[ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat

[Spencer Campbell]

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 naïveté
> 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!