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
	<70C9FB02-1320-488F-B1F6-DE752254B79D@bellsouth.net>
	<51939.22862.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003090922k432c133fna8decf0fce17644b@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/9 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>:
>
> Regarding intellectual property (IP), there are disagreements amongst
> libertarians on this, though the more consistent libertarians tend to be
> anti-IP. Arguments about pragmatics on this -- i.e., what might happen if
> there's no IP protection in place -- tend to overlook actual evidence. Whole
> industries seem to flourish with no IP protection today (restaurants,
> fashion, etc.) and the main driver of IP protection today seems to be not to
> create new stuff, but to keep competitors out.

### You could have contract-based IP, even in a polycentric law
system. If it turned out that most law providers, in service to their
customers, offer IP protection, and the only way to avoid it is by
patronizing a marginal provider, or by not participating in social
interactions at all, would you be against IP?

Rafal


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Mar  9 16:58:55 2010
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:58:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again.
In-Reply-To: <51939.22862.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
	<70C9FB02-1320-488F-B1F6-DE752254B79D@bellsouth.net>
	<51939.22862.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <62AC875A-073C-442A-8337-96BA81F93AB8@bellsouth.net>

On Mar 9, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Dan wrote:

> Actually, this is not so -- that libertarian societies, to work, require "absolutely equal, mostly honest parties" -- and not believed to be the case by most libertarian thinkers of note.

That's not what I said, for perfect justice you'd need that but even when dealing with real flesh and blood people rather than saints you could still get pretty good justice in a libertarian society.

> Regarding intellectual property (IP), there are disagreements amongst libertarians on this, though the more consistent libertarians tend to be anti-IP. Arguments about pragmatics on this -- i.e., what might happen if there's no IP protection in place -- tend to overlook actual evidence.

I think you're pretending there is not a problem when there is. It takes about a billion dollars to get a new drug to market and if the people who spent that money couldn't get a patent on it there would be no chance of them ever making that money back and the result would be no new drugs.

 John K Clark





From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 17:58:08 2010
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 18:58:08 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
Message-ID: <e68fc1101003090958h5538868ar128276b986efa951@mail.gmail.com>

Yes Natasha, you are right, most of the people who post frequently to
this list do not need this lecture. I don't read the WTA list often,
because I find watered-down transhumanism boring.

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>
> Your post is overtly pedantic and barks up the wrong tree by lecturing to
> the choir. ?You don't need to do that here - do it ?on the WTA list if you
> want to blast watered-down transhumanism.
>
>
> Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:33 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
>
> I do, indeed, favor unPCness. Our world is becoming too much of a PC
> nanny-state benevolent dictatorship, and this disturbing trend must be
> countered with some healthy unPCness.
>
> As far as bridges are concerned: I am in favor of building bridges, but they
> must be built from both sides. Unilaterally building a bridge is always seen
> as a weakness from the other side, which replies with more and more, less
> and less reasonable demands. Look at those pathetic ex-transhumanists who
> have tried to build bridges, and then have been forced into renouncing
> transhumanism.
>
> No, I say we continue to affirm the disruptive, promethean, radical and
> revolutionary vision of transhumanism, of which this list has been the main,
> the best, and for many years the only example. I want transhumanism to
> become a mass movement -- but it must remain transhumanism. We want to win
> minds and hearts by kicking ass, not by kissing it.
>
> G.
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:54 PM, ?<natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning
>> the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured
>> and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to
>> a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests
>> multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will,
>> identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.
>>
>> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean
>> that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future
>> noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.
>>
>> Morphological Freedom?
>>
>> hrart.wordpress.com/.../natasha-vita-more-us-?morphological-freedom?-4
>> -photographs-2008-wwwnatashacc/ ,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom ,
>> www.natasha.cc/designwar.pdf
>>
>> Anyway, the issue seems to be socio-political. From what I understand,
>> and I could be wrong, Giulio actively favors being politically
>> incorrect. ? As an artist, I have been pretty much politically
>> incorrect most my life! :-) and would rather build bridges these days
>> by just trying to be as correct as possible (given my human intellect
>> which is not much to write about) and by being kind-hearted.
>>
>> Best,
>> Natasha
>>
>>
>> Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for
>>> me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_,
>>> but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position,
>>> we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to
>>> modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its
>>> widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure
>>> software.
>>>
>>> Of course these options will become available much later than the
>>> options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by
>>> biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now
>>> politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  9 17:47:25 2010
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:47:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again.
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003090922k432c133fna8decf0fce17644b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<994337.56004.qm@web113619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
	<70C9FB02-1320-488F-B1F6-DE752254B79D@bellsouth.net>
	<51939.22862.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003090922k432c133fna8decf0fce17644b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <775880.31384.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

But, as you know, contract-based anything would not apply to third parties. The scenario you cook up seems unlikely and would depend on luck: that almost all people in a society concur with a particular IP regime. Add to this, just what constitutes IP is unlikely to be agreed upon in enough cases that my guess is a bona fide free society would not have it or it'd be confined to small groups -- which is the equivalent of not having it. Also, even were many people to agree with this, this would only be them agreeing to something and not a ground for forcing others to comply.

And, yes, people can come to consensual arrangements that might look like IP, but they're not the same thing -- just as we can all agree to give away to charity anything we make over, say,?$1 million. But that arrangement would not and should not bind others. Don't you agree? True IP would have to be like physical property: something that does bind third parties -- binds them from interfering in its use and disposal.

I think the case against IP from a natural rights perspective -- as given by?libertarians like Kinsella --?is sound.

Regards,

Dan


----- Original Message ----
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 12:22:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] intellectual property again.

2010/3/9 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>:
>
> Regarding intellectual property (IP), there are disagreements amongst
> libertarians on this, though the more consistent libertarians tend to be
> anti-IP. Arguments about pragmatics on this -- i.e., what might happen if
> there's no IP protection in place -- tend to overlook actual evidence. Whole
> industries seem to flourish with no IP protection today (restaurants,
> fashion, etc.) and the main driver of IP protection today seems to be not to
> create new stuff, but to keep competitors out.

### You could have contract-based IP, even in a polycentric law
system. If it turned out that most law providers, in service to their
customers, offer IP protection, and the only way to avoid it is by
patronizing a marginal provider, or by not participating in social
interactions at all, would you be against IP?

Rafal
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



      


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 19:09:13 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:09:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003091109x131a59aehd7c5720b1bdecb40@mail.gmail.com>

The recent discussion doesn't seem cutting edge.

I suspect that virtually all humans will abandon physical reality entirely.

You can see this starting with Second Life and WoW.

I expect to see laws passed within a few years attempting to limit the
amount of time people can spend in virtual reality.  The laws will
fail, traffic will dwindle as people both work from home and spend
much of their off time playing games there.  There are already a lot
of people who average over 12 hours a day in virtual spaces.

Eventually nanotechnology based medicine will permit reversible
uploading.  People will go in and out for a while and then slam the
door on physical reality, leaving machines to maintain the physical
infrastructure.

At most there will be a small remnant physical state population.

Keith


From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Mar  9 19:13:36 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:13:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <e68fc1101003090958h5538868ar128276b986efa951@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
	<e68fc1101003090958h5538868ar128276b986efa951@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100309141336.ikz5hxshs00kkwsg@webmail.natasha.cc>

By the way, this morning after reading your post, I took in a little  
George Carlin and some heady politically incorrect fun with Bill  
Maher.  Great with a morning cup of coffee --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h2EYPvQDqE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_bYnvR_fRg



Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:

> Yes Natasha, you are right, most of the people who post frequently to
> this list do not need this lecture. I don't read the WTA list often,
> because I find watered-down transhumanism boring.
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>>
>> Your post is overtly pedantic and barks up the wrong tree by lecturing to
>> the choir. ?You don't need to do that here - do it ?on the WTA list if you
>> want to blast watered-down transhumanism.
>>
>>
>> Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:33 AM
>> To: ExI chat list
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
>>
>> I do, indeed, favor unPCness. Our world is becoming too much of a PC
>> nanny-state benevolent dictatorship, and this disturbing trend must be
>> countered with some healthy unPCness.
>>
>> As far as bridges are concerned: I am in favor of building bridges, but they
>> must be built from both sides. Unilaterally building a bridge is always seen
>> as a weakness from the other side, which replies with more and more, less
>> and less reasonable demands. Look at those pathetic ex-transhumanists who
>> have tried to build bridges, and then have been forced into renouncing
>> transhumanism.
>>
>> No, I say we continue to affirm the disruptive, promethean, radical and
>> revolutionary vision of transhumanism, of which this list has been the main,
>> the best, and for many years the only example. I want transhumanism to
>> become a mass movement -- but it must remain transhumanism. We want to win
>> minds and hearts by kicking ass, not by kissing it.
>>
>> G.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:54 PM, ?<natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>>> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning
>>> the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured
>>> and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to
>>> a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests
>>> multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will,
>>> identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.
>>>
>>> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean
>>> that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future
>>> noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.
>>>
>>> Morphological Freedom?
>>>
>>> hrart.wordpress.com/.../natasha-vita-more-us-?morphological-freedom?-4
>>> -photographs-2008-wwwnatashacc/ ,
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom ,
>>> www.natasha.cc/designwar.pdf
>>>
>>> Anyway, the issue seems to be socio-political. From what I understand,
>>> and I could be wrong, Giulio actively favors being politically
>>> incorrect. ? As an artist, I have been pretty much politically
>>> incorrect most my life! :-) and would rather build bridges these days
>>> by just trying to be as correct as possible (given my human intellect
>>> which is not much to write about) and by being kind-hearted.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Natasha
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for
>>>> me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_,
>>>> but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position,
>>>> we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to
>>>> modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its
>>>> widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure
>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>> Of course these options will become available much later than the
>>>> options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by
>>>> biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now
>>>> politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Mar  9 19:22:04 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:22:04 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003091109x131a59aehd7c5720b1bdecb40@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003091109x131a59aehd7c5720b1bdecb40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B969FDC.1010604@satx.rr.com>

On 3/9/2010 1:09 PM, Keith Henson wrote:

> I suspect that virtually all humans will abandon physical reality entirely.
>
> You can see this starting with Second Life and WoW.

Like:

South Korean police have arrested a couple for starving their 
three-month-old daughter to death while they devoted hours to playing a 
computer game that involved raising a virtual character of a young girl.

The 41-year-old man and 25-year-old woman, who met through a chat 
website, reportedly left their infant unattended while they went to 
internet cafes. They only occasionally dropped by to feed her powdered milk.

"I am sorry for what I did and hope that my daughter does not suffer any 
more in heaven," the husband is quoted as saying on the asiaone website.

According to the Yonhap news agency, South Korean police said the couple 
had become obsessed with raising a virtual girl called Anima in the 
popular role-playing game Prius Online. The game, similar to Second 
Life, allows players to create another existence for themselves in a 
virtual world, including getting a job, interacting with other users and 
earning an extra avatar to nurture once they reach a certain level.

"The couple seemed to have lost their will to live a normal life because 
they didn't have jobs and gave birth to a premature baby," Chung 
Jin-Won, a police officer, told Yonhap. "They indulged themselves in the 
online game of raising a virtual character so as to escape from reality, 
which led to the death of their real baby."

Last September after a 12-hour gaming-session the couple came home in 
the morning to find their daughter dead. The baby's malnourished body 
aroused police suspicions of neglect that were was confirmed after an 
autopsy.

The couple fled to the wife's parents' house in Yangju, Gyeonggi 
province, but were picked up on Monday. The case has shocked South Korea 
and once again highlighted obsessive behaviour related to the internet.

A 22-year-old Korean man was charged last month with murdering his 
mother because she nagged him for spending too much time playing games. 
After killing her the man went to a nearby internet cafe and continued 
with his game, said officials. In 2005 a young man collapsed in an 
internet cafe in the city of Taegu after playing the game StarCraft 
almost continuously for 50 hours. He went into cardiac arrest and died 
at a local hospital.

Lee Joung-sun, an MP from the ruling Grand National party, last month 
submitted a bill restricting the hours offered to online gamers. Several 
bills are pending in the national assembly suggesting restrictions on 
teenagers' use of internet cafes and games.

Research published last month in the UK showed evidence of a link 
between excessive internet use and depression. Leeds University 
researchers, writing in the Psychopathology journal, said a small 
proportion of internet users were classed as internet addicts and that 
people in this group were more likely to be depressed than non-addicted 
users.


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 19:22:47 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:22:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003091122g6f62ef0cn875fe719fe320dc3@mail.gmail.com>

Natasha Vita-More wrote:
Your post is overtly pedantic and barks up the wrong tree by lecturing to
the choir.  You don't need to do that here - do it  on the WTA list if you
want to blast watered-down transhumanism.
>>>

Natasha, I believe the proper term for watered-down transhumanism is "H+."

John  ; )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/8b564349/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 19:59:13 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:59:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals.
In-Reply-To: <f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
	<08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
	<f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Dwayne,
I just wanted to say my heart goes out to you and I definitely don't want
you to become homeless.  And so I must ask, to what extent can the
Australian social services help you to find a job, housing, food, etc.?  I
have always heard the Aussie system is much better than what the U.S.
typically offers.  I hope you can find some caring social workers,
non-profit church volunteers and gov't employees to point you in the right
direction.

And perhaps we have some Australian list-members who could give you some
advice or even directly intervene.

KEEP US POSTED!!

Best wishes,

John Grigg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/101917da/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  9 20:06:31 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:06:31 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <2d6187671003091122g6f62ef0cn875fe719fe320dc3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com><20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc><580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com><e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com><20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc><e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com><53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
	<2d6187671003091122g6f62ef0cn875fe719fe320dc3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1A1BF4E5D69F45A3B39B00670534673F@spike>


	
	Natasha Vita-More wrote:
	...do it  on the WTA list if you want to blast watered-down
transhumanism.
	>>>
	 
	>Natasha, I believe the proper term for watered-down transhumanism
is "H+."  John  ; )



John, watered down transhumanism is actually H3O, derived from H+H2O.

spike




	




From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 20:12:46 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:12:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Peter Thiel Explains How to Invest in the Singularity |
	Epicenter | Wired.com
In-Reply-To: <000501cabcdd$99abfc20$ad753644@sx28047db9d36c>
References: <000501cabcdd$99abfc20$ad753644@sx28047db9d36c>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003091212nd4eb638qca33d16118fcd948@mail.gmail.com>

Frank McElligott <Frankmac at ripco.com>

>  Ran across this from before the crash of 2008, seems we had a prophet but
> no one heard him.
>
> It's a good read still
>
> Frank
>
>
>
 http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2007/09/peter-thiel-exp/
>
> >>>


But didn't Peter Thiel loses the majority of his personal fortune (a loss of
about FOUR AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS!!!) by betting against the
recovery/market?  I would say his prophetic powers failed him to say the
least.  Imagine if besides somewhat helping out the Singularity Institute,
he had poured even a *fraction* of that lost money (before it was
lost!) into Aubrey de Grey's proposed anti-aging SENS program!

What a lost opportunity...  I feel sick.

John  : (
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/376c6352/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 20:14:10 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:14:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again.
In-Reply-To: <775880.31384.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1771.1267687882.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<7641ddc61003040810p7cf66c88jde1c04f349b1d19c@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc1003041834n18ab062cq6e5ef0660f821eac@mail.gmail.com>
	<72F6CCB9-DEEB-4F4E-8141-E464740DB444@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc1003042200u2ea3461ah5b6543434115b244@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003060201s324fdd2fyfb88009401a6227b@mail.gmail.com>
	<70C9FB02-1320-488F-B1F6-DE752254B79D@bellsouth.net>
	<51939.22862.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc61003090922k432c133fna8decf0fce17644b@mail.gmail.com>
	<775880.31384.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003091214m30349f5cx8c7e3d9856bf868e@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But, as you know, contract-based anything would not apply to third parties. The scenario you cook up seems unlikely and would depend on luck: that almost all people in a society concur with a particular IP regime. Add to this, just what constitutes IP is unlikely to be agreed upon in enough cases that my guess is a bona fide free society would not have it or it'd be confined to small groups -- which is the equivalent of not having it. Also, even were many people to agree with this, this would only be them agreeing to something and not a ground for forcing others to comply.
>
> And, yes, people can come to consensual arrangements that might look like IP, but they're not the same thing -- just as we can all agree to give away to charity anything we make over, say,?$1 million. But that arrangement would not and should not bind others. Don't you agree? True IP would have to be like physical property: something that does bind third parties -- binds them from interfering in its use and disposal.
>
> I think the case against IP from a natural rights perspective -- as given by?libertarians like Kinsella --?is sound.

### Have a look at
http://triviallyso.blogspot.com/2010/01/of-beating-hearts-part-2.html
for some background of my current thinking on polycentric law. Now,
regarding the issue at hand: There is not much dependent on pure luck
in the evolution of legal systems. Why most systems forbid cutting off
your head against your wishes, except in some special circumstances,
is not a question of luck but an implicit recognition that this legal
standard has desirable consequences. The same should apply to IP: If
IP has a positive cost-benefit ratio in terms of satisfying long-term
desires of in-group members, then a rational and efficient law
discovery system will sooner or later produce IP rules. I reject the
notion of natural law, except in the weaker sense of certain rules
"naturally" emerging out of the give-and-take of social interactions
in a particular situation - and the specific content of this "natural"
law strongly depends on the specific desires, physical surroundings,
available technologies, etc.

Regarding your second paragraph: You don't need to bind third parties
by threatening them with physical ingress on their property to induce
them to obey some rules. Ostracism is frequently enough, as long as a
sufficient fraction of players is willing to ostracize (i.e. refuse to
deal with, talk to, trade or allow on their private property) and
punish non-ostracizers (if you forgive me a clumsy neologism).

To summarize: I believe that IP law is generally efficient (in the
sense of having a net positive effect on satisfying human desires
under most real-life circumstances - this is an empirical claim which
AFAIK is well-supported by a lot of evidence), and compatible with a
non-violent, consensual, polycentric society.

Rafal


From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Mar  9 20:15:33 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:15:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003091109x131a59aehd7c5720b1bdecb40@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003091109x131a59aehd7c5720b1bdecb40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100309151533.n3pbdrlf4owgwk8s@webmail.natasha.cc>


And what you say below is cutting edge?  Come on Keith! :-)  When we  
stop making claims about what will or will not occur, we might become  
imaginative.

Oscar Wilde's statement: "Anyone who lives within their means suffers  
from a lack of imagination" makes me think of the "means" as being the  
level of knowledge transhumanist have obtained and that living within  
that knowledge could prevent furthering imagination.

I witness this quite a bit within societies of thinkers who are neatly  
resting on their laurels.  The Donna Haraway crowd of cyborg theorists  
repeatedly signal their peers and gain a nod by falling neatly in line  
behind the postmodern feminist cyborg theory.  Mark Twain said "Be  
careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint."  The  
intellectual vitamin of Haraway's cyborg theory, as a consequential  
source of knowledge on the future human, is a misprint of and on  
intelligence because it is taking minds away from deeper inquiring of  
human futures.

Okay, so transhumanism has intellectual capital in human futures and  
cyborg theory expressly ignores transhumanism. What could  
transhumanists be missing or ignoring right now?  I'm not sure. Maybe  
it is, in spirit, similar to the angst of cyborg feminist theory which  
kicked the pants of male dominance and which parallels, in part,  
Giulio's politically incorrect salvo, which kicks the ass of human  
biology.  The bridge is how it is voiced.  For me, anyway, I do care  
that students and the public are given information about their future  
apart from Fukuyama and Joy and McKibben, et al.  I don't really care  
about academic cliques, but I do darn well care what students are  
taught and what information is available to them in order for them to  
question and imagine their own future.

Natasha








Quoting Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:

> The recent discussion doesn't seem cutting edge.
>
> I suspect that virtually all humans will abandon physical reality entirely.
>
> You can see this starting with Second Life and WoW.
>
> I expect to see laws passed within a few years attempting to limit the
> amount of time people can spend in virtual reality.  The laws will
> fail, traffic will dwindle as people both work from home and spend
> much of their off time playing games there.  There are already a lot
> of people who average over 12 hours a day in virtual spaces.
>
> Eventually nanotechnology based medicine will permit reversible
> uploading.  People will go in and out for a while and then slam the
> door on physical reality, leaving machines to maintain the physical
> infrastructure.
>
> At most there will be a small remnant physical state population.
>
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>





From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 20:15:49 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:15:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <1A1BF4E5D69F45A3B39B00670534673F@spike>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
	<2d6187671003091122g6f62ef0cn875fe719fe320dc3@mail.gmail.com>
	<1A1BF4E5D69F45A3B39B00670534673F@spike>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003091215r36e6362ei7eb495e2d6c40213@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:06 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>        Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>        ...do it  on the WTA list if you want to blast watered-down
> transhumanism.
>        >>>
>
>        >Natasha, I believe the proper term for watered-down transhumanism
> is "H+."  John  ; )
>
>
>
> John, watered down transhumanism is actually H3O, derived from H+H2O.
>
> spike
>
>

Very clever!  ; )

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/d4b8b64b/attachment.html>

From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 20:29:52 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:29:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> So what? :-)
> 
> I would contend that the best approach, before embarking in
> ideological discussion upon whether IP is property, and whether
> property should be considered as a foundational principle, in the
> libertarian/objectivist sense, of any society we might wish to live
> in, should be to analyse the *efficiency* - in economic, but above all
> transhumanist respects - of the current IP system.
> 
> One would discover, for instance, that copyright, trademarks and
> patents are more different in nature from one another - for the better
> and the worse - than one might thing at first view.
> 
> And that paradoxical effects may exist that defeat in certain, albeit
> not all, circumstances, the purpose itself of IP (say, when innovation
> is stifled more than encouraged...).

Well, efficiency can only be judged in reference to a certain system of values, and so comes after those values. Property is, in my view, a necessary component for human life and all values, and so must come before efficiency. So, ideas of efficiency come after the principles upon which property is based. As I subscribe to an egoist morality, global efficiency is not a factor in the moral basis for property, since it isn't based on any sense of individualism but rather a collectivist viewpoint that what is "best for society" is what should be done.

On another note, I have limited knowledge of the IP system in place now, though I think the definition of what can be patented may be too large (for example, "unlocking" a phone that only has a screen by doing something specific on the screen, as in Apple's suit against HTC, which is a self-evident idea which required no real thought to come up with, and would lock out anyone from pretty much ever making a touchscreen based phone ever again). But if you actually create a new idea that was somehow original (and not blitheringly obvious to anyone with half a brain), then you should, in my view, be able to patent it.

Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From reasonerkevin at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  9 20:14:33 2010
From: reasonerkevin at yahoo.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:14:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <944334.98817.qm@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>






________________________________
From: Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 12:38:09 PM
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist ideals

For one second alight your computronium towers and consider our good friends the h.p., also known as regular people.  If we do expect to have something like a singularity within the next century, or at least a turning towards this sort of thing, good old Common Joes must be factored into the equation.  Joe is most people.  From what I see, there are two major problems regarding a shift to scientific ideals.  This is of course assuming that said shift is something we want, which I am assuming for easier progress in the future.  I'm sure we could preserve the thing we've got going where common folk use the products of technological progress without understanding them like we have with the internet today, but I fear this would lead straight to a Fahrenheit 451 style 4-wall TV sort of thing.  It's the duty of us intellectuals to enlighten the masses and provide fuel for the Rerenaissance.  Anyway, here are the two problems.  I'm just going to ask the
 questions as not to make a super-lengthy post, but these are real, serious obstacles to any sort of singularitan future:

Problem 1 (The Thinkularity): How do we get from today, where religion is widespread and science is often seen as "the badguy" to a world where people embrace mindnets and space travel and good energy solutions?

Problem 2 (Post-Thinkularity):  Are there unforeseen complications with the entire world doing away with free will and all that stuff associated with positivism?  Might we see an increase in crimes because people see that they are no longer bound by choice (heh, bound by choice)?  And will the relatively "cold" mindset associated with science in comparison to religion cause more people to lose their proverbial marbles?


Kevin Freels said:

This is a speciation event and just as in other such events, the current species will continue to live on past the point where the new species branches off. It may continue for hundreds or even thousands of years, or it may become extinct quickly. My best guess is that as long as there are resources available for h. sapiens, they will continue to exist along side h. singularis or whatever you want to call them. 

I would also suspect that there would be a number of different post-singularity species around at the same time. You will have those who shun the meat-body and prefer a mechanical body, and those who choose to live with no body at all. I wonder at times about reproduction run amok when you could have people making multiple copies of themselves at such an enormous rate that there would be civilizations rising and falling, and battles for the limited space within whatever material they were living within would happen in seconds. How that all attaches to the "real" world is just beyond my comprehension. Time would be completely different for such "people". 

I also suspect that rather than having some amazing "singularity", there will be a number of false starts and failures on the way. Evolutionary dead-ends such as h neanderthalensis or a africanus will come and go before a truly successful singularity takes off. 

It's funny how I always envisioned the year 2010 as being some shining and glittering computerized world dominated by high technology with very few ties to the past. The reality is much different. The technology is present and widespread, but occasionally you see someone driving a Model T, or a 57 Chevy, many businesses still don't have websites, people still talk in person, and hammers and stones are still used in construction of homes. After the singularity, I really don't expect any of that to go away. Instead they will continue along side and will evolve along their own path just as Chimpanzees do today. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/6cb03f3a/attachment.html>

From reasonerkevin at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  9 20:21:11 2010
From: reasonerkevin at yahoo.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals
In-Reply-To: <B4DB636A-25BC-4830-9D92-11400E48C706@GMAIL.COM>
References: <4e3a29501003051038j4da6a9fdx9414a860faebc832@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DB636A-25BC-4830-9D92-11400E48C706@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <44847.85419.qm@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>






________________________________
From: JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 3:21:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist ideals

On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Will Steinberg wrote:
> Problem 1 (The Thinkularity): How do we get from today, where religion is widespread and science is often seen as "the badguy" to a world where people embrace mindnets and space travel and good energy solutions?

Joshua wrote: 
On this question, I think the only real answer is to try to convince people they're wrong, keep trying to publicize extropian and transhumanist ideas, etc. As technology advances, I think that bioluddite vs. transhumanism will come to play as important in a role in politics as views on economics do today. The way I see it is either we, i.e. transhumanists, win the battle for ideas, or humanity dies. The exact strategy, for now, is amorphous, but as these issues come more and more into the forefront of people's minds, it will get more and more obvious. I'm thinking the forming of think tanks, political parties/organizations, lobbying groups, etc. will play a major role. As well as books, tv, and other media.


Kevin Freels responds:
One thing that will really get us is the tendency of better educated people to have fewer children. Although I don't foresee anything like "Idiocracy" happening (hilarious movie BTW), I do think that the transhuman movement should embrace a goal of higher reproduction rates. (this also happens to annoy those who have this crazy notion that the world is overpopulated despite a complete lack of evidence.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/310e6093/attachment.html>

From reasonerkevin at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  9 20:29:05 2010
From: reasonerkevin at yahoo.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
In-Reply-To: <4B969FDC.1010604@satx.rr.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003091109x131a59aehd7c5720b1bdecb40@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B969FDC.1010604@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <747503.72226.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>






________________________________
From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 1:22:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Bodies

On 3/9/2010 1:09 PM, Keith Henson wrote:

> I suspect that virtually all humans will abandon physical reality entirely.
> 
> You can see this starting with Second Life and WoW.


I don't think that "virtually all humans" will do this. Instead, I expect that this kind of branching of human evolution will be done by a relatively small segment of the population. In time, that segment will grow, but a suspect that a large majority of the population will simply see this as another religion, or just another unique way of life much as nudists are viewed.  With the "God gene" existing in such a large portion of the population and the huge number of people who would believe that such a thing as giving up your meat-body would be the work of the devil, I am certain that there would be lots of violence along the way. The only way that I see "virtually all humans" abandoning physical reality is if those battle result in the death of the rest of the people who don't. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/e889dda1/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 21:11:38 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 21:11:38 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Peter Thiel Explains How to Invest in the Singularity |
	Epicenter | Wired.com
In-Reply-To: <2d6187671003091212nd4eb638qca33d16118fcd948@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000501cabcdd$99abfc20$ad753644@sx28047db9d36c>
	<2d6187671003091212nd4eb638qca33d16118fcd948@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003091311y60413652seba81b5f6bf7ba5c@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/9 John Grigg wrote:
> But didn't Peter Thiel loses the majority of his personal fortune (a loss of
> about FOUR AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS!!!) by betting against the
> recovery/market?? I would say his prophetic powers failed him to say the
> least.? Imagine if besides somewhat helping out the Singularity Institute,
> he had poured even a *fraction* of that lost?money (before it was
> lost!)?into Aubrey de Grey's proposed anti-aging?SENS program!
>
>

I'm not sure how much of that loss was his personal fortune.
The hedge fund that he runs certainly lost big and investors have been
withdrawing their money.

And his reasoning about rational markets was exactly correct.
Quote from Peter in Sept 28, 2009:
"The recovery is not real," he says. "Deep structural problems haven't
been solved and it's unclear how we will create jobs and get the
economy growing again -- that's long been my thesis and it still is."
The contrarian view puts Mr. Thiel among a group of investors with
impressive track records who are holding out, unwilling to buy into
the notion of the economy's rebound.
---------------------

He missed out on the market recovery because he couldn't accept that
markets are subject to irrational behaviour.
I agree completely with what Peter says. The P/E ratios are
unbelievable, company directors are cashing in their shares and the
investing public is having nothing to do with this market. Reason -
This market recovery has been gamed totally by a flood of free
government money from banks too big to fail. They don't care if they
lose it all, the government will just have to bail them out again.
(And we've all got our bonuses again, haven't we?).

The big question is how long they can keep this fake stock market
recovery going, while the real economy is collapsing around the
nation.

Surely reality must bring it all to a halt.   But when???????

BillK


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 21:16:46 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:16:46 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
Message-ID: <580930c21003091316p298d6156he245f6504b56481@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 March 2010 16:46, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> Your post is overtly pedantic and barks up the wrong tree by lecturing to
> the choir. ?You don't need to do that here - do it ?on the WTA list if you
> want to blast watered-down transhumanism.

This might be a reason why this list is after all in a much  better shape... :-)

But nothing so terribly wrong in remembering ourselves from time to
time where we stand, right? ;-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 21:17:41 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:17:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003091317w10eb829ay9b5c40611ea63bfa@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:30 PM,  Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>> wrote:

> On 3/9/2010 1:09 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
>
>> I suspect that virtually all humans will abandon physical reality entirely.
>>
>> You can see this starting with Second Life and WoW.
>
> Like:
>
> South Korean police have arrested a couple for starving their
> three-month-old daughter to death while they devoted hours to playing a
> computer game that involved raising a virtual character of a young girl.

snip

> The case has shocked South Korea
> and once again highlighted obsessive behaviour related to the internet.
>
> A 22-year-old Korean man was charged last month with murdering his
> mother because she nagged him for spending too much time playing games.

snip

> Lee Joung-sun, an MP from the ruling Grand National party, last month
> submitted a bill restricting the hours offered to online gamers. Several
> bills are pending in the national assembly suggesting restrictions on
> teenagers' use of internet cafes and games.

I predicted laws would be passed, but I had no idea it had already
gone this far.  Oh well, it's not like being able to see into the
future does any good.  It's like driving at night with bright
headlights but no brakes.

> Research published last month in the UK showed evidence of a link
> between excessive internet use and depression. Leeds University
> researchers, writing in the Psychopathology journal, said a small
> proportion of internet users were classed as internet addicts and that
> people in this group were more likely to be depressed than non-addicted
> users.

Cause and effect could run either direction.

Keith


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 21:20:13 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:20:13 +0100
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
	<3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <580930c21003091320q2dc91186p376399183a3d4a22@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 March 2010 21:29, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, efficiency can only be judged in reference to a certain system of values, and so comes after those values. Property is, in my view, a necessary component for human life and all values, and so must come before efficiency. So, ideas of efficiency come after the principles upon which property is based. As I subscribe to an egoist morality, global efficiency is not a factor in the moral basis for property, since it isn't based on any sense of individualism but rather a collectivist viewpoint that what is "best for society" is what should be done.

I appreciate that this position exists, but if you could show that (in
some circumstances, some forms of) IP is not even efficient from a
collectivist viewpoint, this would simply strengthen your position and
widen your audience without requiring any compromise on "egoist
morality", wouldn't it?

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  9 21:00:26 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:00:26 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread
	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com><20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02><4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com><296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com><08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net><f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>

...On Behalf Of John Grigg
	Subject: Re: [ExI] Social implications of widespread
extropian/positivistideals.
	
	
	Hello Dwayne,
	
...I hope you can find some caring social workers, non-profit church
volunteers and gov't employees to point you in the right direction.  ...John
Grigg  


And if they let you down, there is always those greedy heartless capitalists
who can point you in the right direction.  They are the ones who
consistently come thru for us in the states.

spike








From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Mar  9 21:30:23 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:30:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question from a neophyte
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003091316p298d6156he245f6504b56481@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9268F61B-A2D3-4A9A-A952-FCCCB074584A@gmail.com>
	<20100304194631.7ilifz27k8c400c8@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<580930c21003080244ubbecddaq8ab25b5c3f613a28@mail.gmail.com>
	<e68fc1101003080340r4456649eu971a5b79fdf42bb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100308155410.apr28rnzjkowgw08@webmail.natasha.cc>
	<e68fc1101003082333l120eb268w15bdcc00708927b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<53E0053A345F458E94B1A086C2EB281C@DFC68LF1>
	<580930c21003091316p298d6156he245f6504b56481@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100309163023.mbq4utstq8sk0scw@webmail.natasha.cc>

Quoting Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:

> On 9 March 2010 16:46, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>> Your post is overtly pedantic and barks up the wrong tree by lecturing to
>> the choir. ?You don't need to do that here - do it ?on the WTA list if you
>> want to blast watered-down transhumanism.
>
> This might be a reason why this list is after all in a much  better   
> shape... :-)
>
> But nothing so terribly wrong in remembering ourselves from time to
> time where we stand, right? ;-)

And thus spoke my post re "bodies" :-)





From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 21:25:37 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:25:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 25
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1811.1268166605.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1811.1268166605.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003091325s3d068e8fvaa5c3c5149bf1c59@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:30 PM,  natasha at natasha.cc wrote:

> And what you say below is cutting edge?

Not really.  As Damien pointed out it's already happening.

It does trash an awful lot of other visions of the future.  :-(

Keith


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 21:34:43 2010
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:34:43 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
In-Reply-To: <20100309151533.n3pbdrlf4owgwk8s@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <d1988d2d1003091109x131a59aehd7c5720b1bdecb40@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100309151533.n3pbdrlf4owgwk8s@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <580930c21003091334m4a8b9aacu86d63a6e88ec82f0@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 March 2010 21:15,  <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> I do care that students and the public are given information about their
> future apart from Fukuyama and Joy and McKibben, et al. ?I don't really care
> about academic cliques, but I do darn well care what students are taught and
> what information is available to them in order for them to question and
> imagine their own future.

I am not really knowledgeable about US academic cliques, and it may
well be the case that posthumanist intelligentsia in general is
irritating in its snubbing attitude towards organised transhumanism
and has after all a relatively limited social impact, but I would be
reluctant to put it altogether in the same bag with blatant
neoluddites such as the ones you mention.

This is one area where I am personally trying to build bridges.
Without renouncing one single inch of our own positions, but simply
trying to overcome language barriers...

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Mar  9 21:35:58 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:35:58 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003091317w10eb829ay9b5c40611ea63bfa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003091317w10eb829ay9b5c40611ea63bfa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B96BF3E.7040201@satx.rr.com>

On 3/9/2010 3:17 PM, Keith Henson quoted:

>> >  Research published last month in the UK showed evidence of a link
>> >  between excessive internet use and depression. Leeds University
>> >  researchers, writing in the Psychopathology journal, said a small
>> >  proportion of internet users were classed as internet addicts and that
>> >  people in this group were more likely to be depressed than non-addicted
>> >  users.

> Cause and effect could run either direction.

Of course. It always astonishes me when people ignore this. I *hope* 
it's just journalists making their typical brainless summaries rather 
than the researchers. Or it might be that  in this case the researchers 
are doing longitudinal studies from a standardized baseline, but that 
seems unlikely.

Damien Broderick



From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 21:40:39 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:40:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <580930c21003091320q2dc91186p376399183a3d4a22@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
	<3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003091320q2dc91186p376399183a3d4a22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <80D06665-0821-4EBB-B3DD-7BF780664D63@GMAIL.COM>

On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> I appreciate that this position exists, but if you could show that (in
> some circumstances, some forms of) IP is not even efficient from a
> collectivist viewpoint, this would simply strengthen your position and
> widen your audience without requiring any compromise on "egoist
> morality", wouldn't it?

Actually, I think that would weaken my position. Now if I proved it WAS efficient even from a collectivist viewpoint, then THAT might strengthen my position.

On that note, I suppose I could give it a try.

Let's take the example of a patent on a newly created gene that can be used to produce a certain medicine (doesn't really matter what), that could previously only be produced at high expense in limited quantities, but now can be produced at low cost in giant vats of bacteria, allowing widespread access to the new medication. I do want to stress that this is a designed gene, something novel not originally found in nature (as such genes, themselves, are ambiguous in my mind as to whether they can actually be considered patentable, since they were not "created" by anyone).

Such a project likely was not cheap, and cost a significant amount of time and resources for that company to produce. Obviously it is a big bonus to society that such a gene be created. However, if someone could then simply take a sample of the bacterium, or an text document containing the DNA sequence of the gene, and immediately begin production of an identical product without having to undergo almost any of the initial startup costs (the big one being R&D), then while this might increase availability of that one medication (and be a boon for society as a result), it seems highly dubious at best to suggest that people would keep producing these new insights at as high a rate of speed if making a profit on them is almost impossible (as a competitor will simply seize it and get all the benefits without any of the risk). 

In such an environment, R&D will likely be reduced significantly, and the rate of advance will have significantly decreased. That would certainly produce more harm over all than good. And so the company should be able to patent its new gene, at least for a sizeable amount of time (though perhaps not indefinitely, as eventually their continued control would likely not benefit them much at all, as competitors will have been working on alternatives to get the same end result anyway).


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Mar  9 21:47:15 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:47:15 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of
	widespread	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com><20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02><4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com><296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com><08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net><f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>
Message-ID: <4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>

On 3/9/2010 3:00 PM, spike wrote:

> And if they let you down, there is always those greedy heartless capitalists
> who can point you in the right direction.  They are the ones who
> consistently come thru for us in the states.

Really? When you've got a rabid madman on your hands, and he's your 
damaged pal and you don't want to bring in a Xe Services swat team to 
kill him? What do you have in mind here, Spike?

Damien Broderick


From sparge at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 21:49:22 2010
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:49:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <80D06665-0821-4EBB-B3DD-7BF780664D63@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> 
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com> 
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003091320q2dc91186p376399183a3d4a22@mail.gmail.com> 
	<80D06665-0821-4EBB-B3DD-7BF780664D63@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d1003091349h5ebe5f8ydffebb7ce74239e8@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:40 PM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let's take the example of a patent on a newly created gene that can be used to produce a certain medicine (doesn't really matter what), that could previously only be produced at high expense in limited quantities, but now can be produced at low cost in giant vats of bacteria, allowing widespread access to the new medication. I do want to stress that this is a designed gene, something novel not originally found in nature (as such genes, themselves, are ambiguous in my mind as to whether they can actually be considered patentable, since they were not "created" by anyone).
>
> Such a project likely was not cheap, and cost a significant amount of time and resources for that company to produce. Obviously it is a big bonus to society that such a gene be created. However, if someone could then simply take a sample of the bacterium, or an text document containing the DNA sequence of the gene...

Is there some reason the gene and modified bacterium couldn't be trade
secrets? Then all they have to do is not disclose the details of the
gene or allow release of the bacterium.

-Dave


From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Mar  9 21:50:22 2010
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:50:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
In-Reply-To: <4B96BF3E.7040201@satx.rr.com>
References: <d1988d2d1003091317w10eb829ay9b5c40611ea63bfa@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B96BF3E.7040201@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20100309165022.xr5h6ujl2ccg44ws@webmail.natasha.cc>

Quoting Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:

> On 3/9/2010 3:17 PM, Keith Henson quoted:
>
>>>>  Research published last month in the UK showed evidence of a link
>>>>  between excessive internet use and depression. Leeds University
>>>>  researchers, writing in the Psychopathology journal, said a small
>>>>  proportion of internet users were classed as internet addicts and that
>>>>  people in this group were more likely to be depressed than non-addicted
>>>>  users.
>
>> Cause and effect could run either direction.
>
> Of course. It always astonishes me when people ignore this. I *hope*
> it's just journalists making their typical brainless summaries rather
> than the researchers. Or it might be that  in this case the researchers
> are doing longitudinal studies from a standardized baseline, but that
> seems unlikely.

Good point Damien.  I wonder what percentage of people are depressed,  
and what the degree of depression is.  Seems that the number is quite  
high, regardless of Internet use.







From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 22:00:43 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P Davis)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:00:43 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
In-Reply-To: <20100309165022.xr5h6ujl2ccg44ws@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <d1988d2d1003091317w10eb829ay9b5c40611ea63bfa@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B96BF3E.7040201@satx.rr.com>
	<20100309165022.xr5h6ujl2ccg44ws@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <005a01cabfd3$f7e38c10$e7aaa430$@com>

> Good point Damien.  I wonder what percentage of people are depressed,
> and what the degree of depression is.  Seems that the number is quite
> high, regardless of Internet use.

It's considerably more complicated than 'internet addiction causes
depression.'
Maybe in some cases it does, in others already-depressed people are
self-medicating
With internet use, and in yet others, internet overuse is mimicking the
symptoms of depression.

I've noticed if I'm not careful about my usage it saps my will to get
anything of worth accomplished.
There's always some low-investment activity one can be engaged in on the
internet and it's tempting for
People with attention-span problems.



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  9 22:18:28 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:18:28 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Social implications
	ofwidespread	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com><20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02><4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com><296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com><08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net><f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com><92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>
	<4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Social implications ofwidespread 
> extropian/positivistideals.
> 
> On 3/9/2010 3:00 PM, spike wrote:
> 
> > And if they let you down, there is always those greedy heartless 
> > capitalists who can point you in the right direction.  They are the 
> > ones who consistently come thru for us in the states.
> 
> Really? When you've got a rabid madman on your hands, and 
> he's your damaged pal and you don't want to bring in a Xe 
> Services swat team to kill him? What do you have in mind here, Spike?...
Damien Broderick

I recognize the need for the local authorities for the dangerous roommate
situation.  What I had in mind is that the roommate's sister, who owns the
apartment, would soon be inviting Dwayne to seek other accommodations
forthwith should the dangerous roommate find himself incarcerated, at which
time Dwayne would be ill advised to depend on charitable religioso,
non-profiteers, government largesse or social workers, all of whom will
likely leave one shivering and hungry on the street, as the cooler weather
approaches in Australia.

>From Dwayne's writing, I am guessing he is a younger man, so the right
answer is to do as the rock band Styx urges the angry young man (whose
future looks quite bright to me):  "Get up!  Get back on your feet!  You're
the one they can't beat and you know it..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7xKWkHkvOg

I love that song.  In my own misspent youth it hit all the right notes with
me, sounding so delightfully capitalistic in an era which languished in
anti-materialistic malaise (1977).  Dwayne, flee from the dangerous roommate
and his charitable sister!  Get back on your feet, me lad!  

spike





From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 22:48:54 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:48:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
	<3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003091448u5bd700cfjeb3eb2829ffb372c@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, efficiency can only be judged in reference to a certain system of values, and so comes after those values. Property is, in my view, a necessary component for human life and all values, and so must come before efficiency. So, ideas of efficiency come after the principles upon which property is based.

### Isn't this assuming too much? Of course, values come first,
efficiency in this context and in the first approximation is just a
measure of the degree to which available resources are used to realize
values of members of the in-group. But equally obviously, many people
do not care much about property, in most extreme situations to the
point of not even caring about their own bodies except as means to an
end (suicide bombers, religious fanatics and others come to mind). A
lot of people do not care about most types of property - yet they are
alive and have other values, which means that strongly valuing
property is not a necessary component for human life.

---------------------------
>As I subscribe to an egoist morality, global efficiency is not a factor in the moral basis for property, since it >isn't based on any sense of individualism but rather a collectivist viewpoint that what is "best for society" is >what should be done.

### If your egoist morality totally discounts my values and the values
of everybody else, then of course global efficiency is not important
for you. But, then if you don't care about what I want, or what
everybody else might want, why should anybody care about what you
want, except as a strictly tactical issue?

Throwing around the term "collectivist" doesn't help here either,
since collectivist thinking is only very tangentially related to
efficiency (efficiency in the strictly technical sense I mentioned
above). Collectivism is a way of thinking which elevates some aspects
of social body (national survival, tribal or religious beliefs,
"equity") to a special status, such that desires of many or even most
members of that body can or should be dismissed as unimportant. This
actually goes against efficiency in the technical sense, since it
discards a lot of desires from consideration and limits their
fulfillment.

Rafal



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 22:51:55 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:51:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d1003091349h5ebe5f8ydffebb7ce74239e8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
	<3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003091320q2dc91186p376399183a3d4a22@mail.gmail.com>
	<80D06665-0821-4EBB-B3DD-7BF780664D63@GMAIL.COM>
	<ffd22f9d1003091349h5ebe5f8ydffebb7ce74239e8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003091451pda81cf6w91c91586ea9679c7@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there some reason the gene and modified bacterium couldn't be trade
> secrets? Then all they have to do is not disclose the details of the
> gene or allow release of the bacterium.

### This won't help, since you can almost always easily
reverse-engineer the gene from the protein.

Rafal


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Mar  9 23:00:15 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:00:15 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Social
	implications	ofwidespread	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com><20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02><4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com><296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com><08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net><f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com><92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>	<4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>
	<4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>
Message-ID: <4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com>

On 3/9/2010 4:18 PM, spike wrote:

>Dwayne would be ill advised to depend on charitable religioso,
> non-profiteers, government largesse or social workers, all of whom will
> likely leave one shivering and hungry on the street

Unlike, you inform him, "those greedy heartless capitalists
who can point you in the right direction.  They are the ones who
consistently come thru for us in the states."

I... see...

As in--Bob Herbert, NYT today:

"The economy shed 36,000 jobs last month, and that was trumpeted in the 
press as good news. Well, after your house has burned down I suppose 
it?s good news that the flames may finally be flickering out. But once 
you realize that it will take 11 million or more new jobs to get us back 
to where we were when the recession began, you begin to understand that 
we?re not really making any headway at all.

"People... know that the big banks that were bailed out by taxpayers can 
borrow money at an interest rate of near zero while at the same time 
charging credit-card holders usurious rates of 20 to 30 percent.

"There are many communities across the country in which the effective 
jobless rate is higher than 50 percent."

  If the greedy heartless capitalists are the ones who consistently come 
thru for us, they'd better hurry up.

Damien


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 23:31:43 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 18:31:43 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003091448u5bd700cfjeb3eb2829ffb372c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d1003010848t1fbe6cdak22e46a8f28c9e8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c21003020935m166691ecx6ed3179c3274c0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
	<3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
	<7641ddc61003091448u5bd700cfjeb3eb2829ffb372c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C56780F3-9DE3-4299-935A-D90E0F713D88@GMAIL.COM>


On Mar 9, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Isn't this assuming too much? Of course, values come first,
> efficiency in this context and in the first approximation is just a
> measure of the degree to which available resources are used to realize
> values of members of the in-group. But equally obviously, many people
> do not care much about property, in most extreme situations to the
> point of not even caring about their own bodies except as means to an
> end (suicide bombers, religious fanatics and others come to mind). A
> lot of people do not care about most types of property - yet they are
> alive and have other values, which means that strongly valuing
> property is not a necessary component for human life.

I apologize, I was imprecise. I meant rational values, not just "values" in general. You can value an overdose of heroine, because it might feel amazing, and so you want to do that. But that isn't a "rational" i.e. life-affirming value. So the religious fanatics and suicide bombers obviously don't care about property, as they don't care about life, ultimately. And many people are irrational, and aren't really trying to live the best life they can, but rather aiming to avoid pain, or uphold tradition, or try to be popular, or.... whatever. 

>  If your egoist morality totally discounts my values and the values
> of everybody else, then of course global efficiency is not important
> for you. But, then if you don't care about what I want, or what
> everybody else might want, why should anybody care about what you
> want, except as a strictly tactical issue?

You shouldn't, though this is more a tangent than anything else. The idea is that rights are a necessity for living life as rational being (that is, a human). Basically, it is based on the fact that as a human you must control your actions and be able to think independently (so no coercion), and must produce things in order to survive (and have to be able to control them in order to be able to control whether he survives or not, i.e. must own them). So, if you initiate force against someone, then you have, necessarily, rejected the basis upon which your life is based, and so cannot claim any rights for yourself. So that is why you shouldn't harm me or take my justly acquired property, because then anyone can do the same to you without doing anything wrong themselves. If that is what you mean by a "tactical" issue, then perhaps that is all there is. Though I think it is a pretty big one.

> Throwing around the term "collectivist" doesn't help here either...

If you define efficiency as you do, the degree to which resources are used to support values of the people in society, you have already missed the point so to speak. Property is necessary for any values to exist, and so, regardless of any empirical concern, it must be respected fully in order for a just society to exist.

And I agree with the whole "trade secret" thing, most if not all patents currently in existence are in existence precisely because without them other companies would quickly be able to reverse engineer the innovation from the final product, and thereby "rob" the companies of profit.

However, I am willing to debate the merits of intellectual property even given some notion of "efficiency", as I think it will likely turn out to be more efficient than some other system. Even if not (or at least, if it cannot be demonstrated to be the case), it won't effect my position, as it is ultimately based on principle (so there is no downside to me in doing so).


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com






From spike66 at att.net  Tue Mar  9 23:32:34 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:32:34 -0800
Subject: [ExI]
	Socialimplications	ofwidespread	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com><20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02><4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com><296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com><08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net><f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com><92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>	<4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com><4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>
	<4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Socialimplications ofwidespread 
> extropian/positivistideals.
> 
> On 3/9/2010 4:18 PM, spike wrote:
> 
> ...They are the ones 
> who consistently come thru for us in the states."
> 
> I... see... As in--Bob Herbert, NYT today:
> 
> "The economy shed 36,000 jobs last month, and that was 
> trumpeted in the press as good news...

It wasn't trumpeted as good news by the heartless capitalists, it was
trumpeted as good news by Senator Reid, who isn't a genuine heartless
capitalist.  He is a brainless senator.

> ...
> "People... know that the big banks that were bailed out by 
> taxpayers can borrow money at an interest rate of near zero 
> while at the same time charging credit-card holders usurious 
> rates of 20 to 30 percent...

Ja, bailing out the big banks is an example of abaondoning free market
principles to save the free market.  During the Vietnam war, villages were
burned in order to save them.  Bad idea in both cases.

> "There are many communities across the country in which the 
> effective jobless rate is higher than 50 percent."

Ja we are suffering the consequences of abandoning free market principles in
order to save the free market.

>   If the greedy heartless capitalists are the ones who 
> consistently come thru for us, they'd better hurry up... Damien

Actually they can't even start until the midterm elections.  We will then
have the opportunity to hurl the current business-unfriendly government out
of office.  Until then, one can count on capital sitting still and quiet,
holding on to its resources, waiting for better times to come.

I am betting on job markets staying depressed until a clear signal is sent
in November.  Then the voters will finish the job in November 2012.

spike








From heavensblade23 at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 23:35:23 2010
From: heavensblade23 at gmail.com (Jeffery P Davis)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 18:35:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI]
	Socialimplications	ofwidespread	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com><20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02><4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com><296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com><08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net><f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com><92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>	<4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com><4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>
	<4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com>
	<E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>
Message-ID: <005b01cabfe1$318c3720$94a4a560$@com>

> Actually they can't even start until the midterm elections.  We will
> then have the opportunity to hurl the current business-unfriendly
government
> out of office.  Until then, one can count on capital sitting still and
> quiet, holding on to its resources, waiting for better times to come.


I'm not sure how much more friendly you can get with someone than handing
them wheelbarrows
Full of cash.



From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Mar  9 23:49:54 2010
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:49:54 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Socialimplications ofwidespread
	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
	<08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
	<f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>
	<4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>
	<4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>
	<4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com>
	<E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>
Message-ID: <ee50357e1003091549m5b216674k544ee019da5084fd@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM, spike  wrote:
> Actually they can't even start until the midterm elections. ?We will then
> have the opportunity to hurl the current business-unfriendly government out
> of office. ?Until then, one can count on capital sitting still and quiet,
> holding on to its resources, waiting for better times to come.
>
> I am betting on job markets staying depressed until a clear signal is sent
> in November. ?Then the voters will finish the job in November 2012.
>
>


But this current economic collapse was caused under a Republican
administration!!
Obama has continued the same policies, with the same ex-Wall Street advisors.
He is being criticised for going along with the big banks rip-off and
ignoring the needs of the people. Changing back to the Republicans
won't help.


BillK



From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 00:39:43 2010
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:39:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
Message-ID: <d1988d2d1003091639y37c60b09vaea347eb11b98da5@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:32 PM,  From: Kevin Freels
<reasonerkevin at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/2010 1:09 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
>
>> I suspect that virtually all humans will abandon physical reality entirely.
>>
>> You can see this starting with Second Life and WoW.
>
>
> I don't think that "virtually all humans" will do this. Instead, I expect that this kind of branching of human evolution will be done by a relatively small segment of the population.

I don't think you are aware of how many people are involved *now.*
Over a year ago there were 11.5 million people subscribed to WoW.
This is amazing considering the really crude interface to the virtual
world.

> In time, that segment will grow, but a suspect that a large majority of the population will simply see this as another religion, or just another unique way of life much as nudists are viewed. ?With the "God gene" existing in such a large portion of the population and the huge number of people who would believe that such a thing as giving up your meat-body would be the work of the devil, I am certain that there would be lots of violence along the way. The only way that I see "virtually all humans" abandoning physical reality is if those battle result in the death of the rest of the people who don't.

I don't think you understand the "boiling a frog" aspect.  (The thesis
is that you can boil a frog without it jumping out of the pot if you
start with cold water and slowly heat it.)

As an outgrowth of nanotech based medicine, people will be able to
upload into virtual worlds and reverse the process at will.  It will
only take a few hundred watts to keep your body in cold storage and
your memory updated.  For a time, years even, people will only spend
part time in the virtual state.

The problem is, virtual spaces can be and will be made *nicer* than
the real world, not to mention less expensive.  As people start
spending more and more time there, the physical world will be
increasingly abandoned.  People are *social.*  We live at certain
densities and stores (for example) will be abandoned when there are
too few people for them to make sense.  (Automated stores may persist
a long time even with very few customers.)  Near the end the only
things moving on the streets will be police robots.

Stored bodies with updated memories may be widespread for hundreds of
years, with all the infrastructure in place and being maintained by
machines with limited AI capacity.  It's going to make a strange
world.

If you see any way to avoid this fate, let us know.

Keith



From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 01:38:35 2010
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:38:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] scientific american article on sacred vs secular in the
	brain
In-Reply-To: <07A5F120CC50421AA588EADC1F5EBEB4@spike>
References: <07A5F120CC50421AA588EADC1F5EBEB4@spike>
Message-ID: <62c14241003091738t673d5d72vee6193c51d4bd7ed@mail.gmail.com>

2010/3/9 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> I am seeing more articles regarding which parts of the brain are active when
> doing various activities.? This article claims the same parts of the brain
> are working during thoughts about secular and sacred.? Does this surprise
> you?? Does me.? The two sure feel different to me:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=belief-in-the-brain

I have a similar experiment:  Hook up heart monitors to athletes
practicing their sport.  Also hook up heart monitors to couch potatoes
watching racy TV programs.  Compare each to their baseline heart
rates.  I conclude that a 30% increase in heart rate in both
populations indicates they are both "exercising."

If "thinking" lights up the fMRI, then secular and religious thoughts
will light up the machine by the fact of "thought" to say nothing of
the content. :)



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 01:48:43 2010
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:18:43 +1030
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003091451pda81cf6w91c91586ea9679c7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
	<3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003091320q2dc91186p376399183a3d4a22@mail.gmail.com>
	<80D06665-0821-4EBB-B3DD-7BF780664D63@GMAIL.COM>
	<ffd22f9d1003091349h5ebe5f8ydffebb7ce74239e8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc61003091451pda81cf6w91c91586ea9679c7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc1003091748s4f11811bscaca80fda1747ff8@mail.gmail.com>

On 10 March 2010 09:21, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there some reason the gene and modified bacterium couldn't be trade
>> secrets? Then all they have to do is not disclose the details of the
>> gene or allow release of the bacterium.
>
> ### This won't help, since you can almost always easily
> reverse-engineer the gene from the protein.
>
> Rafal

Plus, the idea of patent laws in the first place was to encourage
people to release information into the public sphere about their
technological advances, rather than hide them as a trade secret; it
was seen that everyone hiding their innovations was stifling progress
in aggregate. So the idea was to grant inventors a temporary monopoly
on their idea in exchange for making the details.

Note that there was no concept of "intellectual property" when those
laws were created. That's been a very effective (revisionist)
rhetorical trick employed by interested industries mostly over the
course of the second half of the 20th century.

-- 
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 01:49:50 2010
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:49:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <C56780F3-9DE3-4299-935A-D90E0F713D88@GMAIL.COM>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
	<3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
	<7641ddc61003091448u5bd700cfjeb3eb2829ffb372c@mail.gmail.com>
	<C56780F3-9DE3-4299-935A-D90E0F713D88@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <7641ddc61003091749k529e45e3jcbe25e163411eb83@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:31 PM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I apologize, I was imprecise. I meant rational values, not just "values" in general. You can value an overdose of heroine, because it might feel amazing, and so you want to do that. But that isn't a "rational" i.e. life-affirming value. So the religious fanatics and suicide bombers obviously don't care about property, as they don't care about life, ultimately. And many people are irrational, and aren't really trying to live the best life they can, but rather aiming to avoid pain, or uphold tradition, or try to be popular, or.... whatever.

### So upholding tradition, or taking heroin, or wanting to be
popular, are all "irrational" by your usage of the word, therefore it
is OK to dismiss them and to remove them from moral calculation.

Hmmm. I think I heard that one before.

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

> You shouldn't, though this is more a tangent than anything else. The idea is that rights are a necessity for living life as rational being (that is, a human). Basically, it is based on the fact that as a human you must control your actions and be able to think independently (so no coercion), and must produce things in order to survive (and have to be able to control them in order to be able to control whether he survives or not, i.e. must own them).

### No, not really. You don't need to produce to survive, you only
need water, air, food, etc. And you don't need to control anything as
long as those in control want you to survive. Rights and laws
protecting them are not needed for the individual human, instead they
are social constructs needed for the functioning of a society.

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

So, if you initiate force against someone, then you have, necessarily,
rejected the basis upon which your life is based, and so cannot claim
any rights for yourself. So that is why you shouldn't harm me or take
my justly acquired property, because then anyone can do the same to
you without doing anything wrong themselves. If that is what you mean
by a "tactical" issue, then perhaps that is all there is. Though I
think it is a pretty big one.

### Who decides what is right and wrong, and how? Who defines "justly
acquired", "harm", "initiate force"? You?

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

>
>> Throwing around the term "collectivist" doesn't help here either...
>
> If you define efficiency as you do, the degree to which resources are used to support values of the people in society, you have already missed the point so to speak. Property is necessary for any values to exist, and so, regardless of any empirical concern, it must be respected fully in order for a just society to exist.

### We already established that values can exist without the notion of
property, although you call such values "irrational". Since you
personally define what is and what isn't "rational", you also lay
claim to defining what is "just". No?

I see it differently: Values are not subject to classification as
"rational" or not - only beliefs about methods of realizing them can
be called irrational, if such methods in fact do not realize the
values to implemented. If a stupid loser of an alcoholic values his
state of inebriation, and drinks to get drunk, it is rational (even if
by my standards stupid) - but if an American who wants prosperity
thinks that restricting trade with China will make Americans
materially better off, it's irrational. Thus, I don't get to dismiss
other people's desires by calling them "irrational" if I happen to
disagree with them, I can only suggest more efficient ways of
integrating all values in social decision-making.

Rafal



From spike66 at att.net  Wed Mar 10 02:34:13 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 18:34:13 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Socialimplications ofwidespreadextropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003091549m5b216674k544ee019da5084fd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com><f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com><08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net><f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com><2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com><92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike><4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com><4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike><4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com><E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>
	<ee50357e1003091549m5b216674k544ee019da5084fd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CC488A0689574D34983BFE3E7645CAD7@spike>

 
> ...On Behalf Of BillK
... 
> ofwidespreadextropian/positivistideals.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM, spike  wrote:
> > Actually they can't even start until the midterm elections. 
> >...Then the voters will finish the job in November 2012.
> >
> But this current economic collapse was caused under a 
> Republican administration!!
> Obama has continued the same policies, with the same ex-Wall 
> Street advisors.
> He is being criticised for going along with the big banks 
> rip-off and ignoring the needs of the people. Changing back 
> to the Republicans won't help...> BillK

Ja, rebublicans aren't the answer either.  I don't trust those twin parties,
the republicans and democrats.  I seldom vote for them.  I wasn't assuming
changing back to republicans necessarily, but rather tossing pretty much all
of the current reprsentatives and getting a new crop that understand the
root of the word representative, and preferrably people with business
backgrounds. 

We need free market people in government regardless of party.  We need
candidates who recognize that business really consists of people working
together to create wealth, with the three legged stool of capital,
management and labor.  Business is not prey for lawyers, it is not a target
for lawsuit, not a big bucket of money for politicians to plunder with
taxes.  Rather, business is teams of people making wealth, the engine of a
healthy society.

spike



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar 10 02:54:19 2010
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:54:19 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Socialimplications ofwidespreadextropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <CC488A0689574D34983BFE3E7645CAD7@spike>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com><f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com><08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net><f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com><2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com><92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike><4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com><4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike><4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com><E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>	<ee50357e1003091549m5b216674k544ee019da5084fd@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC488A0689574D34983BFE3E7645CAD7@spike>
Message-ID: <4B9709DB.3080802@satx.rr.com>

On 3/9/2010 8:34 PM, spike wrote:

> Business is not prey for lawyers, it is not a target
> for lawsuit, not a big bucket of money for politicians to plunder with
> taxes.  Rather, business is teams of people making wealth, the engine of a
> healthy society.

Stipulating that, how do you get there from here, and stay there? It's 
not an *accident* that we're where we are. (Oh yes, I realize that this 
is an invitation for an endless series of libertarian or anarchist 
sermons, some of them by me no doubt.)

Damien Broderick


From spike66 at att.net  Wed Mar 10 04:27:00 2010
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:27:00 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Socialimplications ofwidespreadextropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <4B9709DB.3080802@satx.rr.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com><f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com><08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net><f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com><2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com><92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike><4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com><4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike><4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com><E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>	<ee50357e1003091549m5b216674k544ee019da5084fd@mail.gmail.com><CC488A0689574D34983BFE3E7645CAD7@spike>
	<4B9709DB.3080802@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <3C873CCADA5F4083B4D477FA110B4CE6@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Socialimplications 
> ofwidespreadextropian/positivistideals.
> 
> On 3/9/2010 8:34 PM, spike wrote:
> 
> > ...Rather, 
> > business is teams of people making wealth, the engine of a healthy 
> > society.
> 
> Stipulating that, how do you get there from here, and stay 
> there? It's not an *accident* that we're where we are. (Oh 
> yes, I realize that this is an invitation for an endless 
> series of libertarian or anarchist sermons, some of them by 
> me no doubt.)... Damien Broderick


Ja point well taken.  We have debated this stuff to death years ago, no
point in redoing it all.  Do let us watch how events unfold, then offer
commentary after the fact.

spike







From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 05:03:33 2010
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:03:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc61003091749k529e45e3jcbe25e163411eb83@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1699.1267442115.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<BE26B6CCF8564DB9BC135F9CC071B628@spike>
	<580930c21003030625nb564482gb6a692ff60a14f75@mail.gmail.com>
	<A8A39775B98A4B1B8EF575D9FAA6FD4C@spike>
	<511313.19535.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<D517AB12-93F4-45B0-8789-276A0C75FB6E@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c21003090641v4f28bc07l47d603ad6885666a@mail.gmail.com>
	<3CAF4239-DA12-4565-A400-F4DFFF32AD14@GMAIL.COM>
	<7641ddc61003091448u5bd700cfjeb3eb2829ffb372c@mail.gmail.com>
	<C56780F3-9DE3-4299-935A-D90E0F713D88@GMAIL.COM>
	<7641ddc61003091749k529e45e3jcbe25e163411eb83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B857914-D42D-4195-9EEC-9FD47365B68C@gmail.com>

On Mar 9, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### No, not really. You don't need to produce to survive, you only
> need water, air, food, etc. And you don't need to control anything as
> long as those in control want you to survive. Rights and laws
> protecting them are not needed for the individual human, instead they
> are social constructs needed for the functioning of a society.

You need to produce food, clothing, shelter, get water, etc. in order to survive. If you are incapable of doing such things (or doing something which you can trade with others to acquire, as is generally the case in a society), then you are at the mercy of others. Your life is not in your control, even a little bit, at that point. So you cannot be said to be living your life, rather, you are living at other's mercy. Rights and laws are not needed an individual alone, sure. But rights are immediately required in any group of two or more people, so as to mediate their interactions in a way which ensures that each has the capacity to live before, during, and after the interaction, i.e. isn't interfering with the things required for each to control their lives and live independently.

>  Who decides what is right and wrong, and how? Who defines "justly
> acquired", "harm", "initiate force"? You?

It is based on principles that can be derived, in principle, by anyone, as it is simply philosophy. As for who decides in general, that would be a government, in any big society. Property rights are codified for all to see in law (so there is no ambiguity on the guiding principles), harm and force are mediated by police and courts, etc.

> We already established that values can exist without the notion of
> property, although you call such values "irrational". Since you
> personally define what is and what isn't "rational", you also lay
> claim to defining what is "just". No?

Irrational in that they do not support your life. You only have one real choice, which is to live or not. If you choose to live, then there are all sorts of things required for that to happen, and in fact the decision will guide all your actions and is the root of morality, rights, etc. If you choose something else, then it really doesn't matter what as you cannot claim rights or anything else. After all, you don't want to live (and so must necessarily be working towards death, even if unbeknownst to you), and so anything that happens really can't change what happens to you (as you're going to die and in fact are working toward that end). So if you violate rights of someone, you cannot claim rights for yourself, as you have acted in a way which necessarily forsakes all claims to rights (from a logical view). And a society which punishes people who initiate force against others is a just one, as it follows justice, i.e. obeys morality.

> I see it differently: Values are not subject to classification as
> "rational" or not - only beliefs about methods of realizing them can
> be called irrational, if such methods in fact do not realize the
> values to implemented. If a stupid loser of an alcoholic values his
> state of inebriation, and drinks to get drunk, it is rational (even if
> by my standards stupid) - but if an American who wants prosperity
> thinks that restricting trade with China will make Americans
> materially better off, it's irrational. Thus, I don't get to dismiss
> other people's desires by calling them "irrational" if I happen to
> disagree with them, I can only suggest more efficient ways of
> integrating all values in social decision-making.

I don't dismiss others values as irrational if I disagree with them. We are all different and have different interests. But a heroine addict is not working for his life, nor is the town drunk, etc. They are clearly acting in contradiction to that. What they want, then, has no bearing on those who choose to live, and so has no bearing on rights in any way shape or form. Property is necessary for people to live in a society and live independently, which is the only way in which any conception of individual rights makes any sense at all (and the only way in which your life can be secure). Which brings me back to the main argument, of IP.


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 06:57:34 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:57:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Socialimplications ofwidespreadextropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <3C873CCADA5F4083B4D477FA110B4CE6@spike>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>
	<4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>
	<4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>
	<4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com>
	<E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>
	<ee50357e1003091549m5b216674k544ee019da5084fd@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC488A0689574D34983BFE3E7645CAD7@spike>
	<4B9709DB.3080802@satx.rr.com>
	<3C873CCADA5F4083B4D477FA110B4CE6@spike>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003092257v173bb74fn82a6131e47830025@mail.gmail.com>

Hey everyone, let's get back to the subject of helping out Dwayne.
What serious advice would each of you give him at this point in his life?

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100309/07a69ea5/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 07:02:51 2010
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:02:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Peter Thiel Explains How to Invest in the Singularity |
	Epicenter | Wired.com
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e1003091311y60413652seba81b5f6bf7ba5c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000501cabcdd$99abfc20$ad753644@sx28047db9d36c>
	<2d6187671003091212nd4eb638qca33d16118fcd948@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e1003091311y60413652seba81b5f6bf7ba5c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187671003092302i387fe9b0p477a4fc8455f95b8@mail.gmail.com>

>
> BillK wrote:
> I'm not sure how much of that loss was his personal fortune.
> The hedge fund that he runs certainly lost big and investors have been
> withdrawing their money.
>
> And his reasoning about rational markets was exactly correct.
> Quote from Peter in Sept 28, 2009:
> "The recovery is not real," he says. "Deep structural problems haven't
> been solved and it's unclear how we will create jobs and get the
> economy growing again -- that's long been my thesis and it still is."
> The contrarian view puts Mr. Thiel among a group of investors with
> impressive track records who are holding out, unwilling to buy into
> the notion of the economy's rebound.
> ---------------------
>
> He missed out on the market recovery because he couldn't accept that
> markets are subject to irrational behaviour.
> I agree completely with what Peter says. The P/E ratios are
> unbelievable, company directors are cashing in their shares and the
> investing public is having nothing to do with this market. Reason -
> This market recovery has been gamed totally by a flood of free
> government money from banks too big to fail. They don't care if they
> lose it all, the government will just have to bail them out again.
> (And we've all got our bonuses again, haven't we?).
> >>>
>


What I find very ironic is that many extremely wealthy people are very
shrewd about human nature, both regarding individuals and also
groups/institutions.  But Peter Thiel has shown that his "logical" approach
to life (invariably coming from a techie/software background) has
utterly failed him in dealing with a very human and at times very irrational
world.



John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100310/4cf09a54/attachment.html>

From moulton at moulton.com  Wed Mar 10 07:22:18 2010
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 10 Mar 2010 07:22:18 -0000
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again
Message-ID: <20100310072218.89270.qmail@moulton.com>


On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 00:03 -0500, JOSHUA JOB wrote:
On Mar 9, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> 
> >  Who decides what is right and wrong, and how? Who defines "justly
> > acquired", "harm", "initiate force"? You?
> 
> It is based on principles that can be derived, in principle, by anyone,
> as it is simply philosophy. 

But being "simply philosophy" does not mean that it is simple.  And to make the obvious point different people derive different answers to the big questions about rights, etc.  Let us avoid over simplification.

> As for who decides in general, that would be a government, in any big society. 
That is one thing which has been tried but it is certainly not the only possibility.  

> Property rights are codified for all to see in law (so there is no ambiguity
> on the guiding principles), harm and force are mediated by police and courts,
> etc.

I have read many documents in my life and I can not think of a single one which dealt with complex social issues which did not have some ambiguity.  So as I mentioned above let us be careful and void over simplification.

Fred



From ddraig at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 08:10:16 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:10:16 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread extropian/positivist
	ideals.
In-Reply-To: <2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
	<08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
	<f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003100010k6d91e463w16a0796456a27b2e@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/03/2010, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just wanted to say my heart goes out to you and I definitely don't want
> you to become homeless.

Me too!  Thanks, though :)

> And so I must ask, to what extent can the
> Australian social services help you to find a job, housing, food, etc.?

Well, we are in the middle of the worst rental crisis in Melbourne,
ever, so there's not a lot of available housing. And what there is has
something like a 3 year waiting list. So while I have been to see some
people about housing, I'm not holding my breath. I had assumed I'd
have a job within a week and just rent a place, but the job thing has
been a harder slog than I expected (I've been to two interviews in 5
years, I got the job both times, so was possibly waaaaay
over-confident).


>  I
> have always heard the Aussie system is much better than what the U.S.
> typically offers.

Well, I am on the dole, so there is that. As far as housing goes, I
have no idea, I've never been in such a position and have never known
anyone in such a position, so this is all totally new to me. I assume
there's adequate everything, but it is not something I have paid much
attention to in the past.

> I hope you can find some caring social workers,
> non-profit church volunteers and gov't employees to point you in the right
> direction.


Well, they exist. I totally hate churches as hot-beds of mediaeval
superstition, but they do have their uses when they are not repressing
people and holding back progress. There are govt programs but I feel
kind of funny accessing them being able bodied and fit and healthy.
Although I'm beginning to consider the options, the clock is ticking.


> And perhaps we have some Australian list-members who could give you some
> advice or even directly intervene.

I'm not sure what anyone could do other than offer me a place to stay
or a job (or rent me a house).

I've got a bunch of numbers to call and people to visit etc. But for
some really unfathomable reason I seem to attract broken people, so
I'm aware of just how grim it can be for a lot of people (such as my
housemate) and I feel really funny about making use of the available
resources given that there's people out there in far worse situations
than mine.

Sort of. Maybe I'm just not taking things as seriously as I should,
given the situation I have mentioned here (there's other stuff,
possibly scarier but I really don't want to freak people out with my
life, that's not really what this list is for, I feel). Dunno, in the
back of my mind is a little voice "don't panic, it will be fine"

Maybe I should panic. Dunno. It's not my style. Things just don't
stress me, especially nowadays.

> KEEP US POSTED!!

Um. Okay.  I really just brought this stuff up as an example of
"people who feel they are not responsible for their actions can be
dangerous/scary" and it has turned into a big discussion about me. We
Australians get all squirmy at such points. :-o


> Best wishes,

Thanks :)

I have a job interview tomorrow (*), so fingers crossed
Dwayne

* - I was actually in the process of starting a business when all of
this blew up, with an eye towards employing a bunch of my unemployed
friends. Funny how things work out
-- 
   ddraig at pobox.com irc.deoxy.org #chat
   ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e...
  http://www.barrelfullofmonkeys.org/Data/3-death.jpg
our aim is wakefulness,  our enemy is dreamless sleep


From ddraig at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 08:17:37 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:17:37 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread
	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
	<08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
	<f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003100017y41bac7bfv17b11e4e74dcc893@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/03/2010, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> And if they let you down, there is always those greedy heartless capitalists
> who can point you in the right direction.  They are the ones who
> consistently come thru for us in the states.

I don't really see where the profit margin would be in helping me out.
I don't have the money to rent a house (thus am frantically trying to
find a job, any job, don't care what sort of job) at which point, woo
woo I can throw some of my capital at some fatbastid and rent their
investment property, but between now and then: huh?

Glib throw-away long-running extropian joke aside, that is  ;p

There's employment/exploitation, yes, that would be handy, hoo ray for
capitalism etc.

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


From ddraig at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 08:20:35 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:20:35 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications of widespread
	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100305204934.KZ5OW.194258.root@hrndva-web17-z02>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
	<08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
	<f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>
	<4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003100020u3f10e862h592b3b1f4ef91770@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/03/2010, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> Really? When you've got a rabid madman on your hands, and he's your damaged
> pal and you don't want to bring in a Xe Services swat team to kill him? What
> do you have in mind here, Spike?

I can sell off the body parts of his murder victims? Kill him, claim
it was self-defense and sell off his body parts?  Do an exclusive with
a global megacorp media house? Make a movie? Write a book?
 I have all of his passwords and access to his bank accounts (it is
nice being trusted) but that's extremely naughty.  Even if this *is*
entirely his fault, it is not his fault he went batshit crazy.

I'm all ears.

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


From ddraig at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 08:35:41 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:35:41 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Social implications ofwidespread
	extropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<4e3a29501003051306i9c52df7y32d3c16dca84fa04@mail.gmail.com>
	<296151.87541.qm@web111213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<f430d9be1003052324l48b7947cx994d3360348ce31a@mail.gmail.com>
	<08451E99-3EF2-41CD-8D09-22A8DC96B8D4@bellsouth.net>
	<f430d9be1003080204w20b85ca4v60c8a7f22441cff9@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187671003091159u74d15012n691d15f3274923b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D68E918BE64A08A98FFBFCB34EC3E4@spike>
	<4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>
	<4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003100035n4948f1a8m59b1580be1b94117@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/03/2010, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> I recognize the need for the local authorities for the dangerous roommate
> situation.  What I had in mind is that the roommate's sister, who owns the
> apartment, would soon be inviting Dwayne to seek other accommodations
> forthwith should the dangerous roommate find himself incarcerated, at which
> time Dwayne would be ill advised to depend on charitable religioso,
> non-profiteers, government largesse or social workers, all of whom will
> likely leave one shivering and hungry on the street, as the cooler weather
> approaches in Australia.

Yes, this is exactly the situation. We were meant to sign a 1 year
lease the day after the committed himself (sucky timing) and if we'd
done that it would be fine, as his rent would be taken out of his
sickness benefit payment, and I could have got the business I was
planning off the ground, and everyone would be happy. The other option
was learn drupal and admin a site for a couple of months and then get
a job in computing instead of the crappy jobs I have been doing
lately, but all of that has been curtailed while I find another place
to live.
It turns out he has not paiud any rent at all for about 9 months now
(including the money I gavce him for my rent) so the sister owes on
the pace, plus she can rent it out for nearly double what we poay, and
she said to me: she is sick of looking after him, he can sort himself
out.
She sent us 2 month's notice on Feb 1st.

This was his 42nd birthday. Oh wow did that not help his state of mind
in any way.

It's all quite shakespearian, a huge tragedy, and I'm running away
from it as fast as I can. I will look after my friends to the limit of
my abilities, let alone my family (I grew up reading classics. Most
people do not think like me), and the way pretty much everyone but me
has dealt with him I find extremely horrifying.


> >From Dwayne's writing, I am guessing he is a younger man, so the right
> answer is to do as the rock band Styx urges the angry young man (whose
> future looks quite bright to me):  "Get up!  Get back on your feet!  You're
> the one they can't beat and you know it..."

Nah I'm 42. But, yep, for some reason I am relentlessly (annoyingly)
cheery, nothing gets me down.  This hasn't. Even if I put everything I
own into storage and wind up in a tent or under a bridge, well, it
won't last and it will be something different.  I know a *lot* of
people, who I have been out of touch with for a while (looking after
yet another broken friend over the last few years), and *they* know a
lot of people, and I'm usually held in extremely high regard by the
people I know, so I'm sure something will turn up. Or not. We'll see.
No point being miserable about it, thought, it just gets in the way.
Next time you whine about traffic - look on the bright side, you could
be me. :)



> I love that song.  In my own misspent youth it hit all the right notes with
> me, sounding so delightfully capitalistic in an era which languished in
> anti-materialistic malaise (1977).

I grew up in the 80s. Miserable period of sqeaky dystopian tunes. The
90s were *much* better.

> Dwayne, flee from the dangerous roommate
> and his charitable sister!

On it, chief! The sister is piece of work, omg.

>  Get back on your feet, me lad!

I refuse to get off them!

:-)

Dwayne
(I'm going to hit some posting limit soon. Sorry, can only get online
from the library so you'll see a stream of posts from me. They used to
refer to 'the Dwaynestream' on the futureculture list when I used to
do this)
Oh and there may be some delay in replies. Don't panic, I'm
indestructible, just lagged :)
-- 
   ddraig at pobox.com irc.deoxy.org #chat
   ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e...
  http://www.barrelfullofmonkeys.org/Data/3-death.jpg
our aim is wakefulness,  our enemy is dreamless sleep


From ddraig at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 08:54:31 2010
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:54:31 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Socialimplications ofwidespreadextropian/positivistideals.
In-Reply-To: <2d6187671003092257v173bb74fn82a6131e47830025@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb794c521003051245v1eecdae5tf8df3c1cacca8021@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B96C1E3.4070005@satx.rr.com>
	<4D5D8EF043A24A1DA7C98BCD95D0F530@spike>
	<4B96D2FF.2080702@satx.rr.com>
	<E2A725BA4F0B4A0482DE9F57C91EE3CF@spike>
	<ee50357e1003091549m5b216674k544ee019da5084fd@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC488A0689574D34983BFE3E7645CAD7@spike>
	<4B9709DB.3080802@satx.rr.com>
	<3C873CCADA5F4083B4D477FA110B4CE6@spike>
	<2d6187671003092257v173bb74fn82a6131e47830025@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be1003100054y4c26a7c5kd1b7826aa0405e3f@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/03/2010, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey everyone, let's get back to the subject of helping out Dwayne.  What
> serious advice would each of you give him at this point in his life?

"go back in time and have some employable skills"

I have been unemployed for a long time, mostly reading and doing
research. This hampers me somewhat in my current situation.

"stay in touch with your friends"   <-- support networks are damned handy.

"just because you trust someone does not mean you can trust their
family"  <-- my friend is mad but a nice guy, sister is venal.

I started a business years ago, did not trust my partner but set it up
so he could not harm things. His father, the investor, pulled the plug
and rendered his son bankrupt. I assumed he could trust his dad.
Noooo.

"if you are going to be thrown out on the street, make sure it happens
over summer"
 oooh, yes, I like that one.

"don't be overly positive"  <---- I should have got onto this the
moment she was making noises about booting us out, and not assumed I'd
walk into a job.

Dwayne
I'm quite touched by this, I have had very little to do with this list
since the early 90s, I just mine it for urls and shake my head at some
of the radical capitalist rants. Sorry this has turned into a giant
thread about me  :-/
-- 
   ddraig at pobox.com irc.deoxy.org #chat
   ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e...
  http://www.barrelfullofmonkeys.org/Data/3-death.jpg
our aim is wakefulness,  our enemy is dreamless sleep


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Wed Mar 10 14:45:13 2010
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:45:13 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Bodies
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d1003091109x131a59aehd7c5720b1bdecb40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100310144513.POYHD.486590.root@hrndva-web22-z01>

Your argument isn't very cutting edge either, further when one actually looks at the concept of 'personality transfer' it isn't as clear cut as you'd make it.

Consider that the first examples likely to see light will be destructive. It will require the stabilizing of the brain will require a fixing process like freezing or some sort of transfusion of a chemical through the structure. This requires two points to be recognized: it will require the destruction of the original and at best it would be suicide and in most cases would be considered a form of murder. There is little chance this will be popular. There are some other aspects that will not be copied using this technology as it does not capture the dynamics of the brain. So the copy will be 'fuzzy' at best and very generic most likely. It's applicability will be in understanding the basic structure of human physical architecture and a high level look at the architecture.

The next stage is to capture not only the dynamic pattern of activity at some point in time, followed by the destruction of the physical brain to determine structural dependencies (each brain is morphologically unique). That pattern of activity can be copied and used either directly in some emulated virtual brain machine or embedded in a more mobile device.

The problem with both of these is the destruction of the original.  That makes this approach, while necessary for follow on approaches to be developed, of little practical applicability. I'll call this generic approach 'Destructive Copying'. The fundamental problem is that what survives is a (questionable) copy of the original. That is not long term survival by anybodies definition. The claim the copy is the same as the original is just wrong.

What does that leave us with? A little introspection makes it clear that what we want is some form of 'Mental Migration' where we can move the mental process, both dynamic and morphological into another framework (and it can be real or virtual). The first is to copy that to a cache and it becomes available to use in multiple locations. However the original is still open to termination, so we're back to the question of is the copy the same as the original and the answer is again clearly no.  The alternate is a  'Direct Migration' where the dynamic and morphological of the original is transfered in real time to another location while at the same removing it from the original body. This again is at best suicide of the original body and many might consider it murder. While this at first blush appears to meet the 'don't destroy the original' upon reflection we see it is a near miss.

What are we missing? Re-integration.

We take the Mental Migration approach and add a single additional concept, re-integration of the mental models from different instances. When this technology will take off is when I can take a snapshot of my mind and copy it into other instances. Then at a latter time re-integrate the experiences and thoughts of those instances in any combination of original and copy that I choose. This puts us almost at the point of using brain transfer for life extension rather than 'Copy Persistence', which are not the same thing at all.

What might that missing element be? Real-time interaction.

When besides making those copies we can re-integrate them in real time such that the original mind becomes a component of a hive of minds that are acting in concert at the same time all the time. This also opens up the potential to re-integrate groups of individuals (ala Borg) into a single hive mind.

---- Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote: 
> The recent discussion doesn't seem cutting edge.
> 
> I suspect that virtually all humans will abandon physical reality entirely.
>