From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 01:01:49 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:01:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/8/31 Max More : > Gaining new members is high on my priority list, starting in the very near > future. I'm already working on that in some ways, but can really go on the > offensive in a few months. I have little useful commentary, but would like to suggest the expression "go on the offensive" be reconsidered in future contexts. :) In the shallow world of misquotes, misreads, and outright skimming we shouldn't use the word "offensive" lest it be associated with either the poster or the idea being discussed. If this is just subtle psychology, consider that we've been told not to reply "no problem" at the end of a customer service / support call so we aren't leaving the customer with a resounding "No" and "problem" as the last words said. From rtomek at ceti.pl Thu Sep 1 01:50:05 2011 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 03:50:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] ai class at stanford Message-ID: Hi, For those who don't know: the study group has formed on reddit. Perhaps worth keeping an eye on it: http://www.reddit.com/r/aiclass 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 brent.allsop at canonizer.com Thu Sep 1 01:58:04 2011 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:58:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] cryonics services shopping (was Re: Alcor dumping "grandfathering"?) In-Reply-To: References: <20110828200012.GP22933@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4E5EE6AC.6000206@canonizer.com> Hi Max, I didn't know what to think of this thread, and have been mostly disappointed with it, so was hoping you would respond, so thanks. It is great to know someone trustworthy like you is now at the head of Alcor, and to see these kinds of significant changes that are surely hard for an organization like this to make since you've come on board. I'm still shopping around for a cryonics company, and trying to get more educated about all these issues. Until this thread started, I assumed that Alcor was the company that was well funded (meaning less financial risk), where as some other companies that require significantly less money for a similar service (at least it appears like such on the surface), might be at risk of being less well funded or risk financial failure. And that was before I heard that Alcor recently significantly upped their prices. Is this thread telling me that, at least in the past, this wasn't the case, even though this may be changing, at even significantly more increased prices from competitors? Is there a source of some good comparison information about the various different costs different companies require, and what you get from those companies for the buck, especially as far as financial or any other kind of risk goes and so on? Brent Allsop On 8/30/2011 9:43 PM, Max More wrote: > Keith: Rather than inflaming people based on rumors, why not wait > until Alcor communicates what is being considered in order to tackle > the massive underfunding problem that has accumulated over many years? > (Details of a possible proposal will probably come out in about two > weeks.) Something MUST be done, but the proposal under consideration > is much less dire than you're painting it. > Eugene: That's just about a content-free statement. And it's not in > the least bit helpful. Who is this "you" that you're referring to? Do > you mean yourself? Do you mean people far away from Alcor, in Europe? > Do you mean everyone with arrangements with Alcor? I suspect that > you've been reading Darwin's blog and actually believing his > collection of lies, distortions, exaggerations, out-of-context claims, > and occasional truths. Or is there some other basis for this off-hand, > dismissive, and destructive statement? > --Max > P.S. I'll be traveling to England (for the SENS5 conference) on > Thursday morning. I'll do my best to respond to any worthwhile posts > on this topic, but can't guarantee that I'll be able to. > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Eugen Leitl > wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:16:52AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > > > Alcor seems to be in the middle making a decisions to raise the > > minimum suspension funding retroactively. For the people who set up > > insurance years ago, and are now too old to get more, they may > have to > > go elsewhere or give up the prospect of being suspended entirely. > > You're not getting a lot for your dues anyway. > > > > -- > Max More > Strategic Philosopher > Co-editor, /The Transhumanist Reader/ > CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation > 7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110 > Scottsdale, AZ 85260 > 480/905-1906 ext 113 > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glivick at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 1 02:45:21 2011 From: glivick at sbcglobal.net (G. Livick) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ai class at stanford In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E5EF1C1.5040206@sbcglobal.net> Thanks Tomasz. The official registration was announced on reddit, and completed mine. FutureMan On 8/31/2011 6:50 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > Hi, > > For those who don't know: the study group has formed on reddit. Perhaps > worth keeping an eye on it: > > http://www.reddit.com/r/aiclass > > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -- > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > ** ** > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From glivick at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 1 02:51:59 2011 From: glivick at sbcglobal.net (G. Livick) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:51:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl) In-Reply-To: <4E5E63E4.7020109@speakeasy.net> References: <4E5E63E4.7020109@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4E5EF34F.3050606@sbcglobal.net> I think we should wait until Alan has been uploaded before granting him privileges. That we we can at least push his off button. :-). FutureMan ps, will uploading be done via USB or SCSI? Surely not RS232? Where will the connecter be installed; forehead, ear, lower lip, nostril? And how will it be connected -- soldering would hurt, but wire wrapping might be unreliable? On 8/31/2011 9:40 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: >> If anyone cares about marketing transhumanism in the present, we >> should quit talking about destructive uploading. It is a really >> distasteful and (to my way of thinking) stupid way to upload when >> there are conceivable options that provide a path to reversible >> uploading as slick as boiling a frog. > > Indeed! And still other forms of transhumanism that don't involve > uploading at all! =) > > I move that I be re-instated to the extropy-chat list with full > privileges and Eugene be placed under the same posting-prohibitions > that I've been suffering under for reason of being excessively > offensive and destructive to the ends of the movement. =P > From max at maxmore.com Thu Sep 1 04:20:53 2011 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:20:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cryonics services shopping (was Re: Alcor dumping "grandfathering"?) In-Reply-To: <4E5EE6AC.6000206@canonizer.com> References: <20110828200012.GP22933@leitl.org> <4E5EE6AC.6000206@canonizer.com> Message-ID: Hi Brent, This isn't a good time for me engage in discussing this in depth. I'm packing ready to fly to England in the morning (SENS5 conference). I'd be happy to talk with you further when I get back from the middle of next week. What I can say is that Alcor is far the most well-funded cryonics organization. Given the alternatives, unfortunately that's not much to boast about! --Max 2011/8/31 Brent Allsop > > Hi Max, > > I didn't know what to think of this thread, and have been mostly > disappointed with it, so was hoping you would respond, so thanks. It is > great to know someone trustworthy like you is now at the head of Alcor, and > to see these kinds of significant changes that are surely hard for an > organization like this to make since you've come on board. > > I'm still shopping around for a cryonics company, and trying to get more > educated about all these issues. Until this thread started, I assumed that > Alcor was the company that was well funded (meaning less financial risk), > where as some other companies that require significantly less money for a > similar service (at least it appears like such on the surface), might be at > risk of being less well funded or risk financial failure. And that was > before I heard that Alcor recently significantly upped their prices. Is > this thread telling me that, at least in the past, this wasn't the case, > even though this may be changing, at even significantly more increased > prices from competitors? > > Is there a source of some good comparison information about the various > different costs different companies require, and what you get from those > companies for the buck, especially as far as financial or any other kind of > risk goes and so on? > > Brent Allsop > > > On 8/30/2011 9:43 PM, Max More wrote: > > Keith: Rather than inflaming people based on rumors, why not wait until > Alcor communicates what is being considered in order to tackle the massive > underfunding problem that has accumulated over many years? (Details of a > possible proposal will probably come out in about two weeks.) Something MUST > be done, but the proposal under consideration is much less dire than you're > painting it. > > Eugene: That's just about a content-free statement. And it's not in the > least bit helpful. Who is this "you" that you're referring to? Do you mean > yourself? Do you mean people far away from Alcor, in Europe? Do you mean > everyone with arrangements with Alcor? I suspect that you've been reading > Darwin's blog and actually believing his collection of lies, distortions, > exaggerations, out-of-context claims, and occasional truths. Or is there > some other basis for this off-hand, dismissive, and destructive statement? > > --Max > > P.S. I'll be traveling to England (for the SENS5 conference) on Thursday > morning. I'll do my best to respond to any worthwhile posts on this topic, > but can't guarantee that I'll be able to. > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:16:52AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> > Alcor seems to be in the middle making a decisions to raise the >> > minimum suspension funding retroactively. For the people who set up >> > insurance years ago, and are now too old to get more, they may have to >> > go elsewhere or give up the prospect of being suspended entirely. >> >> You're not getting a lot for your dues anyway. >> > > > > -- > Max More > Strategic Philosopher > Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader* > CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation > 7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110 > Scottsdale, AZ 85260 > 480/905-1906 ext 113 > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 > > -- Max More Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader* CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation 7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480/905-1906 ext 113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 1 07:36:03 2011 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:36:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > 2011/8/31 Max More : >> Gaining new members is high on my priority list, starting in the very near >> future. I'm already working on that in some ways, but can really go on the >> offensive in a few months. > > I have little useful commentary, but would like to suggest the > expression "go on the offensive" be reconsidered in future contexts. > :) > > In the shallow world of misquotes, misreads, and outright skimming we > shouldn't use the word "offensive" lest it be associated with either > the poster or the idea being discussed. > I hope that is a joke. It seems to border on hyper-sensitive to me. > If this is just subtle psychology, consider that we've been told not > to reply "no problem" at the end of a customer service / support call > so we aren't leaving the customer with a resounding "No" and "problem" > as the last words said. Yes, some of the world is indeed that anal. Why does that mean we should be? - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 1 09:38:26 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:38:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl) In-Reply-To: <4E5EF34F.3050606@sbcglobal.net> References: <4E5E63E4.7020109@speakeasy.net> <4E5EF34F.3050606@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20110901093825.GZ16334@leitl.org> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:51:59PM -0700, G. Livick wrote: > ps, will uploading be done via USB or SCSI? Surely not RS232? Where How do you construct a numerical model for animal emulation? By looking at neuroanatomy features. In a massively parallel fashion. You should look at the data rates of even current automated continous operation scanners like http://www.mcb.harvard.edu/lichtman/ATLUM/ATLUM_web.htm and do the math. > will the connecter be installed; forehead, ear, lower lip, nostril? And > how will it be connected -- soldering would hurt, but wire wrapping > might be unreliable? I suggest a massive fiber optics bundle up the arse. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 09:40:25 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:40:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31 August 2011 18:55, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > If anyone cares about marketing transhumanism in the present, we > > should quit talking about destructive uploading. It is a really > > distasteful and (to my way of thinking) stupid way to upload when > > there are conceivable options that provide a path to reversible > > uploading as slick as boiling a frog. > > Which options would those be? i) Coming from "wet" transhumanism, I developed a keen interest on its "hard" side when I joined the actual movement, but basically in the nano-bio-info-cogno equation the bio variable is going to remain very central for a very long time, IHMO. ii) Also in the way of autocriticism, we may have been insisting a little too much on life-extensionism and survival - something which is perhaps wrongly perceived as the most popular and less threatening part of our discourse - and a little too little on human enhancement, which seems after all to mobilise at least an equal interest. Sure, "uploads" would serve in principle both purposes, but for the latter a fyborg - which is by far the lower hanging fruit - would work equally well. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 14:11:43 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 07:11:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl) In-Reply-To: <20110901093825.GZ16334@leitl.org> References: <4E5E63E4.7020109@speakeasy.net> <4E5EF34F.3050606@sbcglobal.net> <20110901093825.GZ16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: <012f01cc68b1$140d5560$3c280020$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... >>...how will the connecter be installed; forehead, ear, lower lip, nostril? >...I suggest a massive fiber optics bundle up the arse. -- Eugen* Leitl Did that recently, although it wasn't massive. The doctor said everything is OK, come back in ten years. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 15:50:13 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 08:50:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:48:56AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > >> That seems awfully dogmatic to me. ?People who are 20 and reading this > > People reading this list include me (1966) and you (1942), who > co-authored with Drexler in 1977. Looking back 30 years, and looking > at who's still working on machine-phase, what are your estimates > and you and me see http://nanomedicine.com/ like capabilities in > what is left of our lifetimes? Looking back 30 years what are the odds the human genome project would be finished by now? You just can't tell when some technological development will take off. I find it to be downright weird to be both the oldest and the most optimistic on the list. > The way things are going we're not > even going to get a cryosuspension by the time we need it. > Which could be far sooner than either one of us care to speculate. > >> list could well be here in 2100, they would only have to make it to >> 89. Sorry, 109. Even so, that might not even be considered old in 2100. > Tell that to Sasha Chislenko, Hara Ra, Robert Bradbury and > dozens of people we knew but are no longer there. Hara Ra got one of the best suspensions on record. Sasha and Robert were not signed up. Cryonic suspension is not as good as just living long enough to "catch the wave" but it's a backup plan. If I live as long as my parents, I have another 20 years. I think the odds are fair that life extension treatments might start adding more than a year per year within that time frame. If not, being signed up gives me a chance to see the deep future. >> What makes you so certain that nanotechnology will not come into >> existence by the end of the century? ?(Convince me, I would like to be >> convinced.) > > I don't know what will happen by end of century. What > I do know is that none of it will be relevant for you and me > and most other people on this list (sadly, also no longer > spring chicken). You are 24 years younger than I am. I could live into the 2030s without help, you into the 2050s. It would take only modest life extension for you to reach the end of the century. > I have another hunch: there are probably less than 5 people > reading this list who're 20 or below. You might wonder what > it indicates, and it's not merely email being a dead medium. > > But, hey, it doesn't matter, as long as you can click the Facebook > "like" button, or upboat the orange-red. I am only lightly connected to the current culture so this makes no sense. >> >> I know Hans Moravec proposed that decades ago and it became a >> >> pervasive meme, but it's an awful concept and a serious marketing >> >> burden for transhumanism. >> > >> > Doesn't affect cryonics, as this side of suspension process is >> > resurrection-agnostic. >> >> I was not talking about cryonics. > > Keith, I doubt you and I even get a shitty suspension. Hope I'm wrong, of course. It is my widely known intention to move next to Alcor if in a terminal condition. Far as I know, everyone who has done so has had a decent suspension. > Machine-phase will happen eventually (unless things go seriously sour), > but unless you subscribe to an AI-driven Singularity, which is a particularly > pernicious cult for futurists to embrace, as it greatly enhances their > private, personal chances to encounter the information-theoretic Grim Reaper > not on our watch. Sorry. Hmm. It is my opinion that actions rather than beliefs are what counts. Of course if you are convinced that the singularity will come along within your biological lifespan and don't make backup plans because of this belief, I see your point. >> >> I have reasons to think it would be a lot harder than infiltrating the >> >> brain with nanotech monitoring posts and learning how to emulate it. >> > >> > It would be a lot harder since there isn't any medical nantechnology, >> > nor will there be any for anyone reading this message right now. >> >> If anyone cares about marketing transhumanism in the present, we >> should quit talking about destructive uploading. ?It is a really > > In order to market you must first have a product. Unless you're > in the religion business. I'm not. > >> distasteful and (to my way of thinking) stupid way to upload when >> there are conceivable options that provide a path to reversible >> uploading as slick as boiling a frog. > > There are many conceivable options. Unfortunately, none of them > relevant to us reading these lines. You all can disagree. The obits > will tell us who's right soon enough. The obits have been a bummer. Last few years everyone close to me who has died was younger. Keith Henson From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 15:53:18 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:53:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl) In-Reply-To: <012f01cc68b1$140d5560$3c280020$@att.net> References: <4E5E63E4.7020109@speakeasy.net> <4E5EF34F.3050606@sbcglobal.net> <20110901093825.GZ16334@leitl.org> <012f01cc68b1$140d5560$3c280020$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:11 AM, spike wrote: > >>... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl > ... > >>>...how will the connecter be installed; forehead, ear, lower lip, nostril? > > >>...I suggest a massive fiber optics bundle up the arse. -- Eugen* Leitl > > Did that recently, although it wasn't massive. ?The doctor said everything > is OK, come back in ten years. Spike, anything up your arse is massive, even if it's small... ;-) LOL -Kelly From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 16:06:24 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:06:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat Message-ID: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Let's hope they can work out this plan: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/09/01/slaughter-free-stem-cell-meat-saus age-coming-soon/?test=latestnews The article goes off on a tangent about how the meat from stem cells doesn't taste good, but they ignore the enormous breakthrough it would be. Imagine for instance we manage to get the stem cells to convert simple sugars, which can be manufactured relatively cheaply perhaps even without using plants, and turn it into complex proteins. That sounds a lot like what they have done here. If so, I think we can find a way around the problem of its not tasting right without blood diffusing the tissue. As far as I know, we currently do not use the blood from farm beasts when they are slain. Perhaps we could collect that stuff and figure out how to get the stem cells to absorb it. I don't know if it is used now however. Have we any slaughterhouse hipsters? (Now there's a name for a heavy metal band.) spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 16:27:22 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:27:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? (Max More) Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Max More wrote: snip > > Gaining new members is high on my priority list, starting in the very near > future. I'm already working on that in some ways, but can really go on the > offensive in a few months. I will be *extremely* disappointed if Alcor does not have a presence at the Singularity Summit October 15-16 in New York. It's not like it would cost Alcor anything beyond a sign and a few pamphlets. I am sure Ray would give Alcor a table and a few chairs in the lobby and the table could be staffed in rotation by Alcor members attending the conference anyway. Sign on the table, "Discuss Cryonics Signup Here." Virtually everyone at that conference is a potential Alcor member (except for the 20 or so who are *already* members). The WorldCon next year is in Chicago, August 30-September 3, 2012. It not as concentrated with potential members as the Singularity Summit, but it's larger. Lean on Gregory Benford to help, even get him to hold a room party. Get a non-dealer table. Consider doing it jointly with CI. Again, it need not cost much at all. I think there were at least 20 people signed up for cryonics at the last one, though a lot of them were with CI. Consider the ISDC conference Memorial Day Weekend, May 24-28, 2012 in Washington, D.C. I will help there if you ask. And don't forget Space Access mid April 2012 in Phoenix. Alcor typically has at least half a dozen members there. Offer group tours of the facility. And ask the members for ideas and help. You *can't* do the job by yourself! Keith Henson From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 16:30:20 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:30:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > What Eugen said: there are good odds that the first upload will be > created from a cryonics patient. This makes a lot of sense to me, though I haven't thought about this idea prior to today. A live brain has an interest in preserving it's life, while a frozen one does not have this interest actively (though admittedly latently). To upload a whole living brain you would kind of have to keep it working through the process to give the patient the idea that it was a continuous process. Going to sleep and waking up uploaded seems a little disconcerting, how do I know I'm still me? A more gradual transformation while in a waking state doesn't seem nearly so frightening psychologically. That's more advanced technology than the destructive scanning of a frozen brain tied to the building of a machine that isn't yet turned on. So yes, I think I do believe the first upload will be from a cryonics patient. Does anyone else have clear reasons why they think this might be so? Is there a financial incentive to resurrect people into an uploaded state? I assume that this would be allowed under cryonic contracts, right? This is fascinating. I haven't been a big fan of cryonics to this point, for myself anyway, but this almost persuades me that there might be something to this approach. -Kelly From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 16:22:23 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:22:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading of fingers, was RE: destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl) Message-ID: <000e01cc68c3$5501e240$ff05a6c0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson ... > >...Spike, anything up your arse is massive, even if it's small... ;-) LOL -Kelly Oy vey, how well I know. Several years ago, I had exactly one incident of prostatitis. The doctor made a note of it (the bastard) and now whenever I go to ANY doctor for ANY reason, (including my dermatologist) (just to pay my medical bill) I get the finger. That's why I switched doctors and retained the current one: she has small fingers. spike From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 16:42:32 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:42:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/1 spike : > > > Let?s hope they can work out this plan: > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/09/01/slaughter-free-stem-cell-meat-sausage-coming-soon/?test=latestnews > Cool. Been waiting for a while for this one. > The article goes off on a tangent about how the meat from stem cells doesn?t > taste good, but they ignore the enormous breakthrough it would be.? Imagine > for instance we manage to get the stem cells to convert simple sugars, which > can be manufactured relatively cheaply perhaps even without using plants, > and turn it into complex proteins.? That sounds a lot like what they have > done here.? If so, I think we can find a way around the problem of its not > tasting right without blood diffusing the tissue.? As far as I know, we > currently do not use the blood from farm beasts when they are slain. > Perhaps we could collect that stuff and figure out how to get the stem cells > to absorb it.? I don?t know if it is used now however.? Have we any > slaughterhouse hipsters?? (Now there?s a name for a heavy metal band.) I have slaughtered two full grown pigs. It's on Heinlein's list: A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. Time Enough for Love (1973) p.248 I don't know if that makes me a slaughterhouse hipster... I've also done in a number of chickens... LOTS easier! I don't think anyone should eat meat without at some time killing one of the animals they eat. It changes the experience dramatically. I still eat meat, I am not ashamed of it, but it is highly interesting just how similar the insides of a pig are to a person. In fact, some Papua New Guinea tribes refer to their cannibalistic meal as a "long pig"... that'll tell ya something. The thing that I really wanted to say about this is that the texture and color of this stuff really isn't the main thing for getting it on the market. People didn't like margarine at first because you had to mix in your own color. The farmers wouldn't let them sell it already yellow. And the American cheese board wanted processed cheese (now called ironically American Cheese) to be called "embalmed cheese" initially. People eat kelp all the time without even knowing it. The real problems will be doing whatever the heck they are doing at scale. Do it at scale and you'll first get some of the vegans and vegetarians... make it cheap and you'll get the poor... make it good and you'll get everyone! But that's the last step! Expensive and tasteless for the vegans first... then take over the world! It's just like the first cell phone. Expensive and tasteless. :-) -Kelly From sparge at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 16:24:51 2011 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:24:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/1 spike > ** ** > > Let?s hope they can work out this plan:**** > > ** ** > > > http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/09/01/slaughter-free-stem-cell-meat-sausage-coming-soon/?test=latestnews > **** > > ** ** > > The article goes off on a tangent about how the meat from stem cells > doesn?t taste good, but they ignore the enormous breakthrough it would be. > Imagine for instance we manage to get the stem cells to convert simple > sugars, which can be manufactured relatively cheaply perhaps even without > using plants, and turn it into complex proteins. That sounds a lot like > what they have done here. If so, I think we can find a way around the > problem of its not tasting right without blood diffusing the tissue. As far > as I know, we currently do not use the blood from farm beasts when they are > slain. Perhaps we could collect that stuff and figure out how to get the > stem cells to absorb it. I don?t know if it is used now however. Have we > any slaughterhouse hipsters? (Now there?s a name for a heavy metal band.) > Yeah it's used for animal feed and fertilizer. But I'm sure it's cheap. I think I'll stick to real meat, though. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 16:37:10 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:37:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/1 spike : > > > Let?s hope they can work out this plan: > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/09/01/slaughter-free-stem-cell-meat-sausage-coming-soon/?test=latestnews > > > > The article goes off on a tangent about how the meat from stem cells doesn?t > taste good, but they ignore the enormous breakthrough it would be. "It's still in development." That said - that there is an effort seriously looking into this is itself a breakthrough. Now they need to work on cost. Food is incredibly cheap, in the developed world, by historic standards, mainly because a lot of people have put a lot of effort into improving the infrastructure for making and delivering food. The critical metric for a new food technology is $ per unit mass; the particulars of the technology, such as "no animals died to make this meat", give you a multiplier off the competitive product that people will accept, but that seems to be less than 10 either way even for extreme benefits/problems. In other words, this gets more interesting once they can sell this meat at a profit (including shipping costs to a typical supermarket) for much less than $50/lb. If they can get it under (or even near) $5/lb. (which will take some scaling up), that will threaten traditional meat production methods, which will invoke politics; watch for astroturfing and groundless (no pun intended) regulation at that time. ? Imagine > for instance we manage to get the stem cells to convert simple sugars, which > can be manufactured relatively cheaply perhaps even without using plants, > and turn it into complex proteins.? That sounds a lot like what they have > done here.? If so, I think we can find a way around the problem of its not > tasting right without blood diffusing the tissue.? As far as I know, we > currently do not use the blood from farm beasts when they are slain. > Perhaps we could collect that stuff and figure out how to get the stem cells > to absorb it.? I don?t know if it is used now however.? Have we any > slaughterhouse hipsters?? (Now there?s a name for a heavy metal band.) > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 17:07:15 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:07:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > The thing that I really wanted to say about this is that the texture > and color of this stuff really isn't the main thing for getting it on > the market. People didn't like margarine at first because you had to > mix in your own color. The farmers wouldn't let them sell it already > yellow. And the American cheese board wanted processed cheese (now > called ironically American Cheese) to be called "embalmed cheese" > initially. People eat kelp all the time without even knowing it. The > real problems will be doing whatever the heck they are doing at scale. > Do it at scale and you'll first get some of the vegans and > vegetarians... make it cheap and you'll get the poor... make it good > and you'll get everyone! But that's the last step! Hear, hear. I've sent an email to the prof in charge of the process asking if he's run the numbers to see what the current $/kg is. That can be a numerical measure of how close to reality/close to market this tech is. By comparison, meat currently retails for about $5-10/kg (more for choice cuts, but we're competing with the low quality meats here). So, get it within a factor of 10 of that and you can start getting commercial funding to scale up production and reduce costs the rest of the way. (Sadly, commercial effectiveness seems to be completely ignored even after the initial development of the tech.) From gsantostasi at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 16:48:11 2011 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:48:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? (Max More) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We need to do more to let people know about cryonics, well, not what they think they know about cryonics but what it is really about. In particular many people that would be even open to the idea think that only ultra rich people could pay for it. They don't realize that can be financed by affordable insurance. What can be done at the grass level to let other open-minded, future thinking people know about all this? Giovanni On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Max More wrote: > > snip > > > > Gaining new members is high on my priority list, starting in the very > near > > future. I'm already working on that in some ways, but can really go on > the > > offensive in a few months. > > I will be *extremely* disappointed if Alcor does not have a presence > at the Singularity Summit October 15-16 in New York. > > It's not like it would cost Alcor anything beyond a sign and a few > pamphlets. I am sure Ray would give Alcor a table and a few chairs in > the lobby and the table could be staffed in rotation by Alcor members > attending the conference anyway. Sign on the table, "Discuss Cryonics > Signup Here." Virtually everyone at that conference is a potential > Alcor member (except for the 20 or so who are *already* members). > > The WorldCon next year is in Chicago, August 30-September 3, 2012. It > not as concentrated with potential members as the Singularity Summit, > but it's larger. Lean on Gregory Benford to help, even get him to > hold a room party. Get a non-dealer table. Consider doing it > jointly with CI. > > Again, it need not cost much at all. I think there were at least 20 > people signed up for cryonics at the last one, though a lot of them > were with CI. > > Consider the ISDC conference Memorial Day Weekend, May 24-28, 2012 in > Washington, D.C. I will help there if you ask. > > And don't forget Space Access mid April 2012 in Phoenix. Alcor > typically has at least half a dozen members there. Offer group tours > of the facility. > > And ask the members for ideas and help. You *can't* do the job by > yourself! > > Keith Henson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Sep 1 17:18:28 2011 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:18:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: <14e6a8b320680baa1ccef447cc3f1f66.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> They're working on it for medical purposes as well. | Simple Way to Grow Muscle Tissue With Real Muscle Structure | | ScienceDaily (Aug. 26, 2011) ? Researchers at Eindhoven University | of Technology (TU/e) have found a simple way to grow muscle tissue | with real muscle structure in the laboratory. They found that the | muscle cells automatically align themselves if they are subjected | to tension in one direction -- this is essential for the ability of | the muscle cells to exert a force. The endothelial (blood vessel) | cells in the culture also automatically grouped themselves to form | new blood vessels. This finding is a step forward towards the | engineering of thicker muscle tissue that can for example be | implanted in restoration operations. | | The results were published in the scientific journal Tissue Engineering | Part A. | (snip) Regards, MB From sparge at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 17:32:49 2011 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:32:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Do it at scale and you'll first get some of the vegans and > vegetarians... make it cheap and you'll get the poor... make it good > and you'll get everyone! But that's the last step! > Where's the make it nutritious step? Just because it's "meat" doesn't mean it has all the macronutrients, micronutrients, and characteristics that make meat good to eat. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 17:44:14 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:44:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/1 Dave Sill : > Where's the make it nutritious step? Just because it's "meat" doesn't mean > it has all the macronutrients, micronutrients, and characteristics that make > meat good to eat. Even if it's junk food, there would still be a large market for it. And, being a synthetic food, nutrients could be added without too much expense. Not that there's nothing to be concerned about here. Being bloodless, it would probably "naturally" have a lower iron content, for example. But the article noted they're working on adding blood. From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 17:49:20 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:49:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? (Max More) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101cc68cf$7a958500$6fc08f00$@att.net> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Max More wrote: >> ...Gaining new members is high on my priority list, starting in the very near future. >... And ask the members for ideas and help. You *can't* do the job by yourself! Keith Henson Well said, ja. There are many of us who would volunteer to help Alcor at local events, even some of us who are not yet personally signed up. We know that head freezing is not a high bucks line of business, and that Alcor needs to watch its pennies. We get that. We encourage that. Thrift is good. We wouldn't sign up for any cryopreservation company if we saw useless extravagance. We want to help. It wouldn't even cost much for Alcor or a volunteer to put together a training powerpoint file, to help volunteers to do the basics, dress nicely, act sanely, put a good face on what is really a difficult thing in every circumstance: dealing with death and dying. On this last point, do let me assure you as one who is dealing rapidly declining health in (if we include in-laws and steps) all six parents. So far I have been unsuccessful in selling the cryonics notion in all cases. I am 0 for 6 so far, even if we ignore grandparents, none of whom would have anything to do with cryonics. We have smart, socially redeemable volunteers right here. Use us! spike From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 1 18:49:23 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:49:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? (Max More) In-Reply-To: <002101cc68cf$7a958500$6fc08f00$@att.net> References: <002101cc68cf$7a958500$6fc08f00$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110901144923.cvqbph67sw4wko0o@webmail.natasha.cc> Hint: make cryonics sexier (alternatively, make it a bit green:? "sustainable selves"; "Recycle your identity! Don't let your biocells pollute the earth") Quoting spike : > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:40 AM,? Max More wrote: > >>> ...Gaining new members is high on my priority list, starting in the very > near future. > > > >> ... And ask the members for ideas and help.? You *can't* do the job by > yourself! > > Keith Henson > > > > Well said, ja.? There are many of us who would volunteer to help Alcor at > local events, even some of us who are not yet personally signed up.? We know > that head freezing is not a high bucks line of business, and that Alcor > needs to watch its pennies.? We get that.? We encourage that.? Thrift is > good.? We wouldn't sign up for any cryopreservation company if we saw > useless extravagance.? We want to help.? It wouldn't even cost much for > Alcor or a volunteer to put together a training powerpoint file, to help > volunteers to do the basics, dress nicely, act sanely, put a good face on > what is really a difficult thing in every circumstance: dealing with death > and dying. > > On this last point, do let me assure you as one who is dealing rapidly > declining health in (if we include in-laws and steps) all six parents.? So > far I have been unsuccessful in selling the cryonics notion in all cases.? I > am 0 for 6 so far, even if we ignore grandparents, none of whom would have > anything to do with cryonics. > > We have smart, socially redeemable volunteers right here.? Use us! > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat[1] > Links: ------ [1] http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 20:16:57 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:16:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Old Blood Impairs Young Brains (and vice versa?) Message-ID: Old Blood Impairs Young Brains http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/38464/?nlid=nldly&nld=2011-09-01 Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 20:24:54 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:24:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: <005a01cc68e5$369dea20$a3d9be60$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >...Hear, hear. I've sent an email to the prof in charge of the process asking if he's run the numbers to see what the current $/kg is. That can be a numerical measure of how close to reality/close to market this tech is. By comparison, meat currently retails for about $5-10/kg (more for choice cuts, but we're competing with the low quality meats here)... The part I am watching is how much of that 5-10 bucks per kg is processing cost. You need proles to round up the cattle, slay the bastards, carve them up into serving size portions, wrap them in paper and so forth. But if we can figure out a way to short circuit some of that, where we connect a cow or swine to some kind of machine which can somehow extract stem cells from the bloodstream, then dump the rest back into the cow, then scatter the stem cells on some kind of matrix submerged in sugar water, then perhaps we could grow the meat in the desired shape, and from that, perhaps we could get a machine to wrap it and hand out the finished packages. We might need few or perhaps no proles in the loop. We have a conveyor or something to bring food and water to the bovine, another to haul away the remains, the beast pumps stem cells in the blood to the meat factory. I am not a vegetarian myself. My wife is, my son is, I am a light meat eater, but I am all for minimizing suffering of beasts. That to me is a goal worthy of eating something less than what I might choose, and perhaps even paying more for it. I am cheering wildly for these guys. spike From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 20:52:00 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:52:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: <005a01cc68e5$369dea20$a3d9be60$@att.net> References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> <005a01cc68e5$369dea20$a3d9be60$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:24 PM, spike wrote: > The part I am watching is how much of that 5-10 bucks per kg is processing > cost. > I am all for minimizing suffering of beasts. ?That to me is a > goal worthy of eating something less than what I might choose, and perhaps > even paying more for it. Just a thought, but: does suffering often translate into extra costs, that - if suffering itself is not part of the end product or service being produced - can, in theory, be done away with to obtain the same result more cheaply? And does this apply broadly, to most production processes that involve enough suffering that it gets noticed? If so, this seems akin to businesses discovering that "going green" can simply mean "doing more with less", such as not bothering to purchase material that would wind up as scrap (and be tossed in a junkyard instead of being sold to a customer). From sparge at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 20:53:51 2011 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:53:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: <005a01cc68e5$369dea20$a3d9be60$@att.net> References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> <005a01cc68e5$369dea20$a3d9be60$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM, spike wrote: > We have a conveyor or something to bring > food and water to the bovine, another to haul away the remains, the beast > pumps stem cells in the blood to the meat factory. > Sounds like an easy life. Not. Ask dialysis patients how much they like it. > I am not a vegetarian myself. My wife is, my son is, I am a light meat > eater, but I am all for minimizing suffering of beasts. That to me is a > goal worthy of eating something less than what I might choose, and perhaps > even paying more for it. I am cheering wildly for these guys. > I'm an unapologetic omnivore but I'm sensitive to animal suffering. Properly raised livestock have a pretty good life: all of their needs are taken care of and they're protected from disease and predators. Their deaths can and should be quick and painless, and they owe their very existence to their production of food for humans. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 22:01:57 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:01:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> <005a01cc68e5$369dea20$a3d9be60$@att.net> Message-ID: <00ae01cc68f2$c4ead380$4ec07a80$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill Subject: Re: [ExI] deathless meat On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM, spike wrote: >>.We have a conveyor or something to bring food and water to the bovine, another to haul away the remains, the beast pumps stem cells in the blood to the meat factory. spike >.Sounds like an easy life. Not. Ask dialysis patients how much they like it. -Dave Perhaps we could get the whole thing miniaturized into a backpack carried about by the critter in his normal bovinal activities. Or better still, a subcutaneous device, implanted within the beast, so that he could wander about and devour grass while producing the stem cells, which are then removed weekly for instance. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 22:31:55 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 18:31:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I hope that is a joke. ?It seems to border on hyper-sensitive to me. [snip] > Yes, some of the world is indeed that anal. ?Why does that mean we should be? I'm not suggesting that I was disturbed by those words. There have been other threads about Alcor advising careful word choice (or discussion topics) because the archives are public, indexed & discoverable by those outside "our group." I also wouldn't want to make a big deal about it either. In the vein of the Max More Turing test, I would not have expected real Max to use that colloquialism. Maybe I should be less sensitive to writing style. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 00:30:58 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:30:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class In-Reply-To: <20110831085731.GD16334@leitl.org> References: <20110830160024.GL16334@leitl.org> <20110831085731.GD16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 04:47:30PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >> Gene et al, >> >> It's my impression that the whole "destructive scan" meme is an >> artifact of the microtome-sliced sample-preparation method of electron >> microscopy. ?I can't imagine that this anti-diluvian > > Not just electron microscopy, there's no way to nondestructively > image a ~l sized chunk of glass. Fundamental physical limits > do not care about the technology vogue. Assuming that the "~l sized chunk of glass" above means "approximately liter sized chunk of glass", and refers to an "approximately liter sized chunk of vitrified (the "glass" in question) flesh (in particular, brain flesh), I respond with either, "Huh? So what?" or "C'mon, acknowledge the given parameters." This assertion fails the test of relevance on two points: First, the fact that "there's no way", really is just a case of there's no way ***NOW***, which in discussions of future tech -- even near future tech -- is ALWAYS the case, ...and trivial. Second, what's with the "liter sized" business? Too big to scan as a single unit? Won't be scanned as a single unit, and doesn't need to be. The flesh in question is comprehensively interpenetrated by a capillary system which reduces the bulk size of any scanning target to cubic micro- or nanometers, with scanning bots surrounding the subject scanning volume from all angles. In this situation, with multi-spectral transmission microscopy there should be no limit (sub-atomic if you want to get fussy) to the resolution or data completeness/redundancy. And regarding the gratuitous "fundamental physical limits", true enough, but then how often have we heard that what was yesterday considered impossible because of such "limits" is today found to be "doable" through some unanticipated "new" physics or artful workaround? >> Please explain why it would be infeasible to clear the lumen of the >> circulatory system of the vitrified patient, replace it with LN2, and > > Clear = removing material. So it is fundamentally destructive, If you were a hack lawyer, I might say "good work". By the standards of good-faith discussion, however, it stinks. There's nothing the least bit destructive about clearing the circulatory lumen of solidified cryoprotectant. > though one might quibble > it doesn't remove relevant structural information. The crux of the matter is hardly a "quibble". What's with you, Gene? You're waaaaay better than this. Just admit that you were wrong and that intra-luminal, trans-luminal non-destructive scan, with the subject remaining at vitrification temp, is a straightforward, trivial solution to the scanning requirement. > You're in the lumen of a cleared vessel, with some 100 um vitrified > tissue between you and the other one. Which methods will you be > using to nondestructively scan these 100 um deep volume with > required 1 nm or better resolution, without degrading intermediate layers? Choose your method. Extracellular (the bots remain in the circulatory lumen) Acoustic, Electromagnetic, or any other interactive transmission below destructive energy levels; or perhaps the bots exit the lumen, clear more intracellular cryoprotectant to provide intracellular pathways, and scans with contact microscopy (STM). Even without contact microscopy I don't see resolution as a problem. Recent advances have shown that wavelength-limited resolution is not operative at close range. > How long are you going to take? Can't really say. The scanning process will be limited by the rate at which the evolved heat can be dissipated. The heat generated by the scanning process must be dissipated so as to prevent premature rewarming, but it seems to me that the liquid nitrogen environment and the circulatory system provide an effective waste heat transport system. > And why are you doing such ineffective Sez you. > contortions if all you > have to do is slice up the volume into sufficiently small > sections, and use known methods like interative ablation of > surface imaging, which allows you to speedly image at up to > atomic resolution *without* degrading underlying layers? Clearly, I am dealing with this in a cryonics patient context. (If one were dealing with a living patient, who wanted to be uploaded but didn't want the biological self to be killed in the process, then the nanobots would be injected, conduct their information-gathering -- ie scan -- in the background, and then exit the subject silently, seamlessly.) As a cryonics patient living in a pre-upload society, where uploading is not yet a fact, but the concept is established, with implementation considered possible, even likely, I have to anticipate the upload option and provide instructions to those caring for me in stasis, as to under what circumstances I might wish to be uploaded. Currently, those instructions are: "Upload me when feasible, but the biological self must not be damaged(ie no destructive scan). > You could do dental work via anal access in principle, but > you'll probably agree it is more difficult that way. If one doesn't have one's head up one's ass. ;-} > >> from the inside, "infiltrating the brain" as Keith describes. > > Because latter assumes a living system, > instrumented with a > rather large volume of nanoagents, which will cause volume > inflation and need to be done slowly so the biology can deal > with it. By latter, do you mean Keith, or "Infiltrating the brain". In any case, you have some assumptions here -- "large volume" and "slowly" -- which may or may not be too large or too slow. In any event, without more detail, I can neither agree nor disagree. That said, I'm working the cryopatient upload/revivification issue. > > Once you're vitrified, you do not want to go above devitrification > temperature, as it would introduce the damage you worked so hard > to avoid, Trivial. Adjust the stasis temp to accommodate waste heat removal rate. Melting point of LN2 is 63.15 deg K. That gives you 14 degrees K to work with. > and you're dealing with a brittle glass object. > You can > of course introduce a fractal heat exchange infrastructure and > flash-devitrify it, but then you've made your job much harder, > as you will have to remove cryoprotectants *and* keep the > tissue from unraveling as it no longer has homeostasis working > for you. In other words, as soon as you no longer process the > tissue at cryogenic temperatures you a) introduce irreversible > information destruction *without any need* b) make time critically > relevant, again *without any need*. This comment suggests that, perhaps due to some disconnect, we're not working the same problem. All my proposed scanning would be done with the patient fully and continuously vitrified. > > This is obviously stupid, and this will not be done as long > as there are other, much easier ways. See the anal dental. > >> Then Gene, you make the comment below: >> >> " ...there isn't any medical nantechnology, nor will there be any for >> anyone reading this message right now." >> >> We don't have the nanotech at the moment. ?Well duh, but more to the > > This means your only option is vitrification, or maybe fixation and > embedding. As in cryo-suspended. > >> point, so what? ?Scanning-for-upload will be the "back end" of the >> freeze-wait-reanimate process, so the fact that we don't have the >> reanimation tech -- scanning included -- right now is both well >> established(in our circles) and trivially irrelevant. ?Anyone "reading > > If it was trivially irrelevant I wouldn't have to write these > missives every year, or so. Not that these do any good. Or, if you accepted that it is in fact trivially irrelevant, then you could discard these missives and get on with pursuits more constructive than serial nay-saying. But I still think you're a stalwart fellow. >> this message right now", if vitrified (cryonically preserved) will >> be,...well... preserved. ?They will remain essentially unchanged, >> essentially indefinitely, and consequently, will be there waiting when >> the tech arrives. > > Anyone who hears uploading implies she will be suspended while alive > by magical nano, using incremental in vivo scanning/substitution. Suspended by magical nano? What does that mean? Why not suspension by conventional vitrification. And how -- or perhaps "why" -- should "in vivo scanning/substitution" be a part of the suspension process? "Un-suspended" with nano -- magical(Clarkian) or otherwise -- I could understand, but suspension? > > This ain't going to happen. Unless you've bought into the Singularity > cult, world without end, amen. At which point you've become a part > of the problem. Notions of a "singularity" -- and uploading -- are thoroughly entertaining and entirely speculative. I wait with pleasant anticipation for the next "episode". >> But I don't have to explain this to you, Gene. ?You're fully versed in >> this business -- theory and practice -- having worked with 21st >> Century Medicine maybe a decade ago helping to develop ice-blockers >> for the vitrification process. ?Correct me if I'm wrong. >> >> So I'm befuddled. ?(Scratches head in befuddlement.) ?Why are you, >> overqualified as you are in this business, making negative, >> misleading, and coyly irrelevant comments? ?Still pissy about the > > If you have technical arguments why you think above does not apply, > I'll be very happy to hear them. > >> knuckle-dragging atavism and luddite obstructionism of your fellow >> humans? ?Can't help you there. ?Well,...actually... > > Don't hint at it, spill the beans! Offlist and privately, only. I've hinted at this several times on the list, to see if anyone would notice. No one has shown any interest. I know how to make the future you so fiercely crave, emerge at a rapidly accelerated pace, and I'm willing to tell you about it, with a strict promise of confidentiality. It's been my experience however, that people generally dismiss ideas that aren't their own. And of course, I'm a crackpot. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Ray Charles >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 06:16:57AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:45 PM, ?Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> >> >> snip >> >> >> >> > ?If the uploading process is destructive and one-way, >> >> >> >> Can you think of any reason uploading would need to be destructive and one-way? >> > >> > Anyone reading this will only be uploaded as a nice chunk of >> > vitrified tissue >> >> >> > which will be presectioned and destructively >> > scanned in a massively parallel fashion, abstracting nonrelevant >> > data along the way. It is destructive, but not necessarily >> > one-way, though it is effectively one-way as nobody will bother >> > fabricating slow and expensive meat puppets. >> > >> >> I know Hans Moravec proposed that decades ago and it became a >> >> pervasive meme, but it's an awful concept and a serious marketing >> >> burden for transhumanism. >> > >> > Doesn't affect cryonics, as this side of suspension process is >> > resurrection-agnostic. >> > >> >> I have reasons to think it would be a lot harder than infiltrating the >> >> brain with nanotech monitoring posts and learning how to emulate it. >> > >> > It would be a lot harder since there isn't any medical nantechnology, >> > nor will there be any for anyone reading this message right now. >> > >> > -- >> > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org >> > ______________________________________________________________ >> > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org >> > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A ?7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >> > _______________________________________________ >> > extropy-chat mailing list >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A ?7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From glivick at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 2 02:12:31 2011 From: glivick at sbcglobal.net (G. Livick) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 19:12:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E603B8F.2040509@sbcglobal.net> I've wondered what it would be like, how it would impact a person psychologically, to be a thinking entity without a physical body. What would we do all day? Email people? FutureMan On 9/1/2011 9:30 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> What Eugen said: there are good odds that the first upload will be >> created from a cryonics patient. > This makes a lot of sense to me, though I haven't thought about this > idea prior to today. A live brain has an interest in preserving it's > life, while a frozen one does not have this interest actively (though > admittedly latently). To upload a whole living brain you would kind of > have to keep it working through the process to give the patient the > idea that it was a continuous process. Going to sleep and waking up > uploaded seems a little disconcerting, how do I know I'm still me? > > A more gradual transformation while in a waking state doesn't seem > nearly so frightening psychologically. That's more advanced technology > than the destructive scanning of a frozen brain tied to the building > of a machine that isn't yet turned on. So yes, I think I do believe > the first upload will be from a cryonics patient. > > Does anyone else have clear reasons why they think this might be so? > Is there a financial incentive to resurrect people into an uploaded > state? I assume that this would be allowed under cryonic contracts, > right? > > This is fascinating. I haven't been a big fan of cryonics to this > point, for myself anyway, but this almost persuades me that there > might be something to this approach. > > -Kelly > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 2 03:06:45 2011 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:06:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E604845.8040500@mac.com> On 09/01/2011 02:40 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 31 August 2011 18:55, Adrian Tymes > wrote: > > > If anyone cares about marketing transhumanism in the present, we > > should quit talking about destructive uploading. It is a really > > distasteful and (to my way of thinking) stupid way to upload when > > there are conceivable options that provide a path to reversible > > uploading as slick as boiling a frog. > > Which options would those be? > > > i) Coming from "wet" transhumanism, I developed a keen interest on its > "hard" side when I joined the actual movement, but basically in the > nano-bio-info-cogno equation the bio variable is going to remain very > central for a very long time, IHMO. Personally I want to replace biological components of my body with non-biological alternatives as fast as good alternatives exist and I can legally (or successful black market) and financially do so. > > ii) Also in the way of autocriticism, we may have been insisting a > little too much on life-extensionism and survival - something which is > perhaps wrongly perceived as the most popular and less threatening > part of our discourse - and a little too little on human enhancement, > which seems after all to mobilise at least an equal interest. > I agree with that. And cyborgization is a very very big deal. Our phones for instance are effectively enhancements. Note that the authorities claim the right to effectively lobotomize us or perform mind rape as they prohibit these enhanchements from being used in various places or ways or turn off the service if inconvenient to them or to pacify us. And they take the devices from us and use them to witness against us without any such niceties as probable cause or search warrants. The battle lines are being drawn and they are very important. > Sure, "uploads" would serve in principle both purposes, but for the > latter a fyborg - which is by far the lower hanging fruit - would work > equally well. > Not to be confused with feyborgs. :) - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 04:24:48 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 22:24:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] spike turing test, was RE: ai class at stanford In-Reply-To: <003a01cc6778$9587c060$c0974120$@att.net> References: <002301cc6739$9a27acf0$ce7706d0$@att.net> <003a01cc6778$9587c060$c0974120$@att.net> Message-ID: So here's a question.... which would be easier to program? The generic Turing test "I'm pretending to be SOME generic human, and you can't tell the difference" or the person specific test "I'm Paris Hilton, and you can't tell that I'm not". The generic human SEEMS easier because it doesn't have to have the grammatical idiosyncrasies of an individual, but also putting together specific facts from an individual's life might be easier... And if you picked Paris Hilton, that would certainly be easier than picking, say, Bill Clinton. It's funny, because Ray K predicts that a synthesized video head will pass the touring test faster than a chat bot, because we are so much more inclined to believe our eyes if the video is photo-realistic. I thought that was an intriguing possibility when I read it in TSIN (I think it was TSIN). -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 04:15:32 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 22:15:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: <005a01cc68e5$369dea20$a3d9be60$@att.net> References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> <005a01cc68e5$369dea20$a3d9be60$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:24 PM, spike wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > ... > >>...Hear, hear. ?I've sent an email to the prof in charge of the process > asking if he's run the numbers to see what the current $/kg is. ?That can be > a numerical measure of how close to reality/close to market this tech is. > By comparison, meat currently retails for about $5-10/kg (more for choice > cuts, but we're competing with the low quality meats here)... > > The part I am watching is how much of that 5-10 bucks per kg is processing > cost. ?You need proles to round up the cattle, slay the bastards, carve them > up into serving size portions, wrap them in paper and so forth. ?But if we > can figure out a way to short circuit some of that, where we connect a cow > or swine to some kind of machine which can somehow extract stem cells from > the bloodstream, then dump the rest back into the cow, then scatter the stem > cells on some kind of matrix submerged in sugar water, then perhaps we could > grow the meat in the desired shape, and from that, perhaps we could get a > machine to wrap it and hand out the finished packages. ?We might need few or > perhaps no proles in the loop. ?We have a conveyor or something to bring > food and water to the bovine, another to haul away the remains, the beast > pumps stem cells in the blood to the meat factory. > > I am not a vegetarian myself. ?My wife is, my son is, I am a light meat > eater, but I am all for minimizing suffering of beasts. ?That to me is a > goal worthy of eating something less than what I might choose, and perhaps > even paying more for it. ?I am cheering wildly for these guys. Good points Spike. I predict that one of the first places you might see this kind of thing mass marketed is mixed in with hamburger for the fast food giants... Of course, it will have to be cheaper than real hamburger before that will happen, so obviously there has to be the non-mass use first. So the very first place you'll probably see this marketed is in health food stores, whether it is actually healthy or not. Vegans and vegetarians are a large part of that market. -Kelly From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 2 04:45:54 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 21:45:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] spike turing test, was RE: ai class at stanford In-Reply-To: References: <002301cc6739$9a27acf0$ce7706d0$@att.net> <003a01cc6778$9587c060$c0974120$@att.net> Message-ID: <008301cc692b$34058930$9c109b90$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson Subject: Re: [ExI] spike turing test, was RE: ai class at stanford >...So here's a question.... which would be easier to program? The generic Turing test "I'm pretending to be SOME generic human, and you can't tell the difference" or the person specific test "I'm Paris Hilton, and you can't tell that I'm not"... -Kelly To further cloud an already broad and difficult question, there is a WW2 fighter game I only played a couple times, with another guy who is an excellent fighter pilot gamer. The mission is to guard a formation of B52s with a squadron of fighter planes, when suddenly you are jumped by a squadron of Nazi 109s. A wild air battle ensues, but the part I find interesting is that you can play single human or multiple humans, as participants along with software allies. You can review the battle afterwards and watch from any plane's point of view, including enemy planes. It is impossible to tell the difference between the human pilots and those commanded by the computer. You can't tell from their battle strategy or their tactics or their flying skill. I suppose the computer guided planes use lookup tables derived from how humans have played during the development phase, but the point is that with a sufficiently large lookup table, a computer is indistinguishable from a human in certain settings. Perhaps much of the time we function as enormous lookup tables. On typical internet chat groups, perhaps the carbon based lookup tables aren't even very sophisticated. That game setting is a form of the Turing test perhaps, and the computer passes. spike From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 04:11:30 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 22:11:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/1 Dave Sill : > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Kelly Anderson > wrote: >> >> Do it at scale and you'll first get some of the vegans and >> vegetarians... make it cheap and you'll get the poor... make it good >> and you'll get everyone! But that's the last step! > > Where's the make it nutritious step? Just because it's "meat" doesn't mean > it has all the macronutrients, micronutrients, and characteristics that make > meat good to eat. While I'm sure this will be important to some, it will not have ANY effect on the leading edgers... they're eating tofu now, and tofu certainly doesn't have these characteristics. It will also not affect the poor, who in America anyway, are dining on McDonalds and Burger King hamburgers a lot of the time anyway. While I don't discount the importance of what you're saying, to the marketplace, nutrition has little relevance. Just ask Mrs. Obama, that's her pet project. -Kelly From bbenzai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 08:30:46 2011 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 01:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1314952246.64632.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > spike wrote: > > >>.We have a conveyor or something to bring food and > water to the bovine, > another to haul away the remains, the beast > pumps stem cells in the blood to the meat factory. spike > I think there's a misconception about the technology here. A steady supply of stem cells is not needed. Stem cells are used to derive the muscle (and other) cells that form the meat. You just need to extract a sample of stem cells, culture them (and I believe we can keep a culture going indefinitely, or should be able to soon. After all, Henrietta Lacks is immortal, in a sense), and take a proportion into meat production. Theoretically, only one batch of stem cells from an animal would provide all the meat of that particular type you'd need, forever. In practice, it may require periodic refreshes of stem cells, but nothing like a continuous supply from any one animal. Ben Zaiboc From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 09:48:47 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:48:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> Message-ID: <20110902094847.GS16334@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 06:31:55PM -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I hope that is a joke. ?It seems to border on hyper-sensitive to me. > [snip] > > Yes, some of the world is indeed that anal. ?Why does that mean we should be? > > I'm not suggesting that I was disturbed by those words. There have > been other threads about Alcor advising careful word choice (or > discussion topics) because the archives are public, indexed & > discoverable by those outside "our group." I typically abstain from critizing organisations, but it's pretty obvious that Alcor, which I used to recommend, is no longer worth the membership money. I really hoped that Max (whom I personally respect and consider a friend) would be the white knight in shining armor to slay the dysfunctionality dragon but it apparently won't be on his watch. Arguably, Alcor is sufficiently dysfunctional that it can't be salvaged from within, and we'll have an alternative organisation eventually ready to take its place (unlikely, but in theory possible). You don't have to agree; just take this as my assessment at this point. And, no, I will not descend into specifics in public. Should Max or his successors manage the wondrous deed I will revise it, of course. > I also wouldn't want to make a big deal about it either. In the vein > of the Max More Turing test, I would not have expected real Max to use > that colloquialism. Maybe I should be less sensitive to writing > style. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 11:07:02 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 12:07:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: <20110902094847.GS16334@leitl.org> References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> <20110902094847.GS16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > You don't have to agree; just take this as my assessment at this point. > And, no, I will not descend into specifics in public. > > Should Max or his successors manage the wondrous deed I will revise it, > of course. > Of course that is a fundamental problem when you are considering investing in a time-travel to the future company. Not many small companies (or even large companies) are still in existence 50 years later, never mind hundreds of years. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 11:59:02 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:59:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class In-Reply-To: References: <20110830160024.GL16334@leitl.org> <20110831085731.GD16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20110902115902.GT16334@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 05:30:58PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 04:47:30PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > >> Gene et al, > >> > >> It's my impression that the whole "destructive scan" meme is an > >> artifact of the microtome-sliced sample-preparation method of electron > >> microscopy. ?I can't imagine that this anti-diluvian > > > > Not just electron microscopy, there's no way to nondestructively > > image a ~l sized chunk of glass. Fundamental physical limits > > do not care about the technology vogue. > > Assuming that the "~l sized chunk of glass" above means "approximately > liter sized chunk of glass", and refers to an "approximately liter > sized chunk of vitrified (the "glass" in question) flesh (in You assume correctly. > particular, brain flesh), I respond with either, "Huh? So what?" or I've had this conversation multiple times around 1995. > "C'mon, acknowledge the given parameters." This assertion fails the > test of relevance on two points: First, the fact that "there's no > way", really is just a case of there's no way ***NOW***, which in > discussions of future tech -- even near future tech -- is ALWAYS the Do you know why the information-theoretic death is being called that? > case, ...and trivial. Second, what's with the "liter sized" business? > Too big to scan as a single unit? Won't be scanned as a single unit, Yes, it won't be scanned as a single unit, precisely. > and doesn't need to be. The flesh in question is comprehensively > interpenetrated by a capillary system which reduces the bulk size of > any scanning target to cubic micro- or nanometers, with scanning bots The nanoagents in question are some um^3, and your numbers are unfortunately wrong. Rather think 100 um^3, and remember that the feature size is at least 1 nm, and in some case you could need sampling down to e.g. degree of phosphorylation of a biomolecule. > surrounding the subject scanning volume from all angles. In this Scanning using which wavelenghts or forms of radiation? Using which sources, resulting in which damage, requiring which signal acqusition times? Instead of armwaving, do read up on the basic science, and then come back with actual calculations. > situation, with multi-spectral transmission microscopy there should be > no limit (sub-atomic if you want to get fussy) to the resolution or > data completeness/redundancy. BULLSHIT. > And regarding the gratuitous "fundamental physical limits", true > enough, but then how often have we heard that what was yesterday > considered impossible because of such "limits" is today found to be > "doable" through some unanticipated "new" physics or artful > workaround? Fair enough, I pegged you for a religious person. I'm sorry I'll have to bow out of a faith-based discussion. Life's too short as is. > > > >> Please explain why it would be infeasible to clear the lumen of the > >> circulatory system of the vitrified patient, replace it with LN2, and > > > > Clear = removing material. So it is fundamentally destructive, > > If you were a hack lawyer, I might say "good work". By the standards > of good-faith discussion, however, it stinks. There's nothing the > least bit destructive about clearing the circulatory lumen of > solidified cryoprotectant. You're trying to weasel yourself out by redefining destructive. Removing material from your brain *is* destructive, my friend. Using ionising radition resulting in cumulative structure degradation *is* destructive, my friend. You're trying to sell me an a dental job via anal access. > > though one might quibble > > it doesn't remove relevant structural information. > > The crux of the matter is hardly a "quibble". What's with you, Gene? > You're waaaaay better than this. Just admit that you were wrong and > that intra-luminal, trans-luminal non-destructive scan, with the No such thing. Read up on the basic physics, and do the math. > subject remaining at vitrification temp, is a straightforward, trivial > solution to the scanning requirement. Doesn't exist. > > > > You're in the lumen of a cleared vessel, with some 100 um vitrified > > tissue between you and the other one. Which methods will you be > > using to nondestructively scan these 100 um deep volume with > > required 1 nm or better resolution, without degrading intermediate layers? > > Choose your method. Extracellular (the bots remain in the circulatory WHICH method? > lumen) Acoustic, Electromagnetic, or any other interactive > transmission below destructive energy levels; or perhaps the bots You have really no fucking idea what you're talking about, and it shows. > exit the lumen, clear more intracellular cryoprotectant to provide Which part of 'it's bulk vitrified tissue' you don't understand? Which way are you going to image your cubic microns worth of stuff without removing the stuff between what's between you and what you're trying to image? Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth? > intracellular pathways, and scans with contact microscopy (STM). Exactly, iterative ablation and proximal-probe. There is really no other way, and if you don't like that for cosmetic reasons you can stuff it. > Even without contact microscopy I don't see resolution as a problem. Show me the numbers. Signal acquisition times of years, not gigayears. What is the wavelenght of your radition, and what it the accumulated dosis. Numbers, or STFU. > Recent advances have shown that wavelength-limited resolution is not > operative at close range. > > > How long are you going to take? > > Can't really say. The scanning process will be limited by the rate at > which the evolved heat can be dissipated. The heat generated by the Haha, right. > scanning process must be dissipated so as to prevent premature > rewarming, but it seems to me that the liquid nitrogen environment and > the circulatory system provide an effective waste heat transport > system. > > > And why are you doing such ineffective > > Sez you. > > > contortions if all you > > have to do is slice up the volume into sufficiently small > > sections, and use known methods like interative ablation of > > surface imaging, which allows you to speedly image at up to > > atomic resolution *without* degrading underlying layers? > > Clearly, I am dealing with this in a cryonics patient context. (If Of course. > one were dealing with a living patient, who wanted to be uploaded but > didn't want the biological self to be killed in the process, then the > nanobots would be injected, conduct their information-gathering -- ie > scan -- in the background, and then exit the subject silently, > seamlessly.) As a cryonics patient living in a pre-upload society, You're again failing to do the math, and there's no exiting, because then you're diverging, unless you have shut down the biology and never intend to resume it. Which is, you get it, pointless. Once again to introduce a dose of reality into the cute polyannaland you inhabit, assume cubic micron agent and micron grid spacing for pickup. Whoops, that's a lot of volume, innit? Nevermind the infrastructure to power it and to cool it. Do you think you're ambulatory? Gundam suit ambulatory, maybe. > where uploading is not yet a fact, but the concept is established, As building numerical models doesn't require medical nanotechnolgoy there are no revived cryonics patients unless there are numercal animal models. In fact, it is far more likely that the only way how cryonics patients will be recondstructed is as numerical models. And be it because the old-fashion meat puppet humans no longer exist. > with implementation considered possible, even likely, I have to > anticipate the upload option and provide instructions to those caring > for me in stasis, as to under what circumstances I might wish to be > uploaded. Currently, those instructions are: "Upload me when > feasible, but the biological self must not be damaged(ie no > destructive scan). I suggest you reformulate that as destructive scan meaning *relevant information destruction*. Orelse, assuming your wishes are binding, you're delaying your resurrection, possibly indefinitely. > > You could do dental work via anal access in principle, but > > you'll probably agree it is more difficult that way. > > If one doesn't have one's head up one's ass. ;-} > > > >> from the inside, "infiltrating the brain" as Keith describes. > > > > Because latter assumes a living system, > > instrumented with a > > rather large volume of nanoagents, which will cause volume > > inflation and need to be done slowly so the biology can deal > > with it. > > By latter, do you mean Keith, or "Infiltrating the brain". In any The idea of in-vivo gradual uploading is old, and has been countlessly reinvented, so attaching particular names to it is pointless ego-stroking. > case, you have some assumptions here -- "large volume" and "slowly" -- > which may or may not be too large or too slow. In any event, without > more detail, I can neither agree nor disagree. That said, I'm working > the cryopatient upload/revivification issue. You should produce a written document I hope, which we can then tear apart (he cackled mainiacally, rubbing his hands). > > > > Once you're vitrified, you do not want to go above devitrification > > temperature, as it would introduce the damage you worked so hard > > to avoid, > > Trivial. Adjust the stasis temp to accommodate waste heat removal Of course it's trivial, I'm saying it that you have to work at -130 C or below (depends on Tg). > rate. Melting point of LN2 is 63.15 deg K. That gives you 14 degrees > K to work with. > > > > > and you're dealing with a brittle glass object. > > > > You can > > of course introduce a fractal heat exchange infrastructure and > > flash-devitrify it, but then you've made your job much harder, > > as you will have to remove cryoprotectants *and* keep the > > tissue from unraveling as it no longer has homeostasis working > > for you. In other words, as soon as you no longer process the > > tissue at cryogenic temperatures you a) introduce irreversible > > information destruction *without any need* b) make time critically > > relevant, again *without any need*. > > This comment suggests that, perhaps due to some disconnect, we're not > working the same problem. All my proposed scanning would be done with > the patient fully and continuously vitrified. Excellent. We can at least agree on something. > > > > This is obviously stupid, and this will not be done as long > > as there are other, much easier ways. See the anal dental. > > > >> Then Gene, you make the comment below: > >> > >> " ...there isn't any medical nantechnology, nor will there be any for > >> anyone reading this message right now." > >> > >> We don't have the nanotech at the moment. ?Well duh, but more to the > > > > This means your only option is vitrification, or maybe fixation and > > embedding. > > As in cryo-suspended. > > > > >> point, so what? ?Scanning-for-upload will be the "back end" of the > >> freeze-wait-reanimate process, so the fact that we don't have the > >> reanimation tech -- scanning included -- right now is both well > >> established(in our circles) and trivially irrelevant. ?Anyone "reading > > > > If it was trivially irrelevant I wouldn't have to write these > > missives every year, or so. Not that these do any good. > > Or, if you accepted that it is in fact trivially irrelevant, then you > could discard these missives and get on with pursuits more > constructive than serial nay-saying. But I still think you're a > stalwart fellow. > > >> this message right now", if vitrified (cryonically preserved) will > >> be,...well... preserved. ?They will remain essentially unchanged, > >> essentially indefinitely, and consequently, will be there waiting when > >> the tech arrives. > > > > Anyone who hears uploading implies she will be suspended while alive > > by magical nano, using incremental in vivo scanning/substitution. > > Suspended by magical nano? What does that mean? Why not suspension Walk-in-uploading-while-u-wait-and-drink-coffee. In maybe 30 years. Yes, people are really silly. > by conventional vitrification. And how -- or perhaps "why" -- > should "in vivo scanning/substitution" be a part of the suspension > process? "Un-suspended" with nano -- magical(Clarkian) or otherwise > -- I could understand, but suspension? Not suspended, uploaded. > > > > This ain't going to happen. Unless you've bought into the Singularity > > cult, world without end, amen. At which point you've become a part > > of the problem. > > Notions of a "singularity" -- and uploading -- are thoroughly > entertaining and entirely speculative. I wait with pleasant It's good that you don't expect the nice people/AI or the future, yet unborn to save our asses. Unfortunately it's us that has to save our asses, and we're so far failing spectacularly. > anticipation for the next "episode". > > >> But I don't have to explain this to you, Gene. ?You're fully versed in > >> this business -- theory and practice -- having worked with 21st > >> Century Medicine maybe a decade ago helping to develop ice-blockers > >> for the vitrification process. ?Correct me if I'm wrong. > >> > >> So I'm befuddled. ?(Scratches head in befuddlement.) ?Why are you, > >> overqualified as you are in this business, making negative, > >> misleading, and coyly irrelevant comments? ?Still pissy about the > > > > If you have technical arguments why you think above does not apply, > > I'll be very happy to hear them. > > > >> knuckle-dragging atavism and luddite obstructionism of your fellow > >> humans? ?Can't help you there. ?Well,...actually... > > > > Don't hint at it, spill the beans! > > Offlist and privately, only. I've hinted at this several times on Sure, I'll even sign the NDA. > the list, to see if anyone would notice. No one has shown any > interest. I know how to make the future you so fiercely crave, emerge > at a rapidly accelerated pace, and I'm willing to tell you about it, > with a strict promise of confidentiality. It's been my experience Granted. > however, that people generally dismiss ideas that aren't their own. > And of course, I'm a crackpot. Welcome to the club. It's part of the job description, here. > Best, Jeff Davis > > "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Ray Charles > > > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 06:16:57AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:45 PM, ?Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> >> > >> >> snip > >> >> > >> >> > ?If the uploading process is destructive and one-way, > >> >> > >> >> Can you think of any reason uploading would need to be destructive and one-way? > >> > > >> > Anyone reading this will only be uploaded as a nice chunk of > >> > vitrified tissue > >> > >> > >> > which will be presectioned and destructively > >> > scanned in a massively parallel fashion, abstracting nonrelevant > >> > data along the way. It is destructive, but not necessarily > >> > one-way, though it is effectively one-way as nobody will bother > >> > fabricating slow and expensive meat puppets. > >> > > >> >> I know Hans Moravec proposed that decades ago and it became a > >> >> pervasive meme, but it's an awful concept and a serious marketing > >> >> burden for transhumanism. > >> > > >> > Doesn't affect cryonics, as this side of suspension process is > >> > resurrection-agnostic. > >> > > >> >> I have reasons to think it would be a lot harder than infiltrating the > >> >> brain with nanotech monitoring posts and learning how to emulate it. > >> > > >> > It would be a lot harder since there isn't any medical nantechnology, > >> > nor will there be any for anyone reading this message right now. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > >> > ______________________________________________________________ > >> > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > >> > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A ?7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > extropy-chat mailing list > >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A ?7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 12:24:59 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:24:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> <20110902094847.GS16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20110902122459.GU16334@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 12:07:02PM +0100, BillK wrote: > Of course that is a fundamental problem when you are considering > investing in a time-travel to the future company. Not many small Long-term stability, while on the radar, isn't the core problem. Shitty patient care is. The problem isn't unknown of in health care, which has mechanisms to deal with it (usually harshly). Not such in the cryonics business, where dead men tell no tales. Naively, people think that fixing broken institutions is easy. Such people will be wrong. This problem is much harder in cryonics, for multiple reasons. Fixing Alcor might be well a superhuman job. > companies (or even large companies) are still in existence 50 years > later, never mind hundreds of years. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 12:26:22 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:26:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> References: <000901cc68c1$19db48c0$4d91da40$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/1 spike > ** ** > > Let?s hope they can work out this plan:**** > > ** ** > > > http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/09/01/slaughter-free-stem-cell-meat-sausage-coming-soon/?test=latestnews > **** > > ** ** > > The article goes off on a tangent about how the meat from stem cells > doesn?t taste good, but they ignore the enormous breakthrough it would be. > Probably, a neat marketing trick would be *not* to call it "meat" - the word creating not just expectations of a given taste, but sounding disgusting anyway to vegan and vegetarians (btw, out of sheer neoluddism and nutritional fanaticism most of them are in Italy "against" artificial meat irrespective of the "animal lives" it would save). I started eating things in the "framework" of Japanese cuisine that I would have had found disgusting had they been served in an allegedly Milanese meal (say, rice cooked too much, in too little water, without any salt, and served in bowl). -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 12:32:11 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:32:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class In-Reply-To: <4E603B8F.2040509@sbcglobal.net> References: <4E603B8F.2040509@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20110902123211.GX16334@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:12:31PM -0700, G. Livick wrote: > I've wondered what it would be like, how it would impact a person > psychologically, to be a thinking entity without a physical body. What Why no physical body? How do you expect to be able to sense and manipulate virtual and physical environments? (Moreover, while we monkeys have pretty flexible body images, there are limits). > would we do all day? Email people? You could definitely send a suspended image of a person over a data link. Just don't attach too many, or they'll bounce, and InterPlaNet roaming is crazy expensive. > FutureMan > > On 9/1/2011 9:30 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> What Eugen said: there are good odds that the first upload will be >>> created from a cryonics patient. >> This makes a lot of sense to me, though I haven't thought about this >> idea prior to today. A live brain has an interest in preserving it's >> life, while a frozen one does not have this interest actively (though >> admittedly latently). To upload a whole living brain you would kind of >> have to keep it working through the process to give the patient the >> idea that it was a continuous process. Going to sleep and waking up >> uploaded seems a little disconcerting, how do I know I'm still me? >> >> A more gradual transformation while in a waking state doesn't seem >> nearly so frightening psychologically. That's more advanced technology >> than the destructive scanning of a frozen brain tied to the building >> of a machine that isn't yet turned on. So yes, I think I do believe >> the first upload will be from a cryonics patient. >> >> Does anyone else have clear reasons why they think this might be so? >> Is there a financial incentive to resurrect people into an uploaded >> state? I assume that this would be allowed under cryonic contracts, >> right? >> >> This is fascinating. I haven't been a big fan of cryonics to this >> point, for myself anyway, but this almost persuades me that there >> might be something to this approach. >> >> -Kelly >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 12:42:39 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:42:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl) In-Reply-To: <4E604845.8040500@mac.com> References: <4E604845.8040500@mac.com> Message-ID: <20110902124239.GZ16334@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 08:06:45PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Personally I want to replace biological components of my body with > non-biological alternatives as fast as good alternatives exist and I can > legally (or successful black market) and financially do so. We all want that very much. But we're unfortunately not getting that wish fullfilled so far. > I agree with that. And cyborgization is a very very big deal. Our > phones for instance are effectively enhancements. Note that the Remember SL hipsters who insist their avatars are the true primary, and the meat secondary at home is expendable (witness them mirroring the private coronary at home by getting cyberslackjawed). Even as an art piece, that's remarkably silly. Technology is great, but in terms of degenerative disease it's every expensive and buys very little, especially towards end of life (where you rack up the most astronomic bills in ICU at frankly terrible quality of life even if doped up to the gills). > authorities claim the right to effectively lobotomize us or perform mind > rape as they prohibit these enhanchements from being used in various > places or ways or turn off the service if inconvenient to them or to Luckily, hardware is disposable these days. And it's not too expensive to build your own cloud castles, which take some quite advanced thieves to get in, if you get them built by the right people. > pacify us. And they take the devices from us and use them to witness > against us without any such niceties as probable cause or search > warrants. The battle lines are being drawn and they are very important. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 12:48:04 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:48:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl) In-Reply-To: <4E604845.8040500@mac.com> References: <4E604845.8040500@mac.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/2 Samantha Atkins > ** > Personally I want to replace biological components of my body with > non-biological alternatives as fast as good alternatives exist and I can > legally (or successful black market) and financially do so. > Personally I think that at the time the distinction between biological and "un-biological" will have blurred significantly. In fact, when somebody speaks of a "transfer to silicon", I use to point out that if current trends in the science of materials and computer engineering with their current concentration on carbon (see under biochips, nanotubes, etc.) are any indication of the future, we are more likely to be met by our machines in the opposite direction. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 12:56:17 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:56:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] spike turing test, was RE: ai class at stanford In-Reply-To: References: <002301cc6739$9a27acf0$ce7706d0$@att.net> <003a01cc6778$9587c060$c0974120$@att.net> Message-ID: On 2 September 2011 06:24, Kelly Anderson wrote: > So here's a question.... which would be easier to program? The generic > Turing test "I'm pretending to be SOME generic human, and you can't > tell the difference" or the person specific test "I'm Paris Hilton, > and you can't tell that I'm not". > I am going to publish an article in a few weeks in *Divenire* where I defend the somewhat unusual contention that we are going first to emulate specific individuals, and that any other kind of AGIs will be developed only later as efforts to put together patchworks of actual (or hypothetical) human traits. The arguments behind such assumption, albeit not very technical in nature, appear sound enough to me. First, you have native speakers of a given language, then you generalise and establish grammatical rules obeyed by an ideal speaker thereof. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Fri Sep 2 12:33:38 2011 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 05:33:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: <20110902094847.GS16334@leitl.org> References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> <20110902094847.GS16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugene: If you don't want to discuss this publically, fine, but let me know privately what you find dyfunctional. Since I've only been on the job for a few months and many positive changes have already been made and more are underway, I don't understand why you dismiss my ability to improve things. Perhaps you have been reading too much of Darwin's blog, which is replete with lies, distortions, exaggerations, and out of context statements, with a few truths mixed in. Other than that, I can't understand why you would make such a negative judgment. And, sheesh, what's wrong with talking of "going on the offensive" with boosting membership growth? --Max On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 06:31:55PM -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Samantha Atkins > wrote: > > > I hope that is a joke. It seems to border on hyper-sensitive to me. > > [snip] > > > Yes, some of the world is indeed that anal. Why does that mean we > should be? > > > > I'm not suggesting that I was disturbed by those words. There have > > been other threads about Alcor advising careful word choice (or > > discussion topics) because the archives are public, indexed & > > discoverable by those outside "our group." > > I typically abstain from critizing organisations, but it's pretty > obvious that Alcor, which I used to recommend, is no longer worth > the membership money. I really hoped that Max (whom I personally > respect and consider a friend) would be the white knight in > shining armor to slay the dysfunctionality dragon but it apparently > won't be on his watch. Arguably, Alcor is sufficiently dysfunctional > that it can't be salvaged from within, and we'll have an alternative > organisation eventually ready to take its place (unlikely, but in > theory possible). > > You don't have to agree; just take this as my assessment at this point. > And, no, I will not descend into specifics in public. > > Should Max or his successors manage the wondrous deed I will revise it, > of course. > > > I also wouldn't want to make a big deal about it either. In the vein > > of the Max More Turing test, I would not have expected real Max to use > > that colloquialism. Maybe I should be less sensitive to writing > > style. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Max More Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader* CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation 7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480/905-1906 ext 113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 13:21:00 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:21:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> <20110902094847.GS16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20110902132100.GC16334@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 05:33:38AM -0700, Max More wrote: > Eugene: If you don't want to discuss this publically, fine, but let me know > privately what you find dyfunctional. Since I've only been on the job for a Max, will be very happy to. As you're busy, and I'm travelling it will be not instanteous. > few months and many positive changes have already been made and more are > underway, I don't understand why you dismiss my ability to improve things. > Perhaps you have been reading too much of Darwin's blog, which is replete > with lies, distortions, exaggerations, and out of context statements, with a Mike is also a good friend of mine, so I'm naturally biased. However, it would be very easy to set the record straight by showing where he's incorrect. > few truths mixed in. Other than that, I can't understand why you would make > such a negative judgment. I was moderately hopeful that you'll be able to kick ass and take names at Alcor, and in fact I deliberately withheld any kind of comment until recently. However, what little has been made public so far worries me. But let's move that to private mail. > And, sheesh, what's wrong with talking of "going on the offensive" with > boosting membership growth? By itself, it's a great goal. > --Max > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 06:31:55PM -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Samantha Atkins > > wrote: > > > > I hope that is a joke. It seems to border on hyper-sensitive to me. > > > [snip] > > > > Yes, some of the world is indeed that anal. Why does that mean we > > should be? > > > > > > I'm not suggesting that I was disturbed by those words. There have > > > been other threads about Alcor advising careful word choice (or > > > discussion topics) because the archives are public, indexed & > > > discoverable by those outside "our group." > > > > I typically abstain from critizing organisations, but it's pretty > > obvious that Alcor, which I used to recommend, is no longer worth > > the membership money. I really hoped that Max (whom I personally > > respect and consider a friend) would be the white knight in > > shining armor to slay the dysfunctionality dragon but it apparently > > won't be on his watch. Arguably, Alcor is sufficiently dysfunctional > > that it can't be salvaged from within, and we'll have an alternative > > organisation eventually ready to take its place (unlikely, but in > > theory possible). > > > > You don't have to agree; just take this as my assessment at this point. > > And, no, I will not descend into specifics in public. > > > > Should Max or his successors manage the wondrous deed I will revise it, > > of course. > > > > > I also wouldn't want to make a big deal about it either. In the vein > > > of the Max More Turing test, I would not have expected real Max to use > > > that colloquialism. Maybe I should be less sensitive to writing > > > style. > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > -- > Max More > Strategic Philosopher > Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader* > CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation > 7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110 > Scottsdale, AZ 85260 > 480/905-1906 ext 113 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 13:26:50 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:26:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Young Blood Message-ID: http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/38464/?nlid=nldly&nld=2011-09-01 "A paper published today in *Nature* finds that when younger mice are exposed to the blood of older mice, their brain cells behave more like those found in aging brains, and vice versa. The researchers who carried out the work also uncovered chemical signals in aged blood that can dampen the growth of new brain cells, suggesting that the decline in brain function with age could be caused in part by blood-borne factors rather than an intrinsic failure of brain cells. To arrive at the discovery, the researchers studied pairs of old and young mice that were literally joined at the hip. They used a technique called parabiosis, in which two mice are surgically joined together along the flank, which causes them to develop a shared circulatory system. The technique has been used to study the development of the blood system, and more recently has been used to investigate the effects of age by joining old and young mice." I wonder whether the experiment has been replicated on humans. But hey, going around with a Siamese, albeit younger, twin joint at the hip might be unconfortable on occasions, perhaps we should better stick to transfusions. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 13:36:50 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:36:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: <20110902132100.GC16334@leitl.org> References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> <20110902094847.GS16334@leitl.org> <20110902132100.GC16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I was moderately hopeful that you'll be able to kick ass and take names > at Alcor, and in fact I deliberately withheld any kind of comment until recently. > However, what little has been made public so far worries me. But let's move that to private mail. > All organisation change has to start from where we are now. Not from where we'd like to be. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. As Obama found out when he became prez. BillK From glivick at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 2 14:37:02 2011 From: glivick at sbcglobal.net (G. Livick) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:37:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: <1314952246.64632.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1314952246.64632.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E60EA0E.1090200@sbcglobal.net> On 9/2/2011 1:30 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> spike wrote: >> >>>> .We have a conveyor or something to bring food and >> water to the bovine, >> another to haul away the remains, the beast >> pumps stem cells in the blood to the meat factory. spike >> > I think there's a misconception about the technology here. > > A steady supply of stem cells is not needed. Stem cells are used to derive the muscle (and other) cells that form the meat. You just need to extract a sample of stem cells, culture them (and I believe we can keep a culture going indefinitely, or should be able to soon. After all, Henrietta Lacks is immortal, in a sense), and take a proportion into meat production. > > Theoretically, only one batch of stem cells from an animal would provide all the meat of that particular type you'd need, forever. In practice, it may require periodic refreshes of stem cells, but nothing like a continuous supply from any one animal. > > Ben Zaiboc > > Correct, stem cells isolated from just a few animals would meet meat needs indefinitely (more than one animal needed just for marketing purposes). I also doubt that stem cells in culture ever "wear out." This technology will save the lives of a lot of steers. In fact, it should prevent steers. Steers should be outlawed; shot on sight. Without nuts, they are too docile, sort of wander around, moo ineffectively from time to time, eat tons of grass, and shit all over everything. And the price of veal should come WAY down. I wonder if the simu-meat will be formed into simu-steaks, or show up as a kind of meat gruel..... I also wonder if vegans will eat the stuff; not all vegans avoid animal products because animals are killed, or in some way inconvenienced, in the production process. I know, for example, if I was a vegan, it would be because I'd read something in the "National Inquirer" about how may pounds of undigested meat was crammed into my colon -- the very idea of eating Farmer John Beef Gruel Surprise would cause me to vomit my celery and rice pudding. I mean, this kind of proposed lunacy caused a bunch of people aboard the Valley Forge their lives in "Silent Running," although, happily, a couple of maintenance drones survived. FutureMan From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 15:04:01 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:04:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: <4E60EA0E.1090200@sbcglobal.net> References: <1314952246.64632.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E60EA0E.1090200@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 8:37 AM, G. Livick wrote: > Correct, stem cells isolated from just a few animals would meet meat needs > indefinitely (more than one animal needed just for marketing purposes). ?I > also doubt that stem cells in culture ever "wear out." > > This technology will save the lives of a lot of steers. ?In fact, it should > prevent steers. ?Steers should be outlawed; shot on sight. ?Without nuts, > they are too docile, sort of wander around, moo ineffectively from time to > time, eat tons of grass, and shit all over everything. ?And the price of > veal should come WAY down. > > I wonder if the simu-meat will be formed into simu-steaks, or show up as a > kind of meat gruel..... ?I also wonder if vegans will eat the stuff; not all > vegans avoid animal products because animals are killed, or in some way > inconvenienced, in the production process. ?I know, for example, if I was a > vegan, it would be because I'd read something in the "National Inquirer" > about how may pounds of undigested meat was crammed into my colon -- the > very idea of eating Farmer John Beef Gruel Surprise would cause me to vomit > my celery and rice pudding. ?I mean, this kind of proposed lunacy caused a > bunch of people aboard the Valley Forge their lives in "Silent Running," > although, happily, a couple of maintenance drones survived. The other big advantage is that cows produce a lot of methane. A HUGE amount of methane, in fact. And methane is about 20 times as potent as CO2 as a green house gas. (Though I don't know how long it stays in the air, they never explained that one). So perhaps the greens could sign on to factory meat as early adopters too. -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 15:15:16 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:15:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] spike turing test, was RE: ai class at stanford In-Reply-To: <008301cc692b$34058930$9c109b90$@att.net> References: <002301cc6739$9a27acf0$ce7706d0$@att.net> <003a01cc6778$9587c060$c0974120$@att.net> <008301cc692b$34058930$9c109b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:45 PM, spike wrote: >>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson > Subject: Re: [ExI] spike turing test, was RE: ai class at stanford > >>...So here's a question.... which would be easier to program? The generic > Turing test "I'm pretending to be SOME generic human, and you can't tell the > difference" or the person specific test "I'm Paris Hilton, and you can't > tell that I'm not"... -Kelly > > > To further cloud an already broad and difficult question, there is a WW2 > fighter game I only played a couple times, with another guy who is an > excellent fighter pilot gamer. ?The mission is to guard a formation of B52s > with a squadron of fighter planes, when suddenly you are jumped by a > squadron of Nazi 109s. ?A wild air battle ensues, but the part I find > interesting is that you can play single human or multiple humans, as > participants along with software allies. ?You can review the battle > afterwards and watch from any plane's point of view, including enemy planes. > It is impossible to tell the difference between the human pilots and those > commanded by the computer. ?You can't tell from their battle strategy or > their tactics or their flying skill. > > I suppose the computer guided planes use lookup tables derived from how > humans have played during the development phase, but the point is that with > a sufficiently large lookup table, a computer is indistinguishable from a > human in certain settings. ?Perhaps much of the time we function as enormous > lookup tables. ?On typical internet chat groups, perhaps the carbon based > lookup tables aren't even very sophisticated. ?That game setting is a form > of the Turing test perhaps, and the computer passes. I don't know if you could tell whether chess moves were generated by a person of a good computer program most of the time either... Perhaps you could, if the human weren't very good... LOL Large lookup tables can be done, but are highly inefficient. I'm sure they have a slightly more elegant solution than that. You could probably codify a pretty good fighter pilot with less than 100 rules. 1) Try to get behind the other guy (at least for WWI and WWII era fighting) 2) Try to stay out from in front of the other guy. 3) Shoot where the other guy will be when your bullets get there and so forth. The results of following such rules are generally pretty good, and human like. Add in a little randomness at the end... and you're good to go. The more constrained the context, the more amenable it is to programming. That's why AGI is so hard, because it doesn't have enough context. -Kelly From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 15:37:16 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:37:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] spike turing test, was RE: ai class at stanford In-Reply-To: References: <002301cc6739$9a27acf0$ce7706d0$@att.net> <003a01cc6778$9587c060$c0974120$@att.net> <008301cc692b$34058930$9c109b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:45 PM, spike wrote: >> I suppose the computer guided planes use lookup tables derived from how >> humans have played during the development phase, but the point is that with >> a sufficiently large lookup table, a computer is indistinguishable from a > > Large lookup tables can be done, but are highly inefficient. I'm sure > they have a slightly more elegant solution than that. You could > probably codify a pretty good fighter pilot with less than 100 rules. > > 1) Try to get behind the other guy (at least for WWI and WWII era fighting) > 2) Try to stay out from in front of the other guy. > 3) Shoot where the other guy will be when your bullets get there Kelly, I had a similar reaction to spike's repeated use of "large lookup tables" as a generic solution to any problem and was about to comment when I saw you beat me to it. Ironically then you enumerate a list of tactics as an alternative to giant lookup table - which is effectively a lookup table of a slightly-higher-level rules. True it's not a tape with a 'giant lookup table' of states and actions to apply (which I think is where spike's coming from) Spike, I assume you're familiar with Conway's Game of Life (cellular automata). I like the idea that complex behaviors can be discovered (or emerge) on top of very simple rules. Another great example you may not be familiar with is "boids" (use your favorite search appliance to find an online sim) The algorithm models the behavior of a bird flock - with very simple rules for each bird. The chaotic appearance of flock behavior begins to closely approximate the characteristic of real bird flocks (which I find fascinating, especially with hundreds or thousands of birds) In OOP parlance, you could probably subclass the boid with a few fighter rules and do a convincing model of your WWII game. From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 15:59:43 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:59:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> <20110902094847.GS16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: 2011/9/2 Max More : > > And, sheesh, what's wrong with talking of "going on the offensive" with > boosting membership growth? > I wouldn't have continued to add to this thread, but since you (specifically) asked... While reading the original post my eye caught on "offensive" before I parsed the meaning of the expression I was already thinking of the connotations of that single word. I've been watching this list for a few years and while you don't post as frequently as some, I cannot recall your writing style containing that kind of expression. I conceded that I could be less sensitive as Samantha suggested. I imagine it would be similarly atypical to read a post from Keith referring to hipsters (for example). I'll refrain from commenting on future posting/writing style. Rather than throwing the equivalent of a personality-checksum error, I should just update those models to accept wider variances. :) From gsantostasi at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 16:29:30 2011 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:29:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> Message-ID: Eugen and Max, It would be good if these discussions would be open to the rest of the list members. Clarity and transparency are good things in any organization. I may be naive on this issue but I think bringing to light any problem and allow public discussion and suggestions could be beneficial and even an opportunity for growth. Giovanni On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I hope that is a joke. It seems to border on hyper-sensitive to me. > [snip] > > Yes, some of the world is indeed that anal. Why does that mean we should > be? > > I'm not suggesting that I was disturbed by those words. There have > been other threads about Alcor advising careful word choice (or > discussion topics) because the archives are public, indexed & > discoverable by those outside "our group." > > I also wouldn't want to make a big deal about it either. In the vein > of the Max More Turing test, I would not have expected real Max to use > that colloquialism. Maybe I should be less sensitive to writing > style. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timhalterman at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 16:12:14 2011 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:12:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <1314952246.64632.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E60EA0E.1090200@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: The fact they're using horse fetal serum to feed to the cells makes me believe it will not be a simple task to generate a viable solution that does not involve high cost and/or usage of other living organisms. As it stands now, we've replaced the suffering of a cow with the suffering of a horse. The bulk of mass/energy must be in fact coming from the horse fetal serum. Has anyone seen anything regarding the feeding of cells with material from non-living entities? -Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 16:56:24 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:56:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/2 Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Eugen and Max, > It would be good if these discussions would be open to the rest of the list > members. Clarity and transparency are good things in any organization. I may > be naive on this issue but I think bringing to light any problem and allow > public discussion and suggestions could be beneficial and even an > opportunity for growth. > No business discusses their problems in public. It provides too much ammunition for competitors and naysayers to ruin their business. The time for publicity is when they announce improvements and new plans. BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 2 17:08:21 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1314983301.23010.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Aug 30, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Keith Henson wrote: "Can you think of any reason uploading would need to be destructive and one-way?" The question is unclear. Destructive of what? And obviously if a change in anything is one way then its destructive, and if its not its not. "I know Hans Moravec proposed that decades ago and it became a pervasive meme, but it's an awful concept" I'm really curious, what's so awful about uploading? "and a serious marketing burden for transhumanism." It may be bad public relations but I don't really know, I don't know a lot about PR. I do know its not bad science. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 17:27:02 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:27:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1314983301.23010.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1314983301.23010.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/2 john clark > > The question is unclear. Destructive of what? > > Of the original. Specifically, the hypothesis is that translating from a biological brain to a computer emulation of said brain would require a process that destroys the biological brain, in order to get enough data about it that the emulation can passably be a continuation of the original person. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Fri Sep 2 17:16:15 2011 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:16:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] How much all natural brain augmentation will there be before uploading? Message-ID: Folks, I bet this strongly foretells a possible temporary all natural nature of the future of computer / human interfaces. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44361055/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/#.TmD-JY4wfPU Without being invasive in any way, people will be able to find particular regions of the brain that are particularly plastic, or enhance-able via practice; Regions of the brain that also happen to be the most easily detectable, and have the most band width by such devices. The brain is obviously very capable of intelligently enhancing itself so it will be able to grow to model, and be aware of the effects such thinking has on the devices we are controlling. Our conscious knowledge of such in our brain as it grows and develops, will effectively spread out into these devices, making it feel like they are subsumed and becoming part of our controllable body, or at least our knowledge of such, within our spiritual knowledge of the world, just like our knowledge of our hands, arms, and other tools, vehicles? Our phenomenal or spiritual knowledge of them all makes them feel like they are part of and directly controllable by our free will... Already, today, blind people are able to significantly alter and train their brains to be able to detect and be aware of visual information, that is properly encoded by a computer into audio sounds.... Their primary visual cortex integrates with the audio portion much more closer, and blind people can consciously see very much, just by listening to the properly encoded sound of a visual scene. (see for example: http://www.seeingwithsound.com/ ) These will surely further control all natural visual, audio... augmentation systems that through only painting light on our retina or modifying sound, will either be able to augment the reality we see, or completely replace it with a full field of vision computer screen, or whatever. Sure, you won?t be unnaturally augmenting the brain, but you will be able to train it to have greatly enhanced abilities and knowledge of, and controlling mechanisms of external tools, far beyond what a normal brain can do today. My question is, how far down this non invasive path will people go, before we develop the ability to competently directly phenomenally (or spiritually, if you will) interface our brains with computer systems, eventually completely uploading and merging with approaching infinitely more superior phenomenal external ?brains?. Once we start down that fully spiritually integrated and uploading path, the non invasive techniques will be ever more difficult and less capable of anything in comparison. I imagine there being large groups of Luddite, or Amish types that will initially want to never support any kind of invasive augmentation. But if you have adequate sensors, and glasses..., that allow your brain?s knowledge and controlling mechanisms of such to grow to be significantly different, all naturally, like this work foretells, surely the next step from this, to direct interfacing, will be ever more difficult to morally distinguish? So I think such all natural abilities and arguments and reasoning will very powerfully and easily convert any possible Amish types from not wanting to upload? What do you all think? How far down that non invasive sensing and natural brain growing path will we go, and how different will their brains be able to become, before we have phenomenal or spiritual merging and uploading with infinitely enhanced external phenomenally conscious brains? And how many, and for how long, will some people avoid which for what moral reasons? Brent Allsop From gsantostasi at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 18:15:34 2011 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:15:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] How much all natural brain augmentation will there be before uploading? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm working at the moment on a project for a kind of modest brain augmentation. I'm developing at UW, Madison a system to detect slow waves during non-REM sleep and possibly enhance their number and amplitude through natural means (for example sounds played back to the brain at specific brain rhythms by feedback loop). Slow waves are characteristic features of the EEG during sleep that are believed to be functional in the restorative aspect of sleep and help with memory formation and consolidation. I'm interested in other possible application of EEG recording, in particular in a wireless set up, to enhance human performance and cognition. Giovanni On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > Folks, > > I bet this strongly foretells a possible temporary all natural nature > of the future of computer / human interfaces. > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44361055/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/#.TmD-JY4wfPU > > Without being invasive in any way, people will be able to find > particular regions of the brain that are particularly plastic, or > enhance-able via practice; Regions of the brain that also happen to be > the most easily detectable, and have the most band width by such > devices. The brain is obviously very capable of intelligently > enhancing itself so it will be able to grow to model, and be aware of > the effects such thinking has on the devices we are controlling. Our > conscious knowledge of such in our brain as it grows and develops, > will effectively spread out into these devices, making it feel like > they are subsumed and becoming part of our controllable body, or at > least our knowledge of such, within our spiritual knowledge of the > world, just like our knowledge of our hands, arms, and other tools, > vehicles? Our phenomenal or spiritual knowledge of them all makes them > feel like they are part of and directly controllable by our free > will... > > Already, today, blind people are able to significantly alter and train > their brains to be able to detect and be aware of visual information, > that is properly encoded by a computer into audio sounds.... Their > primary visual cortex integrates with the audio portion much more > closer, and blind people can consciously see very much, just by > listening to the properly encoded sound of a visual scene. (see for > example: http://www.seeingwithsound.com/ ) > > These will surely further control all natural visual, audio... > augmentation systems that through only painting light on our retina or > modifying sound, will either be able to augment the reality we see, or > completely replace it with a full field of vision computer screen, or > whatever. Sure, you won?t be unnaturally augmenting the brain, but > you will be able to train it to have greatly enhanced abilities and > knowledge of, and controlling mechanisms of external tools, far beyond > what a normal brain can do today. > > My question is, how far down this non invasive path will people go, > before we develop the ability to competently directly phenomenally (or > spiritually, if you will) interface our brains with computer systems, > eventually completely uploading and merging with approaching > infinitely more superior phenomenal external ?brains?. Once we start > down that fully spiritually integrated and uploading path, the non > invasive techniques will be ever more difficult and less capable of > anything in comparison. > > I imagine there being large groups of Luddite, or Amish types that > will initially want to never support any kind of invasive > augmentation. But if you have adequate sensors, and glasses..., that > allow your brain?s knowledge and controlling mechanisms of such to > grow to be significantly different, all naturally, like this work > foretells, surely the next step from this, to direct interfacing, will > be ever more difficult to morally distinguish? So I think such all > natural abilities and arguments and reasoning will very powerfully and > easily convert any possible Amish types from not wanting to upload? > > What do you all think? How far down that non invasive sensing and > natural brain growing path will we go, and how different will their > brains be able to become, before we have phenomenal or spiritual > merging and uploading with infinitely enhanced external phenomenally > conscious brains? And how many, and for how long, will some people > avoid which for what moral reasons? > > Brent Allsop > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 19:46:29 2011 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 12:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1314992789.19185.YahooMailClassic@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "G. Livick" asked: > I've wondered what it would be like, how it would impact a person > psychologically, to be a thinking entity without a physical body. What > would we do all day? Email people? Oh, come on. This has been hashed over countless times. Oh, well... There's no such thing as 'without a body'. You said "without a physical body", and that may well be true, but there will always be a body. If not a physical one, then a virtual one. In fact, a virtual body would be better in many respects, because you could have a lot more control over it (and the environment it's in, if you like). So, in answer to the question "what would you do?", assuming it's taken as read that by "without a physical body" you mean "with a virtual body": Whatever you like! Take this as an opportunity to stretch your imagination. An upload in a virtual body in a simulated environment will have a *huge* range of possibilities, many, many times more than are possible in our current physical (or even any future physical) bodies. Personally, I'd want control over the environment as well as the body simulation. Endless fun, if that's your thing. Or a vastly improved work environment. Or most likely, both. And if that doesn't float your boat, remember that an upload could also control a physical body. Robotic, or even biological if you insisted. I imagine that the level of technology required for uploads would make seamless integration with a physical body trivial, so if you wanted, you could get much the same experience as now, in your current body (except much better, if you take into account the ability to control it better, including your senses, etc.) And that's just for starters. There's also interaction with other uploads to think about... Ben Zaiboc From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 2 20:02:17 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1314993737.84462.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 9/2/11, Adrian Tymes wrote: "The question is unclear. Destructive of what?" "Of the original."? The original what? It can't be the original atoms because there is no such thing, they are constantly getting recycled. It can't be matter because matter can't be created or destroyed. It can't be energy because energy is fungible; if I pour a gallon of red Kool Aid into the Yangtze river upstream of the Three Gorges Dam it would be meaningless to ask which particular watt hour of energy out of the 22,500,000,000 that the dam produced came from the Kool Aid. And assuming the upload was done without mishap it can't be information that was destroyed as the entire point of uploading is to preserve information. So what's left, what is destroyed, is it the soul? I don't believe in the soul, although I do believe in the sole and I have two. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glivick at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 2 21:17:44 2011 From: glivick at sbcglobal.net (G. Livick) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:17:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading In-Reply-To: <1314992789.19185.YahooMailClassic@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1314992789.19185.YahooMailClassic@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E6147F8.4010207@sbcglobal.net> On 9/2/2011 12:46 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > "G. Livick" asked: > >> I've wondered what it would be like, how it would impact a person >> psychologically, to be a thinking entity without a physical body. What >> would we do all day? Email people? > > Oh, come on. This has been hashed over countless times. > > Oh, well... > > There's no such thing as 'without a body'. You said "without a physical body", and that may well be true, but there will always be a body. If not a physical one, then a virtual one. In fact, a virtual body would be better in many respects, because you could have a lot more control over it (and the environment it's in, if you like). I suppose that makes sense. An uploaded brain is "virtual," so why not a body? It could be a generic body at that, avoiding the expense of charting the location and physiological state of every cell in the host's body, the contents and state of the intracellular matrix, the class, type and state of all the supporting bacteria, etc. > > So, in answer to the question "what would you do?", assuming it's taken as read that by "without a physical body" you mean "with a virtual body": Whatever you like! I like the idea of a virtual body better. Hopefully it will be available with optional extras. > > Take this as an opportunity to stretch your imagination. It seems a few before me have already been very busy at that.... > > An upload in a virtual body in a simulated environment will have a *huge* range of possibilities, many, many times more than are possible in our current physical (or even any future physical) bodies. Personally, I'd want control over the environment as well as the body simulation. Endless fun, if that's your thing. Or a vastly improved work environment. Or most likely, both. Sounds like resurrection in a way. Will I be able to run and everything? I'm imagining right now that I'm jogging down a beautiful footpath through a towering kelp bed.... There's a mermaid! It's just my luck I forgot to imagine not needing to breathe. > > And if that doesn't float your boat, remember that an upload could also control a physical body. Robotic, or even biological if you insisted. I imagine that the level of technology required for uploads would make seamless integration with a physical body trivial, so if you wanted, you could get much the same experience as now, in your current body (except much better, if you take into account the ability to control it better, including your senses, etc.) > > And that's just for starters. There's also interaction with other uploads to think about... Did George Carlin ever get wind of this scheme? Is there somewhere we can sign up for uploading? Is George already there? What kind of operating systems will support us? I like JAVA myself so I can virtually exist anywhere that has a runtime, plus I can use it to stay alert. FutureMan From atymes at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 01:53:17 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:53:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1314993737.84462.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1314993737.84462.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/2 john clark > On *Fri, 9/2/11, Adrian Tymes * wrote: > > "The question is unclear. Destructive of what?" > > "Of the original." > > The original what? The biological pattern, in the same sense as you have the "same" body you were born with even though you have replaced just about every atom within it at least once since birth. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Sep 3 03:33:37 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 20:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 9/2/11, Adrian Tymes wrote: "The original what?" "The biological pattern" The biological pattern of an animal is the ordered arrangement of cells, and the biological pattern of a cell is the structural framework of a system of atoms; so biological pattern is a function of information on where to place things. Information can be duplicated, information can be uploaded, and its meaningless to talk about an original bit of information. "in the same sense as you have the "same" body you were born with" The same body? The body you have now looks very different from the one you were born with, and that body looked very different from the one celled zygote you looked like 9 months before that. What is the "same" in all this? The soul? I don't believe in the soul, I don't believe in a talking snake either, and putting two animals of every species in a ark would probably be rather unsanitary.?? "even though you have replaced just about every atom within it at least once since birth." That is true, so what's so original about this mythical beast called "The Original" if every single bit of it has been replaced many many times? I have asked this question often over the last decade on this list but have never once received a straight answer or even the hint of one. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 04:59:54 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:59:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar article Message-ID: For those who care about such issues, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8323 Keith Henson From atymes at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 06:58:56 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 23:58:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/2 john clark > On *Fri, 9/2/11, Adrian Tymes * wrote: > > "The original what?" > > "The biological pattern" > > The biological pattern of an animal is the ordered arrangement of cells, > and the biological pattern of a cell is the structural framework of a system > of atoms; so biological pattern is a function of information on where to > place things. > > Information can be duplicated, information can be uploaded, and its > meaningless to talk about an original bit of information. What's proposed to be emulated is the intelligence, not necessarily the animal itself. Further, an emulation of a thing is, by definition, not actually the thing that is being emulated - even if a single identity may span from original to emulation, and even if the instances are identified by the same name. Thus, the silicon and wires that run the informational pattern are not the same as the biological network that originally ran that same informational pattern. "The original", in this case, refers to that biological network, which is replaced by the silicon and wires - even if the informational pattern is maintained during the transition from one to the other. > what's so original about this mythical beast called "The Original" if every > single bit of it has been replaced many many times? I have asked this > question often over the last decade on this list but have never once > received a straight answer or even the hint of one. > > It is akin to a forest. What is a forest, if not the combination of all the trees within? But what if every tree is, one by one, replaced - is it the same forest? More practically, what about a ship, whose every part is replaced - again, one by one - over decades? Almost all people will identify it as the "same" ship. You argue for and perceive a three dimensional snapshot. This is where you err. This is why you are frustrated: you insist that these things are only that which exists in one moment in time - but they are not. They exist in all four dimensions. They are collections of things *and* their coherence through time, which allows the parts to be gradually replaced - and, by the same token, does not allow all the parts to be replaced at once. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From florent.berthet at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 10:07:44 2011 From: florent.berthet at gmail.com (Florent Berthet) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 12:07:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I used to think that continuity of consciousness was obviously important for uploading. My reasoning was "if I create a copy of myself, and if I die in the process, that is as if I had created a clone of myself that would be able to live in exchange for my life. But I don't want my clone to survive, I want ME to survive." So for me, a Star Trek teleporter that disassemble atoms and reassemble them in an other place was out of the question, because it would kill the "real" me. Then I thought "but when I go to bed, I wake up in the morning made of a slightly different pattern of atoms (dreams have formed new memories, for example). Nevertheless, I feel like I'm "the same" person. But what if I had been scanned during my sleep, destroyed and instantly recreated in my bed? I wouldn't even know it. This wouldn't make a difference. So, what I am afraid of? And if there is no difference, do we "die" each night, waking up as a whole new person? Should I be afraid of fallins asleep? So I was like "well, my consciousness blacks out for several hours every night, but there's still this background activity that keeps the continuity on... so I'm the same person..." but things started to become not as sharp and obvious, something was bothering me. I thought: is continuity of consciousness even relevant? I mean, imagine a guy in a coma who goes brain dead for a few moments. If we were to bring him back to life, nobody would say "ha! He died! So he's not the same person now!". So, damn, continuity of consciousness is not relevant... The only things that could matter now are the actual atoms that compose the brain and body of the guy. So, imagine that during that brief time of brain inactivity, we could change one carbon atom of his brain and replace it with another carbon atom. That wouldn't change a thing, atoms are the same, we take one out and we put another back. Imagine that instead of one atom, we replace a bunch of atoms, well, same thing, nothing has changed. Hell, imagine we replace the whole brain by this process, it's still the same thing! Atoms are the same, the pattern is the same. Physically, nothing has changed. Another example: if we could instantly move all your atoms 1 cm to le left, I'm sure you would say you would end up the same person. Now if it wasn't instantaneous but if you were out of this world for a millisecond during the process, there's no reason you would object, what would have changed? What about out for one second? One year? That's when I realized that this whole "original" and "copy" thing was an illusion. There is no "real" me, there is just a pattern that creates the experience of me, a pattern that doesn't "belong" to me but just exists because atoms have arranged themselves in this particular way. This experience and consciousness is the same for every identical pattern, regardless of how these patterns evolved and where they come from. There is no "true" one, physics don't work that way. We must understand that there's nothing special about us. As counter-intuitive as it is, there is nothing to be afraid of concerning destructive uploading, the pattern that makes your consciousness is the only thing that matters. Gradually transferring a mind is no different that destroying it a recreating it. Nobody else would make the difference and neither would you, because there isn't any. 2011/9/3 Adrian Tymes > 2011/9/2 john clark > >> On *Fri, 9/2/11, Adrian Tymes * wrote: >> >> "The original what?" >> >> "The biological pattern" >> >> The biological pattern of an animal is the ordered arrangement of cells, >> and the biological pattern of a cell is the structural framework of a system >> of atoms; so biological pattern is a function of information on where to >> place things. >> >> Information can be duplicated, information can be uploaded, and its >> meaningless to talk about an original bit of information. > > > What's proposed to be emulated is the intelligence, not necessarily the > animal > itself. Further, an emulation of a thing is, by definition, not actually > the thing > that is being emulated - even if a single identity may span from original > to > emulation, and even if the instances are identified by the same name. > > Thus, the silicon and wires that run the informational pattern are not the > same > as the biological network that originally ran that same informational > pattern. > "The original", in this case, refers to that biological network, which is > replaced > by the silicon and wires - even if the informational pattern is maintained > during > the transition from one to the other. > > >> what's so original about this mythical beast called "The Original" if >> every single bit of it has been replaced many many times? I have asked this >> question often over the last decade on this list but have never once >> received a straight answer or even the hint of one. >> >> > It is akin to a forest. What is a forest, if not the combination of all > the trees > within? But what if every tree is, one by one, replaced - is it the same > forest? > > More practically, what about a ship, whose every part is replaced - again, > one > by one - over decades? Almost all people will identify it as the "same" > ship. > > You argue for and perceive a three dimensional snapshot. This is where you > err. This is why you are frustrated: you insist that these things are only > that > which exists in one moment in time - but they are not. They exist in all > four > dimensions. They are collections of things *and* their coherence through > time, > which allows the parts to be gradually replaced - and, by the same token, > does > not allow all the parts to be replaced at once. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 12:40:00 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 14:40:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <1314952246.64632.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E60EA0E.1090200@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/2 Tim Halterman > Has anyone seen anything regarding the feeding of cells with material from > non-living entities? > As in autotrophy?!! And, btw, I am confused about what a "non-living entity" might be. Do you suggest to develop cellular cultures adapted for a nutrition based on AGIs and androids? :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 13:08:03 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 15:08:03 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1314993737.84462.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/3 Adrian Tymes > The biological pattern, in the same sense as you have the "same" body you > were born with even though you have replaced just about every atom within > it > at least once since birth. > Yes, I am inclined to agree with you, but let me once more stress that "survival" is really an ethological, not a philosophical, issue. So, it cannot be dismissed out of hand the fact that when confronted with the prospective of having your brains sliced, your genes whisper "no, no", no matter how defective the rationalisation of such feelings might be. On the other hand, I understand that by "non-destructive uploading" some means "creation of an emulation which is going to run alongside with the 'original'". This remains of course an interesting experiment, not to mention a good metaphor for reproduction - which is an instinct as well, or even better, rooted than survival - but of course it defeats the idea of uploading as a metaphor for survival, since from the first instant the remaining original becomes, or remains, a distinct centre of Darwinian interests from its upload, which is in principle no more consoled by the continuing operation of that upload than we currently are by the survival of our genetic offspring or of our works, country, business, school of thought, etc. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 13:16:39 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 15:16:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/3 Florent Berthet > I used to think that continuity of consciousness was obviously important > for uploading. My reasoning was "if I create a copy of myself, and if I die > in the process, that is as if I had created a clone of myself that would be > able to live in exchange for my life. But I don't want my clone to survive, > I want ME to survive." > > So for me, a Star Trek teleporter that disassemble atoms and reassemble > them in an other place was out of the question, because it would kill the > "real" me. > Yes. All this message exactly reflects my view on the subject. And the answer anyway is: let us introduce a cheap, "safe", teleport system as an alternative to flight transportation. How long would it take for "continuity" as opposed to "rebirth" to become the accepted truth but for a few tinfoil-hat ? Two weeks? Two days? Another story is that of having your brain sliced in order to allow a machine to be more effective in "pretending" to be you. It is not a factual, it is a perceptual issue. Aren't we inclined for that matter to avoid much more banal surgery even when it is certifiedly painless and less dangerous than inaction? -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 13:03:23 2011 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 23:03:23 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/3 Florent Berthet > I used to think that continuity of consciousness was obviously important > for uploading. My reasoning was "if I create a copy of myself, and if I die > in the process, that is as if I had created a clone of myself that would be > able to live in exchange for my life. But I don't want my clone to survive, > I want ME to survive." > > So for me, a Star Trek teleporter that disassemble atoms and reassemble > them in an other place was out of the question, because it would kill the > "real" me. > > Then I thought "but when I go to bed, I wake up in the morning made of a > slightly different pattern of atoms (dreams have formed new memories, for > example). Nevertheless, I feel like I'm "the same" person. But what if I had > been scanned during my sleep, destroyed and instantly recreated in my bed? I > wouldn't even know it. This wouldn't make a difference. So, what I am afraid > of? And if there is no difference, do we "die" each night, waking up as a > whole new person? Should I be afraid of fallins asleep? > > So I was like "well, my consciousness blacks out for several hours every > night, but there's still this background activity that keeps the continuity > on... so I'm the same person..." but things started to become not as sharp > and obvious, something was bothering me. > > I thought: is continuity of consciousness even relevant? I mean, imagine a > guy in a coma who goes brain dead for a few moments. If we were to bring him > back to life, nobody would say "ha! He died! So he's not the same person > now!". So, damn, continuity of consciousness is not relevant... > > The only things that could matter now are the actual atoms that compose the > brain and body of the guy. So, imagine that during that brief time of brain > inactivity, we could change one carbon atom of his brain and replace it with > another carbon atom. That wouldn't change a thing, atoms are the same, we > take one out and we put another back. Imagine that instead of one atom, we > replace a bunch of atoms, well, same thing, nothing has changed. Hell, > imagine we replace the whole brain by this process, it's still the same > thing! Atoms are the same, the pattern is the same. Physically, nothing has > changed. > > Another example: if we could instantly move all your atoms 1 cm to le left, > I'm sure you would say you would end up the same person. Now if it wasn't > instantaneous but if you were out of this world for a millisecond during the > process, there's no reason you would object, what would have changed? What > about out for one second? One year? > > That's when I realized that this whole "original" and "copy" thing was an > illusion. There is no "real" me, there is just a pattern that creates the > experience of me, a pattern that doesn't "belong" to me but just exists > because atoms have arranged themselves in this particular way. This > experience and consciousness is the same for every identical pattern, > regardless of how these patterns evolved and where they come from. There is > no "true" one, physics don't work that way. We must understand that there's > nothing special about us. > > As counter-intuitive as it is, there is nothing to be afraid of concerning > destructive uploading, the pattern that makes your consciousness is the only > thing that matters. Gradually transferring a mind is no different that > destroying it a recreating it. Nobody else would make the difference and > neither would you, because there isn't any. > A good summary, but people on this list have been through this debate many times and some tend to get agitated if it is restarted. --Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From florent.berthet at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 13:42:42 2011 From: florent.berthet at gmail.com (Florent Berthet) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 15:42:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/3 Stathis Papaioannou > A good summary, but people on this list have been through this debate many > times and some tend to get agitated if it is restarted. > > You're right, in fact I'm not trying to convince people as much as I'm interested in their reasoning. That's also why I like discussing with religious people (I'm not comparing here): I know I won't change their mind, but I like to understand how they think. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 14:48:49 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:48:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading In-Reply-To: <4E6147F8.4010207@sbcglobal.net> References: <1314992789.19185.YahooMailClassic@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E6147F8.4010207@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On 2 September 2011 23:17, G. Livick wrote: > I suppose that makes sense. An uploaded brain is "virtual," so why not a > body? > It need not be "virtual", however - unless, that is, we are already living in the Matrix. In fact, I am quite fond myself of the idea of either a robotic body, or even biological bodies with any number of enhancements. In this respect, I have to remark that something which is very scarcely discussed in mind *down*loading... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 15:24:29 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 08:24:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <1314952246.64632.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E60EA0E.1090200@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/3 Stefano Vaj : > 2011/9/2 Tim Halterman >> Has anyone seen anything regarding the feeding of cells with material from >> non-living entities? > > As in autotrophy?!! > And, btw, I am confused about what a "non-living entity" might be. "Entity" is confusing here. I think Tim meant more like autotrophy: how to culture and feed the meat tissues using only nutrients not created by or extracted from another living thing. (So, "entity" would include a bare rock asteroid, which that term does not normally include.) A useful context would be to consider a space colony - free floating, or perhaps lunar. (Martian introduces some variables...) It's got an input flow of raw materials, primarily from asteroid/lunar mining. How does it convert this into meat in the most efficient way, so as to provide maximum nutrition for its inhabitants with minimum loss? Thing is, it's probably okay if that takes multiple steps. And, given the quantity of energy and material flow that can be obtained, some degree of inefficiency can be tolerated at first, before there are decades of refinement on this technology. From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 15:22:43 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 09:22:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1314993737.84462.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/2 Adrian Tymes > > 2011/9/2 john clark >> >> On Fri, 9/2/11, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> "The question is unclear. Destructive of what?" >> >> "Of the original." >> >> The original what? > > The biological pattern, in the same sense as you have the "same" body you > were born with even though you have replaced just about every atom within it > at least once since birth. The use of alcohol is destructive of the original, and yet many people use it without concern. Escapists of all kinds, people who now use drugs, as one example... would probably not care about some minimal loss, if it gives them the experiences they crave. Also people who like the rush of doing the dangerous... etc. -Kelly From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Sep 3 16:26:30 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 09:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1315067190.83669.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ?On Sat, 9/3/11, Adrian Tymes wrote: "What's proposed to be emulated is the intelligence, not necessarily the animal itself."? What's proposed is the emulation of what we fear loosing when we die, not our left kneecap but our intelligence, our memories and our emotional behavior. None of those attributes are unique because none of them are nouns, all of them can be completely described by information and information can be duplicated. "Further, an emulation of a thing is, by definition, not actually the thing that is being emulated" Yes, but I'm not interested in things surviving, I'm not interested in nouns, I'm interested in a adjective surviving death, an adjective like John K Clark. Thus, the silicon and wires that run the informational pattern are not the same No, the informational pattern is identical, if I add 4 + 3 the 7 I get is the same 7 that you get when you add 4 + 3. "The original", in this case, refers to that biological network, which is replaced by the silicon and wires - even if the informational pattern is maintained during the transition from one to the other. So even though the atoms in your body are being constantly replaced and even though science tells us that atoms have no individuality, individual atoms nevertheless? are the things that somehow confer individuality to us. This is absurd.? "what about a ship, whose every part is replaced - again, one by one - over decades?" The atoms in the ship have been replaced but that matters little because one atom of iron is as good as another, the most important part of the ship, the arrangement of those atoms, is the same. You can call it the same ship or you can call it a different ship, its just a matter of linguistic convenience; the vital thing is that the information has survived and is still being used to do the same thing.? ? "Almost all people will identify it as the "same" ship." Yes, and almost all people, even most people on this list who should know better, are DEAD wrong; even their inconsistencies are inconsistent! Almost all people will say that if all parts of the ship are replaced over 10 years then its the same ship, but if you do exactly the same thing over 10 milliseconds almost all people would say it would not be the same ship. I've been arguing this point for well over a decade on this list and elsewhere and I have found the the arguments used against my position are weak, very very weak, and would never convince anybody unless they had already decided that the conventional prejudice must be true. I do not believe that first deciding what is true and only then go looking around for facts to support your opinion is good practice. "They exist in all four dimensions.? They are collections of things *and* their coherence through time, which allows the parts to be gradually replaced - and, by the same token, does not allow all the parts to be replaced at once." So how fast can the replacement of parts go before this mysterious, scientifically undetectable but metaphysically important existential change happens?? When is it no longer the same? It must be longer than 10 milliseconds but less than 10 years but I want to know exactly how long, do you have an equation that would allow me to calculate that time for any ship or any given person? "You argue for and perceive a three dimensional snapshot.? This is where you err.? This is why you are frustrated: you insist that these things are only that which exists in one moment in time - but they are not.? They exist in all four dimensions." Huh? Explain to me how making note of the arrangement of the parts in a person's body and then using Nanotechnology to make a duplicate body does not make use of the time dimension, but the normal biological process of replacing atoms does. ? John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glivick at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 3 16:46:56 2011 From: glivick at sbcglobal.net (G. Livick) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:46:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Florent, What you have to say is either hard to argue with, or, if not that, very easy to pick up for further discussion. It is refreshing to see this component of the "uploading" concept laid out so clearly. Just a couple of comments: "That's when I realized that this whole "original" and "copy" thing was an illusion. There is no "real" me, there is just a pattern that creates the experience of me, a pattern that doesn't "belong" to me but just exists because atoms have arranged themselves in this particular way. This experience and consciousness is the same for every identical pattern, regardless of how these patterns evolved and where they come from. There is no "true" one, physics don't work that way. We must understand that there's nothing special about us." Well, yes and no... That there is nothing special about us is clear. We are made from the same atoms from which everything else is made. However, with such a realization being of great value in other places, it doesn't help us in grappling with the main issue here: the mind is not made up of atoms, only the necessary correlate of the mind is constructed. As a follow-on to that, "As counter-intuitive as it is, there is nothing to be afraid of concerning destructive uploading, the pattern that makes your consciousness is the only thing that matters. Gradually transferring a mind is no different tha[n] destroying it [and] recreating it. Nobody else would make the difference and neither would you, because there isn't any." Uploading, as I've seen it defined in this group so far, involves determining the exact physical location of every neuron, axon, dendrite and synapse, and mapping all those into a computer in some fashion. Clearly, although proponents tend to gloss over the complexities, the functioning of each element would be need to be reduced to an equation to support a simulation, and there would need to be some kind of executive working to conduct the symphony. None of this describes the uploading of the mind. The idea that transferring the structure of the brain into a database would also upload the mind is the central dogma of uploading. Arguments pertaining to the central dogma that a priori assume the central dogma make me kind of dizzy. Going on to assume the central dogma, there is a dilemma that arises with uploading, made the more interesting if the process is not destructive; which mind contains the individual identity that goes forward, if the upload goes onto two computers at the same time? If we don't survive as ourselves when making the transition from carbon to silicon, then there is no point to the exercise at all in terms of the dogma. If we continued conscious awareness when doubled, or tripled if the process is non-destructive, which one are we aware of, or are we aware in multiple places at the same time? Trying to get my arms around going from me into two other simultaneous me's, and then having them immediately diverge due to dissimilar experiential development while still being me, makes me even more dizzy. FutureMan On 9/3/2011 3:07 AM, Florent Berthet wrote: > I used to think that continuity of consciousness was obviously > important for uploading. My reasoning was "if I create a copy of > myself, and if I die in the process, that is as if I had created a > clone of myself that would be able to live in exchange for my life. > But I don't want my clone to survive, I want ME to survive." > > So for me, a Star Trek teleporter that disassemble atoms and > reassemble them in an other place was out of the question, because it > would kill the "real" me. > > Then I thought "but when I go to bed, I wake up in the morning made of > a slightly different pattern of atoms (dreams have formed new > memories, for example). Nevertheless, I feel like I'm "the same" > person. But what if I had been scanned during my sleep, destroyed and > instantly recreated in my bed? I wouldn't even know it. This wouldn't > make a difference. So, what I am afraid of? And if there is no > difference, do we "die" each night, waking up as a whole new person? > Should I be afraid of fallins asleep? > > So I was like "well, my consciousness blacks out for several hours > every night, but there's still this background activity that keeps the > continuity on... so I'm the same person..." but things started to > become not as sharp and obvious, something was bothering me. > > I thought: is continuity of consciousness even relevant? I mean, > imagine a guy in a coma who goes brain dead for a few moments. If we > were to bring him back to life, nobody would say "ha! He died! So he's > not the same person now!". So, damn, continuity of consciousness is > not relevant... > > The only things that could matter now are the actual atoms that > compose the brain and body of the guy. So, imagine that during that > brief time of brain inactivity, we could change one carbon atom of his > brain and replace it with another carbon atom. That wouldn't change a > thing, atoms are the same, we take one out and we put another back. > Imagine that instead of one atom, we replace a bunch of atoms, well, > same thing, nothing has changed. Hell, imagine we replace the whole > brain by this process, it's still the same thing! Atoms are the same, > the pattern is the same. Physically, nothing has changed. > > Another example: if we could instantly move all your atoms 1 cm to le > left, I'm sure you would say you would end up the same person. Now if > it wasn't instantaneous but if you were out of this world for a > millisecond during the process, there's no reason you would object, > what would have changed? What about out for one second? One year? > > That's when I realized that this whole "original" and "copy" thing was > an illusion. There is no "real" me, there is just a pattern that > creates the experience of me, a pattern that doesn't "belong" to me > but just exists because atoms have arranged themselves in this > particular way. This experience and consciousness is the same for > every identical pattern, regardless of how these patterns evolved and > where they come from. There is no "true" one, physics don't work that > way. We must understand that there's nothing special about us. > > As counter-intuitive as it is, there is nothing to be afraid of > concerning destructive uploading, the pattern that makes your > consciousness is the only thing that matters. Gradually transferring a > mind is no different that destroying it a recreating it. Nobody else > would make the difference and neither would you, because there isn't any. > > > > > > 2011/9/3 Adrian Tymes > > > 2011/9/2 john clark > > > On *Fri, 9/2/11, Adrian Tymes / >/* wrote: > > "The original what?" > > "The biological pattern" > > The biological pattern of an animal is the ordered arrangement > of cells, and the biological pattern of a cell is the > structural framework of a system of atoms; so biological > pattern is a function of information on where to place things. > > Information can be duplicated, information can be uploaded, > and its meaningless to talk about an original bit of information. > > > What's proposed to be emulated is the intelligence, not > necessarily the animal > itself. Further, an emulation of a thing is, by definition, not > actually the thing > that is being emulated - even if a single identity may span from > original to > emulation, and even if the instances are identified by the same name. > > Thus, the silicon and wires that run the informational pattern are > not the same > as the biological network that originally ran that same > informational pattern. > "The original", in this case, refers to that biological network, > which is replaced > by the silicon and wires - even if the informational pattern is > maintained during > the transition from one to the other. > > what's so original about this mythical beast called "The > Original" if every single bit of it has been replaced many > many times? I have asked this question often over the last > decade on this list but have never once received a straight > answer or even the hint of one. > > > It is akin to a forest. What is a forest, if not the combination > of all the trees > within? But what if every tree is, one by one, replaced - is it > the same forest? > > More practically, what about a ship, whose every part is replaced > - again, one > by one - over decades? Almost all people will identify it as the > "same" ship. > > You argue for and perceive a three dimensional snapshot. This is > where you > err. This is why you are frustrated: you insist that these things > are only that > which exists in one moment in time - but they are not. They exist > in all four > dimensions. They are collections of things *and* their coherence > through time, > which allows the parts to be gradually replaced - and, by the same > token, does > not allow all the parts to be replaced at once. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 17:55:03 2011 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 10:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1315072503.14889.YahooMailClassic@web114405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: > They are collections of things *and* their coherence through > time, > which allows the parts to be gradually replaced - and, by the same token, > does > not allow all the parts to be replaced at once. I freely admit to being a bear of very little brain, so could you please explain this? It seems to me that 'by the same token', /no/ difference exists between gradual and simultaneous replacement. I don't see how replacing a system's parts one-by-one with identically-functional replacements is any different in effect to replacing them all at the same time. In fact, I don't see any practical difference between any of the myriad states between system A (unmodified), system A1 (one part replaced by a functionally-identical component), A2.., An, and B (all parts replaced). Therefore, by my perception of the logic here, there is no functional difference between A and B, whether B was attained via gradual or simultaneous replacement. Please explain the (presumed, by your above statement) error in my thinking. Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 18:01:43 2011 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 11:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1315072903.29524.YahooMailClassic@web114402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Florent Berthet grokked: > I used to think that continuity of consciousness was > obviously important for > uploading. My reasoning was "if I create a copy of myself, > and if I die in > the process, that is as if I had created a clone of myself > that would be > able to live in exchange for my life. But I don't want my > clone to survive, > I want ME to survive." > > So for me, a Star Trek teleporter that disassemble atoms > and reassemble them > in an other place was out of the question, because it would > kill the "real" > me. > > Then I thought "but when I go to bed, I wake up in the > morning made of a > slightly different pattern of atoms (dreams have formed new > memories, for > example). Nevertheless, I feel like I'm "the same" person. > But what if I had > been scanned during my sleep, destroyed and instantly > recreated in my bed? I > wouldn't even know it. This wouldn't make a difference. So, > what I am afraid > of? And if there is no difference, do we "die" each night, > waking up as a > whole new person? Should I be afraid of fallins asleep? > > So I was like "well, my consciousness blacks out for > several hours every > night, but there's still this background activity that > keeps the continuity > on... so I'm the same person..." but things started to > become not as sharp > and obvious, something was bothering me. > > I thought: is continuity of consciousness even relevant? I > mean, imagine a > guy in a coma who goes brain dead for a few moments. If we > were to bring him > back to life, nobody would say "ha! He died! So he's not > the same person > now!". So, damn, continuity of consciousness is not > relevant... > > The only things that could matter now are the actual atoms > that compose the > brain and body of the guy. So, imagine that during that > brief time of brain > inactivity, we could change one carbon atom of his brain > and replace it with > another carbon atom. That wouldn't change a thing, atoms > are the same, we > take one out and we put another back. Imagine that instead > of one atom, we > replace a bunch of atoms, well, same thing, nothing has > changed. Hell, > imagine we replace the whole brain by this process, it's > still the same > thing! Atoms are the same, the pattern is the same. > Physically, nothing has > changed. > > Another example: if we could instantly move all your atoms > 1 cm to le left, > I'm sure you would say you would end up the same person. > Now if it wasn't > instantaneous but if you were out of this world for a > millisecond during the > process, there's no reason you would object, what would > have changed? What > about out for one second? One year? > > That's when I realized that this whole "original" and > "copy" thing was an > illusion. There is no "real" me, there is just a pattern > that creates the > experience of me, a pattern that doesn't "belong" to me but > just exists > because atoms have arranged themselves in this particular > way. This > experience and consciousness is the same for every > identical pattern, > regardless of how these patterns evolved and where they > come from. There is > no "true" one, physics don't work that way. We must > understand that there's > nothing special about us. > > As counter-intuitive as it is, there is nothing to be > afraid of concerning > destructive uploading, the pattern that makes your > consciousness is the only > thing that matters. Gradually transferring a mind is no > different that > destroying it a recreating it. Nobody else would make the > difference and > neither would you, because there isn't any. Well done, Florent. By Jove, I think you've got it! I hope that doesn't sound condescending, it's sincerely not meant to be. It seems that very few people genuinely grok this concept, you seem to have joined their ranks. Congratulations on making the transition from Crypto-Dualist to true Materialist! A bit scary, but exhilarating, no? Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 19:50:31 2011 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 12:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1315079431.25446.YahooMailClassic@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "G. Livick" wrote: > I suppose that makes sense. An uploaded brain is "virtual," so why not > a body? It could be a generic body at that, avoiding the expense of > charting the location and physiological state of every cell in the > host's body, the contents and state of the intracellular matrix, the > class, type and state of all the supporting bacteria, etc. Indeedy. > Sounds like resurrection in a way. Will I be able to run and > everything? I'm imagining right now that I'm jogging down a beautiful > footpath through a towering kelp bed.... There's a mermaid! It's just > my luck I forgot to imagine not needing to breathe. Well, as much as uploading can be regarded as resurrection, I suppose it is. Of course, you'd be able to run, fly, teleport, jump, displace, simply be somewhere... whatever you like (and whatever the software supports). Er.. you don't need to breathe! You're an upload, remember? You'd have to build in a requirement to 'breathe' in the virtuality before swimming with mermaids presented a breathing problem. Your world consists of software, so there'd be no problem having a set of controls to specify which biological (and other) parameters to emulate. You could specify that you have to 'breathe', have a pulse, etc., etc. You could specify that you have a sense of breathing, regardless of your environment, or whatever. > Did George Carlin ever get wind of this scheme? Not that I'm aware of, although I'm sure he would have had great fun with the concept. > Is there somewhere we > can sign up for uploading? Not yet. > Is George already there? No. Sadly, George is nowhere. > What kind of > operating systems will support us? Who knows? > I like JAVA myself so I can > virtually exist anywhere that has a runtime, plus I can use it to stay > alert. LOL. Just remember that Java is owned. I'd probably prefer Ruby, or more likely, there will need to be some as-yet-uninvented OS for the kind of hardware and architecture needed to implement uploading. Ben Zaiboc From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 20:42:20 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:42:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1314993737.84462.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This issue is rehashed here on a regular basis. While some may find it tedious, I always enjoy it, as there's always something new. Stefano's post is the perfect example. Masterful and original (as in not overtly stated in prior discussions, at least, not so's I noticed). "...when confronted with the prospective of having your brains sliced, your genes whisper "no, no..." Magnificent. That one's going in my sig file. Thanks, Stefano. May I slice the s off of your "brains"? Best, Jeff Davis 2011/9/3 Stefano Vaj : > 2011/9/3 Adrian Tymes >> >> The biological pattern, in the same sense as you have the "same" body you >> were born with even though you have replaced just about every atom within >> it >> at least once since birth. > > Yes, I am inclined to agree with you, but let me once more stress that > "survival" is really an ethological, not a philosophical, issue. > So, it cannot be dismissed out of hand the fact that when confronted with > the prospective of having your brains sliced, your genes whisper "no, no", > no matter how defective the rationalisation of such feelings might be. > On the other hand, I understand that by "non-destructive uploading" some > means "creation of an emulation which is going to run alongside with the > 'original'". > This remains of course an interesting experiment, not to mention a good > metaphor for reproduction - which is an instinct as well, or even better, > rooted than survival - but of course it defeats the idea of uploading as a > metaphor for survival, since from the first instant the remaining original > becomes, or remains, a distinct centre of Darwinian interests from its > upload, which is in principle no more consoled by the continuing operation > of that upload than we currently are by the survival of our genetic > offspring or of our works, country, business, school of thought, etc. > > -- > Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 21:00:37 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 23:00:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/3 john clark? > What's proposed is the emulation of what we fear loosing when we die, not our left kneecap but our intelligence, our memories and our emotional behavior. 2011/9/3 G. Livick > Going on to assume the central dogma, there is a dilemma that arises with uploading, made the more interesting if the process is not destructive; which mind contains the individual identity that goes forward, if the upload goes onto two computers at the same time? What we really "fear losing when we die" is not our "intelligence" (say, somebody else's ability to make use of our neurons to add integers...) but our personal identity. Now, identity is not a "thing", it is just an evolutionary artifact. This is most obvious when speaking of collective (eg, "national") identities, but it is by no means different for individual ones. Mind, I am not saying that we should not care (by the way, I am also jealous of my ethnocultural identity and I have a deep emotional involvement in its destiny). Only, we should not think of it in "essentialist" terms. Rather, we should be aware of what we are speaking of here is a "gene whisper" which is or is not accomodated by such scenarios depending on the metaphors we choose to adopt to "comprehend" them. Therefore, the question of where the individual "continues" in a double, or non-destructive, uploading does not have any real meaning. You have a string of consistent phenomena where in one's entity stead you end up finding two, immediately diverging and both experiencing perfect continuity across the process. Exactly in the same fashion of, say, individuals multiplying every Planck's time unit in Everett's multiple universe quantum mechanics interpretation. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 21:07:28 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 23:07:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1314993737.84462.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3 September 2011 22:42, Jeff Davis wrote: > May I slice the s off of your "brains"? Am I making confusing with some other language or the plural "brains" in English sounds more like "meat" (as opposed to "flesh")? :-) -- Stefano Vaj From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 21:23:30 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 17:23:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/2 john clark > That is true, so what's so original about this mythical beast called "The Original" if every single bit of it has been replaced many many times? I have asked this question often over the last decade on this list but have never once received a straight answer or even the hint of one. The "Original" is what it tastes like before they add barbecue, ranch, or cheddar flavor. I conclude, therefore, that the original is primarily the "natural flavor" that occurs ninth in the ingredients list. From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 04:42:16 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 22:42:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai class at stanford In-Reply-To: References: <00bc01cc5ed9$5f0d19b0$1d274d10$@att.net> <4E4F3801.1030808@sbcglobal.net> <012a01cc5ef6$8a963f90$9fc2beb0$@att.net> <3E165DBC-BF4E-443F-9769-D5BF0EC68C4C@mac.com> <000301cc61ed$6db343b0$4919cb10$@att.net> <002401cc61f4$9263cbb0$b72b6310$@att.net> <00b801cc627a$faf47a40$f0dd6ec0$@att.net> <4E59CC5F.6030501@sbcglobal.net> <007301cc6590$4237c930$c6a75b90$@att.net> <4E5B1963.5050508@sbcglobal.net> <4E5B3CCB.8060204@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> I can live with well enough losing the quotes. Let's go with Alan >> Turing's standard. Well enough in this case means that the simulation >> would be indisinguishable from you by people who know you well. That >> is, the Adrian upload would have to be able to fool your friends into >> thinking it is really you for some period of time to pass the test. Is >> that a little less fuzzy? > > Quite. ?Sorry, the specific phrasing you used was strongly suggestive of > those who attempt to deny rational discourse. ?I thought it might have > been a mistake/accident in your case, since your other posts have been > quite coherent. ?That's why I explained why I was ignoring the rest. > >> what I'm >> proposing is that the test for a successful upload would be that your >> friends could not distinguish between you and the upload for some >> period of time, to be determined. I think that is sufficiently >> rigorous for at least some purposes. > > I agree with that, where "your friends" is further defined as "the people > who know you best and are the most able - among anyone - to tell you > from an impostor". It remains an open question for me whether this is easier or harder than the generic "are you a human" Turing test. Because you could program in a lot of specific knowledge about a specific person that might make it more convincing. Language patterns and so forth would be relatively easy to replicate, I think... But without actually scanning the brain in some manner, it would be difficult to encode ALL the knowledge of the subject... particularly private matters that would make it easy to discover the real from the fake. For example, asking what a particular tattoo says and where it's located or some other private information. Anyway, it seems like an interesting question. While I have a fair amount of knowledge in computer vision and pattern recognition, I am sorely lacking in natural language processing... so it's hard for me to know what's possible and not possible in written communication for computers. Watson gives me hope that some "understanding" is possible now... but it is not something I've studied much. I didn't notice that it was a major topic of the upcoming course. -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 04:52:36 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 22:52:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] spike turing test, was RE: ai class at stanford In-Reply-To: References: <002301cc6739$9a27acf0$ce7706d0$@att.net> <003a01cc6778$9587c060$c0974120$@att.net> <008301cc692b$34058930$9c109b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:45 PM, spike wrote: >>> I suppose the computer guided planes use lookup tables derived from how >>> humans have played during the development phase, but the point is that with >>> a sufficiently large lookup table, a computer is indistinguishable from a >> >> Large lookup tables can be done, but are highly inefficient. I'm sure >> they have a slightly more elegant solution than that. You could >> probably codify a pretty good fighter pilot with less than 100 rules. >> >> 1) Try to get behind the other guy (at least for WWI and WWII era fighting) >> 2) Try to stay out from in front of the other guy. >> 3) Shoot where the other guy will be when your bullets get there > > Kelly, I had a similar reaction to spike's repeated use of "large > lookup tables" as a generic solution to any problem and was about to > comment when I saw you beat me to it. ?Ironically then you enumerate a > list of tactics as an alternative to giant lookup table - which is > effectively a lookup table of a slightly-higher-level rules. ?True > it's not a tape with a 'giant lookup table' of states and actions to > apply ?(which I think is where spike's coming from) Pretty much any computerized solution can be converted to a "large lookup table" problem if the lookup table is sufficiently large. Unfortunately, in many common cases, sufficiently large would mean employing every atom in the observable universe to storing the bits necessary to hold said table. As a quick example of how fast it can get complicated, consider a 640 x 480 x 24 bit color image.. using that image as a key to a lookup table requires a table with a little over 5 trillion entries. And my math may be wrong, because that doesn't seem like enough... I'm a little foggy tonight. > Spike, I assume you're familiar with Conway's Game of Life (cellular > automata). ?I like the idea that complex behaviors can be discovered > (or emerge) on top of very simple rules. ?Another great example you > may not be familiar with is "boids" (use your favorite search > appliance to find an online sim) ?The algorithm models the behavior of > a bird flock - with very simple rules for each bird. ?The chaotic > appearance of flock behavior begins to closely approximate the > characteristic of real bird flocks (which I find fascinating, > especially with hundreds or thousands of birds) ?In OOP parlance, you > could probably subclass the boid with a few fighter rules and do a > convincing model of your WWII game. Yes, it was exactly this bird flocking behavior (that I was aware of before) that led me to post what I did... :-) Great minds do, it seems, work alike... -Kelly From timhalterman at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 14:26:12 2011 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 09:26:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] deathless meat In-Reply-To: References: <1314952246.64632.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E60EA0E.1090200@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Yes autotrophy is a more appropriate term, thanks. Although I would prefer to consume/absorb the materials myself and cut out the middle man I do understand the need for people to have their meat. I think a more efficiency focused design (versus making the deathless meat look/taste right) could go a long way to avoiding excess waste and useless byproducts currently produced by our food system. While this deathless meat is a positive concept I think it's important we look down the entire process chain from origin to excrement. -Tim On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > 2011/9/3 Stefano Vaj : > > 2011/9/2 Tim Halterman > >> Has anyone seen anything regarding the feeding of cells with material > from > >> non-living entities? > > > > As in autotrophy?!! > > And, btw, I am confused about what a "non-living entity" might be. > > "Entity" is confusing here. I think Tim meant more like autotrophy: how > to culture and feed the meat tissues using only nutrients not created by > or extracted from another living thing. (So, "entity" would include a bare > rock asteroid, which that term does not normally include.) > > A useful context would be to consider a space colony - free floating, or > perhaps lunar. (Martian introduces some variables...) It's got an input > flow of raw materials, primarily from asteroid/lunar mining. How does > it convert this into meat in the most efficient way, so as to provide > maximum nutrition for its inhabitants with minimum loss? > > Thing is, it's probably okay if that takes multiple steps. And, given the > quantity of energy and material flow that can be obtained, some degree > of inefficiency can be tolerated at first, before there are decades of > refinement on this technology. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Sep 4 15:56:30 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 08:56:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] greg burch found alive Message-ID: <026f01cc6b1b$36cd1240$a46736c0$@att.net> Gregory Burch is alive and well! Details at 11. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Sep 4 17:02:20 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:02:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] greg burch found alive In-Reply-To: <026f01cc6b1b$36cd1240$a46736c0$@att.net> References: <026f01cc6b1b$36cd1240$a46736c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <984A5ECB4B3746EFB879123C8BF701CF@DFC68LF1> This is a freaky email. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Chair, Humanity+ PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK Co-Editor, The Transhumanist Reader _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 10:57 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [ExI] greg burch found alive Gregory Burch is alive and well! Details at 11. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sun Sep 4 17:17:06 2011 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:17:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] greg burch found alive In-Reply-To: <984A5ECB4B3746EFB879123C8BF701CF@DFC68LF1> References: <026f01cc6b1b$36cd1240$a46736c0$@att.net> <984A5ECB4B3746EFB879123C8BF701CF@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <4E63B292.7080702@canonizer.com> Spike, Hey, it's 11:15, at least in my time zone. Where are these details??? Gregory, you listening??? Brent Allsop On 9/4/2011 11:02 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > This is a freaky email. > > Natasha > > Natasha Vita-More > > Chair,Humanity+ > PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK > > Co-Editor, /The Transhumanist Reader/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *spike > *Sent:* Sunday, September 04, 2011 10:57 AM > *To:* 'ExI chat list' > *Subject:* [ExI] greg burch found alive > > Gregory Burch is alive and well! > > Details at 11. > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Sep 4 17:36:25 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 10:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] spike turing test In-Reply-To: <008301cc692b$34058930$9c109b90$@att.net> Message-ID: <1315157785.15349.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7AERA38Gn0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:58:32 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:58:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315072503.14889.YahooMailClassic@web114405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1315072503.14889.YahooMailClassic@web114405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > I don't see how replacing a system's parts one-by-one with identically-functional replacements is any different in effect to replacing them all at the same time. > > In fact, I don't see any practical difference between any of the myriad states between system A (unmodified), system A1 (one part replaced by a functionally-identical component), A2.., An, and B (all parts replaced). ?Therefore, by my perception of the logic here, there is no functional difference between A and B, whether B was attained via gradual or simultaneous replacement. > > Please explain the (presumed, by your above statement) error in my thinking. In theory, you are correct. The problem comes when you apply theory to practice. In practice, if you gradually change A through A1, A2, ...An, up to B, you'll wind up with something (B') different than if you just tried to replace A with B. It is theoretically possible to avoid this, and to wind up with exactly B. It's just that it happens so rarely, that common speech and perceptions make the assumption that it never happens - and, again, that's practically always a correct assumption. It's so frequent that it infiltrates into concepts of the "self", and what it means to be "the same", like the example of "the same" boat I gave. As far as I know, the reason this happens is because, with gradual replacement, the goal is not simply to arrive at exactly B. (If it was, then replacing A with B directly would usually be the way to go.) Rather, the goal is to wind up somewhere around B, adjusting and tweaking the target during the process - often, giving time to identify any properties of A that might best be preserved. In this analogy, artificial intelligence B would be a one-shot emulation of biological intelligence A without any fine-tuning, while B' would be arrived at by tweaking A1, A2, and so on to make sure the desired properties are retained. Obviously, B would be lower quality than B' (as judged by those doing the tweaking) - but the point is, B is not B'. From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 19:43:23 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 13:43:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/3 G. Livick > Well, yes and no...? That there is nothing special about us is clear.? We are made from the same atoms from which everything else is made.? However, with such a realization being of great value in other places, it doesn't help us in grappling with the main issue here: the mind is not made up of atoms, only the necessary correlate of the mind is constructed. > > As a follow-on to that, > > "As counter-intuitive as it is, there is nothing to be afraid of concerning > destructive uploading, the pattern that makes your consciousness is the > only thing that matters. Gradually transferring a mind is no different > tha[n] destroying it [and] recreating it. Nobody else would make the >difference and neither would you, because there isn't any." I see the difference between replacing the atoms in your brain quickly vs. slowly to be an issue of continuity of consciousness. While you may perceive a me uploaded into a robot or VR to be the same as me, I'm more interested in the internal perception. Do I, internally to my thought processes feel as though I've had a nap, or just lived my life day by day, and the pattern is continuous. If there is a big discontinuity, then it will feel as though I've died. That would inflict a certain amount of psychological damage on me (or my copy) So the critical issue here is psychological. How does it feel to me, and how does it feel to the people I love and work with? If I showed up in a brand new metallic body at work tomorrow, then people would not see me as me, at least not initially. The current corollary is people who go through a sex change operation. They first start cross dressing, then they get hormone therapy, and only after a long period including a lot of therapy, do they snip and tuck and do the surgery part of things. This allows the people around them to get used to Bob being Barb, or Sara being Sam. Saying that this doesn't matter at all is just a little naive. >If we continued conscious awareness when doubled, or tripled if the process is non-destructive, which one are we aware of, or are we aware in multiple places at the same time? I like to think of it as multiple threads of execution, perhaps even distributed to different physical computers. When the threads are merged later, you just have new memory of having done two different things yesterday. It would be weird at first, but I think we could get use to remembering two yesterdays, or twenty. It would probably be percieved initially as yesterday, and the day before yesterday.... which would be confusing, but I think we could adapt to that pretty quickly. If the new me looks like the old me, or is in VR only, then I think others would adapt to that as well, but there would still be a unique "real" you in the perception of most people. >Trying to get my arms around going from me into two other simultaneous me's, and >then having them immediately diverge due to dissimilar experiential development while >still being me, makes me even more dizzy. It is a little disorienting, that's the psychology part that needs to be sorted out. -Kelly From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 20:06:42 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 21:06:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > I like to think of it as multiple threads of execution, perhaps even > distributed to different physical computers. When the threads are > merged later, you just have new memory of having done two different > things yesterday. It would be weird at first, but I think we could get > use to remembering two yesterdays, or twenty. It would probably be > perceived initially as yesterday, and the day before yesterday.... > which would be confusing, but I think we could adapt to that pretty > quickly. If the new me looks like the old me, or is in VR only, then I > think others would adapt to that as well, but there would still be a > unique "real" you in the perception of most people. > What you are describing will probably be a very temporary phenomenon. When uploading and merging becomes possible, we and our environment will be changing rapidly. I suspect that merging multiple versions will quickly produce a hive-mind type of entity. Economies of scale, etc. Why stick with merging two versions when you are competing with entities with thousands or millions of merged IDs? If you do choose to remain alone, you will quickly be swamped by the more powerful Minds. BillK From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 21:06:37 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:06:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > For those who care about such issues, > > http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8323 > > Keith Henson Thanks, Keith. A question, if you please. In the last few years, differing designs have emerged aimed at harvesting solar power. StratoSolar's design is yet another. There are updraft towers, downdraft towers, parabolic troughs and fields of mirrors, and of course PV. Others? In July, Damien posted this: http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/ (The downdraft tower is perhaps unfamiliar to you, so let me tell you how that works. In an updraft tower heated air rises because it is lighter than the surrounding air. In a downdraft tower the conditions are reversed, cooler denser (ie heavier air) flows downward through the tower. Water mist is injected at the top of the tower, cooling the air.) Somewhere (I can't find it) in the follow-on discussion to your piece, it was mentioned that the diameter of the light pipe must be 30-50 meters to avoid excessive losses due to internal reflection. Okay. Fine. Understood. But I noticed something that got me to thinking. And I wonder if, in the process of working on this project, you had noticed it as well. If the light pipe is narrower, and all the light is absorbed by the "reflective" lining, then the lining heats up, no? The lining, being adjacent to it, heats the interior air, which then rises. Concentrated light flows down, heated air flows up. Voila, updraft tower. Of course, extensive analysis and redesign is needed, since the forces are completely different, but there's the idea. Did you happen to notice? I only read your Oil Drum piece yesterday, so my subconscious hasn't had much chance to process this info yet, but one idea -- one variant -- came to mind. StratoSolar introduces the airborne solar collector, which injects concentrated sunlight into a light pipe. If we strap this to the EnviroMission updraft tower, we can dispense with the solar collection field surrounding the base of that tower, and convert the "bare" tower into a combination high-end skyscraper slash solar power facility. Then the EnviroMission becomes city friendly, and with proper design perhaps VERY city friendly. Cities are heat islands to begin with, a plus that not only contributes to power generation, but in summer, the air flow could help cool the city. Tip of the iceberg... Crackpottery, or Ass Burgers generated genius, you be the judge. PS Someone in Silly Con Valley really must open a small eatery and call it... Ass Burgers. "We FOCUS... on the Burger!" Best, Jeff Davis Aspiring Transhuman / Delusional Ape (Take your pick) Nicq MacDonald From spike66 at att.net Sun Sep 4 21:05:40 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:05:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] an old and dear long-missing friend found alive Message-ID: <004901cc6b46$67770d80$36652880$@att.net> >>.Gregory Burch is alive and well! Details at 11. spike >.On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More >.Subject: Re: [ExI] greg burch found alive >.This is a freaky email. Natasha Apologies, I agree it violates my own guideline of avoiding placing a person's name in the subject line. What I meant was I had confirmed a notion that Greg's email @ was not functional. A bunch of us had posted to him in the past few years and never heard back. Turns out he wasn't ignoring us, he didn't get those messages. He is living in China, and their IT infrastructure isn't as reliable as we fortunate ones have come to enjoy. I heard from him this morning, but it was from a work address, and so I am waiting for his permission before I post that email @ to the whole world. Had it been a personal @, I would have just posted it here, for I know he has many friends and fans among the old timers here. Stand by, I hope to hear back soon. It is not yet dawn on that side of the world. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 07:17:01 2011 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 00:17:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Alcor dumping "grandfathering"? In-Reply-To: References: <0C8DC3F3-B4EE-48C2-9227-47B930EAA2A7@mac.com> Message-ID: I just wanted to add to the discussion that until Max has been in his position for *at least* two years, no one should be dismissive of his presidency. I bet ten years from now when people look back, they will say Max More was the best president Alcor ever had! I just hope the board of directors do not interfere with whatever goals he wishes to achieve, or even go to the extreme of pushing him out. They are after all, the kingmakers and kingbreakers... And if Alcor is supposedly so screwed up, then how is the Cryonics Institute doing these days? John On 9/2/11, BillK wrote: > 2011/9/2 Giovanni Santostasi wrote: >> Eugen and Max, >> It would be good if these discussions would be open to the rest of the >> list >> members. Clarity and transparency are good things in any organization. I >> may >> be naive on this issue but I think bringing to light any problem and allow >> public discussion and suggestions could be beneficial and even an >> opportunity for growth. >> > > > No business discusses their problems in public. It provides too much > ammunition for competitors and naysayers to ruin their business. > > The time for publicity is when they announce improvements and new plans. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 06:55:20 2011 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 23:55:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] greg burch found alive In-Reply-To: <4E63B292.7080702@canonizer.com> References: <026f01cc6b1b$36cd1240$a46736c0$@att.net> <984A5ECB4B3746EFB879123C8BF701CF@DFC68LF1> <4E63B292.7080702@canonizer.com> Message-ID: I look forward to hearing what Greg has been up to lately. He is a man of adventure and learning, after all! John : ) On 9/4/11, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Spike, > > Hey, it's 11:15, at least in my time zone. > > Where are these details??? > > Gregory, you listening??? > > Brent Allsop > > > > On 9/4/2011 11:02 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> This is a freaky email. >> >> Natasha >> >> Natasha Vita-More >> >> Chair,Humanity+ >> PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK >> >> Co-Editor, /The Transhumanist Reader/ >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org >> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *spike >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 04, 2011 10:57 AM >> *To:* 'ExI chat list' >> *Subject:* [ExI] greg burch found alive >> >> Gregory Burch is alive and well! >> >> Details at 11. >> >> spike >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 09:14:08 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 11:14:08 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On 4 September 2011 21:43, Kelly Anderson wrote: > I see the difference between replacing the atoms in your brain quickly > vs. slowly to be an issue of continuity of consciousness. While you > may perceive a me uploaded into a robot or VR to be the same as me, > I'm more interested in the internal perception. Do I, internally to my > thought processes feel as though I've had a nap, or just lived my life > day by day, and the pattern is continuous. If there is a big > discontinuity, then it will feel as though I've died. That would > inflict a certain amount of psychological damage on me (or my copy) > Actually,... no. No matter how you perform the upload, perfect continuity is perceived by the upload, by definition (one cannot be anybody but oneself at any stage of the process, and at any stage either you are counscious - including "sleep" consciousness - or you are not). With regard to the public, which has nothing to do with internal perception, it strictly depends on what you decide to show it, not on the mechanics of the process. Similarly, if one approximates B from A, either B' is different enough from B that it can be described as a different result - and graduality is irrelevant for this purpose, or is "similar enough", and in such event nothing change.>If we continued conscious awareness when doubled, or tripled if the process is non-destructive, which one are we aware of, or are we aware in multiple places at the same time? I like to think of it as multiple threads of execution, perhaps even > distributed to different physical computers. When the threads are > merged later, you just have new memory of having done two different > things yesterday. It would be weird at first, but I think we could get > use to remembering two yesterdays, or twenty. It would probably be > percieved initially as yesterday, and the day before yesterday.... > I suspect that the merger of two "threads" would be no different from any practical purpose than the merger of any two individuals. You may probably create an AGI as a patchwork of different experiences lived by several persons, as in Blade Runner's Rachel, but *this* would certainly qualify as a new person. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Mon Sep 5 11:33:09 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:33:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) Message-ID: Hi All - I'm curious as to whether the views expressed in these blog posts (about religion, and one explicitly on religion & transhumanism) might be considered controversial, trivial, or somewhere in between... http://transhumanpraxis.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/why-transhumanists-should-be-proud-to-be-called-neo-gnostics/ http://transhumanpraxis.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/god-gods/ - Amon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Sep 5 13:46:24 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:46:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> Hi Amon and all, I started to write a comment that was a couple of hundred words and I decided that I can say it in one sentence: Too many assumptions and inaccuracies and even though a few points hold water, the trust of the post is a turn off. Natasha _____ From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org [mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org] On Behalf Of Amon Zero Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 6:33 AM To: extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com; ExI chat list; World Transhumanist Association Discussion List Subject: Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) Hi All - I'm curious as to whether the views expressed in these blog posts (about religion, and one explicitly on religion & transhumanism) might be considered controversial, trivial, or somewhere in between... http://transhumanpraxis.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/why-transhumanists-should-b e-proud-to-be-called-neo-gnostics/ http://transhumanpraxis.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/god-gods/ - Amon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From florent.berthet at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 14:07:02 2011 From: florent.berthet at gmail.com (Florent Berthet) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:07:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/3 G. Livick > which mind contains the individual identity that goes forward, if the > upload goes onto two computers at the same time? > Each time you copy your brain pattern somewhere (on a computer or on any other substrate) you create a new individual entity, totally independent from the previous ones. For example if I were to scan you during your sleep and create a clone of you in an other room, you wouldn't "feel" or "share" the thoughts of your clone, nor would you even be aware that there is a clone. And your clone, when he'd wake up, would be all like "hey! what am I doing here?! I was in my bed and now I'm here?" because he would be exactly like you, with your memories and your sense of self. In fact, if we were to move both of you in another room during your sleep, there would be no way for either of you to know if you were the original or the clone. And if I pointed a finger at one of you and said "you are the clone, we must destroy you now", the response would be "hey, wait! I'm not the clone! I know it because I remember going to bed! don't kill me!". Both of you would have the same identity, therefore there is not one of you that is "more you" than the other. > If we don't survive as ourselves when making the transition from carbon to > silicon, then there is no point to the exercise at all in terms of the > dogma. > "Surviving as ourselves" is the key notion of the debate and this is the one that is hard to grasp. What I was saying is that this problem is irrelevant because there is no "real yourself" that is special and different from your clones or uploads ; all of them are you. Let me explain this in several ways: All of these identities being identical, no identity would be more special nor more "related to you" than the others. You can't say that one is the "real you". Each one of you will think he's you, and each one of you will be right. That's why the notions of "you" and "self" are slippery. If "me" refers to my mere inner experience, then there can be several "me". But if "me" refers to "the specific identity that I carried all my life, that is linked to my body and that I would lose during a destructive uploading", then, well, in fact there's no such thing. What you are referring to as "yourself" is just an experience, a physical phenomenon, it can be replicated anywhere. There is no special thing that makes this experience the "true" one when it comes to defining if an upload is still you or not. If, after a mind upload, you feel like you went from your body to a computer simulation, then it's all that matters, you've succeeded in transferring your mind, even if your consciousness was shut down for a few moment, even if your previous shell had to be destroyed in the process. The reason why there isn't a specific thing that makes you the "real" you is precisely because you are *only* defined by your identity, the identity IS YOU. When you say "I", it is in fact your identity that reflects on itself, giving you the illusion of self continuity. In fact, there is nothing more to your sense of self than the pattern made by your brain. This pattern doesn't belong to you, it can be replicated and modified, and it is actually constantly modified in the body that you refer to as "my body" but which is just a place where this pattern occurs. Copy this pattern elsewhere and there will be another you. Your identity is just the phenomenon that occurs each time a pattern similar to your brain is electrically active. So, when you say "I want to survive through uploading", you are really saying "I want the phenomenon of my consciousness to be able to run again on another substrate". So it's really an altruistic act: you are not doing this for you, but for a phenomenon that will feel like you. When you understand that, your sense of self vanishes, and being egoistic doesn't even makes sense anymore because you won't even profit from what you do: what you do will benefit to a future being that will be similar to you but will be a different physical experience. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 17:26:04 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 19:26:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/5 Florent Berthet > So, when you say "I want to survive through uploading", you are really > saying "I want the phenomenon of my consciousness to be able to run again on > another substrate". So it's really an altruistic act: you are not doing this > for you, but for a phenomenon that will feel like you. When you understand > that, your sense of self vanishes, and being egoistic doesn't even makes > sense anymore because you won't even profit from what you do: what you do > will benefit to a future being that will be similar to you but will be a > different physical experience. > Of course, the concept of "altruism" and "egotism" break down here. If I am taking steps to slow down aging, somebody will benefit from it that in seven years will apparently not contain one single atom that is currently included in my physical body. Our survival instinct however does not care, since it is shaped by the different success ratio of our genes. The same genes, however, make "sweet" for us a number of forms of "individual survival" (eg, past reproductive age *or* through an upload) which may not have any direct influence on their success after all, simply because the contrary was not selected against. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 17:26:26 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:26:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/5 Stefano Vaj : > Actually,... no. No matter how you perform the upload, perfect continuity is > perceived by the upload, by definition (one cannot be anybody but oneself at > any stage of the process Nope. One can perceive a significant shift in who one is during the process, such that one (and others) perceive a different self afterward. > Similarly, if one approximates B from A, either B' is different enough from > B that it can be described as a different result - and graduality is > irrelevant for this purpose, or is "similar enough", and in such event > nothing change. Unless, of course, graduality is the key to whether one ends up with B or B' - which seems to be the case, based on what hard evidence there is (namely, similar processes with other things). From amon at doctrinezero.com Mon Sep 5 18:18:47 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 19:18:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> References: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On 5 September 2011 14:46, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > ** > > I started to write a comment that was a couple of hundred words and I > decided that I can say it in one sentence: Too many assumptions > and inaccuracies and even though a few points hold water, the trust of the > post is a turn off. > Hi Natasha - Pray tell, what assumptions and inaccuracies are you referring to? (I'm not saying saying there aren't any, just that I have no idea what flaws you claim to have noticed, and therefore cannot respond). p.s. what does "The trust of the post is a turn off" mean? Do you mean title, perhaps? - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 18:29:39 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 11:29:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: 2011/9/5 Amon Zero : > On 5 September 2011 14:46, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> >> I started to write a comment that was a couple of hundred words and I >> decided that I can say it in one?sentence: Too many assumptions >> and?inaccuracies and even though a few points?hold water,?the trust of the >> post?is a turn off. > > Hi Natasha - > Pray tell, what assumptions and inaccuracies are you referring to? (I'm not > saying saying there aren't any, just that I have no idea what flaws you > claim to have noticed, and therefore cannot respond). > p.s. what does "The trust of the post is a turn off" mean? Do you mean > title, perhaps? She means the post has a lot of assumptions and inaccurate statements - too many to be worth listing individually, and so many that making a point by point rebuttal would take significant effort just to state each one (let alone state why that point is an error), possibly more effort than is warranted. It is suggested that you go through the post for yourself and see what the assumptions and inaccurate statements might be, as a first pass. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 5 19:29:27 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:29:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110905192927.GR16334@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 09:59:54PM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > For those who care about such issues, > > http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8323 Looks down to me at the moment. Anyone else? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Sep 5 20:31:27 2011 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:31:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar article In-Reply-To: <20110905192927.GR16334@leitl.org> References: <20110905192927.GR16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: <75103d2f18f0b3a72b1db6c016e44b25.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> >> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8323 Eugen wrote: > > Looks down to me at the moment. Anyone else? > "access denied". Guess not going to read it today! :) Regards, MB From florent.berthet at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 22:12:53 2011 From: florent.berthet at gmail.com (Florent Berthet) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 00:12:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <4E64F1AE.2000207@speakeasy.net> References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> <4E64F1AE.2000207@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: Alan, I understand what you are saying and I'm probably not making myself clear when I say every clone and upload "is you" (by the way, by "upload" I mean that I have essentially copy-pasted your brain on a computer in a safe way, resulting in two distincts persons. I'm not talking about a transfer of mind which would result in a single thinking entity). I'm not saying that your inner self changes when you are cloned, and of course each clone has its own individual personal experience. I'm not saying you are not unique, each person and each clone is unique, I'm saying that even if there is indeed an original, the question of destructive versus safe uploading is not relevant because both of them result in the same thing. And I'm not saying this as "nobody else will notice so we don't care if the original dies!", I'm saying this as "it makes intrinsically no difference for anybody - not even for the guy we want to upload - if the original dies in the process". This is a tough thing to discuss, so bear with me: if I told you I was going to clone you and torture your clone later on, would you be scared to be in pain or would you just think "oh, the poor guy"? I guess you'd think the latter. But if I told you I would torture you tomorrow, you'd probably be scared for yourself. Well, what I'm saying is that, as counter-intuitive as it is, you shouldn't be more afraid of being tortured yourself tomorrow than you should be afraid of your clone being tortured. Ok, that's a bold assumption, but if you really think about it, it makes sense. Why are you afraid for yourself and not for your clone? You will say it's because you are tied to your own nervous system, and not to your clone's, obviously. Well, sure, but what is this "you" that is tied to this nervous system? It's only a brain pattern. And don't think it is "your" brain pattern just because it's made of "your" atoms, indeed these atoms could be interchanged without any consequence; hence the examples were we change your atoms one after another. These examples are useful to know where people draw the line between "it's still me" and "it's another person". So tell me where you put yourself: - if I were to freeze your brain of any electrical activity for a second, would you say you'd be the same after I turn you back on? - what if I were to freeze your brain, take a small part out and put it back safely while frozen, then turn you back on? - what if I freeze it, disassemble it and recreate it atom by atom in your skull without changing anything else. Would this still be you? Would you mind if we did this? If you say yes to these three, then you'd probably be afraid if I told you I would torture this reconstructed you after your "surgery". And then, logically, in the previous example where I torture your clone, you should be afraid too, because this clone was no different than a reconstructed you (the only difference in this case is that the original is still alive, but why should this impact the clone's fate?). If you say no somewhere, then I'm interested in your reasoning. Yeah, sure you could copy my pattern. That doesn't mean I don't own it or > that the act of copying my pattern would benefit me in any way. That is precisely where lies the illusion. What I'm arguing is that the concept of something benefiting somebody is meaningless because the notion of a continuous "somebody" is wrong. I'm saying that consciousness is not a continuous entity living in one's brain. Instead, consciousness is simply something that happens when some conditions are met in a substrate, regardless of the past conditions of the substrate. We feel we will be the same person tomorrow, but it's just an illusion that serves our evolution, it makes no sense physically. "You" won't wake up in your bed tomorrow, instead, tomorrow, your body will spark a consciousness that will be very similar to the one he created the day before, and that's it. You may think that doesn't change anything but there's a huge difference, in the first case you have a good reason to be concerned for your future, and in the second case your future self is just another person. What is it exactly that you are afraid to lose by going through a destructive uploading? My views require a stretch of the mind but they are not some kind of esoteric BS, the reasoning is very pragmatic. We feel like our consciousness "belongs" to us and that it will be so until our death. For that reason we feel more concerned about our own fate than the fate of others. We believe this because there's a continuity in our body: we know it's always alive and going. Plus, each morning when we wake up, we feel like the same person as the day before. But how could it be any different? Our brain contains memories, and memories are what makes us feel like who we are. In fact, if you feel more concerned by the fate of your own body, it's because you think your brain is somehow important. You feel that it's not just the mathematical pattern that matters (or else you'd also feel concerned for your copies), but it's the fact that this pattern is made up from "your" atoms. What is really hard to grasp is that there is nothing special about these atoms: they don't hold any number or name. And it's not about your neurons either: the fact that your neurons have always formed some kind of electric current in your brain is not relevant, theoretically we could briefly pause this current and there's no reason to think this would result in a crucial switch of identity. You are just your consciousness, which is just a spontaneous phenomenon made by a bunch of atoms interacting with each other. The substrate is irrelevant. Therefore, why would you think the brain of the "tomorrow you" is crucially different than the brain of your clone? Both of them will produce a consciousness, and these consciousnesses will be independent from each other, in the same way that the consciousness of the "tomorrow you" will be independent from you current one because it has no regard whatsoever for the history of the substrate it comes from. In a way, this last clipping is a major conceptual breakthrough. The > admission that uploading serves no egotistical benefit is just a hair away > from saying that uploading serves no end whatsoever. Yes, apart from the fact that I think a future me could live an excellent life in a simulated world, as well as all the other uploaded beings, and that it's a good thing in itself. This argument is also why I don't see cryonics as pertinent in an egotistical point of view. At best, it's like saying "have fun, future guy that's like me!". But again, I feel the same for the future me that will wake up tomorrow in my bed. Yes, this reasoning involves mind blowing implications, but I don't see how it could be wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Sep 6 00:57:57 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 19:57:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: Hi -A Pray is a strange request. Made me laugh. But anyway, I mean that most transhumanists are not militant atheists. Trust refers to the reliance. But I it is a typo because I wanted to say "thrust". Natasha _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amon Zero Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 1:19 PM To: extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com; ExI chat list; World Transhumanist Association Discussion List Subject: Re: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) On 5 September 2011 14:46, Natasha Vita-More wrote: I started to write a comment that was a couple of hundred words and I decided that I can say it in one sentence: Too many assumptions and inaccuracies and even though a few points hold water, the trust of the post is a turn off. Hi Natasha - Pray tell, what assumptions and inaccuracies are you referring to? (I'm not saying saying there aren't any, just that I have no idea what flaws you claim to have noticed, and therefore cannot respond). p.s. what does "The trust of the post is a turn off" mean? Do you mean title, perhaps? - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Sep 6 03:17:59 2011 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:17:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <29C8A5B4-B2DF-464F-BDD2-EF32E33DD056@mac.com> On Sep 5, 2011, at 4:33 AM, Amon Zero wrote: > Hi All - > > I'm curious as to whether the views expressed in these blog posts (about religion, and one explicitly on religion & transhumanism) might be considered controversial, trivial, or somewhere in between... > > http://transhumanpraxis.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/why-transhumanists-should-be-proud-to-be-called-neo-gnostics/ Yes, we are techno-gnostics. So what? > > http://transhumanpraxis.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/god-gods/ A very powerfully intelligent AGI could have created the universe we seem to inhabit, or even dozens of them. But so what? There is no evidence this is the case and it isn't supportive of mysticism or a lot of murky thinking if it is the case. Believe me, I have tried to justify all kinds of pseudo-religious, pseudo-mystical, totally groovy forever after notions on such basis. It doesn't work. The notion of a "Supreme Being" says basically that there is a top, a no more beyond this, an End. I have no use for the notion. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 03:38:45 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:38:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM, BillK wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Kelly Anderson ?wrote: > >> I like to think of it as multiple threads of execution, perhaps even >> distributed to different physical computers. When the threads are >> merged later, you just have new memory of having done two different >> things yesterday. It would be weird at first, but I think we could get >> use to remembering two yesterdays, or twenty. It would probably be >> perceived initially as yesterday, and the day before yesterday.... >> which would be confusing, but I think we could adapt to that pretty >> quickly. If the new me looks like the old me, or is in VR only, then I >> think others would adapt to that as well, but there would still be a >> unique "real" you in the perception of most people. >> > > > What you are describing will probably be a very temporary phenomenon. > When uploading and merging becomes possible, we and our environment > will be changing rapidly. > > I suspect that merging multiple versions will quickly produce a > hive-mind type of entity. Economies of scale, etc. Why stick with > merging two versions when you are competing with entities with > thousands or millions of merged IDs? > > ?If you do choose to remain alone, you will quickly be swamped by the > more powerful Minds. Bill, that may be the case, but the psyche of the American as an individual may be hard to overcome by those of my generation and before. Perhaps the youngsters will be more willing to participate in the hive mind. After all, they are already sharing things on Facebook that would have mortified me. How do you keep your individuality if you're in a hive mind? How can you even say that you continue to exist, except as some kind of subroutine... I'm certainly not ready at this point to sign up for the hive mind, unless it's a hive consisting of copies of my own mind... then I'm willing to go for it, I think. -Kelly From spike66 at att.net Tue Sep 6 03:48:34 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 20:48:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. Message-ID: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson >...Perhaps the youngsters will be more willing to participate in the hive mind. After all, they are already sharing things on Facebook that would have mortified me. -Kelly Isn't it amazing? I don't know what to make of that. People in cyberspace seem so very self-accepting of everything, so un-self-conscious, so free of any emotion I would call abashedness, so sure that regardless of their own faults, it isn't their fault. The attitude seems to be whatever they are is shared by countless others. I have seen people spill to the whole world such intimate details about themselves, apparently with zero concern about repercussions. In my own misspent youth, most people would never in a million years confess to their closest friend that which is today freely spilled into the public domain forever and ever amen. How did that happen? I am not objecting, nor saying it is a bad thing, rather the opposite. Just wondering why. spike From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 6 07:47:37 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:47:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On 5 September 2011 19:29, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > She means the post has a lot of assumptions and inaccurate statements - > too many to be worth listing individually, and so many that making a point > by point rebuttal would take significant effort just to state each one (let > alone state why that point is an error), possibly more effort than is > warranted. Hi Adrian - I understood what Natasha was saying, but understandably (as the writer) I do not believe the piece to be riddled with indefensible statements. But without concrete criticisms, I cannot offer concrete responses. I know that Natasha is busy, as we all are, but it's a little unjfair to essentially say "this sucks" and adopt the philosophical high ground, without giving the opportunity to rebut. In my humble opinion, if the merest outline of a point cannot be made (for time or any other reasons), then one shouldn't give the impression that an argument has already been made and won. Having said that, logging in just now I see that Natasha has given some examples which I will be able to respond to. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 6 07:57:00 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:57:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [ExtroBritannia] RE: Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On 6 September 2011 01:57, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > ** > > > Pray is a strange request. > Heh - apologies; apparently my email went through a 16th Century English filter ;-) "Pray tell" just means "please do say"... > Made me laugh. But anyway, I mean that most > > transhumanists are not militant atheists. Trust refers to the reliance. > But I it is a typo because I wanted to say "thrust". > Ah - ok. Well, I have to say that there is a large overlap with the increasingly strident atheist community, but it is of course hard to keep track of how many futurist-inclined atheists identify as transhumanists and vice versa in the absence of a large, formal survey. Suffice to say that I'd be extremely surprised if it turned out that the majority of transhumanists identified as strong religious believers. I am aware of a number of transhumanists with religious beliefs of one type of another, but I've always been under the distinct impression that they are definitely in the minority. As for the thrust of the piece (obviously I had a long day yesterday, not spotting that!) - well, I suppose that's why I wondered if it was a controversial idea. I knew it certainly was ten years ago (when a number of articles mentioning the Matrix implied such an idea - that transhumanists are body-hating neo-Gnostics - and Erik Davis explicitly made the point in a sustained attack on Extropianism in his book "TechGnosis"). The motivation to write the piece came from thinking that rather than being defensive in the face of such claims, perhaps transhumanists might use the parallel (however flawed or inaccurate it may be) to our own advantage. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 6 08:19:56 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 09:19:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5 September 2011 18:47, Thomas Eliot wrote: > The first one seems to be basically saying "hey I just figured out that > fiction can be useful and interesting even though it's not literally true, > hey you guys isn't that amazing" to which I respond "yep that's what fiction > is all right." The latter article seems to be just "people* compare > transhumanists to gnostics, but did you know that gnostics were kind of cool > and persecuted?" which is not really... interesting or new or profound in > any way that I can see? > > *what people? I've never heard this comparison Hi Thomas - Now, this is an interesting criticism that I didn't see coming! As a natural default, I'd be inclined to agree with you; Of course I (as the writer) think these are entirely reasonable and unremarkable notions. The reason i felt motivated to write, however, was that I've been surprised over the years by the number of people who not only disagree with one or both ideas, but who disagree vociferously, with the background implication that I must be mad to think this way. So it's nice to know I'm not alone! ;-) Regarding the idea of fictional entities being in some sense real and even useful... perhaps I spend too much time on facebook and mailing lists, but not a week goes by without the perennial battle between literalist atheists and (often absent, even straw man) literalist believers flaring up. The atheists will make some variant of the simple claim that there is no evidence that God exists, and therefore believers are being stupid to believe in something that has no consequence in this real, physical world of ours. Occasionally I'll say something along the lines of "but the believers' *beliefs* are real enough, and so their notion of God and the consequences of that belief system are real, and so their belief in real effects of belief might be justified". If my point were uncontroversial then it would never spark an argument. But it does, just about every time. As for "people" who have compared transhumanists to the Gnostics, these days it tends to be implied in comments to the effect that transhumanists are "body haters", and 10-12 years ago there was a rush of blog posts & articles making the connection while referring to The Matrix and similar movies, but the most high-profile example I'm aware of was Erik Davis' book "TechGnosis", which included an explicit and extended attack upon Extropianism in exatly this vein (the book's title rather gives the game away). Of course I and others (apparently including yourself) think it uncontroversial to embrace such a comparison rather than let it be a liability, but it would seem that others do not hold this view. Natasha's comment that "the thrust of the piece is a turn-off" seems a condemnation of the idea. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 6 08:56:26 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 09:56:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: <29C8A5B4-B2DF-464F-BDD2-EF32E33DD056@mac.com> References: <29C8A5B4-B2DF-464F-BDD2-EF32E33DD056@mac.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/6 Samantha Atkins > > Yes, we are techno-gnostics. So what? > > A very powerfully intelligent AGI could have created the universe we seem > to inhabit, or even dozens of them. But so what? There is no evidence > this is the case and it isn't supportive of mysticism or a lot of murky > thinking if it is the case. Believe me, I have tried to justify all kinds > of pseudo-religious, pseudo-mystical, totally groovy forever after notions > on such basis. It doesn't work. > > The notion of a "Supreme Being" says basically that there is a top, a no > more beyond this, an End. I have no use for the notion. > Hi Samantha - Well - fair enough! In my defense, I will repeat that I don't think these ideas are uncontroversial. Not everyone is as accepting of the idea that we transhumanists are "cybergnostics" as you (and I) apparently are. My answer to this "so what" is that adopting this stance, or at least acknowledging the potential value of adopting it, strikes me as a lot more powerful a position than pouring scorn on anyone who would draw parallels between transhumanism and ancient religions. This issue, of course, is entangled with the question of whether influencing public opinion is something transhumanists should be working toward. I believe that it is. As for the "so what" in regard to it being valid for a materialist-atheist to work with the idea of 'gods' & a supreme being... I'll say that it you personally have no use for a symbol of the Universe in all its wondrous complexity, whatever you choose to call that, then fair enough. That's your business. But again, the majority of the world's people *do* feel the need for such symbols, and it may behoove us to acknowledge that we have access to conceptual tools which would allow us to communicate with, and if necessary influence them. In a nutshell; These blog posts are early, flawed attempts at conceptualizing a "language of conciliation" between futurist/atheists and believers of whatever stripe. If the day comes when transhumanism could score a major victory if only it can muster mass support outside its own traditional circles, then we would probably be glad of such a language. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 6 09:12:26 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:12:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110906091226.GY16334@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 08:48:34PM -0700, spike wrote: > I am not objecting, nor saying it is a bad thing, rather the opposite. Just It is an extremely foolish thing, as naive people don't realize how their openness can hurt them and their cause. Consider what openness buys you in Syria. You might find out the hard way that Syria is everywhere. Even if you're not a part of a social network but use a smartphone (especially Google's and Apple's) or are even an ordinary Internet user you're being profiled and sold as a product. Are you sure you're comfortable with that? > wondering why. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 10:02:37 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:02:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On 5 September 2011 19:26, Adrian Tymes wrote: > 2011/9/5 Stefano Vaj : > > Actually,... no. No matter how you perform the upload, perfect continuity > is > > perceived by the upload, by definition (one cannot be anybody but oneself > at > > any stage of the process > > Nope. One can perceive a significant shift in who one is during the > process, > such that one (and others) perceive a different self afterward. > Perception of change, yes. Don't we always perceive that? Not to mention when we undergo major surgery... A perception of "ceasing to be oneself" I would contend that it is impossible by definition. For the copy or for the original... > Similarly, if one approximates B from A, either B' is different enough > from > > B that it can be described as a different result - and graduality is > > irrelevant for this purpose, or is "similar enough", and in such event > > nothing change. > > Unless, of course, graduality is the key to whether one ends up with B or > B' - > which seems to be the case, based on what hard evidence there is (namely, > similar processes with other things). How would that be the case? A sudden change which produces the same result as a the gradual one... would produce the same result. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 10:10:50 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:10:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [ExtroBritannia] RE: Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: 2011/9/6 Amon Zero > Heh - apologies; apparently my email went through a 16th Century English > filter ;-) "Pray tell" just means "please do say"... > Why, in Oscar Wilde's playwrights it still seems quite in colloquial usage. Always wondered if it is entirely idiomatic amongst youth gangs in Bronx... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 10:52:20 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:52:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: <29C8A5B4-B2DF-464F-BDD2-EF32E33DD056@mac.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/6 Amon Zero > In a nutshell; These blog posts are early, flawed attempts at > conceptualizing a "language of conciliation" between futurist/atheists and > believers of whatever stripe. If the day comes when transhumanism could > score a major victory if only it can muster mass support outside its own > traditional circles, then we would probably be glad of such a language. > I personally added a few comments to your posts. While I do like my Dawkins, and even more my Dennett (much less the strident, self-righteous, sanctimonious Hitchens) I basically agree with many of your ideas here, but I would not be too sure about this being a "language of conciliation". If anything, making explicit references to a broad "religious" nature or compatibility of transhumanism puts us even more in the position of direct competitors to established churches and persuasions. Witch-hunting is certainly a time-honoured sport, but its popularity pales in comparison with burning heretics - who are after all in the same market and food chain - on the stake. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 6 11:10:06 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:10:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315072903.29524.YahooMailClassic@web114402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1315072903.29524.YahooMailClassic@web114402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110906111006.GP16334@leitl.org> On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 11:01:43AM -0700, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Florent Berthet grokked: ... > > nothing special about us. > > > > As counter-intuitive as it is, there is nothing to be > > afraid of concerning > > destructive uploading, the pattern that makes your > > consciousness is the only > > thing that matters. Gradually transferring a mind is no > > different that > > destroying it a recreating it. Nobody else would make the > > difference and > > neither would you, because there isn't any. > > > Well done, Florent. > > By Jove, I think you've got it! Indeed; and also providing a nice graded progression, sufficiently succicnt even for attention-deficient. > I hope that doesn't sound condescending, it's sincerely not meant to be. > > It seems that very few people genuinely grok this concept, you seem to have joined their ranks. Congratulations on making the transition from Crypto-Dualist to true Materialist! > > A bit scary, but exhilarating, no? Ah, but that rabbit-hole can go a bit further down, still http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/4c995dee307def3b/9f94f4d49cb2b9e6?pli=1 (and similar). With enough drugs, maybe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ahc1b0Tm7A > Ben Zaiboc From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Sep 6 13:57:51 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:57:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [ExtroBritannia] RE: Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: - A wrote: On 6 September 2011 01:57, Natasha Vita-More wrote: Pray is a strange request. > Heh - apologies; apparently my email went through a 16th Century English filter ;-) "Pray tell" just means "please do say"... Made me laugh. But anyway, I mean that most transhumanists are not militant atheists. > Ah - ok. Well, I have to say that there is a large overlap with the increasingly strident atheist community, but it is of course hard to keep track of how > many futurist-inclined atheists identify as transhumanists and vice versa in the absence of a large, formal survey. Yes, but even a strident atheist community or as you say militant atheists is an aggression I find a turn off. Why? Because in my view harsh, shrill, combative actions are often dismissed as emotional and lacking in logic. It seems to me that the strategy in The Art of War is based on objective conditions and subjective understanding of the other. If were were militant, I would prefer it be more strategic than reactionary. >Suffice to say that I'd be extremely > surprised if it turned out that the majority of transhumanists identified as strong religious believers. I am aware of a number of transhumanists with > religious beliefs of one type of another, but I've always been under the distinct impression that they are definitely in the minority. Just because someone may not be a militant atheist does not make him a religious believer. And, in my view, it counters the striving more for intelligence and humanness (transhumane). Intelligence does not equate to pursuing and creating adversity, but to finding solutions to problems. > As for the thrust of the piece (obviously I had a long day yesterday, not spotting that!) - well, I suppose that's why I wondered if it was a controversial > idea. It's an interesting idea. I am not a techno-Gnostic. I am a design-Gnostic interested in design-gnosis. I think that design is the solution to just about everything. I don't think technology is god or the answer to human problems. It is an element in overcoming odds and a tool for innovating solutions, but it is how we use the tools that will make a difference, not the tool itself. Design uses technology, but is not exclusively dependent on technology. > I knew it certainly was ten years ago (when a number of articles mentioning the Matrix implied such an idea - that transhumanists are > body-hating neo-Gnostics - and Erik Davis explicitly made the point in a sustained attack on Extropianism in his book "TechGnosis"). The motivation > to write the piece came from thinking that rather than being defensive in the face of such claims, perhaps transhumanists might use the parallel > (however flawed or inaccurate it may be) to our own advantage. Davis highlighted the extropian use of the body and interest in health and fitness and makes fun of the extropic interest in body building, nutrition, etc.. What is amusing is that he predates the postmodernist argument against transhumanism is that the transhumanist "hates" the body. Nevertheless, Davis was one of the first journalists to garnish a style based on hyperbole. Others followed. It was not based on a McLuhanist media is the message, but hyperbole as the activator for a interpretive message, whether it was true or not. It was the style of the times and Jerry Springer and reality TV is part of this vein. Davis' more recent work: Nomad Codes: Adventures in Modern Esoterica (2010): he does not mention extropy or transhuman, but he does, however, us phrases such as "techno-freak" and mentions Burning Man. The red thread in Davis' work is religion, spirituality, symbols and myth from a cyberpunk perspective, which may be more punking us than about the field of cybernetics. I didn't realize you wrote this blog article. I thought you were just brining it to our attention. If I knew that you wrote it, I would have been more considerate in my response and I apologize for this. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Chair, Humanity+ PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK Co-Editor, The Transhumanist Reader -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 6 14:14:26 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:14:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading In-Reply-To: <1315079431.25446.YahooMailClassic@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1315079431.25446.YahooMailClassic@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110906141426.GU16334@leitl.org> On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 12:50:31PM -0700, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Well, as much as uploading can be regarded as resurrection, I suppose it is. Be sure to specify the type of reinstantiation desired in your cryopreservation contract, should you be squeamish in the sense of "Do you think that's air you're breathing now?". Notice that this could cut your options down to none, so make sure to leave some escape clause (do not resuscitate unless XY). > Of course, you'd be able to run, fly, teleport, jump, displace, simply be somewhere... whatever you like (and whatever the software supports). Notice that relativistic latency would require physical relocation of the image in case of superrealtime (up to 10^6 to 10^9 the wall clock rate) rate of execution instead of just casting your sensorium around (which is a bit like today's virtual environments, be it centralist SL or distributed determinism like OpenCroquet). I presume transparent migration would be less crippling than halting, copying and resuming elsewhere, as the image size would be very large by today's notions and result in a Rip van Winkle effect (minus the wrinkles). > Er.. you don't need to breathe! You're an upload, remember? You'd have to build in a requirement to 'breathe' in the virtuality before swimming with mermaids presented a breathing problem. Your world consists of software, so there'd be no problem having a set of controls to specify which biological (and other) parameters to emulate. You could specify that you have to 'breathe', have a pulse, etc., etc. You could specify that you have a sense of breathing, regardless of your environment, or whatever. Minimizing suprises when instantatiated it's probably a good practice. > > Did George Carlin ever get wind of this scheme? > Not that I'm aware of, although I'm sure he would have had great fun with the concept. > > > Is there somewhere we > > can sign up for uploading? > > Not yet. > > > Is George already there? > > No. Sadly, George is nowhere. Gone into the great bit bucket into the sky. > > What kind of > > operating systems will support us? > > Who knows? For efficiency reasons alone there will be no software in the emulation engine itself (other than you, which is not at all like software, think of it as a 3d integer gas lattice). For security (pwnage) reasons there should be as little software as possible elsewhere, and of course there's the issue of execution on untrusted systems when you do a live relocation to a remote location not owned and built by you. If you thought today's security situation is a nightmare, I have bad news for you... > > I like JAVA myself so I can > > virtually exist anywhere that has a runtime, plus I can use it to stay > > alert. > > LOL. > Just remember that Java is owned. Pwned, even. > I'd probably prefer Ruby, or more likely, there will need to be some as-yet-uninvented OS for the kind of hardware and architecture needed to implement uploading. The basic capabilities are simple enough. Once you start allowing more features (like live migration, griefing mitigation and such) it will get hairy. It can't get too hairy, as it will be then impossible to get sufficiently watertight, and also too slow (gate delays are just as scarce as iterations in a loop, if you insist in common metaphors you unroll everything directly into virtual hardware, running on a minimal physical hardware aka computronium). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 6 14:34:11 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:34:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: <29C8A5B4-B2DF-464F-BDD2-EF32E33DD056@mac.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/6 Stefano Vaj > > If anything, making explicit references to a broad "religious" nature or > compatibility of transhumanism puts us even more in the position of direct > competitors to established churches and persuasions. > > Witch-hunting is certainly a time-honoured sport, but its popularity pales > in comparison with burning heretics - who are after all in the same market > and food chain - on the stake. > Hi Stefano - Yes, I've replied there - but I agree that stressing the concept of religion is almost certainly counter-productive in any number of ways. It's just that reacting against it too forcefully might be similarly counter-productive. As is the case with most things, my intuition is that there is probably some optimal "middle way", as the Buddhists would say. Besides which, I notice that 'true believers' don't tend to talk about religion in the abstract the way non-believers do - perhaps because if you've found your "One True Way" other points of view are unlikely to win the same status as your own belief system. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 14:37:28 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:37:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:48 PM, spike wrote: >>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson > >>...Perhaps the youngsters will be more willing to participate in the hive > mind. After all, they are already sharing things on Facebook that would have > mortified me. ?-Kelly > > > Isn't it amazing? ?I don't know what to make of that. ?People in cyberspace > seem so very self-accepting of everything, so un-self-conscious, so free of > any emotion I would call abashedness, so sure that regardless of their own > faults, it isn't their fault. There seems to be little in the way of shame, or guilt. That's probably a good thing overall... but it could have some serious consequences in some circumstances. J Edgar Hoover spent years putting together what we would now call Facebook pages on his enemies, and he ruled Washington with those files! Now, we just give that sort of information away for free. I'm sure there will be consequences, but what they are, I have no idea. I think it may make us a little more forgiving of politicians... perhaps. Though the recent Anthony Weiner thing shows us that the people aren't all ready for that kind of forgiveness quite yet. I do predict that the day will come when what Weiner did will be seen as no big deal, even in political circles. > The attitude seems to be whatever they are is > shared by countless others. ?I have seen people spill to the whole world > such intimate details about themselves, apparently with zero concern about > repercussions. ?In my own misspent youth, most people would never in a > million years confess to their closest friend that which is today freely > spilled into the public domain forever and ever amen. Yup. > How did that happen? Role models like Paris Hilton? I dunno? > I am not objecting, nor saying it is a bad thing, rather the opposite. ?Just > wondering why. I think it is more good than bad. but there has to be SOME bad in there. -Kelly From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 6 15:23:54 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:23:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk [ExtroBritannia] RE: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: <221C705A8A9949FA9A9FB4F9E88CB481@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On 6 September 2011 14:57, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Yes, but even a strident atheist community or as you say militant atheists > is an aggression I find a turn off. Why? Because in my view harsh, shrill, > combative actions are often dismissed as emotional and lacking in logic. It > seems to me that the strategy in The Art of War is based on objective > conditions and subjective understanding of the other. If were were > militant, I would prefer it be more strategic than reactionary. > I agree entirely! I may not believe in any physical supernatural entities without evidence, and don't like the idea of being told what to do by any religious authority, but I'm also no fan of shrill atheism by any stretch of the imagination. Just because someone may not be a militant atheist does not make him a > religious believer. And, in my view, it counters the striving more for > intelligence and humanness (transhumane). Intelligence does not equate to > pursuing and creating adversity, but to finding solutions to problems. > Quite right - I suspect we're being led down an uninteresting tangent here, based upon a bit of unnecessary hyperbole in my blog post, perhaps. I started out saying that a lot of transhumanists are "militant atheists" only because of a personal impression, and I was about to start talking about the possible value of an ancient (originally) religious belief system, not because it was really important to my argument. I think we can agree, however, that transhumanism as a whole does not tend to be religious, right? So any attempt to compare transhumanism and Gnosticism automatically looks a little odd, unless of course you're Alex Jones and already believe we're some kind of alien lizard cult. > > It's an interesting idea. I am not a techno-Gnostic. I am a design-Gnostic > interested in design-gnosis. I think that design is the solution to just > about everything. I don't think technology is god or the answer to human > problems. It is an element in overcoming odds and a tool for innovating > solutions, but it is how we use the tools that will make a difference, not > the tool itself. Design uses technology, but is not exclusively dependent > on > technology. > I like to think of technology as being a tool for embellishing and refining the greatest aspects of humanity while minimising our less salubrious tendencies. Obviously, like any tool, it can be misused. > Davis highlighted the extropian use of the body and interest in health and > fitness and makes fun of the extropic interest in body building, nutrition, > etc.. What is amusing is that he predates the postmodernist argument > against transhumanism is that the transhumanist "hates" the body. > Nevertheless, Davis was one of the first journalists to garnish a style > based on hyperbole. Others followed. It was not based on a McLuhanist media > is the message, but hyperbole as the activator for a interpretive message, > whether it was true or not. It was the style of the times and Jerry > Springer and reality TV is part of this vein. Davis' more recent work: > Nomad Codes: Adventures in Modern Esoterica (2010): he does not mention > extropy or transhuman, but he does, however, us phrases such as > "techno-freak" and mentions Burning Man. The red thread in Davis' work is > religion, spirituality, symbols and myth from a cyberpunk perspective, > which > may be more punking us than about the field of cybernetics. > That's an interesting perspective - I haven't kept up with his more recent writings. > I didn't realize you wrote this blog article. I thought you were just > brining it to our attention. If I knew that you wrote it, I would have been > more considerate in my response and I apologize for this. > Nothing to apologise for! I'd rather have an earnest debate than platitudes, so perhaps it's all for the best that you didn't realise I'd written the post! ;-) I should stress, however, that it wasn't written as a considered piece, hence the flaws and gaping holes in the narrative. Both posts were excerpts from facebook conversations, preserved in the blog for reference (rather than being left to be forgotten by facebook), and I wondered what self-identified transhumanists would make of the sentiments. There has been an interesting mix of responses overall... if I've learned one thing, it's that a number of people seem to be very confident that there is universal agreement, but not many can agree upon what is agreed upon... ;-) - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Sep 6 15:32:06 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:32:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <20110906091226.GY16334@leitl.org> References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <20110906091226.GY16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: <025f01cc6caa$2360fa60$6a22ef20$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl >>On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 08:48:34PM -0700, spike wrote: >> I am not objecting, nor saying it is a bad thing, rather the opposite. >...It is an extremely foolish thing, as naive people don't realize how their openness can hurt them and their cause. >...Even if you're not a part of a social network but use a smartphone (especially Google's and Apple's) or are even an ordinary Internet user you're being profiled and sold as a product. Are you sure you're comfortable with that? I am OK with being sold as a product, but not with becoming Syria. I see mostly benefit in openness on the part of the masses. >...Consider what openness buys you in Syria. You might find out the hard way that Syria is everywhere. Eugen Openness motivates the open hordes to not let Syria be everywhere. It motivates people to force governments to promote freedom as opposed to promulgating oppression as Syria does, along with plenty of other examples of oppressive government. spike From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 15:58:25 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:58:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Bill, that may be the case, but the psyche of the American as an > individual may be hard to overcome by those of my generation and > before. Perhaps the youngsters will be more willing to participate in > the hive mind. After all, they are already sharing things on Facebook > that would have mortified me. > 'psyche of the American as an individual' sounds terribly quaint in the context of the discussion. I'd call that an example of the Star Trek fallacy. Loads of advanced technology, but still humans having punch-ups with aliens. When these technologies hit humanity, what comes after won't be humanity as we know it. > How do you keep your individuality if you're in a hive mind? How can > you even say that you continue to exist, except as some kind of > subroutine... I'm certainly not ready at this point to sign up for the > hive mind, unless it's a hive consisting of copies of my own mind... > then I'm willing to go for it, I think. > Who knows? But I suspect it will be business as usual for everyone. 20 years ago nobody thought that it would become essential that everyone would have to carry a little communicator and be in constant contact with everyone else. It won't be life as it is now, but everyone will be doing it, so it will be very lonely outside. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 6 16:14:01 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:14:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <025f01cc6caa$2360fa60$6a22ef20$@att.net> References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <20110906091226.GY16334@leitl.org> <025f01cc6caa$2360fa60$6a22ef20$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110906161401.GX16334@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:32:06AM -0700, spike wrote: > I am OK with being sold as a product, I'm not. Consider what your health information is worth to your insurers, or your posting history (and health info) worth to HR. Do you really want to give Zucker the power to track you everywhere you go, and your broadband providers sniffing and messing with your traffic based on their idea of maximizing their profit? What about the IRS about hints of your underreported income? What about your utilities snitching about your covert hydroponics operation, and feds accessing your purchasing pattern on Amazon (do look at what else customers who bought precision weights also bought)? What about feds figuring you're hanging out with the wrong people, and decide to put you on full telco surveillance, and significantly bolstering your (already existing) database slot in Ft. Meade? What about mobile providers giving full location log to LEOs during demonstrations, so that they can make lists of potential troublemakers? Do not people realize what realtime analysis of mobile phone activity, location and past interaction history means if you want to overthrow a corrupt system? That was a rhetorical question. They're all babes, in the woods. They won't even know what hits them. Including literal hits from UAEs, as robots don't rebel when ordered to execute civilians. > but not with becoming Syria. I see > mostly benefit in openness on the part of the masses. > > >...Consider what openness buys you in Syria. You might find out the hard > way that Syria is everywhere. Eugen > > Openness motivates the open hordes to not let Syria be everywhere. It The people who run Syria aren't open. The people who run Syria would pick up the would-be leaders at night in their (suddenly brown-stained) underwear, should these be so foolish to insist on openness. A culture based on openness is the worst handicap you could have if you're opposing people who grew up learning how to play dirty. > motivates people to force governments to promote freedom as opposed to > promulgating oppression as Syria does, along with plenty of other examples > of oppressive government. Centralism thrives on data mining. It gives them power assymmetry over their naive, open hordes. And then, it's suddenly showers and delousing time. If you think that Syria is the worst case, you should read Vinge. Unlike what most people think, he doesn't write science fiction. He's more into somewhat prescient documentaries. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 16:37:06 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 09:37:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: snip >> By Jove, I think you've got it! > > Indeed; and also providing a nice graded progression, > sufficiently succicnt even for attention-deficient. Call me attention-deficient if you want, but Moravec's description of destructive uploading was just disgusting, with the husk of a body going into spasm as the last of the brain was destructively scanned at the bottom of a now empty skull. My point is that really poor idea (from a marketing viewpoint) *isn't needed.* The same nanotechnology you need for destructive scanning can be used to infiltrate the brain, initially as a neural interface and later teaching a set of nanoprocessors how to act as your biological brain would act. There is no reason memory could not be constructed in the biological brain while "you" were in an uploaded state making the process completely reversible, even continuous consciousness through an upload/download cycle. The sub set of these discussions of making duplicates is the route to abject poverty. I know Robin Hansen talks about this as inevitable, and it may be that economic forces make it come about. But there are things that really should be forbidden or at least tightly controlled, and this is one of them. If people think about it, and care to have a resource rich world, I expect a rule of "one at a time" to be observed. Sadly they probably won't think about it before making duplicates. Keith >> I hope that doesn't sound condescending, it's sincerely not meant to be. >> >> It seems that very few people genuinely grok this concept, you seem to have joined their ranks. ?Congratulations on making the transition from Crypto-Dualist to true Materialist! >> >> A bit scary, but exhilarating, no? > > Ah, but that rabbit-hole can go a bit further down, still > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/4c995dee307def3b/9f94f4d49cb2b9e6?pli=1 > (and similar). > > With enough drugs, maybe. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ahc1b0Tm7A > >> Ben Zaiboc > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 96, Issue 10 > ******************************************** > From spike66 at att.net Tue Sep 6 18:16:36 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:16:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson >...I'm sure there will be consequences, but what they are, I have no idea. I think it may make us a little more forgiving of politicians... perhaps. Though the recent Anthony Weiner thing shows us that the people aren't all ready for that kind of forgiveness quite yet. I do predict that the day will come when what Weiner did will be seen as no big deal, even in political circles... -Kelly Interesting aside: when a person goes through the security clearance process, they investigate everything about a person's life, in ways far more intimate than a proctology examination. Here is what I find interesting. They can clear people who have done illegal stuff to some very limited degree, such as the last three presidents who all admitted to doing drugs but not inhaling. The commander in chief kinda needs top level clearances, BUT! ...the wrongdoing must be public domain knowledge. What they really work to find is anything for which a person can be blackmailed. That they take very seriously as they should. If a person has done illegal drugs and admits to it, so that no one can hold them hostage with the info, then the clearance process can continue. Weiner was blackmail-able. After the Monica thing, Bill Clinton was blackmail-able bigtime, and if you read her testimony, Monica did in fact attempt to blackmail the guy. If a person has spilled everything about themselves into the public domain, so long as it isn't technically illegal, they will likely not have a security clearance denied for withholding information. spike From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 6 19:51:49 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 21:51:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110906195149.GD16334@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 09:37:06AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > > Indeed; and also providing a nice graded progression, > > sufficiently succicnt even for attention-deficient. > > Call me attention-deficient if you want, but Moravec's description of I very much doubt you are, attention-deficient are largely the ADHD people, especially ones that spent most of their lifetime self-training on the Internet and mobile phones. > destructive uploading was just disgusting, with the husk of a body > going into spasm as the last of the brain was destructively scanned at > the bottom of a now empty skull. Moravec's is weird; when I saw him live once answering a question from the auditorium I got a really strange impression that he would actually welcome our mind children devouring their parents (in a reversal of Saturn) or at least be indifferent to the idea, as long as something survives. I might have pegged him wrong, though. Moreover, he might have had a case of "if all you had was a bush robot". It's interesting how he completely disappeared after founding Seegrid in 2003, apart from a 2008 article in SA. So he either ran out of steam, or it's exactly the other way round -- he's doing stuff, not publishing. > My point is that really poor idea (from a marketing viewpoint) *isn't > needed.* The same nanotechnology you need for destructive scanning You don't need full-blown nanotechnology for destructive scanning. We don't know how much resolution we need, the 1 nm with selective sampling to functional group level is just an educated guess. It could be a lot less, at which point uploading/WBE/ASIM/whateveryoucallitatthemoment is even easier than I thought. I expect a mouse by end of my live (some 40-50 years away, hopefully), but it could be actually faster -- I don't expect to see primate-sized realtime models, though. > can be used to infiltrate the brain, initially as a neural interface > and later teaching a set of nanoprocessors how to act as your > biological brain would act. There is no reason memory could not be > constructed in the biological brain while "you" were in an uploaded > state making the process completely reversible, even continuous > consciousness through an upload/download cycle. Of course an online conversion is vastly preferable. But none of us currently alive are going to get that, so we have to deal with the only technology available *currently*, which is solid-state hypothermia. > The sub set of these discussions of making duplicates is the route to > abject poverty. I don't see any major point in duplicating agents verbatim, not outside of spatial and temporal niches. On the long run Darwin will see that efficiency and population sizes increase to the carrying capacity of our spacetime, given the limited resources of matterenergy and reachability (assuming inflationary dark energy is true). > I know Robin Hansen talks about this as inevitable, and it may be that > economic forces make it come about. But there are things that really Economy is a special case of Darwin (hear the sound of economists bristle). > should be forbidden or at least tightly controlled, and this is one of > them. If people think about it, and care to have a resource rich > world, I expect a rule of "one at a time" to be observed. Sadly they > probably won't think about it before making duplicates. Look around. Do you see people giving much thought before producing children? It is out of control, it stays out of control. Unless you go through an infinitely narrow population bottleneck, and engineer something extremely sticky (the mother of all founding effects), which I think isn't something we can do. Nor should do. > Keith > > >> I hope that doesn't sound condescending, it's sincerely not meant to be. > >> > >> It seems that very few people genuinely grok this concept, you seem to have joined their ranks. ?Congratulations on making the transition from Crypto-Dualist to true Materialist! > >> > >> A bit scary, but exhilarating, no? > > > > Ah, but that rabbit-hole can go a bit further down, still > > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/4c995dee307def3b/9f94f4d49cb2b9e6?pli=1 > > (and similar). > > > > With enough drugs, maybe. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ahc1b0Tm7A > > > >> Ben Zaiboc > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 96, Issue 10 > > ******************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jrd1415 at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 20:00:57 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:00:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, spike wrote: > Interesting aside: when a person goes through the security clearance > process, they investigate everything about a person's life, in ways far more > intimate than a proctology examination. The above is an aside, but what does it mean regarding the pros and cons of governmental total awareness? If you're being vetted for or possess a clearance, you're already on the inside. Insofar as one is concerned about authoritarian intrusion and control, you have then become part of the problem. You've become an assistant to "the oppressors". As to Gene's warnings and suspicious attitude, frankly, after 62 years on the planet, I judge the warnings to be too late. It's already "game over". The Capra-like narrative of American wonderfulness is tattered to transparency, and the basis of the delusion -- America the massively wealthy -- is going, going, gone already. Wealth, whereever located, has owned your ass since agriculture was invented. In modern times the US has owned everyone's ass as the capo de tutti capi, since its rise after ww2. (The Soviets resisted that ownership, but hobbled by their own contradictions, were brought to heel. The Chinese, having waited -- first by chance, then by design -- for the US to exhaust itself with imperial autophagy, look primed to take over the "big dog" slot. And five thousand years of Chinese cultural continuity suggest that they may very well hold that title for the next thousand years. They seem adept at social stability.) So the bad news is that the West is soon to be even more comprehensively under the control of Big Brother, but the good news is that this condition is "end stage", presaging its imminent collapse, just like the Soviets, due to the attendant expense and inefficiency. In short, technology and commerce are the key to success. Commitment to these two brings sovereign -- and personal -- success. Then follows the misstep: pride, arrogance, and falling victim to the imperial impulse, bringing it all down. Because one's personal fortunes are often linked to the fortunes of the sovereign, it's best to be circumspect about national loyalty. Have your full-featured "alternative watercraft" ready well before the ship of state torpedoes itself. Be out of there before nationalism leads to treading water in the shark tank. Best, Jeff Davis "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke From lubkin at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 6 19:48:26 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:48:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> Message-ID: <201109062034.p86KY1hd013301@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike wrote: >Interesting aside: when a person goes through the security clearance >process, they investigate everything about a person's life, in ways far more >intimate than a proctology examination. I debated whether to take the job at Livermore over this, because I'd need a DOE Q clearance. I decided that with a father who was a defense contractor for both DOD and the IDF, scientific advisor to the Likud, and a colonel attached to the DIA, there was already a file about me. And what little more investigating me would add to the file was less significant than the interesting things I'd learn on the job. (Many other family members had or have clearances, too. I just found my grandfather's security paperwork from WW II. It was interesting comparing with mine and seeing all the addresses he'd ever lived at, every job he'd ever had, etc.) >Here is what I find interesting. They can clear people who have done >illegal stuff to some very limited degree, such as the last three presidents >who all admitted to doing drugs but not inhaling. The commander in chief >kinda needs top level clearances, BUT! ...the wrongdoing must be public >domain knowledge. What they really work to find is anything for which a >person can be blackmailed. That they take very seriously as they should. >If a person has done illegal drugs and admits to it, so that no one can hold >them hostage with the info, then the clearance process can continue. And the issue is (usually) not whether the activity is illegal or society at large approves of it but whether *you* fear disclosure. It doesn't matter whether it's having mainlined heroin, voted for Dukakis, or worn white after Labor Day, as long as *you* can be blackmailed over it. >The commander in chief kinda needs top level clearances, BUT! ...the >wrongdoing must be public domain knowledge. DOD and DOE can refuse to clear presidential staff -- as they reportedly did for the Clintons -- but I don't see how they can constitutionally refuse to clear POTUS, not matter how much of a security risk he is. -- David. From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 22:50:11 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:50:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <20110906161401.GX16334@leitl.org> References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <20110906091226.GY16334@leitl.org> <025f01cc6caa$2360fa60$6a22ef20$@att.net> <20110906161401.GX16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > What about mobile providers giving full location log to LEOs > during demonstrations, so that they can make lists of potential > troublemakers? Do not people realize what realtime analysis I share my ignorance because it's amusing: I had to google "LEO" used in that context because I was confused about mobile providers sending my location to Low Earth Orbit. Oh well, at least I was already smart enough to know you weren't talking about the astrology sign :) From glivick at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 7 07:11:41 2011 From: glivick at sbcglobal.net (G. Livick) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:11:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> Message-ID: <4E67192D.5050904@sbcglobal.net> On 9/6/2011 1:00 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, spike wrote: > >> Interesting aside: when a person goes through the security clearance >> process, they investigate everything about a person's life, in ways far more >> intimate than a proctology examination. > The above is an aside, but what does it mean regarding the pros and > cons of governmental total awareness? If you're being vetted for or > possess a clearance, you're already on the inside. Insofar as one is > concerned about authoritarian intrusion and control, you have then > become part of the problem. You've become an assistant to "the > oppressors". Best, Jeff Davis Boy, what rock did you grow up under? FutureMan From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 07:56:32 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 01:56:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, spike wrote: > >>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson > > > Interesting aside: when a person goes through the security clearance > process, they investigate everything about a person's life, in ways far more > intimate than a proctology examination. > > Here is what I find interesting. ?They can clear people who have done > illegal stuff to some very limited degree, such as the last three presidents > who all admitted to doing drugs but not inhaling. ?The commander in chief > kinda needs top level clearances, BUT! ?...the wrongdoing must be public > domain knowledge. ?What they really work to find is anything for which a > person can be blackmailed. ?That they take very seriously as they should. > If a person has done illegal drugs and admits to it, so that no one can hold > them hostage with the info, then the clearance process can continue. > > Weiner was blackmail-able. ?After the Monica thing, Bill Clinton was > blackmail-able bigtime, and if you read her testimony, Monica did in fact > attempt to blackmail the guy. > > If a person has spilled everything about themselves into the public domain, > so long as it isn't technically illegal, they will likely not have a > security clearance denied for withholding information. A security clearance is easier to get than a vote... :-) And votes are what really count to people like Weiner. -Kelly From rtomek at ceti.pl Wed Sep 7 17:14:26 2011 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:14:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] wet dreams, was openness on the internet. In-Reply-To: References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Jeff Davis wrote: [...] > As to Gene's warnings and suspicious attitude, frankly, after 62 years > on the planet, I judge the warnings to be too late. It's already > "game over". The Capra-like narrative of American wonderfulness is > tattered to transparency, and the basis of the delusion -- America the > massively wealthy -- is going, going, gone already. Wealth, whereever > located, has owned your ass since agriculture was invented. In modern > times the US has owned everyone's ass as the capo de tutti capi, > since its rise after ww2. Ok, so the "game is over" (well, maybe it is). And you made your statements and remain free, will go to your bed and "they" won't wake you up before morning. And you will not disappear. Let's not forget about this, shall we. What may sound like totalitarian from your side, is rather innocent in my eyes. At least right now (even thou, yes, I am a bit baffled by it). >From what I have heard, totalitarian is, when three men meet and one of them is a police informer. [...] > So the bad news is that the West is soon to be even more > comprehensively under the control of Big Brother, but the good news is > that this condition is "end stage", presaging its imminent collapse, > just like the Soviets, due to the attendant expense and inefficiency. If so, then China is "gamed over" already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Mao_Dang In your free time, you can search for stories about internet censorship, treating opposition members as organ donors, people burning themselves on the streets in protest (judging by their number, somewhere between Myanmar and USA, AFAIK) and other such stuff. Chinese people are trying to go around their own government. This doesn't show me that this government is somehow better than whatever I know. > In short, technology and commerce are the key to success. Commitment > to these two brings sovereign -- and personal -- success. Then > follows the misstep: pride, arrogance, and falling victim to the > imperial impulse, bringing it all down. > > Because one's personal fortunes are often linked to the fortunes of > the sovereign, it's best to be circumspect about national loyalty. > Have your full-featured "alternative watercraft" ready well before the > ship of state torpedoes itself. Be out of there before nationalism > leads to treading water in the shark tank. > > Best, Jeff Davis While Chinese are not Soviets, I expect them to serve their own interests at expense of anybody who happens to believe in their good will. And when you fall into their grip, expect being treated no better than a Chinese. If you happen to be of the same kind that believed in communist idylla under Stalin's enlightened direction (at the time when millions starved to death), you might be a little surprised. The only idylla is in people's heads. 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 kellycoinguy at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 17:17:40 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:17:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM, BillK wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Kelly Anderson ?wrote: > >> I like to think of it as multiple threads of execution, perhaps even >> distributed to different physical computers. When the threads are >> merged later, you just have new memory of having done two different >> things yesterday. It would be weird at first, but I think we could get >> use to remembering two yesterdays, or twenty. It would probably be >> perceived initially as yesterday, and the day before yesterday.... >> which would be confusing, but I think we could adapt to that pretty >> quickly. If the new me looks like the old me, or is in VR only, then I >> think others would adapt to that as well, but there would still be a >> unique "real" you in the perception of most people. > > What you are describing will probably be a very temporary phenomenon. > When uploading and merging becomes possible, we and our environment > will be changing rapidly. It is entirely possible that you are correct about the temporary nature of this phenomenon. But I suspect that people will initially be more comfortable with merging memories back into their own wet ware, than totally uploading. Yes, it will probably happen in a period of time when things will be changing very quickly. Perhaps a steep part just prior to the Singularity. Once you have enough merged memories to feel safe that those were "normal" experiences, then people will probably feel good about taking the next step, total uploading, leaving the physical behind. > I suspect that merging multiple versions will quickly produce a > hive-mind type of entity. Economies of scale, etc. Why stick with > merging two versions when you are competing with entities with > thousands or millions of merged IDs? Absolutely... but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by a hive mind... when I think of that, I think of a group of individuals, not necessarily related to a root individual... It's kind of like there are two kinds of hive minds, those consisting of lots of different minds, and those consisting of many copies of my mind... and of course there are intermediates... > ?If you do choose to remain alone, you will quickly be swamped by the > more powerful Minds. Not if you have the resources sufficient to make enough copies of your own mind. Also, a copy of your mind doesn't have to run in real time... given enough resources three months of experience can be emulated in twenty minutes... potentially. I think of this as a way to acquire a skill, like speaking Chinese, or what not... merging it back into the main mind through some kind of nanotech inside the brain. The thing is that if the minds diverge too much, then it might be difficult to merge back into the main brain. We have a lot to learn before this is possible, obviously :-) -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 17:28:59 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:28:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/5 Stefano Vaj : > On 4 September 2011 21:43, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> >> I see the difference between replacing the atoms in your brain quickly >> vs. slowly to be an issue of continuity of consciousness. While you >> may perceive a me uploaded into a robot or VR to be the same as me, >> I'm more interested in the internal perception. Do I, internally to my >> thought processes feel as though I've had a nap, or just lived my life >> day by day, and the pattern is continuous. If there is a big >> discontinuity, then it will feel as though I've died. That would >> inflict a certain amount of psychological damage on me (or my copy) > > Actually,... no. No matter how you perform the upload, perfect continuity is > perceived by the upload, by definition (one cannot be anybody but oneself at > any stage of the process, and at any stage either you are counscious - > including "sleep" consciousness - or you are not). OK, so here's a scenario... suppose that I have my brain frozen (and that this is not considered murder or suicide) and sliced into thin segments, scanned and uploaded. Suppose further that this takes 6 months for whatever reason. I have not then experienced perfect continuity, but rather more something like having been on a 6 month vacation. So what I'm saying is the continuity includes continuous interaction with my friends and relatives, etc. > With regard to the public, which has nothing to do with internal perception, > it strictly depends on what you decide to show it, not on the mechanics of > the process. Other than perhaps the time the process takes to complete... > Similarly, if one approximates B from A, either B' is different enough from > B that it can be described as a different result - and graduality is > irrelevant for this purpose, or is "similar enough", and in such event > nothing change.>If we continued conscious awareness when doubled, or tripled > if the process is non-destructive, which one are we aware of, or are we > aware in multiple places at the same time? Under my scheme, we will not be aware of multiple places at the same time, but what we will be aware of is that we were in multiple places yesterday. Present time is a single line of execution for each emulant, but when the emulants are merged into the main brain, then the main brain acquires a new yesterday.... Of course, other schemes may prove workable that are different than what I'm proposing, but my view of heaven on earth includes the ability to do more than one thing at the same time. >> I like to think of it as multiple threads of execution, perhaps even >> distributed to different physical computers. When the threads are >> merged later, you just have new memory of having done two different >> things yesterday. It would be weird at first, but I think we could get >> use to remembering two yesterdays, or twenty. It would probably be >> percieved initially as yesterday, and the day before yesterday.... > > I suspect that the merger of two "threads" would be no different from any > practical purpose than the merger of any two individuals. You may probably > create an AGI as a patchwork of different experiences lived by several > persons, as in Blade Runner's Rachel, but *this* would certainly qualify as > a new person. I completely disagree here. Merging a thread from an emulant back into a wet ware brain would require that the emulant be based upon that brain. Merging new neuronal connections from my emulant into your brain would be VERY confusing because you store your concepts in a different hologram within your brain than I do. So this scheme of mine is based upon the fact that the two brains are only a day or two of divergence, (at first anyway) and the remerger of the new connections (and other changes) back into the main wetware brain is simply (haha) a matter of stimulating the growth of the same dendrites, etc. that were grown in the emulant. If the brains differed by too much, say my brain and yours, then they would have to be converted to some kind of common brain language, and then converted back. Hell, we can't even get Macs and PCs to communicate! So I think this is quite a ways further out than what I'm talking about. So my assertion is that only an emulation of MY brain can be remerged into my brain, at least easily. Do you understand my point? And this may be something that only happens for a brief period of time before we fully understand the brain enough to translate changes in my brain to changes in yours... but that seems many orders of magnitude more complex. -Kelly From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Sep 7 17:43:38 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <20110906141426.GU16334@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1315417418.28447.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: "You don't need full-blown nanotechnology for destructive scanning." I assume you mean brain slicing and electron microscope photography with the slices 30 nanometers thick, Jeff Lichtman is already doing that in his lab for mouse brains, if he can do that for an entire human brain and keep the cost down it might be an alternative to Cryonics. Or were you thinking of something else, and do you have any thoughts on MRI? ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 17:59:16 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > So my assertion is that only an emulation of MY brain can be remerged > into my brain, at least easily. Do you understand my point? And this > may be something that only happens for a brief period of time before > we fully understand the brain enough to translate changes in my brain > to changes in yours... but that seems many orders of magnitude more > complex. I had a similar thought today: Suppose there is some unique character to the computing substrate, will we find a measure of preference and affordability? Sure we might love to be running at high clock rates on CPU, but will that life be the uniquely squishy experience of human wetware? Suppose we grow so bored with the day to day that we run orders of magnitude slower on, for example, a contraption powered by tides (one cycle per ebb/flow on a beach). Is it something you'd be willing to try just for kicks? (of course you'll keep your existing processes as they are) I wonder if it would be like the difference between sitting in a chair made of plastic vs. wood or covered in cloth vs. leather. In all examples the task is merely "sitting" but with subtle variations in texture and style. From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 7 18:25:37 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:25:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7 September 2011 02:29, Thomas Eliot wrote: > I suspect that if you say "Jesus is real the same way that Mickey Mouse is > real; that is, he doesn't exist and none of the stories he's in are true, > but some people make decisions that take him into account" then atheists > (even [especially?] the militant ones!) will agree far more frequently than > religious people will. Are you sure that you're phrasing it in a way that > makes it obvious that that's what you mean? I suspect based on personal > experience that the majority of people who vociferously disagree with that > statement are actually misunderstanding you and think you're saying > something like "strong/popular enough faith in a belief causes that belief > to become true" which is an actual position I have seen put forth. > Now that's an interesting idea... I'd be extremely surprised if I hadn't made my point clearly enough every time this happened, but yes, some proportion of cases might have been down to a misunderstanding like this. One form of response, perhaps even the most common one, makes it clear that conversational partners have understood and yet still disagree. This is where they say "Fictions aren't *real* in the sense we're all talking about here, and which believers are talking about", which amounts to denial that there is a real set of psychological circumstances to acknowledge, as far as I can tell. It seems a bit like denying that someone has been run over in the street because no-one can agree what colour the car was. > I also think that it's not a particularly useful definition. I mean, after > all, anything that affects people's decisions are "real" by this definition. > So for instance, the hallucinations of a schizophrenic, the WMDs in Iraq, > the promised returns of a Ponzi scheme, and the million$ waiting for you in > Nigeria are all "real" by this standard. Yes - and if people who recognised the non-existence of Ponzi returns were also advocating denial of the existence or danger/importance of Ponzi schemes, that would be something of an issue, wouldn't it? In other words, the fact that there are no returns from a Ponzi scheme, if anything, only makes the reality of the scheme itself more notable, not less. The same logic holds for religious and other belief systems, I feel. > Indeed, I had not heard of that. Is it worth reading? Could you summarize > the main points he makes? I might not be the best person to do that, since I haven't read that one in a few years. It seems that Natasha might be able to comment, since she clearly remembers the details of Davis' critique better than I do. The gist, however, was that the transhumanist focus on uploading and "transcendence" constitutes a kind of self-loathing and intense dislike of the 'material world', as was also found among the Gnostics. One thing I will say here, however, is that from my point of view it would seem that the H+ response to such comments has grown more nuanced over the last decade, often pointing out that transhumanists often *like* having bodies, and want to improve & maintain them, play with morphological freedom etc. I don't think that the comparison is accurate enough to be worth embracing > as a long term rhetorical technique, but in the short term, in the midst of > a conversation where the comparison is made, I find that frequently the best > retort to "you're so similar to [persecuted minority religion I dislike]" is > "you know who else disliked minority > religions?" Yes, I think you've got a good point there! Best, A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 19:39:27 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:39:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20110907193927.GD25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:59:16PM -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > > So my assertion is that only an emulation of MY brain can be remerged > > into my brain, at least easily. Do you understand my point? And this > > may be something that only happens for a brief period of time before > > we fully understand the brain enough to translate changes in my brain > > to changes in yours... but that seems many orders of magnitude more > > complex. > > I had a similar thought today: Suppose there is some unique character > to the computing substrate, will we find a measure of preference and I think there are local optima in the space of data models and transformations implemented by hardware and that co-evolution will drive up the consensus interaction rate to the maximum physically feasible and affordable (energetically). Being too slow has a dramatic negative fitness impact. So the more things change the more they stay the same, welcome to the new and improved rat race. Welcome the new boss, same as the old boss (Darwin). > affordability? Sure we might love to be running at high clock rates You can't have global clocks for relativistic raisins, only systems of coupled but otherwise asynchronous/free-running oscillators. If you want to slow things down, you could use programmable volume wave generators (with wavefronts passing through acting as clock), which act a bit like a higher order clock. This is extremely inefficient as it needs dedicated substrates, or higher-order emulation layers on the generic/optimal substrate which are very much like today's pure-software emulators, and hence terribly inefficient. Same thing for halting state evolution: you need both means to stop the free-running volume in a consistent state and to read it out through the bounding volume to pickle it up and stream it to a remote location, either for backup or reinstantiation purposes. It might be that this is enough handicap that it never happens, and you just stop the thing (assuming it's fully static, and of course the encoding is sufficiently redundant by necessity of being able to deal with runtime hardware damage so that some inconsistency will be self-correcting) by pulling the juice (or switch off the pumping laser, assuming it's optically powered; probably you'd have some kind of power distribution bar in there, though). It would be pickled that way, so you'd only have to read the static pattern out, given that powering the reading infrastructure is distinct from powering the execution infrastructure. Of course having both in the same place dilutes functionality concentration, natch. Above is probably too compressed to make much sense, unless you are me. It does make sense though, honest. I can expand, if necessary. > on CPU, but will that life be the uniquely squishy experience of human > wetware? Suppose we grow so bored with the day to day that we run The squishiness is completely subjective. Of course morphogenesis makes direct/implicit use of squishiness, but you don't have to carry evolutionary luggage to new substrate where it's expensive and rather use its new, intrinsic cheap features instead. But how do you engineer it from here to there, to cross the discontinuity nonembodied? Those built de novo don't have that handicap. > orders of magnitude slower on, for example, a contraption powered by > tides (one cycle per ebb/flow on a beach). Is it something you'd be Inert statues are crunchy, and good with ketchup. > willing to try just for kicks? (of course you'll keep your existing > processes as they are) How can you afford it? People will eat your lunch. > I wonder if it would be like the difference between sitting in a chair > made of plastic vs. wood or covered in cloth vs. leather. In all > examples the task is merely "sitting" but with subtle variations in > texture and style. Sten Nadolny will hate the future. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 20:07:46 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 22:07:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315417418.28447.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20110906141426.GU16334@leitl.org> <1315417418.28447.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110907200746.GH25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:43:38AM -0700, john clark wrote: > Eugen Leitl wrote: > "You don't need full-blown nanotechnology for destructive scanning." > I assume you mean brain slicing and electron microscope photography There are several ways to skin the cat. I personally like the serial block face scanning electron microscopy (SBFSEM) which might or might not have enough resolution (though can't resolve fundamental properties which can be inferred from shape and pattern alone, but latter might be inferrable from immunostaining, which can be apparently done post-fixation, but requires soaking of thin sections) but can do very fine interslice resolution, is low-artefact (you're imaging the block, not the flimsy slice) and automatable but that requires extensive heavy metal staining (including osmium tetroxide for membrane fixation which is expensive), so it's incompatible with the current cryonics approach of using tissue viability as proxy for structure preservation, and as I mentioned, you can't devitrify and then stain as it would cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. Maybe Ken Hayworth can validate his approach (I'm quite leery of combination of fixation via vascular perfusion *and* water substitution by monomers by the same route and subsequent polymerization, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the pudding isn't even cooked yet, and it might taste awful, or very yummy indeed). > with the slices 30 nanometers thick, Jeff Lichtman I think SBFSEM can do even less, but I don't recall. I just pulled up http://hebb.mit.edu/courses/connectomics/Smith%20circuit%20reconstruction%20tools%2007.pdf which is slightly dated (things move quite quickly now), but looks relevant enough to skim as a review. > is already doing that in his lab for mouse brains, Mice are nice in that you can fix and stain them by perfusion alone, but even so it takes many weeks to months. > if he can do that for an entire human brain and keep > the cost down it might be an alternative to Cryonics. I'm personally am not optimistic it's going to work, but I'm quite ready to uncork the champagne in case Hayworth et al. can show it actually works in practice. Cheers. > Or were you thinking of something else, and do you > have any thoughts on MRI? I think the only MRI relevant is fMRI for characterisation prior to suspension (composite contributor to create a functional fingerprint for validation other than primary or secondary behaviour observers, which is obviously not enough) and proximal-probe MRI in the solid state, aka flying along the exposed/vacuum-etched brain glass surface. It's the only thing that can image the freshly exposed surface nondestructively, and has about enough resolution. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 20:19:48 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 22:19:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <20110907200746.GH25711@leitl.org> References: <20110906141426.GU16334@leitl.org> <1315417418.28447.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110907200746.GH25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20110907201948.GJ25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:07:46PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:43:38AM -0700, john clark wrote: > > Eugen Leitl wrote: > > "You don't need full-blown nanotechnology for destructive scanning." > > I assume you mean brain slicing and electron microscope photography > > There are several ways to skin the cat. I personally like the > serial block face scanning electron microscopy (SBFSEM) > which might or might not have enough resolution (though > can't resolve fundamental properties which can be inferred That should mean can't be inferred, sorry. I really shouldn't post when tired and drunk. > from shape and pattern alone, but latter might be inferrable > from immunostaining, which can be apparently done > post-fixation, but requires soaking of thin sections) > but can do very fine interslice resolution, is low-artefact > (you're imaging the block, not the flimsy slice) and automatable > but that requires extensive heavy metal staining (including > osmium tetroxide for membrane fixation which is expensive), > so it's incompatible with the current cryonics approach of > using tissue viability as proxy for structure preservation, > and as I mentioned, you can't devitrify and then stain as > it would cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. > Maybe Ken Hayworth can validate his approach (I'm quite > leery of combination of fixation via vascular perfusion > *and* water substitution by monomers by the same route > and subsequent polymerization, but the proof of the pudding > is in the eating, and the pudding isn't even cooked > yet, and it might taste awful, or very yummy indeed). > > > with the slices 30 nanometers thick, Jeff Lichtman > > I think SBFSEM can do even less, but I don't recall. > I just pulled up http://hebb.mit.edu/courses/connectomics/Smith%20circuit%20reconstruction%20tools%2007.pdf > which is slightly dated (things move quite quickly now), > but looks relevant enough to skim as a review. > > > is already doing that in his lab for mouse brains, > > Mice are nice in that you can fix and stain them > by perfusion alone, but even so it takes many weeks That means diffusion, sorry. > to months. > > > if he can do that for an entire human brain and keep > > the cost down it might be an alternative to Cryonics. > > I'm personally am not optimistic it's going to work, > but I'm quite ready to uncork the champagne in case > Hayworth et al. can show it actually works in practice. > Cheers. > > > Or were you thinking of something else, and do you > > have any thoughts on MRI? > > I think the only MRI relevant is fMRI for characterisation > prior to suspension (composite contributor to create a functional > fingerprint for validation other than primary or secondary > behaviour observers, which is obviously not enough) > and proximal-probe MRI in the solid state, aka flying > along the exposed/vacuum-etched brain glass surface. > It's the only thing that can image the freshly exposed surface > nondestructively, and has about enough resolution. I hope I haven't made even more mistakes I didn't catch. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 00:42:10 2011 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:42:10 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/6 Florent Berthet : > So, when you say "I want to survive through uploading", you are really > saying "I want the phenomenon of my consciousness to be able to run again on > another substrate". So it's really an altruistic act: you are not doing this > for you, but for a phenomenon that will feel like you. When you understand > that, your sense of self vanishes, and being egoistic doesn't even makes > sense anymore because you won't even profit from what you do: what you do > will benefit to a future being that will be similar to you but will be a > different physical experience. When you say "I want to survive in this body for another year" you are being altruistic rather than selfish, since in a year most of the matter in your body will have been replaced, and the person who survives is someone who looks like you and believes he is you, but isn't really you. -- Stathis Papaioannou From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 03:06:55 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:06:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <20110907193927.GD25711@leitl.org> References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> <20110907193927.GD25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Above is probably too compressed to make much sense, unless you are me. > It does make sense though, honest. I can expand, if necessary. Given the topic, "unless you are me" is quite ironic. However much it did/does make sense may be a measure of how much we're distant in history and programming. > How can you afford it? People will eat your lunch. So you plan to spend all your resource to run a primary (or solitary) instance with the hope of keeping ahead of the 'competition'? Because you're right, the native machine intelligences don't have all the baggage evolution have left us and they'll eat both of our lunches. I imagine that my lunch will be of so little consequence resource-wise that it won't be worthwhile for the big dogs to cross the junkyard to take my scraps. I may be abnormal in my acceptance of having so little consequence in the big picture. From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 8 04:01:26 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:01:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <20110907201948.GJ25711@leitl.org> References: <20110906141426.GU16334@leitl.org> <1315417418.28447.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110907200746.GH25711@leitl.org> <20110907201948.GJ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <007101cc6ddb$fcc33a20$f649ae60$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl >...You can't have global clocks for relativistic raisins...-- Eugen* Leitl >...That should mean can't be inferred, sorry. I really shouldn't post when tired and drunk. ...-- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org A raisin travelling at near the speed of light would be a dangerous thing indeed, should it strike one of your global clocks. spike From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 8 06:47:06 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:47:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <007101cc6ddb$fcc33a20$f649ae60$@att.net> References: <20110906141426.GU16334@leitl.org> <1315417418.28447.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110907200746.GH25711@leitl.org> <20110907201948.GJ25711@leitl.org> <007101cc6ddb$fcc33a20$f649ae60$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110908064706.GS25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:01:26PM -0700, spike wrote: > A raisin travelling at near the speed of light would be a dangerous thing > indeed, should it strike one of your global clocks. This should be indeed avoided, and be it for hysterical raisins alone. From florent.berthet at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 06:55:56 2011 From: florent.berthet at gmail.com (Florent Berthet) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:55:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/8 Stathis Papaioannou > > > When you say "I want to survive in this body for another year" you are > being altruistic rather than selfish, since in a year most of the > matter in your body will have been replaced, and the person who > survives is someone who looks like you and believes he is you, but > isn't really you. > > Exactly. And that's why I see the destructiveness of an uploading method as a non-issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 8 07:04:56 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:04:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> <20110907193927.GD25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20110908070456.GT25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:06:55PM -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Above is probably too compressed to make much sense, unless you are me. > > It does make sense though, honest. I can expand, if necessary. > > Given the topic, "unless you are me" is quite ironic. However much it > did/does make sense may be a measure of how much we're distant in > history and programming. I'm intimately familiar with conventional computing. What I tried to describe is that this is nothing like conventional computing, but much closer to physics. The next-best thing would be chip design, FPGA programming and HPC, but even then it's not really close. > > How can you afford it? People will eat your lunch. > > So you plan to spend all your resource to run a primary (or solitary) > instance with the hope of keeping ahead of the 'competition'? Because I plan to continue doing the equivalent to do what I'm doing: continue to be able to pay my bills by offering services I can bill other people, loosely. In order to be able to do that I can't just sit there sifting sand by the seashore, orelse I would no longer be able to afford food, clothing, shelter, and other basics. I would become dependent on charity of others by own choice, which is not something I want to do. Of course you could go off to parts remote and do the equivalent of subsistence farming, but that, also, is not my goal. So there are many options, including sitting down on a seashore watching waves until a dragon comes along, and eats you. > you're right, the native machine intelligences don't have all the You might notice that there is no native machine intelligence. It might be well be that biologically-derived intelligence is much easier to do than doing artificial Darwin on a very large scale, seeded with educated guess individuals (which, you get it, are most likely biologically inspired, but grown from a seed using morphogenetic processes making direct use of crystalline computation, rather than emulating squishiness by way of crystalline computation, which would be a dog). > baggage evolution have left us and they'll eat both of our lunches. I Competition will continue, and there continue to be losers. > imagine that my lunch will be of so little consequence resource-wise > that it won't be worthwhile for the big dogs to cross the junkyard to > take my scraps. I may be abnormal in my acceptance of having so In a mature situation, the physical layer is saturated. One place is no different from other, and it's full. In order to keep occupying you must be competitive. > little consequence in the big picture. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amara at kurzweilai.net Thu Sep 8 06:55:10 2011 From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:55:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <20110908064706.GS25711@leitl.org> References: <20110906141426.GU16334@leitl.org> <1315417418.28447.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110907200746.GH25711@leitl.org> <20110907201948.GJ25711@leitl.org> <007101cc6ddb$fcc33a20$f649ae60$@att.net> <20110908064706.GS25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <005a01cc6df4$408c3500$c1a49f00$@net> So is this a raisin de etre? -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:47 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] destructive uploading. On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:01:26PM -0700, spike wrote: > A raisin travelling at near the speed of light would be a dangerous thing > indeed, should it strike one of your global clocks. This should be indeed avoided, and be it for hysterical raisins alone. From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 8 10:01:08 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:01:08 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20110908100108.GC25711@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:55:56AM +0200, Florent Berthet wrote: > Exactly. And that's why I see the destructiveness of an uploading method as > a non-issue. Even continuity is not required. I balk at equating jumbled trajectory slices from subsequent computation and throwing out time. This is nonsense, as each frame follows from another, and there's no way to be able to jump far in time without explicitly traversing histories in-between. Strictly no shortcuts. Hashlife is different as it only deals with lightcones, and there's probably no way to tell you're being hashed, sliced and diced ten times to Sunday and back as an internal observer. People postulating an infinity of esternal states embedded in some metareality are probably in the same class as Tipler. Too fond of religion. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From giulio at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 10:30:36 2011 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:30:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?H+_=40_Second_Life_=96_September_15=2C_201?= =?windows-1252?q?1?= Message-ID: Humanity+ is hosting a virtual event in Second Life on September 15, in a week! http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2011/08/h-second-life-september-15-2011.html Humanity+ is an international nonprofit membership organization which advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities. We support the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. Join us in Second Life to brainstorm how to move forward together! More info on the event on the Humanity+ and KurzweilAI websites. http://humanityplus.org/2011/08/h-second-life-2/ http://www.kurzweilai.net/h-community-event-in-second-life Where: Terasem Island in Second Life (coordinates: 121:155:30) When: September 15, 2011 at 9:00 p.m. EDT IMPORTANT NOTE for those who have never used Second Life, and for those who are not familiar with it. Everyone can create a free Second Life account, just go to the Second Life website. http://secondlife.com/ You should not expect to be a Second Life pro immediately after creating your account, but on the contrary you should take some time to "get it" and practice the user interface. It is very easy and everyone should be able to learn the basics in half an hour, but like everything it has a learning curve. So, please create your avatar and practice SL before the meeting. You should also learn how to "teleport" to Terasem Island in Second Life (coordinates: 121:155:30). We are available to help. I will use the avatar Eschatoon Magic, feel free to IM me if you have problems. From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 13:22:41 2011 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:22:41 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <20110908100108.GC25711@leitl.org> References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> <20110908100108.GC25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:55:56AM +0200, Florent Berthet wrote: > >> Exactly. And that's why I see the destructiveness of an uploading method as >> a non-issue. > > Even continuity is not required. I balk at equating jumbled > trajectory slices from subsequent computation and throwing > out time. This is nonsense, as each frame follows from > another, and there's no way to be able to jump far in > time without explicitly traversing histories in-between. > Strictly no shortcuts. > Hashlife is different as it only deals with lightcones, > and there's probably no way to tell you're being hashed, > sliced and diced ten times to Sunday and back as an internal > observer. People postulating an infinity of esternal states > embedded in some metareality are probably in the same class > as Tipler. Too fond of religion. There are theoretical ways of generating your t+1 slice before your t, for example by generating every possible slice systematically (a human brain has many possible thoughts but not infinitely many). You are saying that as a practical matter, it is not possible to arbitrarily generate t+1 before t, which is true, but beside the point when we are discussing whether continuity of consciousness would persist despite jumbling up the slices in real time or in a timeless block universe. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 8 13:53:21 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:53:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destructive punloading Message-ID: <010001cc6e2e$ac2a8340$047f89c0$@att.net> >>...This should be indeed avoided, and be it for hysterical raisins alone. Eugen >...So is this a raisin de etre? Amara D. Angelica I knew as soon as I saw that typo, this crowd would be raisin hell and havin' fun. We should warn our Tagalog speakers, this is the kind of thing that often pasas for humor around here. The humor is dry, even by the standards of Lorraine Hansberry. spike From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 14:42:01 2011 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 07:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I'm pretty bemused - if not dismayed - by all this bandying about of the term 'militant atheist' as if it actually meant something. I know there are some (religious) people who use the term, but come on, it's a joke. There are no, and never have been any, militant atheists. Outspoken atheists, yes. Boorish, boring, shouty, rabid, obsessive, etc., but never militant. Ben Zaiboc (aggressively not believing in the tooth fairy since 1970) From amon at doctrinezero.com Thu Sep 8 17:03:23 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:03:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Beyond Human: Rethinking the Technological Extension of the Human Condition Message-ID: Dear All - In one month (Saturday October 8th) I will be giving a talk at "Beyond Human: Rethinking the Technological Extension of the Human Condition" at Birkbeck College, London, along with a number of other speakers. The event is being organised by Humanity+ UK in association with the Virtual Futures conference series and Zero State, so we'll see a full advertisement from H+ UK shortly. In the meantime, here is a link to the (very) extended abstract of my presentation, which in turn includes links to the H+ UK website. http://transhumanpraxis.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/a-new-transhumanism/ http://humanityplus.org.uk/#bh All the Best, Amon p.s. Apologies for any innapropriate crossposting - I have included these lists as places where people are likely to be interested in broad-strokes commentary on transhumanism as a movement, and its relationship to society. If you know anyone else who may wish to hear about this, please do pass the message on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 02:19:57 2011 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:19:57 +1000 Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) In-Reply-To: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Ben Zaiboc > (aggressively not believing in the tooth fairy since 1970) When I was 6 years old a girl in my class said she saw the tooth fairy, so I thought that on the basis of this evidence it might exist. God, on the other hand, was obviously just a story. -- Stathis Papaioannou From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 9 03:19:34 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) In-Reply-To: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1315538374.50448.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Thu, 9/8/11, Ben Zaiboc wrote: "I'm pretty bemused - if not dismayed - by all this bandying about of the term 'militant atheist' as if it actually meant something." The stage magician Penn Jillette calls himself a militant atheist, he says it means that not only does he not believe in God he doesn't believe anybody else does either. Incidentally his new book "God No" is pretty funny. ?John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 10:27:43 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:27:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ Talk Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/9/7 Amon Zero > Yes - and if people who recognised the non-existence of Ponzi returns were > also advocating denial of the existence or danger/importance of Ponzi > schemes, that would be something of an issue, wouldn't it? > Besides the fact that Ponzi returns *are* real in most senses for the participants, as long as the pyramid does not crumble (but how are our economies any different, when debts for capital and interests obviously exceeds the entire monetary mass), I am pretty much persuaded that naive "realism" does not cut it, psychologically or epistomologically. We live in the reality we live in, and discussions on what is "really" the reality behind it are ultimately idle as those on Kantian noumena. Only, the real issue is what beliefs are about. Now, at least in my reality, for all its shortcomings, a certain scientific paradigm has been spectacularly successful in the "technologies" that allowed it to compete against opposite worldviews. And monotheistic superstitions are not just incompatible with what I am, they also feed obscurantism by definition. This should not, however, be generalised to anything which be a-"scientific" or pre-"scientific". Greek paganism, for instance, seems to have had a clear enough perception of the difference between the empirical and the mythical spacetime, so that an ancient Greek could simultaneously "believe" to different, and mutually exclusive, versions of the same myth while obviously basing his or her daily life with the assumptions deriving from the non-contradiction principle. And, for that matter, I do not see how Confucianism, Shinto, Hinduism or Zen would conflict with the pursuit of technoscientific excellence, either from a motivation or from a "belief system" POV. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 11:36:12 2011 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <1315568172.69349.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stathis Papaioannou > To: ExI chat list > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 5:42 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Destructive uploading. > > 2011/9/6 Florent Berthet : > >> So, when you say "I want to survive through uploading", you are > really >> saying "I want the phenomenon of my consciousness to be able to run > again on >> another substrate". So it's really an altruistic act: you are not > doing this >> for you, but for a phenomenon that will feel like you. When you understand >> that, your sense of self vanishes, and being egoistic doesn't even > makes >> sense anymore because you won't even profit from what you do: what you > do >> will benefit to a future being that will be similar to you but will be a >> different physical experience. > Stathis writes: ? > When you say "I want to survive in this body for another year" you are > being altruistic rather than selfish, since in a year most of the > matter in your body will have been replaced, and the person who > survives is someone who looks like you and believes he is you, but > isn't really you. There?is an assumption there that?identity is a property of?matter moving through the system. Matter is fungible, the configuration state?of the system itself is not.?In your example, there was something both physical and continuous about you despite the turnover of matter in your body?over the year. That something was metabolism, a continuous complex chemical reaction that?at all times could in theory be mapped to the label Stathis. Therefore, you are still you after all this time. ? The water in Niagra Falls continuously replenishes itself every second.?That doesn't?mean it is no longer Niagra Falls. ??? Stuart LaForge "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators." - P. J. O'Rourke From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 14:09:16 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:09:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On 7 September 2011 19:28, Kelly Anderson wrote: > OK, so here's a scenario... suppose that I have my brain frozen (and > that this is not considered murder or suicide) and sliced into thin > segments, scanned and uploaded. Suppose further that this takes 6 > months for whatever reason. I have not then experienced perfect > continuity, but rather more something like having been on a 6 month > vacation. ?So what I'm saying is the continuity includes continuous > interaction with my friends and relatives, etc. One experiences to some extent the passing of time during and after a period of sleep, but this is not the case with a deep coma, and would not be the case if your brain is restored to a status similar to that of, say, March 15, 2011. Such experience is that of somebody who simply travels in zero subjective time to a given point in the future... >If we continued conscious awareness when doubled, or tripled > if the process is non-destructive, which one are we aware of, or are we > aware in multiple places at the same time? As long as something is doubled, two entities immediately diverge, each perceiving retrospective continuity and individuality. In a non-destructive uploading scenario, B would describe it as moving from platform A to platform B, and leaving behind a copy, A as the opposite... > I completely disagree here. Merging a thread from an emulant back into > a wet ware brain would require that the emulant be based upon that > brain. Merging new neuronal connections from my emulant into your > brain would be VERY confusing because you store your concepts in a > different hologram within your brain than I do. Mmhhh. Brains change with time anyway. I assume that the brain of two twins at birth is way more similar than that of one of them will be after thirty years to its previous stage. > So my assertion is that only an emulation of MY brain can be remerged > into my brain, at least easily. Do you understand my point? And this > may be something that only happens for a brief period of time before > we fully understand the brain enough to translate changes in my brain > to changes in yours... but that seems many orders of magnitude more > complex. Possibly. And as a byproduct you might also find a sure recipe to create Multiple Personality Disorders at will. :-) -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 14:17:22 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:17:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/8 Florent Berthet : > Exactly. And that's why I see the destructiveness of an uploading method as > a non-issue. Definitely. It still remains, however, an ethological and cultural issue. Indifference or enthusiasm for having one's brain sliced has emphatically not be an evolutionary bonus sofar, so reluctance is very much understandable. I feel it myself, and I think I will as long as my biological body serves me well enough. However, the memetic context might well overcome that. Just think to your everyday Islamic suicide bomber, who may actually be motivated by the pursuit of a form of immortality that requires some overcoming of his knee-jerk survival instinct... -- Stefano Vaj From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 14:39:16 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Full body scans Message-ID: <1315579156.28862.YahooMailNeo@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm just curious about the safety and efficacy of these. I first heard about them years ago and some -- e.g., LEF -- have railed against them as exposing asymptomatic?patients to too much radiation. Well, it's now years later, so I'd suspect there'd be some studies and data on whether this really is a problem and what the benefits are of such scans. ? Anyone else been following this? ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From florent.berthet at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 14:41:43 2011 From: florent.berthet at gmail.com (Florent Berthet) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:41:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/9 Stefano Vaj > > > Just think to your everyday Islamic suicide bomber, who may actually > be motivated by the pursuit of a form of immortality that requires > some overcoming of his knee-jerk survival instinct... > And that, ironically, may be the reason why religious people could turn out to be the most enthusiastic about uploading: "Maybe this is what was meant in the Book! We will just be souls up there, living forever in a heavenly place!" I wouldn't bet on that, but that'd be comical... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 15:30:27 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:30:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) In-Reply-To: <1315538374.50448.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1315538374.50448.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/9 john clark > > On Thu, 9/8/11, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > "I'm pretty bemused - if not dismayed - by all this bandying about of the term 'militant atheist' as if it actually meant something." > > The stage magician Penn Jillette calls himself a militant atheist, he says it means that not only does he not believe in God he doesn't believe anybody else does either. Incidentally his new book "God No" is pretty funny. I am a little confused about the exact nuance of the word "militant" in (contemporary? US? UK?) English. The Italian and French equivalent are a somewhat more emphatic to indicate an activist of a given cause (activism sounding like a more low-level and/or trivial or slightly disparaged form of militantism). So, would we qualifiy as "transhumanist militants" in English? Provided of course that we actually do something more than hanging around in mailing lists, that is? :-) -- Stefano Vaj From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Sep 9 16:15:47 2011 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:15:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) In-Reply-To: References: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1315538374.50448.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Stefano Vaj wrote: > 2011/9/9 john clark > > > > On Thu, 9/8/11, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > > > "I'm pretty bemused - if not dismayed - by all this bandying about of the term 'militant atheist' as if it actually meant something." > > > > The stage magician Penn Jillette calls himself a militant atheist, he says it means that not only does he not believe in God he doesn't believe anybody else does either. Incidentally his new book "God No" is pretty funny. > > I am a little confused about the exact nuance of the word "militant" > in (contemporary? US? UK?) English. > > The Italian and French equivalent are a somewhat more emphatic to > indicate an activist of a given cause (activism sounding like a more > low-level and/or trivial or slightly disparaged form of militantism). I'd say the same goes with Polish - activists demonstrate and root for their cause, but are more or less benign. Militants shoot, burn and destroy whatever they think stands on their beloved ideal's way at the moment. There is a lot of place in between, and how one divides this place depends on ones agenda. Oh, there are vandals too - like drunken trash who burn old church because it gives them few minutes of fun. > So, would we qualifiy as "transhumanist militants" in English? > Provided of course that we actually do something more than hanging > around in mailing lists, that is? :-) Right now the folks around t-h are rather well educated and rational, maybe even clever :-). But wait few decades and you will see every kind of mob subscribing to the word. Including those who, say, would break into Alcor to play baseball with frozen heads. Watch "Clockwork Orange" and every few minutes talk to yourself "Alex is a transhumanist". Nowadays, there are not enough activists to give birth to militant branches. Drunken transhumanist trash is not going to happen in the next 20 years or so. Just my thought. On the other hand, just talking and loling (like spike often does) about some ideas might be perceived as "militant" by some anal opponents. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 9 16:49:16 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1315586956.2477.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 9/9/11, The Avantguardian wrote: "There is an assumption there that identity is a property of matter moving through the system." Yes. ?"Matter is fungible" Yes. "the configuration state of the system" The word for that is information. ?"is not." What?? Of course it's fungible! Saving a Word document to your hard disc and then complaining when you retrieve it that its not the same information but only a copy would be as silly as depositing a dollar in a bank and complaining when you withdraw it the next day that its not the same dollar bill. When you sent me your message you did not use the postal service, you did not send me paper or any matter at all, you just sent information and if it wasn't fungible there is no way I could even be discussing it. ?"In your example, there was something both physical and continuous about you despite the turnover of matter in your body over the year. " Yes, and that is the part that is saved in a successful upload. "That something was metabolism, a continuous complex chemical reaction" Complex yes, that is to say it is made of many parts, but if the interaction of the parts (you) are not to act in a random incoherent way some order must exist between the parts. A part must have some knowledge of what the other parts are doing and the only way to do that is with information. But maybe communication among the parts is of only secondary importance and the major work, the generation of the soul or sense of self, is done by the parts themselves. But that is complex behavior so the parts must be very complex and be made of sub parts. However this nesting of parts and sub parts and sub sub parts can not continue forever because eventually you will come to the simplest possible part, a part that can change in only one way, say on to off, or zero to one, and that can be recorded on a computer hard disc. "The water in Niagra Falls continuously replenishes itself every second. That doesn't mean it is no longer Niagra Falls." If we disassembled Niagara Falls atom by atom and then reassembled it just as it was before would it still be the same Niagara Falls? This analogy would be valid only if we knew what the opinion of the newly rebuilt Niagara Falls itself was on this matter, if we knew if it still felt like it was Niagara Falls; but we don't so it isn't.? ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 9 16:51:56 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:51:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <010d01cc6f10$c95e6bb0$5c1b4310$@att.net> >. On Behalf Of Florent Berthet Subject: Re: [ExI] Destructive uploading. 2011/9/9 Stefano Vaj >>.Just think to your everyday Islamic suicide bomber.overcoming of his knee-jerk survival instinct... >.And that, ironically, may be the reason why religious people could turn out to be the most enthusiastic about uploading: "Maybe this is what was meant in the Book! We will just be souls up there, living forever in a heavenly place!" I wouldn't bet on that, but that'd be comical... Florent Bet on it Florent, it's already that way in at least two major religious subgroups with over ten million followers worldwide. These two sects (that I know of) view the human as a mechanism, rather than some kind of transcendent being with a soul. The two groups reject the notion of a separable soul or a spirit. Rather they hold that the human body is analogous to any machine or any other beast: an exact copy theoretically could be created, and the new copy with different atoms in an identical configuration would have all the same outlooks, ideas, memories and so forth as the "original." This is yet another take on the tired old identity debates we started here within minutes of the creation of the Extropy chat group, and which continue unabated to this day. The notion follows that given cryonic preservation and sufficiently advanced technology, a human theoretically could be resurrected or recreated in the indefinite future and could exist in something perfectly analogous to the original form. But wait, there's more. In both of those religious groups, there is a widely held belief that only those who remain faithful to the end are to be given immortality (in a body of flesh, on a planet with a 1 G field, with a better but perfectly analogous everything to what we have now, minus the suffering and death.) Both those schools of thought reject the notion of assured salvation. If any true believer apostatizes, even in their senile dotage or in agony on their deathbed, that person is considered lost. (Damn that is a cruel notion.) Sooooo. What happens if such a believer opts for cryonics, then sometime in the indefinite future the clever scientists figure out how to upload, then the upload subsequently apostatizes, even though the original carbon unit was faithful right up to the last breath and the cold bath? The believer must assume the late apostates are lost. Therefore cryonics would introduce a theoretical risk to eternal salvation for any Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist who chooses it. Oy freaking vey. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 9 17:01:32 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:01:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) In-Reply-To: References: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1315538374.50448.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <011201cc6f12$209ee340$61dca9c0$@att.net> >... On Behalf ... >...I am a little confused about the exact nuance of the word "militant" in (contemporary? US? UK?) English. -- Stefano Vaj Stefano, in the literal sense a militant is one who takes up arms for a cause. The way the term is used is one who supports a cause with extreme enthusiasm, but don't be confused by the intentional irony. In the 60s they coined the intentionally contradictory term "militant pacifist" as a kind of joke, and it took off from there. Obviously it isn't to be taken literally. Now of course we have lost the meaning of the term "literal" by overuse. That term has come to mean its own opposite. For instance, I heard a newscaster say "The Texas wildfire has brought this city LITERALLY to its knees!" Hmmm, a city has knees? The term "literally" has now come to mean "figuratively." We humans screw language upwardly. spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 17:04:50 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' In-Reply-To: References: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1315538374.50448.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1315587890.96205.YahooMailNeo@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In the UK and US, "militant" is often used?to mean someone who is strident and outspoken. The word, thus, has become diluted. Of course, it still has bad overtones -- as if the militant whatever is someone you don't want to invite to parties, though not necessarily someone who will burn down your house over whatever her or his belief is. :) ? Regards, ? Dan From: Tomasz Rola To: ExI chat list Cc: Tomasz Rola Sent: Friday, September 9, 2011 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Stefano Vaj wrote: > 2011/9/9 john clark > > > > On Thu, 9/8/11, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > > > "I'm pretty bemused - if not dismayed - by all this bandying about of the term 'militant atheist' as if it actually meant something." > > > > The stage magician Penn Jillette calls himself a militant atheist, he says it means that not only does he not believe in God he doesn't believe anybody else does either. Incidentally his new book "God No" is pretty funny. > > I am a little confused about the exact nuance of the word "militant" > in (contemporary? US? UK?) English. > > The Italian and French equivalent are a somewhat more emphatic to > indicate an activist of a given cause (activism sounding like a more > low-level and/or trivial or slightly disparaged form of militantism). I'd say the same goes with Polish - activists demonstrate and root for their cause, but are more or less benign. Militants shoot, burn and destroy whatever they think stands on their beloved ideal's way at the moment. There is a lot of place in between, and how one divides this place depends on ones agenda. Oh, there are vandals too - like drunken trash who burn old church because it gives them few minutes of fun. > So, would we qualifiy as "transhumanist militants" in English? > Provided of course that we actually do something more than hanging > around in mailing lists, that is? :-) Right now the folks around t-h are rather well educated and rational, maybe even clever :-). But wait few decades and you will see every kind of mob subscribing to the word. Including those who, say, would break into Alcor to play baseball with frozen heads. Watch "Clockwork Orange" and every few minutes talk to yourself "Alex is a transhumanist". Nowadays, there are not enough activists to give birth to militant branches. Drunken transhumanist trash is not going to happen in the next 20 years or so. Just my thought. On the other hand, just talking and loling (like spike often does) about some ideas might be perceived as "militant" by some anal opponents. Regards, Tomasz Rola -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From artillo at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 17:15:25 2011 From: artillo at gmail.com (Artillo) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:15:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) In-Reply-To: <011201cc6f12$209ee340$61dca9c0$@att.net> References: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1315538374.50448.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <011201cc6f12$209ee340$61dca9c0$@att.net> Message-ID: :: tries to imagine what would happen if suddenly every single religious establishment was burned to the ground in one fell swoop :: Well it's a militant thought, anyway! :D On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:01 PM, spike wrote: > > >... On Behalf ... > > >...I am a little confused about the exact nuance of the word "militant" in > (contemporary? US? UK?) English. -- Stefano Vaj > > > Stefano, in the literal sense a militant is one who takes up arms for a > cause. The way the term is used is one who supports a cause with extreme > enthusiasm, but don't be confused by the intentional irony. In the 60s > they > coined the intentionally contradictory term "militant pacifist" as a kind > of > joke, and it took off from there. Obviously it isn't to be taken > literally. > > Now of course we have lost the meaning of the term "literal" by overuse. > That term has come to mean its own opposite. For instance, I heard a > newscaster say "The Texas wildfire has brought this city LITERALLY to its > knees!" > > Hmmm, a city has knees? > > The term "literally" has now come to mean "figuratively." > > We humans screw language upwardly. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Sep 10 21:12:32 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:12:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wet dreams, was openness on the internet. In-Reply-To: References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > What may sound like totalitarian from your side, is rather innocent in my > eyes. At least right now (even thou, yes, I am a bit baffled by it). We have our regular lives as regular people, where we wake, work, eat, sleep, and enjoy the company of our lesser and greater friends. These activities compose the larger part of our lives, and to the extent that we focus on these personal matters while dodging involvement in- and averting our eyes from the wars of the elites, we can enjoy our lives and remain largely free from the injury and suffering caused by sovereign ambition. Your name and email suggests a connection with Poland, Europe, Eastern Europe, and the corresponding social/political experience. On that account, I'm inclined to credit you with a more mature worldview than that of the typical Hollywood-ized, consumer-ized, patriot-ized, and in general, intellectually down-sized American. But at your European remove, you may yourself fall victim to the "idylla" -- I suspect you meant "ideal" or "utopian" -- view of America. You know, the Hollywood version: "Give me your tired, your huddled masses...", "liberty and justice for all"..., the City on the Hill, "...from sea to shining sea", "...and they lived happily ever after", blah blah blah, etc. That illusion is very pleasant indeed, but no matter how good it feels, don't embrace it to the extent that you abandon your connection with reality. America was wealthy, which like a new paint job, covered a multitude of sins. Now the wealth is all but gone, and the ugly reality of the coarseness of American life is becoming ever more apparent. Time to focus on the personal. Personally, I embrace technology as the vehicle that best embodies and promotes the "better angels" of human nature, those dedicated to progress, to building, to making things "better", to cooperating. Please forgive me if I have offended you. Best, Jeff Davis "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, ? if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." Speech to the Constitutional Convention (1787-06-28) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 14:42:56 2011 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 07:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315585559.44347.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1315568172.69349.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1315585559.44347.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1315665776.26118.YahooMailNeo@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> From: john clark To: The Avantguardian ; ExI chat list Sent: Friday, September 9, 2011 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Destructive uploading. On Fri, 9/9/11, The Avantguardian wrote: > >"There?is an assumption there that?identity is a property of?matter moving through the system." >Yes. >?"Matter is fungible" >Yes. >"the configuration state?of the system" >The word for that is information. Again this is another assumption. The quantum information in a wave function i.e. the true states of a quantum system,?are hidden and unknowable by theory. All you see are the eigenvectors of the true states no matter how clever the experiment.?Unless you have proof that the mind is a classical physical system then it is an assumption that?the mind?can be represented by classical information?any better than say a?three dimensional sphere can be accurately portrayed on a two-dimenional surface. Take for example the warping of Greenland to monstrous proportions in Mercator projections of the globe. Not realistic.?? ? >?"is not." >What?? Of course it's fungible! Saving a Word document to your hard disc and then complaining when you retrieve it that its not the same information but only a >copy would be as silly as depositing a dollar in a bank and complaining when you withdraw it the next day that its not the same dollar bill. ? You are?not just information;?you are?information in context,?in runtime,?constantly interacting with everything around you. If you had written your sweetheart's number on the dollar that you deposited,?it would be perfectly rational to want?that particular?dollar bill back.??? ? >?When you sent me your message you did not use the postal service, you did not send me paper or any matter at all, you just sent information and if it wasn't >fungible there is no way I could even be discussing it. ? Some information is more fungible than others. Our emails are pretty fungible but some information like?missile launch codes?or Spike's uber-primes?are not. ? ?>>?"In your example, there was something both physical and continuous about you despite the turnover of matter in your body?over the year. ? >"Yes, and that is the part that is saved in a successful upload. ? Perhaps if uploaded to a quantum computer. ? > >> "That something was metabolism, a continuous complex chemical reaction" ? >Complex yes, that is to say it is made of many parts, but if the interaction of the parts (you) are not to act in a random incoherent way some order must exist between the parts. A part must have some knowledge of what the other parts are doing and the only way to do that is with information. ? Agreed, I am just saying that you are assuming that mind is a classical system. I am suggesting that if the mind is simply classical information,?it would have likely been adequately explained by now by the likes of Euler, Boltzman, Turing, or Shannon.? ? ?>But maybe communication among the parts is of only secondary importance and the major work, the generation of the soul or sense of self, is done by the parts themselves. ? But the parts themselves are ultimately atoms and electrons. Classical physics arises as a special case of quantum mechanics in realm of high energies by?mass or otherwise. Why would you assume you yourself are not some superpositioned quantum superstate of a?mindboggling?but finite number of entangled quantum systems??Classical physics had every opportunity to explain mind. It has failed to date. What makes you so certain that?mind is not itself a separate special case of Quantum Mechanics?distinct from Classical Physics.?? ? > ?But that is complex behavior so the parts must be very complex and be made of sub parts. However this nesting of parts and sub parts and sub sub parts can not continue forever because eventually you will come to the simplest possible part, a part that can change in only one way, say on to off, or zero to one, and that can be recorded on a computer hard disc. What if you are not bits but?qubits??Qubits are both zero *and* one at the same time until you back them into a corner by measuring them, then they?become zero or one.?A classical upload would probably be little more than a database of your life?that answered to your name because you would have been measured and backed into corner. It would simply be a two-dimensional representation- a slice of John if you would- that could never be trusted to accurately?answer what?variety of martian cheese is?John's favorite because John-prime had never had the opportunity to try any?martian cheese?at all?before he got "flat scanned". ? >>"The water in Niagra Falls continuously replenishes itself every second.?That doesn't?mean it is no longer Niagra Falls. ? >If we disassembled Niagara Falls atom by atom and then reassembled it just as it was before would it still be the same Niagara Falls? ? No it would only still be Niagra Falls if people didn't start calling it "Reagan Falls" or something equally arbitrary. Same would probably go for your upload. If someone hacked into?your upload?and did a search and replace on your memories and substituted Fred for every occurance of John, would you still be John Clark or would you?then be Fred Clark?? ? Stuart LaForge ? "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators." - P. J. O'Rourke? From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 22:17:11 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:17:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) In-Reply-To: References: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1315538374.50448.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9 September 2011 18:15, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Stefano Vaj wrote: >> I am a little confused about the exact nuance of the word "militant" >> in (contemporary? US? UK?) English. >> >> The Italian and French equivalent are a somewhat more emphatic to >> indicate an activist of a given cause (activism sounding like a more >> low-level and/or trivial or slightly disparaged form of militantism). > > I'd say the same goes with Polish - activists demonstrate and root for > their cause, but are more or less benign. Militants shoot, burn and > destroy whatever they think stands on their beloved ideal's way at the > moment. There is a lot of place in between, and how one divides this place > depends on ones agenda. No, this is not what I mean! An "activist" in Italian is basically somebody who volunteers to do cold phone calls or giving away leaflets in the street in an electoral campaign for a given candidate. A "militant" is somebody, perhaps an intellectual or a ringleader but not necessarily, who fights for a (possibly noble) cause even if this may cost him or her. Violence and breaches of legal systems in place might be part of it (as, say, in the American or French or Russian Revolutions, or the Polish one for that matter), but the emphasis is on his one's engagement for one's ideas. In English, however, I have the feeling that it might be the other way around (even though I understand that there are people self-styling as, eg, "feminist militants" or "atheist militants"). -- Stefano Vaj From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 22:00:54 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:00:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <4E67192D.5050904@sbcglobal.net> References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> <4E67192D.5050904@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:11 AM, G. Livick wrote: > Boy, what rock did you grow up under? In my tykeness, my parents chanced to drive of an afternoon along one of the many gently arching skyways that skirt the edge of the box. As the road curved gently to the left, a turnip truck directly in front of my parents, filled with young Republicans, swerved uncontrollably to the right. Striking the guardrail, it resumed a reality-based trajectory, but the shock of impact and the sudden unnatural movement to the left, triggered a spasm of ideological purity in one of the occupants, who threw himself out of the truck, bouncing and cartwheeling along the roadway until he disappeared under the front bumper of Mom and Dad's psychedelically-painted vw bus, affectionately dubbed the "Karmic Comet". Deeply engrossed in a discussion of the iconography of Rankian Philosophy and its parallels in the works of Eric Hoffer, the folks hardly noticed the momentary turbulence as Rocky the Republican Raccoon, rolling beneath the bouncing Comet embossed his body plan in the warm asphalt. Only later, did the dots connect, when a Reagan for President "68 bumper sticker was discovered affixed to the Comet's undercarriage. ["Sad. Sad and tragic", you might say, but fear not. Rocky suffered only minor scrapes and bruises, protected by an elephant's hide and a cranial vault of near solid bone more robust than those of Icelandic poet kings of yore. In fact, the experience set him on course for his successful career as human speed bump in a nearby gated community, and later as a Fox News traffic reporter. In retirement, he retreated from public life, plagued, as he described in his memoirs, "Turnip Spelled Backwards is Patriot ", by an unshakable fear of Vegans.] I was not so lucky. When the Birkenstock Baby Trailer behind the Comet -- my assigned transport vehicle -- met the future professional speed bump, yours truly, my perambulator, and the bedclothes made entirely of organic, free-range, 300-count, homespun hemp fabric, went airborne. Up, up the long delirious burning blue, I topped the windswept edge of the box with easy grace, and sailed with dizzying uncertainty through the Mists of Maya into a future of authenticity and boundless optimism. Then, as the wheels of my baby carriage struck the earth with a jolt, and the whole she-bang plunged ballistically down the rocky slope all Odessa steps, my life of mere months flashed before my eyes. Several billion years of ontogeny in the warm, weightless dark. A tightening embrace, the light at the end of the vaginal tunnel, uncalled-for extrusion, bright lights, loud noises, and breasts, ... gigantic breasts. Then another rude impact. The front wheels of my carriage crashed to a stop against a rock too large to be impressed by my momentous self-absorption. Once again, on wings of hemp, I found myself airborne. Luck, my life's protector, was again at my side, as I landed, the blow softened by a loaded diaper, and skidded (believe me, you don't want a detailed explanation) gradually, but finally, to a rest in the shadow of a very large rock. There, beneath that rock, I was taken in by the locals, two moles, had as friends a squirrel, and a moose, and in their fellowship, far outside the box, grew to robust -- howsobeit feral -- adulthood. Across all those years, in the evenings, before sleep would overtake me, I would gaze intently into the distance at the pale blue light flickering on the canopy of clouds above the box, and listen for distant, attendant murmurings. But I was too far outside the box to make any sense of it. To this day it remains a mystery. Sadly, regarding your original question, the distance of years has erased from my memory any particular name or number associated as an identifier, with my sweet sweet rock of home. Of course, I remember with deep affection my adoptive family: the two moles -- Russian moles actually -- were Comrade Boris and Natasha, my squirrel friend was Rocky, and my moose buddy Bullwinkle. If that's of any help. Best, Jeff Davis "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin From amon at doctrinezero.com Sun Sep 11 08:31:43 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:31:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] 'Militant Atheists' (Was: Religion & transhumanism (not the usual!)) In-Reply-To: References: <1315492921.55848.YahooMailClassic@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1315538374.50448.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9 September 2011 23:17, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > In English, however, I have the feeling that it might be the other way > around (even though I understand that there are people self-styling > as, eg, "feminist militants" or "atheist militants"). I certainly have the same impression. When I hear "activist" I tend to think of Greenpeace, riot organisers, people actively working to further a cause. When I hear "militant", even though I understand its literal connotation, I hear a word that lost its strong meaning somewhere along the line, and now comes across as having a meaning similar to "aggressive". I not saying this is in any way a good thing, just an example of drifting language. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Sep 11 16:45:47 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315665776.26118.YahooMailNeo@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1315759547.82540.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Sat, 9/10/11, The Avantguardian wrote: "Again this is another assumption. The quantum information in a wave function i.e. the true states of a quantum system,?are hidden and unknowable by theory." That is incorrect. I'll be dammed if I can see what it has to do with identity but the quantum wave function of a particle IS knowable and it's entirely deterministic too; but the wave function does not contain as much information as Newton would like, if you square the function you get the probability the particle will be in a certain spot with a given momentum. You can know all about the quantum wave function associated with a particle, but that's not enough to know exactly where the particle is and how its moving.? "Unless you have proof that the mind is a classical physical system then it is an assumption that?the mind?can be represented by classical information " Unless you have proof that the tooth fairy does not exist then its just an assumption that she does not. There is not one shred of evidence that mind has anything to do with quantum mechanics, not one. The "reasoning" seems to be that we don't know much about mind and we don't know much about quantum mechanics so they must be related. I don't find that sort of deduction impressive. "You are?not just information;?you are?information in context,?in runtime,?constantly interacting with everything around you. " You change over time so the information that defined you ten seconds ago is different than the information that defines you now. So what? "Our emails are pretty fungible but some information like?missile launch codes?or Spike's uber-primes?are not." I don't have a thousand tons of gold but it's fungible, I don't have the missile launch codes but that's fungible too, one Email listing them is as good as another. ?"I am suggesting that if the mind is simply classical information,?it would have likely been adequately explained by now by the likes of Euler, Boltzman, Turing, or Shannon." Expecting to see a teeshirt with the equation of the General Theory of Mind on it is as unrealistic as expecting a General Theory of Weather. At the lowest most fundamental level Newton adequately explained the weather, but we want it explained at a higher level and that's vastly more difficult. There probably isn't one huge new idea that will explain intelligence, but a billion or two little hacks and tricks and algorithms and rules of thumb. "But the parts themselves are ultimately atoms and electrons." Yes, and atoms and electrons are the ultimate in fungibility, electrons have no scratches on them to tell them apart, if you've seen one electron you've seen them all.? "Why would you assume you yourself are not some superpositioned quantum superstate of a?mindboggling?but finite number of entangled quantum systems?" OK fine, I'm a mind boggling but finite number of entangled quantum systems; but in spite of all of that when I woke up this morning I felt like I was the same person that went to bed last night. Quantum mechanics or no quantum mechanics, why would you expect a duplicate or an upload to feel any different? And if he didn't feel like you who would he feel like? "Classical physics had every opportunity to explain mind. It has failed to date." Failed? It has not finished the job but it has made enormous progress, just look at Watson. "What makes you so certain that?mind is not itself a separate special case of Quantum Mechanics?distinct from Classical Physics." 1) There is no evidence for it being true, none zero zilch nada. 2) There is no theoretical explanation on how it could possibly be. Quantum entanglement is hard enough to achieve at one ten thousandth of a degree above absolute zero, nobody can explain how such a extraordinarily delicate state could survive in the rough and tumble environment of the brain at its standard operating temperature, a scorchingly hot 310 degrees Kelvin. 3) If the human mind operates on quantum mechanical principles its odd that mind finds quantum mechanics to be odd, and very nonintuitive. 4) If the human mind operates on quantum mechanical principles its odd that standard classical computers are better at calculating the probable future state of a quantum system than human beings are. The best thing about quantum computers is that they're good at simulating quantum systems, but people aren't. "What if you are not bits but?qubits??Qubits are both zero *and* one at the same time until you back them into a corner by measuring them, then they?become zero or one." I don't want to imply that quantum computing is not important because it may be, if a practical quantum computer can ever be made it could bring about the Singularity as swiftly as full blown Nanotechnology, but I see no reason to think it has anything to do with the human brain, or rather what that brain does, mind. ?"Perhaps if uploaded to a quantum computer." In the unlikely event that quantum computations? are occurring in the hothouse of the human brain then they can certainly be achieved in a machine. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Sep 11 18:32:57 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (kellycoinguy at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:32:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] openness on the internet, was RE: Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4e6cfee0.a43c440a.53ac.585d@mx.google.com> Thanks Jeff your life's history is inspiring!  Yours most sincerely, -Kelly (fellow traveller in the turnip truck of yore) -- Sent from my Palm Pre On Sep 10, 2011 8:17 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:11 AM, G. Livick <glivick at sbcglobal.net> wrote: <snip> > Boy, what rock did you grow up under? In my tykeness, my parents chanced to drive of an afternoon along one of the many gently arching skyways that skirt the edge of the box. As the road curved gently to the left, a turnip truck directly in front of my parents, filled with young Republicans, swerved uncontrollably to the right. Striking the guardrail, it resumed a reality-based trajectory, but the shock of impact and the sudden unnatural movement to the left, triggered a spasm of ideological purity in one of the occupants, who threw himself out of the truck, bouncing and cartwheeling along the roadway until he disappeared under the front bumper of Mom and Dad's psychedelically-painted vw bus, affectionately dubbed the "Karmic Comet". Deeply engrossed in a discussion of the iconography of Rankian Philosophy and its parallels in the works of Eric Hoffer, the folks hardly noticed the momentary turbulence as Rocky the Republican Raccoon, rolling beneath the bouncing Comet embossed his body plan in the warm asphalt. Only later, did the dots connect, when a Reagan for President "68 bumper sticker was discovered affixed to the Comet's undercarriage. ["Sad. Sad and tragic", you might say, but fear not. Rocky suffered only minor scrapes and bruises, protected by an elephant's hide and a cranial vault of near solid bone more robust than those of Icelandic poet kings of yore. In fact, the experience set him on course for his successful career as human speed bump in a nearby gated community, and later as a Fox News traffic reporter. In retirement, he retreated from public life, plagued, as he described in his memoirs, "Turnip Spelled Backwards is Patriot ", by an unshakable fear of Vegans.] I was not so lucky. When the Birkenstock Baby Trailer behind the Comet -- my assigned transport vehicle -- met the future professional speed bump, yours truly, my perambulator, and the bedclothes made entirely of organic, free-range, 300-count, homespun hemp fabric, went airborne. Up, up the long delirious burning blue, I topped the windswept edge of the box with easy grace, and sailed with dizzying uncertainty through the Mists of Maya into a future of authenticity and boundless optimism. Then, as the wheels of my baby carriage struck the earth with a jolt, and the whole she-bang plunged ballistically down the rocky slope all Odessa steps, my life of mere months flashed before my eyes. Several billion years of ontogeny in the warm, weightless dark. A tightening embrace, the light at the end of the vaginal tunnel, uncalled-for extrusion, bright lights, loud noises, and breasts, ... gigantic breasts. Then another rude impact. The front wheels of my carriage crashed to a stop against a rock too large to be impressed by my momentous self-absorption. Once again, on wings of hemp, I found myself airborne. Luck, my life's protector, was again at my side, as I landed, the blow softened by a loaded diaper, and skidded (believe me, you don't want a detailed explanation) gradually, but finally, to a rest in the shadow of a very large rock. There, beneath that rock, I was taken in by the locals, two moles, had as friends a squirrel, and a moose, and in their fellowship, far outside the box, grew to robust -- howsobeit feral -- adulthood. Across all those years, in the evenings, before sleep would overtake me, I would gaze intently into the distance at the pale blue light flickering on the canopy of clouds above the box, and listen for distant, attendant murmurings. But I was too far outside the box to make any sense of it. To this day it remains a mystery. Sadly, regarding your original question, the distance of years has erased from my memory any particular name or number associated as an identifier, with my sweet sweet rock of home. Of course, I remember with deep affection my adoptive family: the two moles -- Russian moles actually -- were Comrade Boris and Natasha, my squirrel friend was Rocky, and my moose buddy Bullwinkle. If that's of any help. Best, Jeff Davis "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Mon Sep 12 03:07:26 2011 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:07:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] wet dreams, was openness on the internet. In-Reply-To: References: <01a801cc6c47$db10a240$9131e6c0$@att.net> <02b101cc6cc1$1edbf000$5c93d000$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Sep 2011, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > What may sound like totalitarian from your side, is rather innocent in my > > eyes. At least right now (even thou, yes, I am a bit baffled by it). > > We have our regular lives as regular people, where we wake, work, eat, > sleep, and enjoy the company of our lesser and greater friends. These > activities compose the larger part of our lives, and to the extent > that we focus on these personal matters while dodging involvement in- > and averting our eyes from the wars of the elites, we can enjoy our > lives and remain largely free from the injury and suffering caused by > sovereign ambition. I can see your point. On the other hand, if I was you, I would appreciate ability to express my thoughts in public without fear of being prosecuted. On the yet another hand, delving deeper, things can show themselves a bit more complicated. For example, censorship is not needed at all if one can ensure that only limited subset of thoughts will appear in people's minds. I can see a slight hint about such tendency, and not just in US. However, I'm undecided to what extent tendency is buried inside our psyche (thinking requires energy and time, and we tend to preserve energy and save time). BTW, even being treated as object of some (monetary) value has positive sides. Nobody in his sane mind is going to waste money. When it comes to intrusive marketing, I think mental training will become one of a successful life's requirements. They want to push your hidden buttons, so we need to get more conscious about it. In a long run, this should do a lot of good to many millions of people. I think that consciousness is a great thing (hint: cattle doesn't seem to have much of it, just impulses). > Your name and email suggests a connection with Poland, Europe, Eastern > Europe, and the corresponding social/political experience. On that > account, I'm inclined to credit you with a more mature worldview than > that of the typical Hollywood-ized, consumer-ized, patriot-ized, and > in general, intellectually down-sized American. Well, I am far from calling myself mature or more mature. I have had the questionable luck to watch fall of communism (and all changes that followed) while being very young adult. If travels educate, I had quite a few of them without moving anywhere at all :-). It certainly tought me something about how far things can go if there are people willing to push those things hard enough. I have learned, for example, about police informers planted (wed) into families of people considered "uncertain". Or, believe it or not, at one point in postwar Poland, almost whole anticommunist guerilla was probably directed by secret police agents. Why - well, if you control something, you can have it however you please. Compared to this, yes indeed, Hollywood view of the world is rather bleak. Also, I am a bit nerved every time I read that US edition of some book has been cut short or altered "for the good of US readers". This sounds so pitiful. And so ungrateful towards authors, who besides being typing drones could also have something to say about how and what they see. Obviously, this calls for a question, what is so good in being ignorant of author's original vision (assuming that some of us read to learn). This is why every thinking person should learn at least one foreign language - not to "make money and contacts" but to learn a world from another perspective. Of course, one can also point that the whole culture thing is not about learning the world. It is about making a dream about the world. If this is the case, then obviously some people (i predict majority of us) will slowly but inevitably sink into their dream. Because, I think, homo sapiens is a beast that wants to live in a dream. Observing US from far away I think I can see how a lot of Americans happily dream(t). Too bad. It's also a little uneasy to see this. It asks for question if I dream too. I guess one day the other branch of h. sapiens will simply take off, base their actions on reality (and possibly create another culture around crave for a truth and personal abilities to make things happen). Perhaps the difference will lie in genetics. Or maybe they will have better upbringing. I guess in the past the upbringing wasn't that bad - nowadays, there is tendency to "reduce a load on students", like they are worse than guys 100 years ago. Upbringing! And education. Why it is so hard to do it right? Or at least better than now? Especially that I have some suspicions it was better and went downhill. > But at your European remove, you may yourself fall victim to the > "idylla" -- I suspect you meant "ideal" or "utopian" -- view of > America. You know, the Hollywood version: "Give me your tired, your > huddled masses...", "liberty and justice for all"..., the City on the > Hill, "...from sea to shining sea", "...and they lived happily ever > after", blah blah blah, etc. That illusion is very pleasant indeed, > but no matter how good it feels, don't embrace it to the extent that > you abandon your connection with reality. By "idylla" I meant, of course, "idyll". There is a lot of words in Polish coming from Latin and I somehow assumed that in English it would spell the same. I should have checked in a dictionary. :-). But idylla is fine word on its own - like a mix of idyll and Godzilla. I wanted to say, that people make up in their heads such idyllic visions of heavens on earth. AFAIK all those heavens have their other side, the one closer to hell. It is never to be seen from afar and it only becomes obvious that there is the other side once you melt yourself with its better half. Then you can feel the bad but you cannot unmelt and you are damned forever. At least, this I would be afraid of. About my view of US - not really utopian anymore. That was good for a teenager, but as I learned more I realised there was no place in a world that could qualify. On the other hand, US is still quite good for many people - I can see, that during last 10 years, about million per year obtained residency (so, they were making some money and payed their bills, maybe even taxes). Despite all economic wobbles. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_immigration ] But I don't have time to munge all the data. Therefore I cannot say if the biggest US problem is indeed the dreaming I tried to describe above. I am rather reluctant to care about elites, since they are made elites by people and they can be made something else by those very same people. About this "give me your tired masses" - sure, they were needed to keep the pump going. Is it possible that US is/was a Ponzi scheme? Well, maybe... but not enough data again. Overally, I feel my Polish/European remove gives me great perspective to see a world, at least in theory. Thanks to flows of history, I was able to have a look behind the courtain and was conscious enough to not let go. Future Poles would probably be as inane as anybody else, because of westernisation. If I suffer from illusions, I hope to dispose of them, preferably in not very distant future :-). > America was wealthy, which like a new paint job, covered a multitude > of sins. Now the wealth is all but gone, and the ugly reality of the > coarseness of American life is becoming ever more apparent. Time to > focus on the personal. I think focusing on the personal is very much OK. I am not sure how seriously you do consider a "Chinese option", but for a moment I myself would not choose it. The main reason for this, I would be afraid of personal security of mine and my relatives (in a long run). I don't have a billion bucks to buy me a place in right circles (like, say, if I was from elite and wanted to start a new life in more promising economy). There are folks who live in China, but I suspect their well being is thanks to combination of having desired professional skills, waving Western passport and paying their bills in dollars or euros. Remove one or two of those pillars and things can get worse for them. I mean, maybe many years from now some new gov in China will call masses to "cut a white weed" or something equally cruel. AFAIK, human life is a commodity there, and a rather cheap one. Of course, I may be wrong. Time will show. > Personally, I embrace technology as the vehicle that best embodies and > promotes the "better angels" of human nature, those dedicated to > progress, to building, to making things "better", to cooperating. > > Please forgive me if I have offended you. No, not at all. Even more, I hope you forgive me if I have offended you. I have this tendency to deliver my version of truth, sometimes writing faster than I think (a slow thinker, me) and it sure has some sharp edges which can hurt anybody standing along the way. Besides, it is possible that my Polish perspective makes me slightly angry when I see someone loosing their free will, even intentionally. > Best, Jeff Davis Thanks for explanations. 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 stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 11:58:04 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:58:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315665776.26118.YahooMailNeo@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1315568172.69349.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1315585559.44347.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1315665776.26118.YahooMailNeo@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10 September 2011 16:42, The Avantguardian wrote: >Unless you have proof that the mind is a classical physical system then it is an assumption that?the mind?can be represented by classical information... I have no "proof" that a diesel engine is a "classical physical system", whatever this may be, but if it works it is not an assumption that its reproduction is good enough. BTW, should we ever improbably discover that biological brains make any especial use of quantum effects, and this is an unwarranted assumption given that they are even poorer at typical quantum computation tasks than a PC, this would simply mean that quantum processors are not only feasible, but trivial, and that in order to emulate biological brains with acceptable performances it is best to include a quantum coprocessor in your architecture. What's the big deal? > You are?not just information;?you are?information in context,?in runtime,?constantly interacting with everything around you. The context is still only information. Let us assume, eg, that emulating a brain would not be enough to give place to a convincingly anthropomorphical ethology. Now, since much of our complexity resides in our nervous system, to emulate an entire body along with its sensorial channels would not add really much to our chore... > I am suggesting that if the mind is simply classical information,?it would have likely been adequately explained by now by the likes of Euler, Boltzman, Turing, or Shannon. I think that Wolfram shows well enough that while the Principle of Computational Equivalence shows us that all systems are basically equivalent, the idea that "classical information" is easy to deal with exclusively depends on a selection bias. Most of reality, biological or not, is in fact quite intractable... > No it would only still be Niagra Falls if people didn't start calling it "Reagan Falls" or something equally arbitrary. Same would probably go for your upload. If someone hacked into?your upload?and did a search and replace on your memories and substituted Fred for every occurance of John, would you still be John Clark or would you?then be Fred Clark? A Rose by Another Name. What an upload is and whether an upload is an upload is represents ultimately a sociological, not a scientific or philosophical issue. -- Stefano Vaj From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 13:53:19 2011 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. References: <1315665776.26118.YahooMailNeo@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1315759547.82540.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1315835599.78448.YahooMailNeo@web65609.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> From: john clark >To: The Avantguardian ; ExI chat list >Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:45 AM >Subject: Re: [ExI] Destructive uploading. > >On Sat, 9/10/11, The Avantguardian wrote: > >>"Again this is another assumption. The quantum information in a wave function i.e. the true states of a quantum system,?are hidden and unknowable by theory." ? >That is incorrect. I'll be dammed if I can see what it has to do with identity but the quantum wave function of a particle IS knowable and it's entirely deterministic too; but the wave function does not contain as much information as Newton would like, if you square the function you get the probability the particle will be in a certain spot with a given momentum. You can know all about the quantum wave function associated with a particle, but that's not enough to know exactly where the particle is and how its moving.? Knowing and?experiencing something are different things. You can know all about the wavefunction but only by?statistically "feeling it out". You can't actually observe?it directly. Therefore it itself is hidden in the sense that you can't actually observe?it. ? >>"Unless you have proof that the mind is a classical physical system then it is an assumption that?the mind?can be represented by classical information" ? >Unless you have proof that the tooth fairy does not exist then its just an assumption that she does not. There is not one shred of evidence that mind has anything to do with quantum mechanics, not one. The "reasoning" seems to be that we don't know much about mind and we don't know much about quantum mechanics so they must be related. I don't find that sort of deduction impressive. Great now you are assuming my reasoning. I hereby dub you "Assumption Man". ;-) And actually there is evidence having nothing to do with the mysteriousness of it all. But the evidence is?merely circumstantial and not conclusive. In fact there are several different lines of evidence, but they all point to the same thing. ? 1. Wave-like nature: Both?electrons and the mind have wavelike properties. For example alpha waves, beta waves,?delta waves,?and brain waves as measured by ECG etc. ? 2.?Quantum Components: Many biological processes utilize?the quantum behavior of biological chemicals to maximize efficiency especially those involving electron transfer.?For example, you are able to process oxygen efficiently because cytochrome c and other molecules are able to delocalize electrons in your mitochondria?on the scale of of 10s of nanometers.?Quantum processes are also involved?with photosynthesis and Krebs cycle, enymatic actions,?ion?transport across membranes.?More generally at the scale of molecules of biological importance, QM embodied as the Casimir?effect becomes the?strongest attractive force on the molecules. Indeed?geckos use the Casimir Effect to cling to glass and other surfaces. So there is no doubt that evolution has adapted organisms?to?exploit?quantum mechanical effects for their survival and sometimes these effects can be macroscopic..? ? 3. Delocalization: Quantum particles like electrons are smeared out over space in orbitals. Similarly the mind is?delocalized around the brain and?to a more limited extent around the body. You are conscious of your toes and your stomach when you need to be. Plus patients suffering brain lesions or stroke survivors do not?completely change personality or become?mindless. ? 4.?Superposition and Choice: ? Both QM and mind share a property?similar to?superposition. When a mind is superpositioned between?two or more possible outcomes, it is?indecisive or sitting on the fence. For example what did you drink when last at?a restaurant??Cofee, Tea, Bloody Mary,?or whatever? Before you decided, your mind was like your future self where?all the possible outcomes were superpositioned?on top of?one another and weighted by preference. Also, just as you choose what to drink when the waiter comes back around,?so too?the electron decides to become?spin up or spin down when you measure it but before that it is both spin up and spin down unless you previously measured it along that vector basis. ? 5. Uncertainty: In the quantum vacuum?due to the Energy-Time?Uncertainty Principle, particles can pop into and out of existence on "borrowed energy". This has parallels in the mind as well: Thoughts.?Thoughts can pop into existence out of nowhere and fleetingly vanish unless written down.?This of course?requires more energy than simply thinking.? 6.?Statistical Imperative: ? Both QM?"observables" and?mind, even in controlled circumstances, cannot be?deterministically predicted in any way.?Both phenomena?can only be modelled statistically after analyzing a?substantial number of trials. In our restaurant example I might notice you almost always drink coffee but that doesn't mean you cant surprise me by ordering something else. Just like occassionally electrons will tunnel into regions?where they would be totally unexpected. ? 7. Ground?State: ? In QM there is a lowest possible energy for any system.?There also seems to be a?minimum amount of activity for a brain to have in order to be conscious. For example?sleep and dreams. Your consciousness seems to require?information so much that even when you are trying to shut off your mind you are?shaping perceptual experiences out of the random white noise of your brain.??? ? There's probably more evidence out there that I can't immediately?recall.? >>"You are?not just information;?you are?information in context,?in runtime,?constantly interacting with everything around you." ? >You change over time so the information that defined you ten seconds ago is different than the information that defines you now. So what? The information that makes up you is being created in an open-ended fashion as you interact with the world around you. The information content?in you is dependent on?constant interaction?with an environment that is more complex and information-rich than you are?and that environment arises?at the QM level. ? > >"Our emails are pretty fungible but some information like?missile launch codes?or Spike's uber-primes?are not."I don't have a thousand tons of gold but it's fungible, I don't have the missile launch codes but that's fungible too, one Email listing them is as good as another. > >?"I am suggesting that if the mind is simply classical information,?it would have likely been adequately explained by now by the likes of Euler, Boltzman, Turing, or Shannon. ? >Expecting to see a teeshirt with the equation of the General Theory of Mind on it is as unrealistic as expecting a General Theory of Weather. At the lowest most fundamental level Newton adequately explained the weather, but we want it explained at a higher level and that's vastly more difficult. There probably isn't one huge new idea that will explain intelligence, but a billion or two little hacks and tricks and algorithms and rules of thumb. Perhaps you are right about this, but?I think I have made a pretty good case?that?at least?some of those?"billion little hacks" operating in the biological version of you are quantum mechanical in nature.?? ? > >"But the parts themselves are ultimately atoms and electrons."Yes, and atoms and electrons are the ultimate in fungibility, electrons have no scratches on them to tell them apart, if you've seen one electron you've seen them all.? > >"Why would you assume you yourself are not some superpositioned quantum superstate of a?mindboggling?but finite number of entangled quantum systems?" ? > OK fine, I'm a mind boggling but finite number of entangled quantum systems; but in spite of all of that when I woke up this morning I felt like I was the same person that went to bed last night. Quantum mechanics or no quantum mechanics, why would you expect a duplicate or an upload to feel any different?And if he didn't feel like you who would he feel like? ? Because you don't know how many dimensions mind has. If not every dimension is accounted for, then it is not really a duplicate.?I am not certain I would trust it to "feel" at all. Especially?since more often than not, how we feel involves hormones from glands at various locations throughout the body. A simulation of a brain without simulated?gonads would probably feel quite different than the original brain did. ? > >"Classical physics had every opportunity to explain mind. It has failed to date." Failed? It has not finished the job but it has made enormous progress, just look at Watson. How has Watson made a dent in the hard problem of consciousness? ? >>"What makes you so certain that?mind is not itself a separate special case of Quantum Mechanics?distinct from Classical Physics." >1) There is no evidence for it being true, none zero zilch nada. ? Above,?I list 7 seperate lines of evidence that QM is involved in counsciousness.. ?? >2) There is no theoretical explanation on how it could possibly be. Quantum entanglement is hard enough to achieve at one ten thousandth of a degree above absolute zero, nobody can explain how such a extraordinarily delicate state could survive in the rough and tumble environment of the brain at its standard operating temperature, a scorchingly hot 310 degrees Kelvin. ? Entanglement might be a rarer mental phenomenon than simple indecision/superposition. I am not suggesting entanglement per se is a mechanism of consciousness simply that QM in general might be involved mechanistically. Other?QM phenomena might be more robust temperature-wise as evidenced by the gecko?mentioned earlier.? ? >3) If the human mind operates on quantum mechanical principles its odd that mind finds quantum mechanics to be odd, and very nonintuitive. ? Not really. If mind?understands everything that does not?understand itself, then what?understands?mind? Can you be certain that you are not the time-evolution of crazy complex wavefunction? Perhaps the wavefunction of your entire body? Perhaps you are the Unobserved Observer, the Collapser of Wavefunctions, including yourself.?? ? >4) If the human mind operates on quantum mechanical principles its odd that standard classical computers are better at calculating the probable future state of a quantum system than human beings are. The best thing about quantum computers is that they're good at simulating quantum systems, but people aren't. ? There's a ton of quantum mechanics going on in?semiconductors therefore it is not surprising that they are good at such serial calculations. But?that is different?than the QM going on in your head?that is being done in parallel which makes you better at deciding which quantum future you experience than any such computer.???? ? >>"What if you are not bits but?qubits??Qubits are both zero *and* one at the same time until you back them into a corner by measuring them, then they?become zero or one." ? >I don't want to imply that quantum computing is not important because it may be, if a practical quantum computer can ever be made it could bring about the Singularity as swiftly as full blown Nanotechnology, but I see no reason to think it has anything to do with the human brain, or rather what that brain does, mind. ? Mind is manifold. The things going on below?your?conscious threshhold?generate the things you percieve, but do so below the level of your perception. The universe gets spoon fed to your mind by your brain. Your brain decides what it parses out?of the flood of incoming information to generate your reality. You are thus in a sense?your own self-contained approximation of reality.?John is?the?symbol?for your?body and you are John.??I am not certain where brain ends or mind begins, but I am inclined to think that mind is an abstraction of brain manifest as a hefty wavefunction in some bizarre "quantum-platonic" realm. ? >?"Perhaps if uploaded to a quantum computer." >In the unlikely event that quantum computations? are occurring in the hothouse of the human brain then they can certainly be achieved in a machine. Electrons in your body and brain are changing state all the time. You have photoreceptor proteins expressed deep inside your brain tissue. Why would the?benefit of expressing such proteins in such locations?outweigh the evolutionary costs if photons are not somehow involved in the function of the brain??Photons do QM at all temperatures.?Just food for thought.?? ? Stuart LaForge "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators." - P. J. O'Rourke From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 14:54:59 2011 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 07:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. References: <1315568172.69349.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1315585559.44347.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1315665776.26118.YahooMailNeo@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1315839299.43121.YahooMailNeo@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stefano Vaj > To: The Avantguardian ; ExI chat list > Cc: > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 4:58 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Destructive uploading. > > On 10 September 2011 16:42, The Avantguardian > wrote: >> Unless you have proof that the mind is a classical physical system then it > is an assumption that?the mind?can be represented by classical information... > > I have no "proof" that a diesel engine is a "classical physical > system", whatever this may be, but if it works it is not an assumption > that its reproduction is good enough. Touche, Ami. > BTW, should we ever improbably discover that biological brains make > any especial use of quantum effects, and this is an unwarranted > assumption given that they are even poorer at typical quantum > computation tasks than a PC, this would simply mean that quantum > processors are not only feasible, but trivial, and that in order to > emulate biological brains with acceptable performances it is best to > include a quantum coprocessor in your architecture. What's the big > deal? It would be more expensive with a quantum coprocessor and take longer until first deployment if it is even on our Everett branch. :-( What with all the doom and gloomers running the markets, we might be lucky to be able maintain our infrastructure in the decades ahead. >> You are?not just information;?you are?information in context,?in > runtime,?constantly interacting with everything around you. > > The context is still only information. Let us assume, eg, that > emulating a brain would not be enough to give place to a convincingly > anthropomorphical ethology. Now, since much of our complexity resides > in our nervous system, to emulate an entire body along with its > sensorial channels would not add really much to our chore... I am sorry but simulated or not, I would?not "feel" the same?without my balls or my adrenal glands. ? >> I am suggesting that if the mind is simply classical information,?it would > have likely been adequately explained by now by the likes of Euler, Boltzman, > Turing, or Shannon. > > I think that Wolfram shows well enough that while the Principle of > Computational Equivalence shows us that all systems are basically > equivalent, the idea that "classical information" is easy to deal with > exclusively depends on a selection bias. Most of reality, biological > or not, is in fact quite intractable... Unless you meant to say "tractable", I tend to agree. >> No it would only still be Niagra Falls if people didn't start calling > it "Reagan Falls" or something equally arbitrary. Same would probably > go for your upload. If someone hacked into?your upload?and did a search and > replace on your memories and substituted Fred for every occurance of John, would > you still be John Clark or would you?then be Fred Clark? > > A Rose by Another Name. What an upload is and whether an upload is an > upload is represents ultimately a sociological, not a scientific or > philosophical issue. You are probably right but as an attorney, would you allow an upload to amend the Last Will and Testament of the deceased natural person? From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Sep 12 20:22:47 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315835599.78448.YahooMailNeo@web65609.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1315858967.98220.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Mon, 9/12/11, The Avantguardian wrote: ?"You can know all about the wavefunction but only by?statistically "feeling it out". You can't actually observe?it directly." That's true, you can use the quantum wave function for calculation and do so precisely and deterministically, but you can not observe them directly, which makes them about as real as the lines of longitude and latitude. And you can know exactly where those lines are, but not where a ship is.?? "Both?electrons and the mind have wavelike properties. For example alpha waves, beta waves,?delta waves,?and brain waves as measured by ECG etc." Mind does not have wavelike properties the brain does, as does any object that operates on electrical, chemical, or electro-chemical processes. My cell phone produces much more powerful waves than my brain does but I find no great significance in that fact. ?? "Many biological processes utilize?the quantum behavior of biological chemicals to maximize efficiency especially those involving electron transfer." Quantum mechanics is behind not just the chemistry of the brain but the chemistry of anything, quantum mechanics is also the reason that semiconductors in computers behave the way they do. So the parts of both the brain and computers operate on quantum mechanical principles, however it you looked at either at the level of logic and made a flowchart about what is going on you would not have to invoke quantum mechanics. That's why most brain surgeons, computer programers, and psychiatrists know little about quantum mechanics, they can do their job without it. Although if quantum computers ever become practical programers will need to go back to school. ?? "Quantum particles like electrons are smeared out over space in orbitals. Similarly the mind is?delocalized around the brain and?to a more limited extent around the body." The brain has a location but I think the location of a mind means about as much as the location of the number 42. ?? "Both QM and mind share a property?similar to?superposition. When a mind is superpositioned between?two or more possible outcomes, it is?indecisive or sitting on the fence." You haven't made up your mind yet, you don't know what the results of your calculation will be until you've finished the calculation; I don't see why you need to drag quantum mechanics into this simple everyday observation. ??? "what did you drink when last at?a restaurant??Cofee, Tea, Bloody Mary,?or whatever? Before you decided, your mind was like your future self where?all the possible outcomes were superpositioned?on top of?one another and weighted by preference." Of my own free will, I consciously decide to go to a restaurant. Why? Because I want? to. Why ? Because I want to eat. Why? Because I'm hungry? Why ? Because lack of food triggered nerve impulses in my stomach, my brain interpreted these signals as pain, I can only stand so much pain before I try to stop it. Why? Because I don't like pain. Why? Because that's the way my brain is constructed. Why? Because my body? and the hardware of my brain were made from the information in my genetic code? (lets see, 6 billion base pairs, 2 bits per base pair, 8 bits per byte, that comes out to about 1.5 gigabytes)? the programming of my brain came from the environment, add a little quantum randomness if you like and of my own free will I consciously decide to go to a restaurant. ?? "In the quantum vacuum?due to the Energy-Time?Uncertainty Principle, particles can pop into and out of existence on "borrowed energy". This has parallels in the mind as well: Thoughts.?Thoughts can pop into existence out of nowhere and fleetingly vanish unless written down." You can make analogies of this sort between almost anything and I don't think they mean much of anything; fire can pop into existence apparently out of nowhere and vanish just as mysteriously, so can internet companies and junk bonds. ? ?? "Both QM?"observables" and?mind, even in controlled circumstances, cannot be?deterministically predicted" A mind could not always predict his own behavior even in controlled circumstances, but there is no reason another mind could not provided it didn't tell the first mind what that prediction is, unless of course the first mind did things for no reason, but I very much doubt that randomness is the key to mind. ? ?"In QM there is a lowest possible energy for any system.?There also seems to be a?minimum amount of activity for a brain to have in order to be conscious." Everything, quantum mechanical or otherwise, has a lowest possible energy level, and it always tries to reach that low level. I don't see how that is relevant. ?? "you don't know how many dimensions mind has. if not every dimension is accounted for, then it is not really a duplicate"I don't know what that means. ??? "I am not certain I would trust it to "feel" at all." I'm far more interested in how it behaves because to that I can apply the scientific method. ?? "A simulation of a brain without simulated?gonads would probably feel quite different than the original brain did." Obviously, but if we can handle the brain we can handle the gonads. I probably should have rephrased that. ?? "How has Watson made a dent in the hard problem of consciousness?" ?You mean the fuzzy ill-defined unobservable dead end problem of consciousness? To hell with consciousness! Consciousness theories are not interesting because they're too easy to come up with, any consciousness theory will do because they don't have to actually do anything. On the other hand intelligence theories are hard as hell to find because they have to do a lot. And Watson acts smart, maybe not as smart as a human but pretty damn smart, I'll take that over yet another theory from the consciousness hard problem factory any day. ? ? "You have photoreceptor proteins expressed deep inside your brain tissue." Yes, the gene for the photoreceptor protein OPN3 is expressed throughout the brain, its strongly expressed in the retina obviously, and the retina is often considered part of the brain so that may be part of the reason its there; but it's also strongly expressed in the testicles but not in the liver, and frankly I don't quite know what to make of that. ? John K Clark?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 23:08:34 2011 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:08:34 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315568172.69349.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> <1315568172.69349.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:36 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: >> When you say "I want to survive in this body for another year" you are >> being altruistic rather than selfish, since in a year most of the >> matter in your body will have been replaced, and the person who >> survives is someone who looks like you and believes he is you, but >> isn't really you. > > There?is an assumption there that?identity is a property of?matter moving through the system. Matter is fungible, the configuration state?of the system itself is not.?In your example, there was something both physical and continuous about you despite the turnover of matter in your body?over the year. That something was metabolism, a continuous complex chemical reaction that?at all times could in theory be mapped to the label Stathis. Therefore, you are still you after all this time. > The water in Niagra Falls continuously replenishes itself every second.?That doesn't?mean it is no longer Niagra Falls. There are two considerations in these discussions. One is a question of definition and the other is a question of what is important to us. We could define identity as "same matter", "same configuration" or "different matter or configuration as long as the change is continuous". These definitions do not change how we feel about ourselves. For example, some people are surprised to learn that most of the matter in their body is replaced over the course of a year, which under the first definition would mean they have died and been replaced by a copy. However, they are usually not upset by this revelation. They figure that since they feel they have survived if this is death it is a type of death that doesn't matter. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 23:27:24 2011 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:27:24 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315835599.78448.YahooMailNeo@web65609.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1315665776.26118.YahooMailNeo@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1315759547.82540.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1315835599.78448.YahooMailNeo@web65609.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:53 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > Above,?I list 7 seperate lines of evidence that QM is involved in counsciousness.. If quantum effects are significant in the brain I don't see how that would "explain" consciousness any better than a classical brain. A quantum computer is Turing emulable. Quantum uncertainty could be simulated with pseudorandom numbers. I can't think of any reason why true randomness should be better than pseudorandomness when choosing between tea and coffee but if it is important, you could include a stream of true random numbers in your computer. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 13 11:08:46 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:08:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: <1315839299.43121.YahooMailNeo@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1315568172.69349.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1315585559.44347.YahooMailClassic@web82908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1315665776.26118.YahooMailNeo@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1315839299.43121.YahooMailNeo@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12 September 2011 16:54, The Avantguardian wrote: > I am sorry but simulated or not, I would not "feel" the same without my > balls or my adrenal glands. > I am inclined to agree... :-) In fact, let us say that we pick a physical human brain, connect its synapses to some neuronic interface and put it into a tin-and-silicon robot, or for that matter into an everyday workstation. I suspect that it would not be too happy about this development, and probably an emulation limited to that extent would neither, even if it worked at all... > > I think that Wolfram shows well enough that while the Principle of > > Computational Equivalence shows us that all systems are basically > > equivalent, the idea that "classical information" is easy to deal with > > exclusively depends on a selection bias. Most of reality, biological > > or not, is in fact quite intractable... > > Unless you meant to say "tractable", I tend to agree. > I mean that unless we concentrate on problems with easy algorithmic solution, the general rule may well be that computing something may require going through all the steps of the original system, and perhaps with a loss of (relative) performance in comparison with the original, so that "life" or "biological intelligence" would not be especial cases in this respect, in comparison with, say, stellar internal workings. > > A Rose by Another Name. What an upload is and whether an upload is an > > upload is represents ultimately a sociological, not a scientific or > > philosophical issue. > > You are probably right but as an attorney, would you allow an upload to > amend the Last Will and Testament of the deceased natural person? > This would depend on my client's best interest... :-) But as a jurist, that is a hypothetical legal scholar/legislator/judge, I think that more general solutions have to be found. And, yes, as long as there are no other copies around I believe that a (fiction of?) "continuity" is probably the best solution, as it is for similar scenarios affecting legal entities. So that an uploaded individual should be considered neither as the successor, nor a third party, vis-?-vis its original. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 13 14:40:10 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:40:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Shameless Self-Promotion Once More :-) Message-ID: Once Spike encouraged those of us who happen to publish a book not to hesitate to mention the circumstance in the list, so I take him at his word. Well, in my case it is just a booklet, and the circumstance is simply that, thank to the wonderful and relentless work of Catarina Lamm, an English translation of its Italian paper version ("Interview with Stefano Vaj on Biopolitics and Transhumanism") has eventually appeared online, namely at http://www.biopolitica.it/biopinterv.html I trust however that the availability on the Web of this interview, which discusses inter alia controversies arisen from the publication of the my previous essay *Biopolitica. Il nuovo paradigma* (LINK) might be a kickstart for the hoped-for publication in print, later this year, of an English translation of the main book. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Sep 13 15:50:12 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:50:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Shameless Self-Promotion Once More :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a601cc722c$d35dd050$7a1970f0$@att.net> On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Subject: [ExI] Shameless Self-Promotion Once More :-) Once Spike encouraged those of us who happen to publish a book not to hesitate to mention the circumstance in the list, so I take him at his word. Well, in my case it is just a booklet. eventually appeared online, namely at http://www.biopolitica.it/biopinterv.html -- Stefano Vaj Stefano, well done, me lad! Promoting one's own books is always welcome here, and I sure don't see why not: we promote our own ideas here, and that is welcome, and a book is a paper version of our own ideas, therefore promotion of one's book equals welcome. Everyone do write good interesting books, then promote away with Herr Moderator's full blessing and encouragement. Stefano I hope you sell a jillion copies. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 13 17:38:59 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:38:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Shameless Self-Promotion Once More :-) In-Reply-To: <00a601cc722c$d35dd050$7a1970f0$@att.net> References: <00a601cc722c$d35dd050$7a1970f0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/13 spike > ** > > Stefano I hope you sell a jillion copies. > Thank you, so do I. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Sep 13 22:18:22 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:18:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership Message-ID: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Coool! Out-check this: http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/13/apples-new-mothership-headquarters-look s-incredible-coming-in-2015-html-view/ Locals, this Apple Mothership is to be built in that old industrial park bordered by Interstate280 on the south, Homestead on the north, Tantau and Wolfe on either side in Cupertino. I have half a mind to ride over there and collect a pebble from the site, or chant a Latter Day Druid koan or something. We should gather at the ground breaking and say a techno-prayer-equivalent (whatever that is) to the wicked coolness of it all. Speaking of which, atheist evolution-hipsters need something equivalent to a prayer or blessing, without the superstition. I don't know what it is, or how to do something like that, but I am open to suggestion from the creative minds here. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nymphomation at gmail.com Tue Sep 13 22:49:19 2011 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (*Nym*) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:49:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/13 spike : > Coool!? Out-check this: > > http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/13/apples-new-mothership-headquarters-looks-incredible-coming-in-2015-html-view/ How long before the conspiraloons notice that it looks just like the GCHQ phone-tapping centre in England..? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters HTH Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation 'If you cannot afford an executioner, a duty executioner will be appointed to you free of charge by the court' From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 14 08:11:32 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:11:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/13 spike > > Speaking of which, atheist evolution-hipsters need something equivalent to > a prayer or blessing, without the superstition. I don?t know what it is, or > how to do something like that, but I am open to suggestion from the creative > minds here. > I agree entirely. I will also add that any "spiritual" aspect of transhumanism needn't be dry and flavourless just to overcompensate for a lack of superstition. An angle Max may appreciate; I just finished reading "Supergods" by comics writer Grant Morrison, where among other things he lays out the history of comic book superheroes and how they increasingly sit in the societal niche of ancient pagan gods, each representing elemental forces or ideas, but avoiding the superstition trap by simple virtue of being obvious fictions. So (tongue in cheek here; exploring ideas) maybe a 'prayer' to your favourite superhero, or even better we could create a new 'pantheon' of explicitly transhumanist characters that represent our ideals... On 13 September 2011 23:49, *Nym* wrote: > > How long before the conspiraloons notice that it looks just like the > GCHQ phone-tapping centre in England..? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters Thankfully the Mothership seems to be missing the lines that cut across the circle in the GCHQ design. Locals in Cheltenham have a dark humour about the fact that GCHQ would pretty much be THE priority target in a nuclear exchange, and appears to have been designed with that in mind, looking exactly like a "shoot here" target from above... - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 12:30:33 2011 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:30:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/13 spike > Speaking of which, atheist evolution-hipsters need something equivalent to > a prayer or blessing, without the superstition. I don?t know what it is, or > how to do something like that, but I am open to suggestion from the creative > minds here. Prayers and blessings are irrational. A pledge to support some idea or endeavor, however, would be rational and meaningful. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 12:59:53 2011 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1316005193.13385.YahooMailClassic@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Amon Zero wrote: > 2011/9/13 spike > > > > > Speaking of which, atheist evolution-hipsters need > something equivalent to > > a prayer or blessing, without the superstition.? > I don?t know what it is, or > > how to do something like that, but I am open to > suggestion from the creative > > minds here. > > > > > I agree entirely. I will also add that any "spiritual" > aspect of > transhumanism needn't be dry and flavourless just to > overcompensate for a > lack of superstition. > > An angle Max may appreciate; I just finished reading > "Supergods" by comics > writer Grant Morrison, where among other things he lays out > the history of > comic book superheroes and how they increasingly sit in the > societal niche > of ancient pagan gods, each representing elemental forces > or ideas, but > avoiding the superstition trap by simple virtue of being > obvious fictions. > > So (tongue in cheek here; exploring ideas) maybe a 'prayer' > to your > favourite superhero, or even better we could create a new > 'pantheon' of > explicitly transhumanist characters that represent our > ideals... By Grabthar's Hammer! You may be on to something here!... Ben Zaiboc From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Sep 14 13:20:17 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:20:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ VISIONARY Award Goes to Ben Goertzel! Message-ID: <95F3BF445AAE4B769EB6A0CB40E74827@DFC68LF1> I am pleased to announce that Ben Goertzel is recipient of the Humanity+ 2011 Visionary Award. Congratulations to Ben for his many years of inspirational ideas. He has been a motivation for Humanity+ and a delight to work with. We look forward to our future collaborations with Ben and his continued personal successes. http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/09/14/winner-of-humanity-2011-visionary-award- ben-goertzel/ This award will be virtually given to Ben at the upcoming Leadership: MINDS Event on Thursday, Sept. 15 at 9:00 PM in Second Life. Congratulations Ben! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Chair, Humanity+ PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK Co-Editor, The Transhumanist Reader -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From artillo at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 13:02:14 2011 From: artillo at gmail.com (Artillo) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:02:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Message-ID: Agreed, Dave. well said. 2011/9/14 Dave Sill > 2011/9/13 spike > >> Speaking of which, atheist evolution-hipsters need something equivalent to >> a prayer or blessing, without the superstition. I don?t know what it is, or >> how to do something like that, but I am open to suggestion from the creative >> minds here. > > > Prayers and blessings are irrational. A pledge to support some idea or > endeavor, however, would be rational and meaningful. > > -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: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Sep 14 13:09:38 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:09:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ VISIONARY Award Goes to Ben Goertzel! Message-ID: I am am pleased to announce that Ben Goertzel is recipient of the Humanity+ 2011 Visionary Award. Congratulations to Ben for his many years of inspirational ideas. He has been a motivation for Humanity+ and a delight to work with. We look forward to our future collaborations with Ben and his continued personal successes. http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/09/14/winner-of-humanity-2011-visionary-award- ben-goertzel/ This award will be virtually given to Ben at the upcoming Leadership: MINDS Event on Thursday, Sept. 15 at 9:00 PM in Second Life. Congratulations Ben! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Chair, Humanity+ PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK Co-Editor, The Transhumanist Reader -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 14 13:18:17 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:18:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: <1316005193.13385.YahooMailClassic@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316005193.13385.YahooMailClassic@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 14 September 2011 13:59, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > So (tongue in cheek here; exploring ideas) maybe a 'prayer' > > to your > > favourite superhero, or even better we could create a new > > 'pantheon' of > > explicitly transhumanist characters that represent our > > ideals... > > > By Grabthar's Hammer! > You may be on to something here!... :-D Well, I've noticed people (jokingly, of course) saying "By the beard of St.Aubrey!" and can't help but wonder what non-transhumanists might make of it, especially if they don't understand that it's a kind of joke... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 14 13:19:52 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:19:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/14 Dave Sill > 2011/9/13 spike > >> Speaking of which, atheist evolution-hipsters need something equivalent to >> a prayer or blessing, without the superstition. I don?t know what it is, or >> how to do something like that, but I am open to suggestion from the creative >> minds here. > > > Prayers and blessings are irrational. A pledge to support some idea or > endeavor, however, would be rational and meaningful. > Lots of irrational actions and beliefs inspire and motivate people, even toward ends which are, on balance, rational. In other words, rationality is not the sole measure of utility or meaning. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 14:23:34 2011 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:23:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/14 Amon Zero > In other words, rationality is not the sole measure of utility or meaning. No, but as a general rule, I think it's a good start. And I think irrationality ought to be avoided whenever possible--there's already plenty to go around. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 14 14:33:39 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:33:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/14 Dave Sill > 2011/9/14 Amon Zero > >> In other words, rationality is not the sole measure of utility or meaning. > > > No, but as a general rule, I think it's a good start. And I think > irrationality ought to be avoided whenever possible--there's already plenty > to go around. > I certainly wouldn't argue with that! The thing that winds me up personally (and not saying you did this) is when people conflate rationality and a deliberately linear, colourless worldview. It is of course possible to be both rational and enjoy life in its multi-coloured weirdness at the same time, hence my stab at something that might be an approach toward answering Spike's question. We've all seen overtly rationalist pseudo-prayers which are usually quite bland and thoroughly un-inspiring, and I've often wondered what could be done with a little more creativity thrown into the mix. That said, one thing I particularly like about your comment Dave (that "a pledge to support some idea or endeavour" would be better than an empty 'prayer') is that it has an emphasis on action. That's certainly something I can thoroughly get behind! - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 15:18:36 2011 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:18:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/14 Amon Zero > 2011/9/14 Dave Sill > >> 2011/9/14 Amon Zero >> >>> In other words, rationality is not the sole measure of utility or >>> meaning. >> >> >> No, but as a general rule, I think it's a good start. And I think >> irrationality ought to be avoided whenever possible--there's already plenty >> to go around. >> > > > I certainly wouldn't argue with that! > > The thing that winds me up personally (and not saying you did this) is when > people conflate rationality and a deliberately linear, colourless worldview. > It is of course possible to be both rational and enjoy life in its > multi-coloured weirdness at the same time, hence my stab at something that > might be an approach toward answering Spike's question. We've all seen > overtly rationalist pseudo-prayers which are usually quite bland and > thoroughly un-inspiring, and I've often wondered what could be done with a > little more creativity thrown into the mix. > Yep, I agree completely. Rational doesn't mean bland and/or boring. > That said, one thing I particularly like about your comment Dave (that "a > pledge to support some idea or endeavour" would be better than an empty > 'prayer') is that it has an emphasis on action. That's certainly something I > can thoroughly get behind! > Thanks. The pledge has lots of room for creativity and inspiration and the level of support can range from "I won't oppose this" to "I'll do anything I can to support it"--it could even be specific and legally-binding. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nymphomation at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 15:42:16 2011 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (*Nym*) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:42:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: <1316005193.13385.YahooMailClassic@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316005193.13385.YahooMailClassic@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 14 September 2011 13:59, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Amon Zero wrote: > >> 2011/9/13 spike >> > >> > Speaking of which, atheist evolution-hipsters need >> something equivalent to >> > a prayer or blessing, without the superstition. >> I don?t know what it is, or >> > how to do something like that, but I am open to >> suggestion from the creative >> > minds here. >> > >> I agree entirely. I will also add that any "spiritual" >> aspect of >> transhumanism needn't be dry and flavourless just to >> overcompensate for a >> lack of superstition. >> >> An angle Max may appreciate; I just finished reading >> "Supergods" by comics >> writer Grant Morrison, where among other things he lays out >> the history of >> comic book superheroes and how they increasingly sit in the >> societal niche >> of ancient pagan gods, each representing elemental forces >> or ideas, but >> avoiding the superstition trap by simple virtue of being >> obvious fictions. >> >> So (tongue in cheek here; exploring ideas) maybe a 'prayer' >> to your >> favourite superhero, or even better we could create a new >> 'pantheon' of >> explicitly transhumanist characters that represent our >> ideals... > > By Grabthar's Hammer! > You may be on to something here!... Practitioners of 'chaos magic' have apparently been doing something like this since the 1970s, the difference being they seem to believe the 'prayers' have a real effect.. Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation 'If you cannot afford an executioner, a duty executioner will be appointed to you free of charge by the court' From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 14 15:54:38 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:54:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <1316005193.13385.YahooMailClassic@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 14 September 2011 16:42, *Nym* wrote: > > Practitioners of 'chaos magic' have apparently been doing something > like this since the 1970s, the difference being they seem to believe > the 'prayers' have a real effect.. Well, I wouldn't be putting all my cards on the table (so to speak) if I didn't point out that in this case, 'they' includes me. I don't tend to use the term "chaos magic" myself, but instead default to the language of my dayjob, which is in cognitive science. Most 'chaos magicians', including me, are relatively sophisticated and will ascribe the effects of such 'prayers' to well-documented psychological processes. There's room for an awfully rich worldview which doesn't cross swords with rationality or evidence at any point, in there. Of course, there are less-sophisticated proponents of this worldview that resort to superstition, but that's true of many belief systems. We must also bear in mind that when thinking about this kind of thing, definitions become very important. Dave raised the interesting idea of a 'prayer' (we really need a different word for this? Affirmation, maybe?) which could be legally binding. Anything which is legally binding certainly has a 'real' effect! ;-) - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Sep 14 15:43:56 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:43:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amon Zero Subject: Re: [ExI] apple mothership 2011/9/13 spike Speaking of which, atheist evolution-hipsters need something equivalent to a prayer or blessing, without the superstition. I don't know what it is, or how to do something like that, but I am open to suggestion from the creative minds here. spike >.I agree entirely. I will also add that any "spiritual" aspect of transhumanism needn't be dry and flavourless just to overcompensate for a lack of superstition.- A I am against this problem a lot. I am in a motorcycle internet group. Sunday one of our best guys had a pickup truck turn left in front of him, hit the grill at about 60 mph. So far he's lost a leg, a kidney, a spleen, broken both arms, plenty of other internal injuries including bleeding inside his brain, but he is still breathing. His daughter set up a website, in which scores of people have posted well-wishes. Of course most of them say they are praying for him. This I flatly refuse to do. I am fairly good with language, and I am very fluent in the language and thought patterns of the believers, but there just isn't a very good way to write around the central issue of prayer. In those circumstances, any atheist-generated note of encouragement is conspicuous. Someone somewhere must have solved this problem, for it must be common. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 16:08:17 2011 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:08:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/14 spike > ** ** > > I am against this problem a lot. I am in a motorcycle internet group. > Sunday one of our best guys had a pickup truck turn left in front of him, > hit the grill at about 60 mph. So far he?s lost a leg, a kidney, a spleen, > broken both arms, plenty of other internal injuries including bleeding > inside his brain, but he is still breathing. His daughter set up a website, > in which scores of people have posted well-wishes. Of course most of them > say they are praying for him. This I flatly refuse to do. I am fairly good > with language, and I am very fluent in the language and thought patterns of > the believers, but there just isn?t a very good way to write around the > central issue of prayer. In those circumstances, any atheist-generated note > of encouragement is conspicuous. > > ** ** > > Someone somewhere must have solved this problem, for it must be common. > "I'm keeping you and your family in my thoughts. If there's anything I can do to help: cooking, chores, bedside vigil, etc., please don't hesitate to ask." Sure, it's obvious you're an atheist, but so what? It's nothing to be ashamed of. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Sep 14 16:19:03 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:19:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <1316005193.13385.YahooMailClassic@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <028001cc72fa$051bcc00$0f536400$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amon Zero By Grabthar's Hammer! You may be on to something here!... :-D >.Well, I've noticed people (jokingly, of course) saying "By the beard of St.Aubrey!" and can't help but wonder what non-transhumanists might make of it, especially if they don't understand that it's a kind of joke... I have never really gotten the whole Rip van Winkle beard thing he does. He is younger than I am, but with that enormous beard, oy. Favorite Aubrey De Grey story: I was at a party after a local event a couple years ago. De Grey come up to ME (ja! HE came up to ME!) and started a conversation. I wouldn't have presumed to come to him, I would just assume myself insufficiently free of suck. But he came up to me, asking if I am a calorie restrictor. We went over, sat down and were talking, sitting on two different sofas, others were listening. Then Aubrey de Grey fell asleep. On the couch, in the middle of a great techno-hipster party. Truth. Witness: Kennita Watson. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 14 16:34:44 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:34:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/14 spike > ** > > I am against this problem a lot. I am in a motorcycle internet group. > Sunday one of our best guys had a pickup truck turn left in front of him, > hit the grill at about 60 mph. So far he?s lost a leg, a kidney, a spleen, > broken both arms, plenty of other internal injuries including bleeding > inside his brain, but he is still breathing. His daughter set up a website, > in which scores of people have posted well-wishes. Of course most of them > say they are praying for him. This I flatly refuse to do. I am fairly good > with language, and I am very fluent in the language and thought patterns of > the believers, but there just isn?t a very good way to write around the > central issue of prayer. In those circumstances, any atheist-generated note > of encouragement is conspicuous. **** > > ** ** > > Someone somewhere must have solved this problem, for it must be common. > I'm very sorry to hear about your friend, Spike. Although I agree with Dave that there should be no shame in being an atheist, of course we're all aware of the social awkwardness it can cause (I would imagine this to be particularly true in the US?). Actually, I imagine that people would be less concerned if they knew you to worship some exotic deity but still offered prayers, than if you're an atheist and can only offer heartfelt condolences. A few years back my wife & I were looking around for a good school for our daughter. One of the best (academically speaking) in our area was a religious school, which gave me deep cause for concern. I needn't have worried, since it turned out they'd give preference to families of any religion - no matter how disparate - over atheists. A transhumanists religion-equivalent-meme might have come in very handy, then! ;-) - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 17:22:48 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:22:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/14 Dave Sill : > 2011/9/14 spike >> I am against this problem a lot.? I am in a motorcycle internet group. >> Sunday one of our best guys had a pickup truck turn left in front of him, >> hit the grill at about 60 mph.? So far he?s lost a leg, a kidney, a spleen, >> broken both arms, plenty of other internal injuries including bleeding >> inside his brain, but he is still breathing.? His daughter set up a website, >> in which scores of people have posted well-wishes.? Of course most of them >> say they are praying for him.? This I flatly refuse to do.? I am fairly good >> with language, and I am very fluent in the language and thought patterns of >> the believers, but there just isn?t a very good way to write around the >> central issue of prayer.? In those circumstances, any atheist-generated note >> of encouragement is conspicuous. >> >> >> >> Someone somewhere must have solved this problem, for it must be common. > > "I'm keeping you and your family in my thoughts. If there's anything I can > do to help: cooking, chores, bedside vigil, etc., please don't hesitate to > ask." That actually states the problem really well. The religious can pray. We can argue that it accomplishes nothing, and all but the most ignorant prayers know it. What is not up for serious debate is the amount of effort that prayer involves: trivial to none. So, the religious are saying they are willing to undertake no real effort to assist you in your hardship. Even a bedside vigil - just sitting there for hours (while free to multitask any other hospital-appropriate and interruptable activity, such as catching up on reading) - takes more effort than prayer. What does an atheist offer, by comparison? The honest equivalent would be hope and well wishes: same amount of effort, no illusion that the atheist is actually doing much to help. (Which is not inherently a bad thing: everyone has limited resources, and any given person literally does not have the time to help everyone in need. If this really is all that can be spared without causing other problems, then it is.) From sparge at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 19:28:10 2011 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:28:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > What does an atheist offer, by comparison? The honest equivalent would > be hope and well wishes: same amount of effort, no illusion that the > atheist > is actually doing much to help. > True. But rather than offer an honest equivalent I prefer to offer a superior alternative. And "hope" and "well wishes" are well up the slippery slope to irrationality. If we're talking about a casual acquaintance, then "Get well soon!" may be all you can honestly offer. But for a good friend or a family member, something more is appropriate. And flowers are just silly. > (Which is not inherently a bad thing: > everyone has limited resources, and any given person literally does not > have > the time to help everyone in need. If this really is all that can be > spared > without causing other problems, then it is.) > Of course one shouldn't make an offer that one has no intention of or ability to accept. So don't offer to help if you aren't prepared to make a reasonable effort to do so. But an offer to help isn't a commitment: you aren't promising to do whatever they ask, just advertising a willingness to consider requests. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 19:44:20 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:44:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/14 Dave Sill : > True. But rather than offer an honest equivalent I prefer to offer a > superior alternative. Something that is otherwise equivalent to prayer, but is honest in this sense, seems superior for that reason alone. > And flowers are just silly. Depends on the recipient. Their pleasing scent and colors can put many at ease, at least to subtle degrees. > Of course one shouldn't make an offer that one has no intention of or > ability to accept. Right. We're talking about what can be done by those who can't or won't offer anything of substance (not even flowers), but still wish to not be perceived as cold hearted. (The commonness of this problem says something about the human condition.) From spike66 at att.net Wed Sep 14 19:50:02 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:50:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] don't pray for red, but do post a note Message-ID: <001801cc7317$7e52f630$7af8e290$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > >>... "I'm keeping you and your family in my thoughts. If there's anything I can do to help: cooking, chores, bedside vigil, etc., please don't hesitate to ask." >...That actually states the problem really well. >...The religious can pray. We can argue that it accomplishes nothing, and all but the most ignorant prayers know it. What is not up for serious debate is the amount of effort that prayer involves: trivial to none. So, the religious are saying they are willing to undertake no real effort to assist you in your hardship...What does an atheist offer, by comparison? The honest equivalent would be hope and well wishes: same amount of effort, no illusion that the atheist is actually doing much to help... Adrian Ja. The best I could do was post well wishes on the site, then get my butt out of my chair, go down to the Hallmark shop and pick out an actual card, two actually, sign and send one of them, take the other around the neighborhood and explain what happened, collect a mess of signatures and write on the bottom "Red you have many friends and fans you never even met." Waking up to find a pile of Hallmark cards might help. Or waking up to read the well-wishes on your website. Speaking of which, I have half a mind to post the guy's URL. I know you don't know him, but he is hell of a good guy. If you feel so moved, do post a line in there, no need to mention my name. His name is Red, he's an upstanding citizen, nice guy, now expected to pull through but his riding days are probably over, which is always a hell of a blow to any hardcore biker: http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/lawrencebarber/journal Don't pray, just post. Takes about the same amount of time. Or if you feel uncomfortable with that and still want to wish a stranger recovery, post a best wishes to me offlist and I will collect them all and post them there. DAVIA! thanks, spike From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 20:00:38 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:00:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > The religious can pray. ?We can argue that it accomplishes nothing, and all > but the most ignorant prayers know it. ?What is not up for serious debate is > the amount of effort that prayer involves: trivial to none. ?So, the > religious are > saying they are willing to undertake no real effort to assist you in your > hardship. > > Prayer is a very wide-ranging activity found in almost all religions. But it has a different meaning in different religions, sometimes differing between individuals in a religion. The idea of presenting your God with a list of demands which he might or might not fulfil is rather simplistic. This is what casual members of Western religions might do, but I doubt if the 'faithful' do this. 'Real' prayer is quite hard religious work and usually strengthens the faith and community solidarity of those praying. And the group solidarity leads to the expectation that they will help other members in difficulty. If the person being prayed for knows about all the prayer activity, then it is very likely that this will be beneficial for them as well. Everybody feels better when they know the team is rooting for them. So I don't think you can say prayer has no effect. Though it may not produce the specific results prayed for, it has many direct and indirect effects. BillK BillK From atymes at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 20:27:30 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:27:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apple mothership In-Reply-To: References: <012a01cc7263$0d237ca0$276a75e0$@att.net> <025501cc72f5$1d8a7930$589f6b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, BillK wrote: > So I don't think you can say prayer has no effect. Though it may not > produce the specific results prayed for, it has many direct and > indirect effects. That's a longer version of what I meant by, "We can argue that it accomplishes nothing...". My point was the amount of effort required to pray, versus the expected reward for saying one has prayed. From spike66 at att.net Wed Sep 14 21:28:15 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:28:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] suspended animation Message-ID: <004501cc7325$37904e10$a6b0ea30$@att.net> Cool! (Literally literally, as opposed to figuratively literally.) http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/14/aint-no-science-fiction-suspended-anima tion-is-fda-approved-and-heading-to-clinical-trials/?utm_source=The+Harvest+ Is+Bountiful &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=a5c00e8dbc-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Sep 14 23:36:25 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:36:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] suspended animation In-Reply-To: <004501cc7325$37904e10$a6b0ea30$@att.net> References: <004501cc7325$37904e10$a6b0ea30$@att.net> Message-ID: Decades of research, p'fah. Use related techniques to save a US Rep? Now the FDA's willing to talk. At least the trials are approved now. Even if this (presumably) isn't for long term suspension, developing this will help that. 2011/9/14 spike : > Cool!? (Literally literally, as opposed to figuratively literally.) > > > > http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/14/aint-no-science-fiction-suspended-animation-is-fda-approved-and-heading-to-clinical-trials/?utm_source=The+Harvest+Is+Bountiful&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=a5c00e8dbc-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 15 04:37:56 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:37:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nasa announces new launch vehicle Message-ID: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> I don't know what to think of this: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html Do you? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Sep 15 05:19:01 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A Nobel laureate, no not Al Gore this one won in physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever has resigned? from the American Physical Society over the issue of climate change. The following is his resignation letter: From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever at XXXX.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM To: kirby at aps.org Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen Subject: I resign from APS Dear Ms. Kirby Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period. Best regards, Ivar Giaever Nobel Laureate 1973 PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 15 06:17:11 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:17:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00a901cc736f$1b7cce70$52766b50$@att.net> . On Behalf Of john clark Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change >.A Nobel laureate, no not Al Gore this one won in physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever has resigned from the American Physical Society over the issue of climate change. The following is his resignation letter: Hey, they are right, the evidence really is incontrovertible. Anyone who contradicts it is pressured out or resigns. With Dr. Giaever gone, the society is back to unanimity, hooray! Oy, this question seems far from settled to me. Actually I suspect the climate is trending warmer gradually. I just haven't figured out what factors are causing it. Where are the models showing the impact of increased irrigation putting additional water vapor into the atmosphere? Where are the activists demanding we stop irrigating crops? spike From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever at XXXX.com] . Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below: The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. .Best regards, Ivar Giaever Nobel Laureate 1973 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 15 06:37:23 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:37:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Easily refuted: * > > how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole > year? > * It's only the Earth's surface, not the core. As to how: distribute a lot of temperature sensors over the Earth (including but not limited to IR cameras on a bunch of satellites, whose orbits allow them to collectively see the entire surface of the Earth), and monitor them for a year. Really, a trivial exercise in experiment design. * > > the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about > 150 years > * He says that is "the claim" - it's not. The claim is over a much shorter timespan than that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timhalterman at gmail.com Thu Sep 15 14:08:23 2011 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:08:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: APS provided some additional commentary on this policy in mid 2010. You can read the full policy and the additional commentary here: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm They source the incontrovertible proof (their words not mine) from: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html -Tim 2011/9/15 Adrian Tymes > Easily refuted: > > * >> >> how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole >> year? >> * > > > It's only the Earth's surface, not the core. As to how: distribute a lot > of temperature > sensors over the Earth (including but not limited to IR cameras on a bunch > of satellites, > whose orbits allow them to collectively see the entire surface of the > Earth), and monitor > them for a year. Really, a trivial exercise in experiment design. > > * >> >> the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about >> 150 years >> * > > > He says that is "the claim" - it's not. The claim is over a much shorter > timespan than > that. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 15 15:21:53 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:21:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ah, I stand corrected as to their claim. Thanks. 2011/9/15 Tim Halterman > APS provided some additional commentary on this policy in mid 2010. You > can read the full policy and the additional commentary here: > http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm > > They source the incontrovertible proof (their words not mine) from: > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html > -Tim > 2011/9/15 Adrian Tymes > >> Easily refuted: >> >> * >>> >>> how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a >>> whole year? >>> * >> >> >> It's only the Earth's surface, not the core. As to how: distribute a lot >> of temperature >> sensors over the Earth (including but not limited to IR cameras on a bunch >> of satellites, >> whose orbits allow them to collectively see the entire surface of the >> Earth), and monitor >> them for a year. Really, a trivial exercise in experiment design. >> >> * >>> >>> the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about >>> 150 years >>> * >> >> >> He says that is "the claim" - it's not. The claim is over a much shorter >> timespan than >> that. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 15:20:50 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316100050.10914.YahooMailNeo@web112112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> A good reason not to be a member of the APS.? Come out with a socialist political statement - once people balk and it becomes clear the first statement couldn't be supported - instead of a retraction come out with a clarification statement that makes it clear the science is extremely far from settled and is even more so since this last statement. ? APS - Amerian Political Science ? Dennis May From: Tim Halterman To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change APS provided some additional commentary on this policy in mid 2010.? You can read the full policy and the additional commentary here:http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm They source the incontrovertible proof (their words not mine)?from:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html -Tim 2011/9/15 Adrian Tymes Easily refuted: > > > >how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year? >?It's only the Earth's surface, not the core.? As to how: distribute a lot of temperature sensors over the Earth (including but not limited to IR cameras on a bunch of satellites,whose orbits allow them to collectively see the entire surface of the Earth), and monitorthem for a year.? Really, a trivial exercise in experiment design. >the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years >> > ?He says that is "the claim" - it's not.? The claim is over a much shorter timespan than that. >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Sep 15 15:58:50 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1316102330.63683.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ?On Thu, 9/15/11, Adrian Tymes wrote: "Easily refuted:" It's incontrovertible! ? "how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?"? ?"I distribute a lot of temperature sensors over the Earth (including but not limited to IR cameras on a bunch of satellites, whose orbits allow them to collectively see the entire surface of the Earth), and monitor them for a year." We haven't even done that today much less for the last 150 years. ? "Really, a trivial exercise in experiment design." Trivial in design very expensive in execution which is why nobody has done it, and when somebody finally does do it we'll have to wait another 150 years to see how much things changed.? ?? "the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years" ?? "He says that is "the claim" - it's not.? The claim is over a much shorter timespan than that." He said the temperature has increased by .8 degrees centigrade over the last 150 years, take a look at this graph from the EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html It indicates that that Dr. Ivar Giaever was right, Nobel prize winners sometimes are. Well OK, the chart only goes from 1880 to 2008, 128 years not 150, but still... If you want a longer perspective here is the temperatures plotted over the last 10,000 years: http://mclean.ch/climate/figures_2/Vostok_to_10Kybp.gif I admit that neither chart is based on the huge global network of temperature sensors that you advocate but it's the best we can do. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 15 16:06:29 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:06:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <016401cc73c1$6e2ae8d0$4a80ba70$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:22 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change >.Ah, I stand corrected as to their claim. Thanks. >>.2011/9/15 Tim Halterman APS provided some additional commentary on this policy in mid 2010. You can read the full policy and the additional commentary here: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm I find encouraging the way climate science seems to be heading. This comment is from the APS site: ".The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor." It seemed to me a huge oversight in the past climate science that they didn't really say much about the greenhouse effect of water vapor. Perhaps I was tuned into that because of where I lived in my 20s: in the Mojave Desert. Out there, most people didn't have air conditioners: they were too expensive to operate and they would be overpowered by the ferocious desert heat. The common form of house cooling was with evaporative coolers, also called swamp coolers. On the hottest days, it was also bone dry, so the evaporative coolers worked great. Over the decades, more residents moved into the area and had lawns. I recall hearing the old timers note that swamp coolers were not working as well as they once did. I also knew that if a neighbor turned on a sprinkler in the middle of the day, one's swamp cooler would lose a degree or two delta. I used to keep data on this kind of stuff for a side business: emergency swamp cooler repair and high performance swamp coolers. It stands to reason to me that increased irrigation could result in slight increases in water vapor in the air, which would trap additional heat. Most of us have been in out on a cool clear evening when a cloud cover rolled in and felt the temperature rise as the cloud trapped radiated heat. We know the effect can be localized. It is easy to imagine some of the historic temperature monitors being effected by nearby irrigation. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 16:47:35 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <016401cc73c1$6e2ae8d0$4a80ba70$@att.net> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <016401cc73c1$6e2ae8d0$4a80ba70$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316105255.42255.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> My grandfather used to take the temperature readings for Unionville Missouri. His data point represented the ground data for a few hundred square miles even though the temperature over that much area can vary several degrees or even as much as ten degrees when a storm front is moving through.? His house was located on a high spot next to a state highway.? Shade trees came and went, the nearby garden varied over the years, houses nearby were torn down and replaced, a restaurant was located across the street, and traffic increased several hundred percent over the years.? Since he was on a high spot he didn't record the low areas in the hills nearby that are often?5 degrees colder in the mornings. ? His data was still better than much of what was collected in heat island cities?or when the actual collection spots representing thousands of square miles have been moved.? Never mind those located next to roof AC units, black tar roofs, exhaust vents, and any number of problem spots. ? Ocean temperature data has just begun - yet the oceans hold huge amounts of heat readily changed out with the atmosphere. ? All of this is besides the point that the modeling is no where near sufficient to make any of the ever changing claims made to date.? Every year or so another huge variable is discovered to have been modeled inadequately, not at all, or in reverse of its actual effect. ? Political science - the APS should retract its statement and wait for the science - which is only now beginning and has a long ways to go before making predictions. ? Dennis From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change ? ? From:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:22 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change ? >?Ah, I stand corrected as to their claim.? Thanks. >>?2011/9/15 Tim Halterman APS provided some additional commentary on this policy in mid 2010.? You can read the full policy and the additional commentary here: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm I find encouraging the way climate science seems to be heading.? This comment is from the APS site: ? ??The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor?? ? It seemed to me a huge oversight in the past climate science that they didn?t really say much about the greenhouse effect of water vapor.? Perhaps I was tuned into that because of where I lived in my 20s: in the Mojave Desert.? Out there, most people didn?t have air conditioners: they were too expensive to operate and they would be overpowered by the ferocious desert heat.? The common form of house cooling was with evaporative coolers, also called swamp coolers.? On the hottest days, it was also bone dry, so the evaporative coolers worked great. ? Over the decades, more residents moved into the area and had lawns.? I recall hearing the old timers note that swamp coolers were not working as well as they once did.? I also knew that if a neighbor turned on a sprinkler in the middle of the day, one?s swamp cooler would lose a degree or two delta.? I used to keep data on this kind of stuff for a side business: emergency swamp cooler repair and high performance swamp coolers. ? It stands to reason to me that increased irrigation could result in slight increases in water vapor in the air, which would trap additional heat.? Most of us have been in out on a cool clear evening when a cloud cover rolled in and felt the temperature rise as the cloud trapped radiated heat.? We know the effect can be localized.? It is easy to imagine some of the historic temperature monitors being effected by nearby irrigation. ? spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 15 16:14:42 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:14:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316100050.10914.YahooMailNeo@web112112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316100050.10914.YahooMailNeo@web112112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 2011/9/15 Dennis May wrote: > A good reason not to be a member of the APS.? Come out with a socialist > political statement - once people balk and it becomes clear the first statement > couldn't be supported - instead of a retraction come out with a clarification > statement that makes it clear the science is extremely far from settled and is > even more so since this last statement. > > APS - Amerian Political Science > > Well, the southern USA states have had their worst wildfire season ever and Texas is still burning. I guess the message will get through eventually. But I suppose that's just a little local fluctuation in temperature? BillK From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 17:47:55 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316100050.10914.YahooMailNeo@web112112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316108875.42029.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I was in Oklahoma City for part of the every day over a hundred. No different than summers when I was a kid in Nebraska.? There has always been hot/cold dry/wet heavy snow/light snow extremes having nothing to do with any long term climate change.? Its the cherry picking festival that happens when local events support a theory which overall has no substantiated modeling behind it, is data poor and unable to make correct predictions. ? Missouri has had 8 cool or cold winters in a row with six cool summer, half of one warm summer, and one summer with a hot streak similar to those common in the 1970's.? Now we are having a cool late summer following the short hot streak of this year. ? Denis From: BillK To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change On 2011/9/15 Dennis May wrote: > A good reason not to be a member of the APS.? Come out with a socialist > political statement - once people balk and it becomes clear the first statement > couldn't be supported - instead of a retraction come out with a clarification > statement that makes it clear the science is extremely far from settled and is > even more so since this last statement. > > APS - Amerian Political Science > > Well, the southern USA states have had their worst wildfire season ever and Texas is still burning. I guess the message will get through eventually. But I suppose that's just a little local fluctuation in temperature? BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 15 18:21:21 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:21:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316105255.42255.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <016401cc73c1$6e2ae8d0$4a80ba70$@att.net> <1316105255.42255.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01a801cc73d4$459eae70$d0dc0b50$@att.net> >>?I find encouraging the way climate science seems to be heading. This comment is from the APS site: ??The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor?? spike From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dennis May ? >?His data was still better than much of what was collected in heat island cities or when the actual collection spots representing thousands of square miles have been moved. Never mind those located next to roof AC units, black tar roofs, exhaust vents, and any number of problem spots?Dennis Ja thanks Dennis. Focusing on the central point is this: we hear so much about data collection spots this and heat island that and carbon dioxide production the other, but really, it is easy to do single digit precision BOTECs and see that increased atmospheric CO2 under-accounts for the observed temperature increase. On the other hand, consider this: temperature data collection sites will always be reasonably close to a road. They don?t take helicopters into some remote site to read, and until recently they didn?t transmit readings via radio signal from remote sites. Now consider that every major agricultural establishment, including illegal marijuana farms, will also be near a road: they need to haul machines in and the crops out of there somehow. Many if not most farms are irrigated. We know that makes a measurable humidity difference downwind of the farms. This can be sometimes observed firsthand for those of you who fly across landmasses during the day. Find out wind directions, see if you see increased cloudiness downwind of major irrigation systems such as the Midwest wheat and corn fields which use center pivots. We know that clouds trap heat down, much more effectively than CO2 per unit mass. If major irrigation projects are near roads and temperature data collection sites are near roads, and the term ?near roads? represents a surprisingly small fraction of the land surface even in a populated nation, I can easily imagine how the one can impact the other. Get on Google Maps under satellite view and see for yourself. One further point and I will let it go: I am not a farmer, but I am playing one in real life (long story.) When I am out operating the tractor, I am burning about two to four gallons of Diesel fuel per hour. My irrigation system is licensed to pump and hurl into the air 510 gallons per minute. Of that, I would conservatively estimate that 2 to 5 percent stays in the air, since irrigation is done in the hot, dry summer months, so that?s 10 to 25 gallons per minute or about 600 to perhaps a couple thousand gallons of water going into and staying in the air, so 2 to 8 tons per hour of water going into the air, while my tractor spews typically 20 to 50 kg of Diesel combustion products (about a third of which is water by mass btw), so a factor of about 100 in favor of water vapor during the relatively short time I am actually operating the tractor. But the irrigation system drones on and on, sometimes around the clock for weeks at a time. Even if we ignore the fact that agriculture at least temporarily pulls CO2 out of the air, a typical ag operation would put more water into the atmosphere than it does CO2, by a factor of many thousands. Even that ignores the amount of water the crops themselves return to the air through respiration. That 2 to 5 percent notion likely vaaaastly underestimates how much water my irrigation system puts into the atmosphere. Counter-suggestions welcome. Irrigation amounts are measured typically in acre-feet. 20 gallons of Diesel per acre comes out to on the order of a ten acre-microns. (Check my math, did it all in my head, so as not to waste a perfectly good back of an envelope and expensive ink. Hey, thrift is a farmer thing.) For those of you who stay always in the city, we tend to think of our own activities, driving around to work and back for instance. But compare the amount of fuel you burn in your Detroit with the amount of water you hurl onto your lawn, and do the BOTECs yourself, get your water bill from last month, estimate, do the math, doooo it, you can do it. There is good news in all this. If global warming is dominated by water vapor, that merely shifts the temperature and humidity equilibrium, rather than introducing risk of runaway greenhouse effect. If we predict that irrigation will result in a warmer wetter planet, most human inhabitants of this cold dry planet will say: HEY COOL! Where do I sign up for that? After all, we are all Africans, much of which is relatively warm and wet compared to where we settled. I am guessing what comes out of the next decade of climate science is the realization that the *human contribution* to global warming is waaay dominated by irrigation rather than CO2. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 18:34:10 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <01a801cc73d4$459eae70$d0dc0b50$@att.net> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <016401cc73c1$6e2ae8d0$4a80ba70$@att.net> <1316105255.42255.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <01a801cc73d4$459eae70$d0dc0b50$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316111650.11412.YahooMailNeo@web112112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Science Daily News recently reported that 1/4 of the 3 mm rise per year in the ocean levels is from water being pumped out of the ground faster than it is returning. Most of this is irrigation - again supporting Spike's point of view that water is a larger effect [still poorly modeled] than CO2.? It has always been known that water vapor is the number one green house gas - but not politically attractive as a target. ? Dennis ? From: spike To: 'Dennis May' ; 'ExI chat list' Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:21 PM Subject: RE: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change ? ? ? >>?I find encouraging the way climate science seems to be heading.? This comment is from the APS site: ? ??The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor?? ? spike ? ? From:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dennis May ? ? >?His data was still better than much of what was collected in heat island cities?or when the actual collection spots representing thousands of square miles have been moved.? Never mind those located next to roof AC units, black tar roofs, exhaust vents, and any number of problem spots?Dennis ? ? Ja thanks Dennis.? Focusing on the central point is this: we hear so much about data collection spots this and heat island that and carbon dioxide production the other, but really, it is easy to do single digit precision BOTECs and see that increased atmospheric CO2 under-accounts for the observed temperature increase. On the other hand, consider this: temperature data collection sites will always be reasonably close to a road.? They don?t take helicopters into some remote site to read, and until recently they didn?t transmit readings via radio signal from remote sites.? Now consider that every major agricultural establishment, including illegal marijuana farms, will also be near a road: they need to haul machines in and the crops out of there somehow.? Many if not most farms are irrigated.? We know that makes a measurable humidity difference downwind of the farms. This can be sometimes observed firsthand for those of you who fly across landmasses during the day.? Find out wind directions, see if you see increased cloudiness downwind of major irrigation systems such as the Midwest wheat and corn fields which use center pivots. We know that clouds trap heat down, much more effectively than CO2 per unit mass.? If major irrigation projects are near roads and temperature data collection sites are near roads, and the term ?near roads? represents a surprisingly small fraction of the land surface even in a populated nation, I can easily imagine how the one can impact the other.? Get on Google Maps under satellite view and see for yourself. One further point and I will let it go: I am not a farmer, but I am playing one in real life (long story.)? When I am out operating the tractor, I am burning about two to four gallons of Diesel fuel per hour.? My irrigation system is licensed to pump and hurl into the air 510 gallons per minute.? Of that, I would conservatively estimate that 2 to 5 percent stays in the air, since irrigation is done in the hot, dry summer months, so that?s 10 to 25 gallons per minute or about 600 to perhaps a couple thousand gallons of water going into and staying in the air, so 2 to 8 tons per hour of water going into the air, while my tractor spews typically 20 to 50 kg of Diesel combustion products (about a third of which is water by mass btw), so a factor of about 100 in favor of water vapor during the relatively short time I am actually operating the tractor.? But the irrigation system drones on and on, sometimes around the clock for weeks at a time.? Even if we ignore the fact that agriculture at least temporarily pulls CO2 out of the air, a typical ag operation would put more water into the atmosphere than it does CO2, by a factor of many thousands. Even that ignores the amount of water the crops themselves return to the air through respiration.? That 2 to 5 percent notion likely vaaaastly underestimates how much water my irrigation system puts into the atmosphere.? Counter-suggestions welcome.? Irrigation amounts are measured typically in acre-feet.? 20 gallons of Diesel per acre comes out to on the order of a ten acre-microns.? (Check my math, did it all in my head, so as not to waste a perfectly good back of an envelope and expensive ink.? Hey, thrift is a farmer thing.) For those of you who stay always in the city, we tend to think of our own activities, driving around to work and back for instance.? But compare the amount of fuel you burn in your Detroit with the amount of water you hurl onto your lawn, and do the BOTECs yourself, get your water bill from last month, estimate, do the math, doooo it, you can do it. There is good news in all this.? If global warming is dominated by water vapor, that merely shifts the temperature and humidity equilibrium, rather than introducing risk of runaway greenhouse effect. ?If we predict that irrigation will result in a warmer wetter planet, most human inhabitants of this cold dry planet will say: HEY COOL! Where do I sign up for that? After all, we are all Africans, much of which is relatively warm and wet compared to where we settled. I am guessing what comes out of the next decade of climate science is the realization that the *human contribution* to global warming is waaay dominated by irrigation rather than CO2. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Sep 15 20:27:58 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:27:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/15 john clark > > A Nobel laureate, no not Al Gore this one won in physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever has resigned? from the American Physical Society over the issue of climate change. The following is his resignation letter: > > From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever at XXXX.com] > Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below: >... > The evidence is incontrovertible: The problems with American scientists is that they are not enough into linguistics. Personally, I have no idea about whether GW exists, is anthropogenic, etc. But who can really deny that controversy about its alleged evidence is not admissible in polite company? :-) -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 15 21:43:56 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:43:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <020001cc73f0$92763f30$b762bd90$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj >>... The evidence is incontrovertible: >...The problems with American scientists is that they are not enough into linguistics. >...Personally, I have no idea about whether GW exists, is anthropogenic, etc. But who can really deny that controversy about its alleged evidence is not admissible in polite company? :-) -- Stefano Vaj Well said Stefano. I see the entire debate as a good thing really: it causes the proletariat to think at least a little about science. Sputnik did that. Our current trouble with government in the US causes the citizens to think about the constitution. Global warming theory causes people to notice nature just a bit. It is a good thing for the masses to look at how science works and how government works. spike From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 21:55:22 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316123722.80733.YahooMailNeo@web112119.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I've only met two people in person who have expressed that they believe in global warming. ? One is a mechanical?engineer who I've known for along time who I wouldn't trust to tell me the correct time of day.? The other is a young civil engineer who is nice enough guy but when pressed on details knew nothing about the subject.? I'm sure the fact that I am in the rural Midwest versus a left leaning part of the country influences the fact that no one I run into believes in global warming. ? Polite company here says its all a fraud. ? Dennis From: Stefano Vaj To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change 2011/9/15 john clark > > A Nobel laureate, no not Al Gore this one won in physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever has resigned? from the American Physical Society over the issue of climate change. The following is his resignation letter: > > From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever at XXXX.com] > Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below: >... > The evidence is incontrovertible: The problems with American scientists is that they are not enough into linguistics. Personally, I have no idea about whether GW exists, is anthropogenic, etc. But who can really deny that controversy about its alleged evidence is not admissible in polite company? :-) -- 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: From amon at doctrinezero.com Thu Sep 15 22:00:59 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:00:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <020001cc73f0$92763f30$b762bd90$@att.net> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <020001cc73f0$92763f30$b762bd90$@att.net> Message-ID: On 15 September 2011 22:43, spike wrote: > > Well said Stefano. I see the entire debate as a good thing really: it > causes the proletariat to think at least a little about science. Sputnik > did that. Our current trouble with government in the US causes the > citizens > to think about the constitution. Global warming theory causes people to > notice nature just a bit. It is a good thing for the masses to look at how > science works and how government works. Spike, if there is such a thing as a dictionary of idioms, then I think your sentence could be filed as a great example of "every cloud has a silver lining"! I mean, it's a lovely thought, but I do wish there were less troublesome ways of getting people to think about these important things! - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Sep 16 04:56:07 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:56:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change Message-ID: I have harped on this in the past. To whatever extent human activity is warming the earth, *it doesn't matter* especially to the extent that warming, or "climate change" is being caused by carbon dioxide buildup. The far more important matter is to replace fossil fuels with a less expensive energy source. Failing to so that will damn us to poverty and for much of the world, starvation. As a side effect, that will stop the buildup of CO2 because "less expensive" leaves out fossil fuels. We still may be burning hydrocarbons, but they will be carbon neutral, made from CO2 out of the air. We could even make synthetic oil to put back in the ground if energy was inexpensive enough. But people get hung up on arguing about trivia that just doesn't matter. If we don't solve the energy problem with a SBSP, StratoSolar, nuclear, or something I don't yet know about, then we are in a world of hurt sooner and of far more serious consequence than hot summers and Texas fires. Keith From amon at doctrinezero.com Fri Sep 16 08:36:53 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:36:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16 September 2011 05:56, Keith Henson wrote: > ... > The far more important matter is to replace fossil fuels with a less > expensive energy source. Failing to so that will damn us to poverty > and for much of the world, starvation. > ... > But people get hung up on arguing about trivia that just doesn't > matter. If we don't solve the energy problem with a SBSP, > StratoSolar, nuclear, or something I don't yet know about, then we are > in a world of hurt sooner and of far more serious consequence than hot > summers and Texas fires. I couldn't agree more. I'm currently preparing a kind of 'position statement' that covers a few key issues, and I was a little stumped how to approach energy & environmental issues without wading directly into the usual quagmires. Your statement seems to elegantly cut the Gordian knot from wher I'm standing - thanks Keith! - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 16 07:42:11 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:42:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > But people get hung up on arguing about trivia that just doesn't > matter. ?If we don't solve the energy problem with a SBSP, > StratoSolar, nuclear, or something I don't yet know about, then we are > in a world of hurt sooner and of far more serious consequence than hot > summers and Texas fires. > > Correct, Keith. The problem is short-term thinking by politicians and corporate leaders. When the crisis hits, they hope that either, 1) they will be dead so it's the next generations' problem. 2) they will be spending their last years in gated compounds with the other super-rich and their servants, so it is still the next generations' problem. I'm all right Jack (for now) taken to the extreme. BillK From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 12:14:41 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316175281.17516.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The projections of what will happen economically without massive nuclear energy development is not pretty.? Even if that effort began immediately it is not clear it could happen fast enough. ? Dennis May ? From: Keith Henson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change I have harped on this in the past. To whatever extent human activity is warming the earth, *it doesn't matter* especially to the extent that warming, or "climate change" is being caused by carbon dioxide buildup. The far more important matter is to replace fossil fuels with a less expensive energy source.? Failing to so that will damn us to poverty and for much of the world, starvation. As a side effect, that will stop the buildup of CO2 because "less expensive" leaves out fossil fuels.? We still may be burning hydrocarbons, but they will be carbon neutral, made from CO2 out of the air.? We could even make synthetic oil to put back in the ground if energy was inexpensive enough. But people get hung up on arguing about trivia that just doesn't matter.? If we don't solve the energy problem with a SBSP, StratoSolar, nuclear, or something I don't yet know about, then we are in a world of hurt sooner and of far more serious consequence than hot summers and Texas fires. Keith _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Fri Sep 16 14:27:10 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:27:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Copied from the ZS facebook group, in case anybody is interested Message-ID: Apologies for the cross-post, but this is notice of what should prove a stimulating transhumanist event in London, just in case anyone is in the area. Also there are details of a new London-based transhumanist discussion group. I won't post further notices of these kind of events, since they happen on a regular basis (usually the first Saturday of each month), and details can be found via http://zerostate.net Please do spread the word if you know of anyone who may be interested in these meetings! - Amon ***************** 25 You all probably know by now that a big event involving ZS will be happening in London on Saturday October 8th. Talks will be put on youtube after the event, for the non-Londoners among us: http://humanityplus.org.uk/#bh What you won't know, however, is that we've decided to also have a small, ZS-only meeting the Saturday before, October 1st. This will be at the Penderel's Oak pub in Holborn, from midday. There won't be an official speaker at this gathering, and there'll only be a few people, but it will be a chance to get into some real ZS nuts and bolts discussions that will almost certainly be impossible the following week. If you're able, please do come along and add your opinions to the mix, or just meet some of your co-conspirators! :-D (ZS meetings are on the first Saturday of each month, with the default location currently being the Penderel's Oak pub). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 16 14:50:31 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:50:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005001cc747f$fbcaeaf0$f360c0d0$@att.net> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > But people get hung up on arguing about trivia that just doesn't > matter. ?If we don't solve the energy problem with a SBSP, > StratoSolar, nuclear, or something I don't yet know about, then we are > in a world of hurt sooner and of far more serious consequence than hot > summers and Texas fires... Keith you are absolutely right on this, right on the money. We have a huge problem facing us, but the young people are being distracted by a smaller less urgent problem. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 16 15:05:45 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:05:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316175281.17516.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316175281.17516.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005101cc7482$1cf6ab40$56e401c0$@att.net> From: Keith Henson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change >.To whatever extent human activity is warming the earth, *it doesn't matter* especially to the extent that warming, or "climate change" is being caused by carbon dioxide buildup.Keith From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dennis May Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change >.The projections of what will happen economically without massive nuclear energy development is not pretty. Even if that effort began immediately it is not clear it could happen fast enough. Dennis May Dennis, the ExI group is the biggest bunch of mavericks you ever saw, but your comment expresses the closest to a consensus on any topic I have seen in my 14 yrs hanging out here. I think nearly everyone here recognizes nukes have risks but no-nukes is a still riskier path. It was a dark time for me when those Japanese plants failed in the tsunami. We need to get with the program, building nukes, strato-solar or equivalent notions, everything else we can think of, and (DAVAI)^3 get on it forthwith. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 15:37:02 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316100050.10914.YahooMailNeo@web112112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316187422.33975.YahooMailNeo@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If the same region has colder than normal weather, would you say that refutes global warming or perhaps supports global cooling? Not taking a stand here, but I think one needs a more elaborate model to link these things together and therein lies the rub. ? Regards, ? Dan From: BillK To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change On 2011/9/15 Dennis May wrote: > A good reason not to be a member of the APS.? Come out with a socialist > political statement - once people balk and it becomes clear the first statement > couldn't be supported - instead of a retraction come out with a clarification > statement that makes it clear the science is extremely far from settled and is > even more so since this last statement. > > APS - Amerian Political Science Well, the southern USA states have had their worst wildfire season ever and Texas is still burning. I guess the message will get through eventually. But I suppose that's just a little local fluctuation in temperature? BillK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 15:39:59 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316108875.42029.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <1316063941.53680.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316100050.10914.YahooMailNeo@web112112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316108875.42029.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316187599.83692.YahooMailNeo@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Linking local events probably isn't conscious cherry-picking, but something like how some believe the full moon causes all kinds of crazy behavior: some are likely to just link drought or forest fires or a hot summer to global warming than to step back and see this might just be a local or regional phenomenon with little to tell us about long term climate trends. ? Regards, ? Dan From: Dennis May To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change I was in Oklahoma City for part of the every day over a hundred. No different than summers when I was a kid in Nebraska.? There has always been hot/cold dry/wet heavy snow/light snow extremes having nothing to do with any long term climate change.? Its the cherry picking festival that happens when local events support a theory which overall has no substantiated modeling behind it, is data poor and unable to make correct predictions. ? Missouri has had 8 cool or cold winters in a row with six cool summer, half of one warm summer, and one summer with a hot streak similar to those common in the 1970's.? Now we are having a cool late summer following the short hot streak of this year. ? Denis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Sep 16 16:05:59 2011 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:05:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, BillK wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > But people get hung up on arguing about trivia that just doesn't > > matter. ?If we don't solve the energy problem with a SBSP, > > StratoSolar, nuclear, or something I don't yet know about, then we are > > in a world of hurt sooner and of far more serious consequence than hot > > summers and Texas fires. I can easily agree with Keith Henson on GW, only I think it does not matter so much what the humans do about GW, because GW is a huge process and it seems to me like trying to ride a whale with a pair of long ropes in both hands. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that we tried to ride a herd of whales rather than just one - because AFAIK the nature of the climatic problem and the causes of climate changes (including recent GW that started ca. 18000 years ago) are yet to be determined. But looking from energy-wise perspective, I can now see that GW-touting and eco-marketing can be, at their base, efforts that try to address energy shortages (either happening now or foreseen coming some time from now). Like replacing old light bulbs (that are quite green as a waste - just some metal and glass) with eco-bulbs (mercury, plastics, heavy metals) that, however, last about 10x longer and use 5x-10x less energy. And the future bulbs can be even better. But I disgress. Somehow it is easier to sell eco-gw-marketing to the people and tell them they can change Earth climate (and maybe even Sun's energy output) if they buy new eco-electric car. And a tablet. > Correct, Keith. The problem is short-term thinking by politicians > and corporate leaders. > > When the crisis hits, they hope that either, > 1) they will be dead so it's the next generations' problem. Certainly there must be some people like that, but... > 2) they will be spending their last years in gated compounds with the > other super-rich and their servants, so it is still the next > generations' problem. ...but I don't buy this. If things go screwed, they are going to face hundred millions of very hungry people (the rest might be dead but a hundred mil is a problem anyway). And their servants will be the first who can easily pack them a bullet in a head from the back. If you look at the history of Rome, "barbarians" very rarely managed to kill an emperor. I assume they may be arsholes but not idiots. Therefore I expect them to do everything to turn our small boat away from a shite, if this is possible to do, of course. If we are going to end a journey in a shite, I don't think it would be because "they" counted on a fresh start when the Earth is empty and clean again. This is bullshit idea, I'm afraid (just in case someone is planning to wait few hundred years or so in safe shelter, or build themselves a golden city under a plexiglas cuppola). Or to say it in one sentence, either we can get through or we will go to hell together. Those who will have to wait their turn a little (like abovementioned politicians and super-rich), are simply going to have miserable last days of their lifes, knowing exactly what to expect. Like on a Titanic, but this time Carpathia is not going to appear (unless it is already orbiting Earth :-/ ). Of course I may be wrong. Or half wrong. :-). Regards Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 16 17:31:04 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:31:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/9/16 Tomasz Rola wrote: > ...but I don't buy this. If things go screwed, they are going to face > hundred millions of very hungry people (the rest might be dead but > a hundred mil is a problem anyway). And their servants will be the > first who can easily pack them a bullet in a head from the back. If you > look at the history of Rome, "barbarians" very rarely managed to kill an > emperor. I assume they may be arsholes but not idiots. Therefore I expect > them to do everything to turn our small boat away from a shite, if this is > possible to do, of course. > > I don't buy that story either. :) The super rich are money psychopaths (to a greater or lesser extent). They are not survivalists, stocking up on guns and tins of food, preparing for the end of the world. Though they probably have hired a company (like Blackwater) to stock their Caribbean island and defend it. The rich don't expect total destruction around the world. They do expect wars over resources and much starvation and die-off in populations. The USA already has about 20% of the population surviving on food stamps. Even if that increases to 50% or 60%, the poor probably won't attack the rich in their seaside mansions. The poor have entertainment and food - they won't risk losing that in order to attack a few thousand billionaires. Eventually, more attention will go to developing new energy sources, but the rich are only really concerned about the remainder of their lifetime and they expect to continue business much as usual for that period. BillK From amon at doctrinezero.com Fri Sep 16 17:24:49 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:24:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Copied from the ZS facebook group, in case anybody is interested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16 September 2011 15:27, Amon Zero wrote: > > What you won't know, however, is that we've decided to also have a small, > ZS-only meeting the Saturday before, October 1st. This will be at the > Penderel's Oak pub in Holborn, from midday. There won't be an official > speaker at this gathering, and there'll only be a few people, but it will be > a chance to get into some real ZS nuts and bolts discussions that will > almost certainly be impossible the following week. If you're able, please do > come along and add your opinions to the mix, or just meet some of your > co-conspirators! :-D (ZS meetings are on the first Saturday of each > month, with the default location currently being the Penderel's Oak pub). > Apologies All, it has been pointed out that the statement above is a little ambiguous. *"ZS-only" does NOT mean "members only" - all are welcome!* I only meant that Oct 1st will be a relatively small event arranged by ZS alone. The "Beyond Human" event at Birkbeck College, one week later, is primarily organised by Humanity+ UK, in cooperation with the Virtual Futures conference series, London Futurists, and Zero State. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Sep 16 22:23:58 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:23:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Amon Zero wrote: snip > Your statement seems to elegantly cut the Gordian knot from > where I'm standing - thanks Keith! You are welcome. BillK wrote: snip > Correct, Keith. ? The problem is short-term thinking by politicians > and corporate leaders. That's no doubt part of it. Another aspect is that people who don't or can't apply science type thinking about energy can't evaluate proposals. For example, geothermal and wind are simply not large enough to make a serious dent in energy problems. > When the crisis hits, they hope that either, > 1) ?they will be dead so it's the next generations' problem. > 2) they will be spending their last years in gated compounds with the > other super-rich and their servants, so it is still the next > generations' problem. > > I'm all right Jack (for now) taken to the extreme. They have no idea. Wealth, especially for the wealthy, is almost all represented as information that can't even be accessed without electric power. If the power goes off and stays off, the tiny magnetic spots on disk drives won't mean a From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 22:13:09 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316211189.63286.YahooMailNeo@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> How do you know all this about the super-rich? ? Unlike the others here, too, I don't think the world is in dire straits regarding energy -- at least, things are no more worse that at any other time in history. I'm shocked there's so little optimism here. ? Regards, ? Dan From: BillK To: ExI chat list Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change 2011/9/16 Tomasz Rola wrote: > ...but I don't buy this. If things go screwed, they are going to face > hundred millions of very hungry people (the rest might be dead but > a hundred mil is a problem anyway). And their servants will be the > first who can easily pack them a bullet in a head from the back. If you > look at the history of Rome, "barbarians" very rarely managed to kill an > emperor. I assume they may be arsholes but not idiots. Therefore I expect > them to do everything to turn our small boat away from a shite, if this is > possible to do, of course. > > I don't buy that story either.? :) The super rich are money psychopaths (to a greater or lesser extent). They are not survivalists, stocking up on guns and tins of food, preparing for the end of the world. Though they probably have hired a company (like Blackwater) to stock their Caribbean island and defend it. The rich don't expect total destruction around the world. They do expect wars over resources and much starvation and die-off in populations. The USA already has about 20% of the population surviving on food stamps. Even if that increases to 50% or 60%, the poor probably won't attack the rich in their seaside mansions. The poor have entertainment and food - they won't risk losing that in order to attack a few thousand billionaires. Eventually, more attention will go to developing new energy sources, but the rich are only really concerned about the remainder of their lifetime and they expect to continue business much as usual for that period. BillK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 23:46:42 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Scientists Take First Step Towards Creating 'Inorganic Life' Message-ID: <1316216802.60557.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htm ? "What we are trying do is create self-replicating, evolving inorganic cells that would essentially be alive. You could call it inorganic biology." ? Many interesting implications - particularly if designed inorganic life can remain stable for long periods of time, hibernate on demand, or integrate with inorganic technology and organic biology. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Sat Sep 17 01:53:31 2011 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 03:53:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, BillK wrote: > 2011/9/16 Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > ...but I don't buy this. If things go screwed, they are going to face > > hundred millions of very hungry people (the rest might be dead but > > a hundred mil is a problem anyway). And their servants will be the > > first who can easily pack them a bullet in a head from the back. If you > > look at the history of Rome, "barbarians" very rarely managed to kill an > > emperor. I assume they may be arsholes but not idiots. Therefore I expect > > them to do everything to turn our small boat away from a shite, if this is > > possible to do, of course. > > > > > > I don't buy that story either. :) > > The super rich are money psychopaths (to a greater or lesser extent). I think this kind of statements is easily acceptable as long as one doesn't demand for some proofs. I find myself prone to the Easy way, which shows me that I am really a human. On the other hand, I don't really like Easy. What I value is Truth. For this reason every time I see myself judging other people by their belonging to some group, I force myself to distinguish between Easy and Truth. Assuming that super-rich starts from 1 billion dollars, I don't think I have ever met someone from this group. So, no real life experience. I could have met few who had more than a million but I wouldn't call them psychopaths, even if not all would fit as cool guys, friends etc. Going further, we can grab few real names from the net: 1. Philip Zepter - born 1950 in small Serbian town (ca. 35000 people), now has 5 bil $ [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zepter ] 2. Elon Musk - born 1971 in South Africa, sold his first program at age 12, CEO of SpaceX, one time a big shareholder in PayPal, how much does he own is hard to say, probably below a 1 bil $ but still a nice sum :-) [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk ] 3. J. K. Rowling - b. 1965, author of "Harry Potter", worth close to $1 bil, maybe more [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling ] 4. Michael Bloomberg - b. 1942, worked as parking boy to pay his uni's tuition, now has $18bil and is 13st most wealthy USian [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg ] 5. Bill Gates - b. 1955, while the whole MS politics is controversial for me and I may dislike it, but still, it was people who gave him his wealth, nowadays worth about $56 bil [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates ] Now, I don't know any of those people. However, this is exactly this lack of supporting data that I would rather not call them psychos. While their biographies might have been fabricated, I have no reason to believe that they indeed were. So, what do you mean by "money psychopaths" and what data do you have? > They are not survivalists, stocking up on guns and tins of food, > preparing for the end of the world. > Though they probably have hired a company (like Blackwater) to stock > their Caribbean island and defend it. > The rich don't expect total destruction around the world. They do > expect wars over resources and much starvation and die-off in > populations. You know, I think I can point to some holes in their supposed plan. First, isolating myself on a tropical island, without easy access to resources and with not much place, if, say, I wanted to make tanks to defend myself there - this simply doesn't sound good. Maybe rich guys are that stupid but they are supposed to have advisors to give them something better than this. Twice, the wealth depends on the planet going more or less like it is today. The wealth forms an ecosystem itself. Once you remove the underlying fabric, the wealth has nobody to sustain itself. The money thus becomes no better than a toilet paper - and I would prefer toilet paper because it is made to be soft. Assuming that they hire guns to defend their island, at one moment it is going to be guns versus worse-than-toilet paper. I would bet guns will take over the islands, end of game. Now, I can see this and am no big brain. Clearly rich guys can hire someone to look after them and repair their mistakes, and get their monthly pay for this? > The USA already has about 20% of the population surviving on food > stamps. Even if that increases to 50% or 60%, the poor probably won't > attack the rich in their seaside mansions. The poor have entertainment > and food - they won't risk losing that in order to attack a few > thousand billionaires. If they have food and games, and don't require anything else, apparently, why worry? Seems like they have been taken care of rather than been packed into old cattle cars and driven into the ocean. > Eventually, more attention will go to developing new energy sources, > but the rich are only really concerned about the remainder of their > lifetime and they expect to continue business much as usual for that > period. Sounds like the rich have no children. And if they have, they don't really love them. Because, obviously, they only love money? Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 17 02:15:17 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:15:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change Message-ID: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, BillK wrote: >> The super rich are money psychopaths (to a greater or lesser extent)... BillK BillK, I can accept this comment because you offer no definition of the term super rich. The person with the most money is rich. If super means more of the word that follows, then I have no data on people who have more money than the rich, for no one has more money than the person with the most money. There are no super rich. >...Tomasz Rola wrote: Assuming that super-rich starts from 1 billion dollars, I don't think I have ever met someone from this group. So, no real life experience. I could have met few who had more than a million but I wouldn't call them psychopaths, even if not all would fit as cool guys, friends etc. He didn't define the arbitrary billion dollars as super rich. Entertaining anecdote for you guys. I was at a private chess party in the late 1990s. One of the guests was Peter Thiel, who looooves chess. We were playing and visiting, having a good time, when the topic of conversation went to PayPal, which Peter cofounded and had sold most of by that time. The host asked "So Peter, how much money do you have then?" He responded "Steve I really do not know. I don't know." Host: "But it's well over a billion dollars." Peter: "Oh, yes it is, but I don't know how much it is really." I thought they were kidding, but I found out they were telling the truth. He acted just like everyone else. He dressed like everyone else, drove an ordinary car. I couldn't tell he had any kind of money psychopathy. So if the super rich are money psychopaths, super rich must be far more than a billion dollars. Our politicians toss around the phrase "millionaires and billionaires" as if those two are the same thing. How bizarre! If we can span three orders of magnitude in wealth and still see some fundamental similarity between those two, then let us follow that to its logical conclusion. Let us define anyone whose net worth is over 1 million as a millionaire, over a billion as a billionaire. If there is any legitimate way to equate those two, then it seems perfectly logical to me that anyone whose net worth is over one thousand dollars is in the same class as the millionaire. Why is it we never hear the phrase "thousandaires and millionaires?" Why is it Microsloth Word doesn't even recognize the term "thousandaire?" That puts in perspective "millionaires and billionaires" ja? spike From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 02:54:05 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I've met several people who were at best in the lower middle class who acted as though they had real money and flaunted it for those in the lower middle class or the poor.? In the same community one of the wealthier men in the area didn't become wealthy until he was in his late 50's to early 60's.? You would see him at Wal-Mart in bib overalls sitting on the bench by the greeter. ? You meet millionaires all the time and likely don't know it. I can't say I've ever met a billionaire.? I think the extent of the rich I've ever been around is in the under 50 million range. Most millionaires are not cocky about their money.? Most people who act cocky about money are immature and likely wannabes in debt. ? Many with money are too busy doing what they like to change their behavior or sprend money like they have it. Dennis May From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 9:15 PM Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, BillK wrote: >> The super rich are money psychopaths (to a greater or lesser extent)... BillK BillK, I can accept this comment because you offer no definition of the term super rich.? The person with the most money is rich.? If super means more of the word that follows, then I have no data on people who have more money than the rich, for no one has more money than the person with the most money.? There are no super rich. >...Tomasz Rola wrote:? Assuming that super-rich starts from 1 billion dollars, I don't think I have ever met someone from this group. So, no real life experience. I could have met few who had more than a million but I wouldn't call them psychopaths, even if not all would fit as cool guys, friends etc. He didn't define the arbitrary billion dollars as super rich. Entertaining anecdote for you guys.? I was at a private chess party in the late 1990s.? One of the guests was Peter Thiel, who looooves chess.? We were playing and visiting, having a good time, when the topic of conversation went to PayPal, which Peter cofounded and had sold most of by that time. The host asked "So Peter, how much money do you have then?"? He responded "Steve I really do not know.? I don't know."? Host: "But it's well over a billion dollars."? Peter: "Oh, yes it is, but I don't know how much it is really." I thought they were kidding, but I found out they were telling the truth. He acted just like everyone else.? He dressed like everyone else, drove an ordinary car.? I couldn't tell he had any kind of money psychopathy.? So if the super rich are money psychopaths, super rich must be far more than a billion dollars. Our politicians toss around the phrase "millionaires and billionaires" as if those two are the same thing.? How bizarre!? If we can span three orders of magnitude in wealth and still see some fundamental similarity between those two, then let us follow that to its logical conclusion.? Let us define anyone whose net worth is over 1 million as a millionaire, over a billion as a billionaire.? If there is any legitimate way to equate those two, then it seems perfectly logical to me that anyone whose net worth is over one thousand dollars is in the same class as the millionaire.? Why is it we never hear the phrase "thousandaires and millionaires?"? Why is it Microsloth Word doesn't even recognize the term "thousandaire?"? That puts in perspective "millionaires and billionaires" 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: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Sep 17 04:22:59 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316233379.64300.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, BillK wrote: "The super rich are money psychopaths (to a greater or lesser extent)." Strangely enough I know a billionaire, we're certainly not best buddies or anything but I see him around almost every day and I can tell you he's not a psychopath. However I must admit that although he's super rich he's not super super rich, he made it into the Forbes 400 list of richest people on the planet but not by much. Incidentally he got wealthy the old fashioned American way, he chose his parents carefully. ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 09:06:54 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:06:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/17 Dennis May wrote: > You meet millionaires all the time and likely don't know it. > I can't say I've ever met a billionaire.? I think the extent of the > rich I've ever been around is in the under 50 million range. > Most millionaires are not cocky about their money.? Most > people who act cocky about money are immature and > likely wannabes in debt. > Agreed. Millionaires are not considered really rich these days. Especially if you include property and pension funds and other assets not readily available for spending. And yes, most ordinary millionaires are just like the people next door. (Us ordinary millionaires must stick together, after all). ;) I was referring to people whose annual *income* is in the billions, never mind their total assets. These people don't even think about the cost of something. They just do it, because price doesn't matter to them. And these people own and run companies who also work on their behalf. They don't even need to use their own money when a company can hire lawyers and mercenaries to do their bidding. But to maintain this lifestyle, they end up doing what benefits the corporation as well as themselves, rather than looking at what the longer term future demands. This has led to the current economic problems. Which is still working to benefit the companies that caused the problems. (But I suppose there must be some nice guys in there as well. All generalisations have exceptions. Not all lawyers or parking officials are totally evil). But even the coal and oil corporations are slowly diversifying into renewable resources. The problem that society has is that they are deliberately diversifying slowly, so as to extract the maximum profit from dwindling resources. And as the oil price increases, that means that high price expectations mean that they can charge more for the renewable energy replacements that they will provide. Energy will still be available. It will just be very expensive when coming from the grid. (Not a problem for the super-rich, of course). DIY energy supplies and zero footprint living is the way to go for the general population. But it probably means a big drop in living standards. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 17 12:43:16 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 05:43:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000901cc7537$5f3ce860$1db6b920$@att.net> > On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires 2011/9/17 Dennis May wrote: >>... You meet millionaires all the time and likely don't know it... >...Agreed. Millionaires are not considered really rich these days. Especially if you include property and pension funds and other assets not readily available for spending. And yes, most ordinary millionaires are just like the people next door. (Us ordinary millionaires must stick together, after all). ;) Ja. Thousandaires stick together, billionaires stick together, why not the middle guys? Our government is telling us millionaires and billionaires need to pay more taxes. Presumably thousandaires and millionaires need to pay less. Somewhere in the middle should be a break-even. >...I was referring to people whose annual *income* is in the billions, never mind their total assets... BillK, this commentary really goes off into the bizarre from here. I see conflation of assets with income, which is a common thing actually, but needs careful reasoning. >... These people don't even think about the cost of something... People who have a ton of money definitely think about the cost of something. That's why they have a ton of money. Consider high production manufacturing. If someone thinks carefully about the cost of something, and develops a slightly cheaper way of making that item, they make a ton of money. The rest of us benefit from getting the item cheaper. >...(But I suppose there must be some nice guys in there as well. All generalisations have exceptions. Not all lawyers or parking officials are totally evil). Lawyers and parking officials? Come now, me lad. >...But even the coal and oil corporations are slowly diversifying into renewable resources. The problem that society has is that they are deliberately diversifying slowly, so as to extract the maximum profit from dwindling resources... BillK Indeed? We here in the states are in the middle of an unfolding scandal which may well take down our current government. The company is right up the street, Solyndra. I applied to work there two days before it all collapsed. My neighbor across the street was a mid-level manager. He was struggling to get people to man a third shift at the plant when he came in to find everything locked and the feds carrying out boxes of paper and hard discs. Now we hear there is a second local company which took government guaranteed loans to develop solar power, and it too is busted, and it too is apparently corrupt. Stay tuned. Perhaps the widespread public perception that energy companies are intentionally diversifying slowly is enabling corruption in the green energy industry. The corrupt schemes are making it more difficult for the honest smart guys, because it soaks up capital into losing schemes that would otherwise be invested in good profitable ones. A profitable company is a good company. Watch the unfolding Solyndra and LightSquared stories. Both are examples of what happens when governments get involved in the investment biz. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 13:23:11 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:23:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17 September 2011 03:53, Tomasz Rola wrote: > Sounds like the rich have no children. And if they have, they don't really > love them. Because, obviously, they only love money? > Contrary to common wisdom, I suspect that people do not really care about money. This is a distorted mirage generated by the mercantilistic one-dimensionalism of late western culture, which had no course anywhere before the Europe of the XIX century. What they invariably crave is power, status, and growth in those areas, and "work" is simply the name in each given age of the activities they perform to this end rather than for the pleasure of it. Even today, beyond a relatively low threshold (50 million USD?) nothing you do can really change much of the quantity or quality of your food or comfort or medical care or sexual partners, but money continue to matter simply as a mean to keep the scores in the competition *for the above*, the specific function of money having become irrelevant. Conversely, a lot of people want to become a president of the US or a catholic bishop even though an equivalent effort could secure them a higher-revenue position. This is why all the literature floating around about the "end of jobs" sounds ridiculous to me. Peasants largely stopped tolling in the fields and knights from riding their horses around the country to administer justice with the advent of the industrial revolution, they did not stop to compete at an individual and collective (read "class", "firm", "sector", "nation", "ethnical group", "corporation", etc.) level for all that. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sat Sep 17 14:06:43 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Having money In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Stefano wrote in "Re: A Nobel laureate and climate change": >Contrary to common wisdom, I suspect that people do not really care >about money. This is a distorted mirage generated by the >mercantilistic one-dimensionalism of late western culture, which had >no course anywhere before the Europe of the XIX century. > >What they invariably crave is power, status, and growth in those >areas, and "work" is simply the name in each given age of the >activities they perform to this end rather than for the pleasure of >it. Even today, beyond a relatively low threshold (50 million USD?) >nothing you do can really change much of the quantity or quality of >your food or comfort or medical care or sexual partners, but money >continue to matter simply as a mean to keep the scores in the >competition *for the above*, the specific function of money having >become irrelevant. Several of the best-known billionaires sought to change the world; riches, power, and status were side effects. I've developed a scale for financial achievement, as a common vocabulary for trading notes and gauging where one is. It's focused on growing your own business. I use the term product, but I mean that in the broadest sense -- whatever you're selling. F- couch potato hermit, cycling downward F not doing diddly [black] F+ acquiring skills, equipment, and contacts E- getting a good idea E poking at the idea, shelving it for long periods [red] E+ working aggressively at having something to sell D- product is out, but no one's buying yet D product is out, but not making enough to pay your bills [orange] D+ you're working aggressively at promotion and growth C- product has a run rate that is enough to live in if it continues C product reliably brings in enough to live on [yellow] C+ product reliably brings in enough to live on in luxury B- your wealth is sufficient to eke by for the rest of your life B your wealth is sufficient to live comfortably for the rest of your life [green] B+ your wealth is sufficient to meet any need your loved ones might ever face A your wealth is sufficient to invest substantially in causes you care about [purple] A+ your wealth is sufficient to change the course of causes you care about I suspect many smart people are stuck somewhere in E or F. We have more talent and good ideas than focus and discipline. (I know I tend to.) We all will differ in where we draw the lines of need and of loved one. But, broadly, I mean if someone you'd welcome into your home has a crisis that can be helped (or avoided to begin with) by money, you have enough to have the option of helping. B+ includes nightmare scenarios for the world as well. Your loved ones might face a pandemic, EMP attack, tyranny, asteroid strike, economic collapse, etc. (Some extropians give their friends gift certificates for weapons training courses at Front Sight.) There are several very rich people who invest heavily in causes, for the sake of their children or for what they perceive as the long-term benefit of civilization. My desire for wealth for luxury is easily sated; just let me buy a few hundred thousand more books and similar indulgences. But not having to work for someone else, keeping my loved ones safe, and summoning the future are very appealing. -- David. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 14:47:24 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:47:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Having money In-Reply-To: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 17 September 2011 16:06, David Lubkin wrote: > My desire for wealth for luxury is easily sated; just let me buy a few > hundred thousand more books and similar indulgences. > Please do not mention this right now. My heart is broken, because unless I decide to relocate - something I would be reluctant to do anyway - I must right now part ways with a substantial chunk of my 5.000+ beloved books to make room for new ones... :-( OTOH, the electronic thing still does not satisfy me entirely. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 15:40:21 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316274021.8763.YahooMailNeo@web112116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In a time of less government interference inventors, entrepreneurs, and industrialists like Edison and others required large capital they personally controlled to create and test their visions.? Publicly traded corporations often have CEO's changing jobs every few years - only looking at the bottom line for themselves.? The board of directors are often composed of people with a similar outlook. ? With less interference innovators would feel more inclined to risk their own capital to see their innovations created.? Many of these visions are very expensive. The innovator has largely been relegated to low level employee with control of capital in the hands of nameless faceless bureaucracies - whether government or corporate. ? Those wanting to see amazing advances for the future need to stop vilifying the rich.? Innovators who get to keep their money to expand their ability to innovate represent the kind of positive feedback required for the critical mass to innovate a technological culture.? Redistribution is the wet blanket thrown on the fire of innovation. ? $50 million will let you build a small plant - it will not leave you money to operate.? If you want real innovation you need to leave the rich alone so that individual innovators can collect capital in the hundreds of millions and many billions of dollars so their visions can grow before they are smothered. ? You want AI - leave innovators alone to gather the sums required to get it going.? The examples of redistribution stifling innovation are countless and sickening.? Government picking winners and losers is redistribution - killing more and more innovation the more it is tried. ? Dennis May ? From: Stefano Vaj To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change On 17 September 2011 03:53, Tomasz Rola wrote: Sounds like the rich have no children. And if they have, they don't really >love them. Because, obviously, they only love money? > Contrary to common wisdom, I suspect that people do not really care about money. This is a distorted mirage generated by the mercantilistic one-dimensionalism of late western culture, which had no course anywhere before the Europe of the XIX century. What they invariably crave is power, status, and growth in those areas, and "work" is simply the name in each given age of the activities they perform to this end rather than for the pleasure of it. Even today, beyond a relatively low threshold (50 million USD?) nothing you do can really change much of the quantity or quality of your food or comfort or medical care or sexual partners, but money continue to matter simply as a mean to keep the scores in the competition *for the above*, the specific function of money having become irrelevant. Conversely, a lot of people want to become a president of the US or a catholic bishop even though an equivalent effort could secure them a higher-revenue position. This is why all the literature floating around about the "end of jobs" sounds ridiculous to me. Peasants largely stopped tolling in the fields and knights from riding their horses around the country to administer justice? with the advent of the industrial revolution, they did not stop to compete at an individual and collective (read "class", "firm", "sector", "nation", "ethnical group", "corporation", etc.) level for all that. -- 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: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 15:50:46 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Having money In-Reply-To: References: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1316274646.39033.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> You're the second person on line recently plus one I've known in person who has had this same issue with book collections. ? The other two did not find good solutions - one has talked about moving, the other did move but the problem has not been solved only delayed. ? If you do move there are lots of big old houses and businesses in economically depressed areas for sale.? Enough to store all the books you will ever own. ? Dennis ? From: Stefano Vaj To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Having money On 17 September 2011 16:06, David Lubkin wrote: My desire for wealth for luxury is easily sated; just let me buy a few >hundred thousand more books and similar indulgences. > Please do not mention this right now. My heart is broken, because unless I decide to relocate - something I would be reluctant to do anyway - I must right now part ways with a substantial chunk of my 5.000+ beloved books to make room for new ones... :-( OTOH, the electronic thing still does not satisfy me entirely. -- 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: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 15:54:29 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: <000901cc7537$5f3ce860$1db6b920$@att.net> References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <000901cc7537$5f3ce860$1db6b920$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316274869.25943.YahooMailNeo@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Spike wrote: ? "We here in the states are in the middle of an unfolding scandal which may well take down our current government." ? The main stream media will likely let the story die so the pressure on the current government will not reach levels required to bring down the administration.? The DOJ has had a number of scandals going on that would have brought down other governments. ? Dennis ? From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires > On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires 2011/9/17 Dennis May wrote: >>... You meet millionaires all the time and likely don't know it... >...Agreed. Millionaires are not considered really rich these days. Especially if you include property and pension funds and other assets not readily available for spending. And yes, most ordinary millionaires are just like the people next door. (Us ordinary millionaires must stick together, after all).? ;) Ja.? Thousandaires stick together, billionaires stick together, why not the middle guys?? Our government is telling us millionaires and billionaires need to pay more taxes.? Presumably thousandaires and millionaires need to pay less.? Somewhere in the middle should be a break-even. >...I was referring to people whose annual *income* is in the billions, never mind their total assets... BillK, this commentary really goes off into the bizarre from here.? I see conflation of assets with income, which is a common thing actually, but needs careful reasoning. >... These people don't even think about the cost of something... People who have a ton of money definitely think about the cost of something. That's why they have a ton of money.? Consider high production manufacturing.? If someone thinks carefully about the cost of something, and develops a slightly cheaper way of making that item, they make a ton of money.? The rest of us benefit from getting the item cheaper. >...(But I suppose there must be some nice guys in there as well. All generalisations have exceptions. Not all lawyers or parking officials are totally evil). Lawyers and parking officials?? Come now, me lad. >...But even the coal and oil corporations are slowly diversifying into renewable resources. The problem that society has is that they are deliberately diversifying slowly, so as to extract the maximum profit from dwindling resources... BillK Indeed?? We here in the states are in the middle of an unfolding scandal which may well take down our current government. The company is right up the street, Solyndra.? I applied to work there two days before it all collapsed.? My neighbor across the street was a mid-level manager.? He was struggling to get people to man a third shift at the plant when he came in to find everything locked and the feds carrying out boxes of paper and hard discs. Now we hear there is a second local company which took government guaranteed loans to develop solar power, and it too is busted, and it too is apparently corrupt.? Stay tuned.? Perhaps the widespread public perception that energy companies are intentionally diversifying slowly is enabling corruption in the green energy industry.? The corrupt schemes are making it more difficult for the honest smart guys, because it soaks up capital into losing schemes that would otherwise be invested in good profitable ones. A profitable company is a good company. Watch the unfolding Solyndra and LightSquared stories.? Both are examples of what happens when governments get involved in the investment biz. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 17 16:10:04 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:10:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001f01cc7554$43359730$c9a0c590$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK ... >...I was referring to people whose annual *income* is in the billions, never mind their total assets. These people don't even think about the cost of something. They just do it, because price doesn't matter to them. ...BillK We need more people to just do it. Such people are our friends, for they create jobs. Contrast to the government subsidized efforts, such as Solyndra and Light Squared. Here are some examples of comparisons: Solyndra - Founded in 2005; received $528 million in government subsidies in 2009. Result: Bankrupt in 2011. The Chinese and others made solar panels better and cheaper. Samuel Langley - Tried to build first airplane in history. In 1900, U.S. government funded two flight attempts. Result: Both times, Langley crashed his plane into the Potomac River. Shortly thereafter, the Wright brothers flew a plane with their own money. Union Pacific Railroad - Founded in early 1860s with government money to build part of a transcontinental railroad. Result: Bankrupt, and some officers of the railroad convicted of bribing Congressmen. The Great Northern Railroad then built a transcontinental railroad with no corruption and no federal subsidies. Edward Collins Steamship Company - Founded in 1840s to go from New York to England, and also received government subsidies in 1840s and 1850s. Result: Bankrupt in 1858. Cornelius Vanderbilt successfully built ships to go from New York to England with no subsidies. Government operated fur company - Founded in 1795 with federal money to compete with the British. Result: Near bankruptcy, and shut down in 1822. John Jacob Astor built the American Fur Company in 1808 and flourished with no federal subsidies. Major source: Burton W. Folsom, Jr., The Myth of the Robber Barons, 6th edition, (Young America's Foundation, 2010) Rich people are our friends, evolution bless them one and all. spike From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 15:57:08 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Having money In-Reply-To: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1316275028.26268.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I like your scale.? You are correct about most innovators [smart people] being stuck at the lower levels. ? Dennis From: David Lubkin To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 9:06 AM Subject: [ExI] Having money Stefano wrote in "Re: A Nobel laureate and climate change": > Contrary to common wisdom, I suspect that people do not really care about money. This is a distorted mirage generated by the mercantilistic one-dimensionalism of late western culture, which had no course anywhere before the Europe of the XIX century. > > What they invariably crave is power, status, and growth in those areas, and "work" is simply the name in each given age of the activities they perform to this end rather than for the pleasure of it. Even today, beyond a relatively low threshold (50 million USD?) nothing you do can really change much of the quantity or quality of your food or comfort or medical care or sexual partners, but money continue to matter simply as a mean to keep the scores in the competition *for the above*, the specific function of money having become irrelevant. Several of the best-known billionaires sought to change the world; riches, power, and status were side effects. I've developed a scale for financial achievement, as a common vocabulary for trading notes and gauging where one is. It's focused on growing your own business. I use the term product, but I mean that in the broadest sense -- whatever you're selling. F-? ? ? couch potato hermit, cycling downward F? ? ? not doing diddly [black] F+? ? ? acquiring skills, equipment, and contacts E-? ? ? getting a good idea E? ? ? poking at the idea, shelving it for long periods [red] E+? ? ? working aggressively at having something to sell D-? ? ? product is out, but no one's buying yet D? ? ? product is out, but not making enough to pay your bills [orange] D+? ? ? you're working aggressively at promotion and growth C-? ? ? product has a run rate that is enough to live in if it continues C? ? ? product reliably brings in enough to live on [yellow] C+? ? ? product reliably brings in enough to live on in luxury B-? ? ? your wealth is sufficient to eke by for the rest of your life B? ? ? your wealth is sufficient to live comfortably for the rest ? ? ? ? of your life [green] B+? ? ? your wealth is sufficient to meet any need your loved ones ? ? ? ? might ever face A? ? ? your wealth is sufficient to invest substantially in causes ? ? ? ? you care about [purple] A+? ? ? your wealth is sufficient to change the course of causes ? ? ? ? you care about I suspect many smart people are stuck somewhere in E or F. We have more talent and good ideas than focus and discipline. (I know I tend to.) We all will differ in where we draw the lines of need and of loved one. But, broadly, I mean if someone you'd welcome into your home has a crisis that can be helped (or avoided to begin with) by money, you have enough to have the option of helping. B+ includes nightmare scenarios for the world as well. Your loved ones might face a pandemic, EMP attack, tyranny, asteroid strike, economic collapse, etc. (Some extropians give their friends gift certificates for weapons training courses at Front Sight.) There are several very rich people who invest heavily in causes, for the sake of their children or for what they perceive as the long-term benefit of civilization. My desire for wealth for luxury is easily sated; just let me buy a few hundred thousand more books and similar indulgences. But not having to work for someone else, keeping my loved ones safe, and summoning the future are very appealing. -- David. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sat Sep 17 16:15:23 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 12:15:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Having money In-Reply-To: References: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <201109171617.p8HGHFGT008178@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Stefano wrote: >Please do not mention this right now. My heart is broken, because >unless I decide to relocate - something I would be reluctant to do >anyway - I must right now part ways with a substantial chunk of my >5.000+ beloved books to make room for new ones... :-( On the plus side, you're in a community that feels your pain.... Glen Cook has a calligraphed quotation on his dealer's table to the effect that of course you're out of shelf space; everyone worth knowing is. I have many more than 5000 books but I won't be satisfied until I have a working professional's library for each subject I'm interested in, and there are few subjects I'm not. Just as the world can be said to be divided into parents and non-parents, the world can be divided into book people and not. >OTOH, the electronic thing still does not satisfy me entirely. Likewise, but I'm really less addicted to books than I am an information junkie. I'm not sure how safe it'll be for me once I have the prospect of drinking from the full fire hose with computer-brain linkage. -- David. From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 17 16:18:56 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:18:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] rich people are our friends. was: RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change Message-ID: <002001cc7555$80baaf90$82300eb0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj . >.Contrary to common wisdom, I suspect that people do not really care about money. .What they invariably crave is power, status, and growth in those areas, and "work" is simply the name in each given age of the activities they perform to this end rather than for the pleasure of it. .-- Stefano Vaj Ja. Another way to look at it is this: many of us work for corporations, or did. When business is allowed to be free, then our work and our efforts to create wealth are guided by those who are good at taking wealth and turning it into more wealth. In deals like Solyndra on the other hand, a government investment, our efforts are being guided by those who are good at getting votes. When a billionaire invests in something that crashes, oh well, sigh, one less billionaire, she lost her money. But when the government invests in a bust, they lost my money, and they lost your money. Rich people are our friends. Even if we are not one of them. Especially if we are not one of them. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 17 16:33:52 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:33:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Having money In-Reply-To: <1316274646.39033.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1316274646.39033.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003a01cc7557$96d2e570$c478b050$@att.net> . >.If you do move there are lots of big old houses and businesses in economically depressed areas for sale. Enough to store all the books you will ever own.Dennis Ja, such as Titusville Florida. Lots of nice big places built during the boom years. Now the space biz has mostly gone away, and it looks like it will not return any time soon if ever. If you are fortunate enough to not need a 9 to 5, that's a good destination, because there aren't any to be found there. What is to be found is a forest of House For Sale signs, some of them with huge rooms, such as the one my own parents left empty for six years. That house has two big open rooms 27 x 36 feet, one above the other, which would make a terrific library. Houses like that one in Spaceport USA are being practically given away. I am not exaggerating: http://www.zillow.com/homes/Titusville-Florida_rb/ spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 17 16:55:09 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:55:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Having money References: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1316274646.39033.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004501cc755a$8f534fd0$adf9ef70$@att.net> From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] . Houses like that one in Spaceport USA are being practically given away. I am not exaggerating: http://www.zillow.com/homes/Titusville-Florida_rb/ spike Here's a really good example that I know personally. Some old friends used to live here: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1585-S-Carpenter-Rd-Titusville-FL-32796/43 377913_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address} This is an absolutely gorgeous piece of property, 8700 sf house on 4 acres with a wall around it, six car garage, enclosed pool, loooots of cool stuff in that house, lots of cool stuff outside, plenty of room for a monster library, on a lake, really a nice place to live out there. It was once a showcase house for a guy who ran a multi-level marketing company, so his job was to appear to have way more money than he really had, so as to attract envious people to work for him. It worked: he was really good at acting like he had way more money than he really had, right up to the day he had nothing. The current owners are asking 900k for it, but I bet you could snag it for 7. I have half a mind to buy that place and convert it into an insane asylum for about a dozen rich crazies. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ryanobjc at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 18:01:33 2011 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:01:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] rich people are our friends. was: RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <002001cc7555$80baaf90$82300eb0$@att.net> References: <002001cc7555$80baaf90$82300eb0$@att.net> Message-ID: That's kind of a simplistic view. The notion of go it alone rugged billionaires is not really so - business creation is funded by many parties, sometimes government as well. Eg venture capital, bond market etc. I'd really hesitate to say the Koch brothers are my friend... On Sep 17, 2011 9:33 AM, "spike" wrote: > > > > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj > . > > >>.Contrary to common wisdom, I suspect that people do not really care about > money. .What they invariably crave is power, status, and growth in those > areas, and "work" is simply the name in each given age of the activities > they perform to this end rather than for the pleasure of it. .-- Stefano Vaj > > > > > > Ja. Another way to look at it is this: many of us work for corporations, or > did. When business is allowed to be free, then our work and our efforts to > create wealth are guided by those who are good at taking wealth and turning > it into more wealth. In deals like Solyndra on the other hand, a government > investment, our efforts are being guided by those who are good at getting > votes. > > > > When a billionaire invests in something that crashes, oh well, sigh, one > less billionaire, she lost her money. But when the government invests in a > bust, they lost my money, and they lost your money. > > > > Rich people are our friends. Even if we are not one of them. Especially if > we are not one of them. > > > > spike > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 19:40:55 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:40:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316274021.8763.YahooMailNeo@web112116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316274021.8763.YahooMailNeo@web112116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/17 Dennis May wrote: > Those wanting to see amazing advances for the future need to stop vilifying > the rich.? Innovators who get to keep their money to expand their ability to > innovate represent the kind of positive feedback required for the critical > mass to innovate a technological culture.? Redistribution is the wet blanket > thrown on the fire of innovation. > > $50 million will let you build a small plant - it will not leave you money > to operate.? If you want real innovation you need to leave the rich alone so > that individual innovators can collect capital in the hundreds of millions and > many billions of dollars so their visions can grow before they are smothered. > > You want AI - leave innovators alone to gather the sums required to get it > going.? The examples of redistribution stifling innovation are countless and > sickening.? Government picking winners and losers is redistribution - > killing more and more innovation the more it is tried. > You live in a mythical world. If a US billionaire wanted to produce a new product his first thought would be to get quotes from Chinese factories. That's why the US people are facing poverty and living off food stamps. The rich are China's friends. BillK From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 21:09:12 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <1316274021.8763.YahooMailNeo@web112116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316293752.29028.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Get the government out of the way to reduce incentives to go to China. ? Dennis From: BillK To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change 2011/9/17 Dennis May wrote: > Those wanting to see amazing advances for the future need to stop vilifying > the rich.? Innovators who get to keep their money to expand their ability to > innovate represent the kind of positive feedback required for the critical > mass to innovate a technological culture.? Redistribution is the wet blanket > thrown on the fire of innovation. > > $50 million will let you build a small plant - it will not leave you money > to operate.? If you want real innovation you need to leave the rich alone so > that individual innovators can collect capital in the hundreds of millions and > many billions of dollars so their visions can grow before they are smothered. > > You want AI - leave innovators alone to gather the sums required to get it > going.? The examples of redistribution stifling innovation are countless and > sickening.? Government picking winners and losers is redistribution - > killing more and more innovation the more it is tried. > You live in a mythical world.? If a US billionaire wanted to produce a new product his first thought would be to get quotes from Chinese factories. That's why the US people are facing poverty and living off food stamps. The rich are China's friends. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 22:46:03 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:46:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Dennis May wrote: > The projections of what will happen economically > without massive nuclear energy development is > not pretty.? Even if that effort began immediately > it is not clear it could happen fast enough. The length of time it takes to build nuclear plants is a big reason to look at other approaches. I am not at all sure even what is the best approach or mix of approaches to get really inexpensive energy. I can state that it need to be down in the 1-2 cents per kWh. That's $800 to $1600 per kW based on return of capital in ten years and it needs to scale to 15-20 TW over 20 years. That's building around a 1000 1 GW reactors per year. I have not looked into this in detail. I have looked into SBSP and StratoSolar and they look possible. Perhaps you know about reactors? It seems better to me at this stage to state what is needed in broad terms rather than being too specific about how to accomplish the task. Keith From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 23:13:49 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 01:13:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Having money In-Reply-To: <201109171617.p8HGHFGT008178@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201109171617.p8HGHFGT008178@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 17 September 2011 18:15, David Lubkin wrote: > I have many more than 5000 books but I won't be satisfied until I have > a working professional's library for each subject I'm interested in, and > there are few subjects I'm not. > ... > Likewise, but I'm really less addicted to books than I am an information > junkie. I'm not sure how safe it'll be for me once I have the prospect of > drinking from the full fire hose with computer-brain linkage. The truth is that I could quite easily "store" books (in the basement, etc.), but as long as they are out of comfortable reach - and your are not employing a full-time librarian, keeping and updating a catalogue thereof, etc., as we do in my law firm - at a point you could as well not own them at all... In this respect, electronic versions already have an edge for occasional consultation and prompt access. As to cover-to-cover reading, e-ink solutions are barely acceptable, PCs, tablets and smartphones remain very poor replacements for the paper thing. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 22:45:16 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (kellycoinguy at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:45:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4e752301.e113440a.6fe3.ffffa18b@mx.google.com> On Sep 17, 2011 1:41 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:  2011/9/17 Dennis May wrote: <snip> You live in a mythical world. If a US billionaire wanted to produce a new product his first thought would be to get quotes from Chinese factories. That's why the US people are facing poverty and living off food stamps. The rich are China's friends. BillK Bill.. If the rich want to produce spatulas or vacuums.. Then yes they go to China to get them built... But if they want true innovation, rather that rote duplication of stuff that has already been done, then there is still no place to beat the USA. A big part of successful innovation is venture capital. China's government funds some research.. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the US private investment in true innovation. I think you are the one living in a very different world than those of us who innovate in the private sector. Without the rich, we would not exist. -Kelly _____________________________ extropy-chat mailing list ext -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 23:30:31 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316302231.47808.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I have been interested in various energy possibilities for over 30 years and have seen two generations of money being wasted on solar development with virtually nothing to show for it.? Wind and solar both have niche location applications but I see no possibility either will ever move beyond that scale.? Subsidizing either only means reducing other economic opportunities to support a losing proposition. ? Geothermal, tide, ocean currents, hydroelectric, and most other alternatives suffer from the same niche application problems of solar and wind. ? Various carbon fuels will continue to be used for the foreseeable future because of energy density, portability, cost and the ready existence of technology.? ? Biofuels are also a niche application - a losing proposition in most applications done today.? Though nuclear energy could be converted to more usable forms by cycling it through biofuels. As much as possible?input power for planting, harvesting, and processing?of biofuels coming from nuclear sources rather than carbon fuels and the biofuel itself. ? The sheer energy density of nuclear power means it dwarfs all other options.? Much of the time delay for implementation of nuclear power plants can be reduced by going to standardized designs. ? As far as big solar projects go - I see them as being of interest in industrializing space not moving space nuclear energy [sun] to the Earth when there are plenty of Earth based nuclear energy possibilities with much less capital risk. ? Dennis May From: Keith Henson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:06 PM,? Dennis May wrote: > The projections of what will happen economically > without massive nuclear energy development is > not pretty.? Even if that effort began immediately > it is not clear it could happen fast enough. The length of time it takes to build nuclear plants is a big reason to look at other approaches.? I am not at all sure even what is the best approach or mix of approaches to get really inexpensive energy.? I can state that it need to be down in the 1-2 cents per kWh.? That's $800 to $1600 per kW based on return of capital in ten years and it needs to scale to 15-20 TW over 20 years. That's building around a 1000 1 GW reactors per year. I have not looked into this in detail.? I have looked into SBSP and StratoSolar and they look possible.? Perhaps you know about reactors? It seems better to me at this stage to state what is needed in broad terms rather than being too specific about how to accomplish the task. Keith _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Sep 18 04:53:52 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1316321632.46095.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ?BillK wrote: "Well, the southern USA states have had their worst wildfire season ever and Texas is still burning. I guess the message will get through eventually. But I suppose that's just a little local fluctuation in temperature?" So let's see, if there's a very bad blizzard in the winter, as there was just a few months ago, it would be foolish to think that had anything to do with long term global climate change; but if there is a heat wave in the summer that proves the entire planet is getting hotter and is facing disaster. "If a US billionaire wanted to produce a new product his first thought would be to get quotes from Chinese factories." Correct, and they would do that because it would be cheaper to operate a plant in China than in the USA. "That's why the US people are facing poverty and living off food stamps." So if workers in the USA are unwilling to work for a wage because they think it's too small even though they are "facing poverty" but Chinese workers are willing to do so then it follows logically that the Chinese workers must be even poorer than the poverty facing workers in the USA. "The rich are China's friends." Right, or to put it another way, the rich are friends of the poorest of the poor. ? John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 05:45:27 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? Message-ID: <1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Anyone have a recommendation for a group to listen in on discussions of quantum computing?? Most I have been able to locate are the same as dead. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 08:36:49 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:36:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <4e752301.e113440a.6fe3.ffffa18b@mx.google.com> References: <4e752301.e113440a.6fe3.ffffa18b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/17 kellycoinguy wrote: > Bill.. If the rich want to produce spatulas or vacuums.. Then yes they go to > China to get them built... But if they want true innovation, rather that > rote duplication of stuff that has already been done, then there is still no > place to beat the USA. > > A big part of successful innovation is venture capital. China's government > funds some research.. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the US > private investment in true innovation. > Your first comment agrees that production facilities are cheaper and more productive in China. So more US innovation won't create much employment in the US. The financial press has noted that some (many?) US companies are not bringing new products to market because in the current economic depression consumer demand has collapsed. The depressed market doesn't want innovation. The US needs jobs first, then people will have money to spend. There is much concern that US innovation is falling behind other countries. Even Obama has commented on this. A recent report is here: The pace of US innovation has slowed since the 1970s. Mainly because government funded research has halved. Basic research is funded by government. (Barcodes, fiber optics, MRI machines and GPS technology are just a few of the innovations that came out of government-funded basic research). Venture capital funds the development of new trinkets for individual firms to manufacture in China and sell in the US and make a profit. And they need consumers willing and able to buy their trinkets. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sun Sep 18 13:38:52 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 06:38:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? In-Reply-To: <1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <010a01cc7608$4e53ea40$eafbbec0$@att.net> >. On Behalf Of Dennis May Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? >.Anyone have a recommendation for a group to listen in on discussions of quantum computing? Most I have been able to locate are the same as dead.Dennis May Dennis the discussion groups you seek are either alive or dead, but according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the groups are simultaneously alive and dead. The Many Worlds interpretation has the universe branching: one universe exists in which the discussion group is alive, another parallel universe in which the group is dead. If you are a Many Worlds type, your joining such a group steers our universe into the alive group branch, which is the universe I prefer. If you are a Copenhagener, then your joining a dead group would remove the ambiguity, causing the quantum decoherence to collapse into a live group. Therefore, rather than seeking a live quantum discussion group, it is your moral and ethical duty to intentionally join a dead group, for in that way you have saved an unknown number of lives. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 14:44:35 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <4e752301.e113440a.6fe3.ffffa18b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1316357075.41752.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> BillK wrote: ? "The depressed market doesn't want innovation. The US needs ?jobs first, then people will have money to spend." ? Redistribution of wealth destroys innovation and markets. ? If the government reduced its footprint - problems of innovation would solve themselves.? The decline of innovation coincides with growth of the government footprint. ? For every innovation coming out of government more unseen private innovations were destroyed.? Redistribution to government stifles innovation.? Government taking from innovators cannot spur net innovation. ? Dennis May From: BillK To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change 2011/9/17 kellycoinguy wrote: > Bill.. If the rich want to produce spatulas or vacuums.. Then yes they go to > China to get them built... But if they want true innovation, rather that > rote duplication of stuff that has already been done, then there is still no > place to beat the USA. > > A big part of successful innovation is venture capital. China's government > funds some research.. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the US > private investment in true innovation. > Your first comment agrees that production facilities are cheaper and more productive in China. So more US innovation won't create much employment in the US. The financial press has noted that some (many?) US companies are not bringing new products to market because in the current economic depression consumer demand has collapsed. The depressed market doesn't want innovation. The US needs jobs first, then people will have money to spend. There is much concern that US innovation is falling behind other countries. Even Obama has commented on this. A recent report is here: The pace of US innovation has slowed since the 1970s. Mainly because government funded research has halved. Basic research is funded by government. (Barcodes, fiber optics, MRI machines and GPS technology are just a few of the innovations that came out of government-funded basic research). Venture capital funds the development of new trinkets for individual firms to manufacture in China and sell in the US and make a profit. And they need consumers willing and able to buy their trinkets. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 14:48:49 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? In-Reply-To: <010a01cc7608$4e53ea40$eafbbec0$@att.net> References: <1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <010a01cc7608$4e53ea40$eafbbec0$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316357329.34972.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Sorry I support deBB [de Brolie-Bohm]-like deterministic QM theories.? The groups are what they are. ? Dennis From: spike To: 'Dennis May' ; 'ExI chat list' Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 8:38 AM Subject: RE: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? ? >?On Behalf Of Dennis May Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? ? >?Anyone have a recommendation for a group to listen in on discussions of quantum computing?? Most I have been able to locate are the same as dead?Dennis May ? ? Dennis the discussion groups you seek are either alive or dead, but according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the groups are simultaneously alive and dead.? The Many Worlds interpretation has the universe branching: one universe exists in which the discussion group is alive, another parallel universe in which the group is dead.? If you are a Many Worlds type, your joining such a group steers our universe into the alive group branch, which is the universe I prefer.? If you are a Copenhagener, then your joining a dead group would remove the ambiguity, causing the quantum decoherence to collapse into a live group. ? Therefore, rather than seeking a live quantum discussion group, it is your moral and ethical duty to intentionally join a dead group, for in that way you have saved an unknown number of lives.? ? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Sep 18 16:12:18 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? In-Reply-To: <1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316362338.35739.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ?On Sun, 9/18/11, Dennis May wrote: Anyone have a recommendation for a group to listen in ondiscussions of quantum computing?? Most I have beenable to locate are the same as dead. I've been on the Fabric of Reality list for many years, it's certainly not dead, it has over 22 thousand messages. It was started by David Deutsch who was one of the pioneers of quantum computing, he's also a strong advocate of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, although we talk about other stuff too.? ?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/ ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 16:39:38 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? In-Reply-To: <1316362338.35739.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316362338.35739.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316363978.97344.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Thanks,? I have joined and we see what it has to offer. Dennis From: john clark To: Dennis May ; ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? ?On Sun, 9/18/11, Dennis May wrote: Anyone have a recommendation for a group to listen in on >discussions of quantum computing?? Most I have been >able to locate are the same as dead.I've been on the Fabric of Reality list for many years, it's certainly not dead, it has over 22 thousand messages. It was started by David Deutsch who was one of the pioneers of quantum computing, he's also a strong advocate of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, although we talk about other stuff too.? ?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/ ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Sep 18 16:55:13 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:55:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <005101cc7482$1cf6ab40$56e401c0$@att.net> References: <1316175281.17516.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <005101cc7482$1cf6ab40$56e401c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110918165513.GA25711@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 08:05:45AM -0700, spike wrote: > Dennis, the ExI group is the biggest bunch of mavericks you ever saw, but > your comment expresses the closest to a consensus on any topic I have seen Definitely no consensus. > in my 14 yrs hanging out here. I think nearly everyone here recognizes Nukes are dead, Jim. Not that they're even renewable. > nukes have risks but no-nukes is a still riskier path. It was a dark time Don't look right now, but renewable is eathing both nuke and coal's lunch. Natural gas' next. > for me when those Japanese plants failed in the tsunami. Actually, they failed well before the tsunami. > > > We need to get with the program, building nukes, strato-solar or equivalent > notions, everything else we can think of, and (DAVAI)^3 get on it forthwith. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 17:23:08 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:23:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316357075.41752.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <4e752301.e113440a.6fe3.ffffa18b@mx.google.com> <1316357075.41752.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/18 Dennis May wrote: > Redistribution of wealth destroys innovation and markets. > > If the government reduced its footprint - problems of innovation > would solve themselves.? The decline of innovation coincides > with growth of the government footprint. > > For every innovation coming out of government more unseen > private innovations were destroyed.? Redistribution to government > stifles innovation.? Government taking from innovators cannot > spur net innovation. > The form of corporate mercantilism in the US has indeed redistributed wealth to the top 1% of the population and has destroyed innovation and markets. Markets need sellers AND buyers. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sun Sep 18 17:30:34 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:30:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <4e752301.e113440a.6fe3.ffffa18b@mx.google.com> <1316357075.41752.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <018401cc7628$ac639ac0$052ad040$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK 2011/9/18 Dennis May wrote: >> ...If the government reduced its footprint - problems of innovation would solve themselves.? The decline of innovation coincides with growth of the government footprint. >...Markets need sellers AND buyers...BillK Future buyers will be Chinese and Indian. For decades, we have had enormous cargo ships coming from China filled with manufactured goods, returning empty or filled with scrap. Is it so hard to imagine that as China rediscovers capitalism and rejects communism, their standard of living will soar compared to ours, and the buyers will be primarily Chinese? Then we can expect decades of ships heading east filled with goods manufactured in the west, returning nearly empty or filled with scrap. And yes, we will be damn poor compared to them, but life goes on. There is no inherent reason why the west should be more prosperous than the east, assuming similar levels of government intervention in the manufacturing process. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Sep 18 17:35:27 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <20110918165513.GA25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1316367327.8300.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Sun, 9/18/11, Eugen Leitl wrote: "Nukes are dead, Jim. Not that they're even renewable." Well yeah, nuclear fission is not renewable in the same sense that solar power is not renewable; the sun isn't making any new hydrogen so eventually it will run out and turn into a dim white dwarf. "Don't look right now, but renewable is eathing both nuke and coal's lunch. Natural gas' next." And that's why wind farms and solar panel companies don't need huge subsidies. Oh wait they do. Tax benefits are the only reason wind farms exist and Solyndra just went under taking over half a billion dollars of taxpayers money with it; they found out that selling solar panels for half of what it cost to make them was not a good business model. Maybe we'll need more than moonbeams and lollipops to power the world economy after all. Maybe its time to get serious. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Sep 18 18:16:06 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:16:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316367327.8300.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20110918165513.GA25711@leitl.org> <1316367327.8300.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110918181606.GM25711@leitl.org> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:35:27AM -0700, john clark wrote: > On Sun, 9/18/11, Eugen Leitl wrote: > "Nukes are dead, Jim. Not that they're even renewable." > Well yeah, nuclear fission is not renewable in the same sense that solar power is not renewable; the sun isn't making any new hydrogen so eventually it will run out and turn into a dim white dwarf. The sun is good for gigayears, peak fissible is less than half human life away. (No, I'm not interested in discussing that with you). > "Don't look right now, but renewable is eathing both nuke and coal's lunch. > Natural gas' next." > And that's why wind farms and solar panel companies don't need huge subsidies. And this is why fission and fossil don't need subsidies. Oh, wait. They do. > Oh wait they do. Tax benefits are the only reason wind farms exist and Solyndra > just went under taking over half a billion dollars of taxpayers money with it; > they found out that selling solar panels for half of what it cost to make them > was not a good business model. Maybe we'll need more than moonbeams and Snap, buzz, crackle, pop. I'm sorry, did you say anything? > lollipops to power the world economy after all. Maybe its time to get serious. This list was never really about the future, right? We've turned into fucking reactionary dinosaurs. Time to die. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 19:03:16 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:03:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316367327.8300.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20110918165513.GA25711@leitl.org> <1316367327.8300.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/18 john clark wrote: > And that's why wind farms and solar panel companies don't need huge subsidies. Oh wait they do. > Tax benefits are the only reason wind farms exist and Solyndra just went under taking over half a > billion dollars of taxpayers money with it; they found out that selling solar panels for half of what it > cost to make them was not a good business model. Maybe we'll need more than moonbeams and > lollipops to power the world economy after all. Maybe its time to get serious. > > Solyndra failed, as you say, because they didn't reduce production costs like other solar companies were doing. See: But solar power is a new booming industry. There are always lots of failures at the start of a new industry. (Remember all the failed Internet startups?). The government made a failed investment in the case of Solyndra, but other investments are doing nicely. Nobody can pick winners every time. Even venture funds make mistakes sometimes. ;) I think all western governments decided to encourage investments in renewable energy industries because private industry won't invest until they see a near-term profit. Governments need renewable energy in the near future and they don't want to wait until fuel is $20 USD per gallon. Germany (where Eugen is) is doing very nicely in the renewable energy races. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Sep 18 19:09:40 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:09:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Computational Codes and Biological Cells Message-ID: <7BC419CE19744A6284729ACEF06FD5E2@DFC68LF1> Does anyone know of project where codes are successfully injected into cells? I found research projects, but not specific example of a facility that it doing this as a practice. For example, here are two research projects: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-biological-cancer-cells.html http://dehesa.freeshell.org/CC2/ Thank you! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Chair, Humanity+ PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK Co-Editor, The Transhumanist Reader -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 20:30:32 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <20110918165513.GA25711@leitl.org> <1316367327.8300.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316377832.51817.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Every cent redistributed from productive enterprises into "green" energy further damages the economy.? The numbers don't add up for solar or wind except in niche applications. More and more government investment into losing enterprises with the money being pocketed by political patrons isn't going to change the simple physics and economics that solar and wind will never amount to much.? If Germany wants to go broke like Spain chasing green energy there is no reason to follow their foolish path. ? Once you move outside of the U235 path into other nuclear energies there is enough to power civilization until well after the sun itself becomes a problem. ? Dennis May From: BillK To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change 2011/9/18 john clark wrote: > And that's why wind farms and solar panel companies don't need huge subsidies. Oh wait they do. > Tax benefits are the only reason wind farms exist and Solyndra just went under taking over half a > billion dollars of taxpayers money with it; they found out that selling solar panels for half of what it > cost to make them was not a good business model. Maybe we'll need more than moonbeams and > lollipops to power the world economy after all. Maybe its time to get serious. > > Solyndra failed, as you say, because they didn't reduce production costs like other solar companies were doing. See: But solar power is a new booming industry. There are always lots of failures at the start of a new industry. (Remember all the failed Internet startups?).? The government made a failed investment in the case of Solyndra, but other investments are doing nicely.? Nobody can pick winners every time. Even venture funds make mistakes sometimes. ;) I think all western governments decided to encourage investments in renewable energy industries because private industry won't invest until they see a near-term profit. Governments need renewable energy in the near future and they don't want to wait until fuel is $20 USD per gallon. Germany (where Eugen is) is doing very nicely in the renewable energy races. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mrjones2020 at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 20:53:18 2011 From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (Mr Jones) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:53:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316233379.64300.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316233379.64300.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/17 john clark > Incidentally he got wealthy the old fashioned American way, he chose his > parents carefully. I've often wished I'd've been born rich, instead of so damn good looking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 20:33:29 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:33:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Request for help with malware "mystery" Message-ID: I'm in need of some computer-savvy assistance. Some time back I ran across this web page (don't go there just yet): http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html It shows a Shockwave player animation of the shifting borders in the mideast from 3000 BCE through 2006 CE. But I hadn't bookmarked the page on this -- my desktop -- computer, so to view it again today I had to track it down. When I Googled it, and found it, this is what I saw: Imperial History of the Middle East - Maps of War www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html This site may harm your computer. Maps-of-War is a multimedia site dedicated to producing diverse, creative visuals that enhance our understanding of war and its history. Note the line: "This site may harm your computer." Well, that warning, understandably, gave me pause. But I was suspicious. I'd been to the site many times before. Never had any trouble, leastwise none that made itself known to me or my anti-virus software. Call me paranoid, but I thought maybe someone wanted to discourage traffic to the site. Maybe someone had hacked the site and planted malware, which was then picked up by malware scanners, or maybe someone has filed a false "malware on this site" report. I went to the site despite the warning. Subsequently I ran a full scan with my Malwarebytes AV software. Nothing. Clean. (At least according to Malwarebytes.) [If you Google: site:mapsofwar.com, you get the full list of 51 sublinks, each containing the warning: "This site may harm your computer."] I Googled around -- Google malware warnings, firefox malware warnings, false malware warnings -- but couldn't find anything to verify the basis of the warning, or find any info regarding the putative malware. I sent a message to the website owners asking for clarification, but that was only minutes ago and I haven't yet received word back. Can anyone here shed some light on this? Best, Jeff Davis "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." Winston Churchill From spike66 at att.net Sun Sep 18 20:51:28 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:51:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change Message-ID: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change 2011/9/18 john clark wrote: >> ...And that's why wind farms and solar panel companies don't need huge subsidies... >...Solyndra failed, as you say, because they didn't reduce production costs like other solar companies were doing... Solyndra did not reduce production costs, because they could not. Read on please. >...I think all western governments decided to encourage investments in renewable energy industries because private industry won't invest until they see a near-term profit. Governments need renewable energy in the near future and they don't want to wait until fuel is $20 USD per gallon...BillK Hmmm, BillK, partially right but there is a huge important factor you are not taking into account. It's an America thing which I don't think applies to Britain, so no criticism for missing this. No sane investor would have put money into Solyndra because their factory was in a non-right-to-work state. We already had a local solar panel manufacturer, First Solar in Santa Clara, but it wisely located its factory in neighboring Arizona, which is a right-to-work state where labor prices are within reason. In California, factory workers are forced to join the union. Unions drive up wages and costs. Consequently, no sane investor should ever put a dime into any company which has a production facility or any labor-intensive operation in any non-right-to-work state. In a narrow-margin manufacturing enterprise, unions cause companies to fail eventually. They can do engineering in non-RTW states, but generally not manufacturing. They will lose money on every sale while trying to make it up by increasing the number of sales. The big scandal brewing in the US is that the fed already knew this investment was a sure loser, but did it anyway. This deal shines a spotlight on the business incompetence of our current US government, and why governments should not be picking winners and losers. I predict this will result in the current leading party's brutal slaughter in the elections a year from now. The alternative may be even worse than this crazy bunch. Here's your map: http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm Invest only in these states in blue. If the US government invests anywhere outside those 22 blue states, they are using taxpayer money to buy votes. The failure of any such enterprise is as inevitable as the sunrise. spike ps For our Jon Stewart fans, here is his hilarious take on it: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/daily-show-on-solyndra-scan dal-its-not-easy-being-green-video.php {8^D From mrjones2020 at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 20:49:00 2011 From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (Mr Jones) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:49:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316377832.51817.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <20110918165513.GA25711@leitl.org> <1316367327.8300.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316377832.51817.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The problem summed up...We see the world as something we've inherited from our ancestors, rather than something we've borrowed from our children. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. We're failing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sun Sep 18 21:30:02 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:30:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> Message-ID: <201109182130.p8ILUgmZ021964@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike wrote: >http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm > >Invest only in these states in blue. If the US government invests anywhere >outside those 22 blue states, they are using taxpayer money to buy votes. >The failure of any such enterprise is as inevitable as the sunrise. Thanks for the link. I am dismayed to see that past libertarian bastions Alaska and New Hampshire are not Right to Work. But the Republicans regained control of the NH state house, senate, and executive council last year, so I should see if something's afoot. (The governor's a Democrat but isn't running for re-election next year.) I keep toying with running for state rep, since it's pretty easy to get elected. But it doesn't even pay enough to cover my gas to get to Concord and I have other priorities. And my father's pursuit of elective office was probably plenty for one family. -- David. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 22:18:13 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:18:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Dennis May wrote: snip (mostly agree) > The sheer energy density of nuclear power means > it dwarfs all other options. Discounting the cost of fuel to zero, the relevant number is kg/kW. The pressure vessel alone for a 1 GW plant is about 2000 tonnes. Fuel assemblies, steam generators, pumps, turbines and generators run this up by a factor of 5-10. That's 10-20 kg/kW and I may be on the low side. You may be able to put a better number on it as well as an estimate for the cents per kWh they will produce. ? Much of the time > delay for implementation of nuclear power > plants can be reduced by going to standardized > designs. So far that doesn't seem to have happened. Fukushima didn't help either. At $5,000 to $8,000 per kw, the power cost is going to range up to 10 cents per kWh based on capital cost alone. > As far as big solar projects go - I see them as > being of interest in industrializing space > not moving space nuclear energy [sun] to > the Earth when there are plenty of Earth > based nuclear energy possibilities with much > less capital risk. Perhaps you are right. But without selling power to earth, I don't see space being industrialized this side of the singularity at all. There is an awful front end cost to get the cost of transport down, but if it can get down to where it is no more than a third of the cost per kW of capacity, then we are talking power cost based on $1600/kW or less. And construction times measured in weeks. If we can't get SBSP cost down in this range, then you really should start thinking about what it would take to build and fuel 1000 new reactors a year. This might interest some people here: http://spacefellowship.com/news/art26681/nasa-announces-two-game-changing-space-technology-projects.html There is serious work starting on beamed energy propulsion. Keith > ? > Dennis May > > From: Keith Henson > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 5:46 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:06 PM,? Dennis May wrote: > >> The projections of what will happen economically >> without massive nuclear energy development is >> not pretty.? Even if that effort began immediately >> it is not clear it could happen fast enough. > > The length of time it takes to build nuclear plants is a big reason to > look at other approaches.? I am not at all sure even what is the best > approach or mix of approaches to get really inexpensive energy.? I can > state that it need to be down in the 1-2 cents per kWh.? That's $800 > to $1600 per kW based on return of capital in ten years and it needs > to scale to 15-20 TW over 20 years. > > That's building around a 1000 1 GW reactors per year. > > I have not looked into this in detail.? I have looked into SBSP and > StratoSolar and they look possible.? Perhaps you know about reactors? > > It seems better to me at this stage to state what is needed in broad > terms rather than being too specific about how to accomplish the task. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:53:52 -0700 (PDT) > From: john clark > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change. > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ?<1316321632.46095.YahooMailClassic at web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > ?BillK wrote: > "Well, the southern USA states have had their worst wildfire season > ever and Texas is still burning. I guess the message will get through eventually. But I suppose that's just a little local fluctuation in temperature?" > So let's see, if there's a very bad blizzard in the winter, as there was just a few months ago, it would be foolish to think that had anything to do with long term global climate change; but if there is a heat wave in the summer that proves the entire planet is getting hotter and is facing disaster. > > "If a US billionaire wanted to produce a new product his first thought would be to get quotes from Chinese factories." > > Correct, and they would do that because it would be cheaper to operate a plant in China than in the USA. > > "That's why the US people are facing poverty and living off food stamps." > > So if workers in the USA are unwilling to work for a wage because they think it's too small even though they are "facing poverty" but Chinese workers are willing to do so then it follows logically that the Chinese workers must be even poorer than the poverty facing workers in the USA. > > "The rich are China's friends." > > Right, or to put it another way, the rich are friends of the poorest of the poor. > > ? John K Clark > > > > > > > ? > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:45:27 -0700 (PDT) > From: Dennis May > To: "extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org" > Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ?<1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo at web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Anyone have a recommendation for a group to listen in on > discussions of quantum computing?? Most I have been > able to locate are the same as dead. > ? > Dennis May > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:36:49 +0100 > From: BillK > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > 2011/9/17 kellycoinguy wrote: >> Bill.. If the rich want to produce spatulas or vacuums.. Then yes they go to >> China to get them built... But if they want true innovation, rather that >> rote duplication of stuff that has already been done, then there is still no >> place to beat the USA. >> >> A big part of successful innovation is venture capital. China's government >> funds some research.. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the US >> private investment in true innovation. >> > > > Your first comment agrees that production facilities are cheaper and > more productive in China. So more US innovation won't create much > employment in the US. > > The financial press has noted that some (many?) US companies are not > bringing new products to market because in the current economic > depression consumer demand has collapsed. The depressed market doesn't > want innovation. The US needs jobs first, then people will have money > to spend. > > There is much concern that US innovation is falling behind other > countries. Even Obama has commented on this. A recent report is here: > > > The pace of US innovation has slowed since the 1970s. Mainly because > government funded research has halved. Basic research is funded by > government. (Barcodes, fiber optics, MRI machines and GPS technology > are just a few of the innovations that came out of government-funded > basic research). > Venture capital funds the development of new trinkets for individual > firms to manufacture in China and sell in the US and make a profit. > And they need consumers willing and able to buy their trinkets. > > > BillK > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 96, Issue 26 > ******************************************** > From atymes at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 21:40:53 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:40:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:51 PM, spike wrote: > No sane investor would have put money into Solyndra because their factory > was in a non-right-to-work state. ?We already had a local solar panel > manufacturer, First Solar in Santa Clara, but it wisely located its factory > in neighboring Arizona, which is a right-to-work state where labor prices > are within reason. ?In California, factory workers are forced to join the > union. ?Unions drive up wages and costs. ?Consequently, no sane investor > should ever put a dime into any company which has a production facility or > any labor-intensive operation in any non-right-to-work state. ?In a > narrow-margin manufacturing enterprise, unions cause companies to fail > eventually. ?They can do engineering in non-RTW states, but generally not > manufacturing. ?They will lose money on every sale while trying to make it > up by increasing the number of sales. One thing I don't get: even if the state doesn't forbid union-card companies (and, honestly, what's the point of a union if a company can simply hire non-union workers at will), why does that mandate that any given company must agree to unionization? If its workers vote to unionize, simply dismiss those who are not happy working non-union. If a lot of workers want to unionize, then you're probably doing something wrong in terms of worker treatment, and would get more productive workers by remedying the problem instead of agreeing to unionization. Of course, my perspective may be skewed by working in an industry (software, especially for small startups) where unionization efforts have been repeatedly rejected by the workers. From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 22:18:50 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:18:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Request for help with malware "mystery" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > I'm in need of some computer-savvy assistance. ... > Note the line: ?"This site may harm your computer." Google offers this commentary as some form of public service that is has noticed the site may have been used to deliver attack code. I experienced this notice on one of our corporate websites after a successful drive-by sql injection. If that is the case, then the site itself may be the victom because it's only fault was not being more protected from malicious intent. Most likely the defacement was fixed within hours (speaking from experience) but the notice might persist for a long time after the cleanup. Also, google might have detected media that exploits certain misfeatures of IE - so the "may harm your computer" notice could be true if you have the exploitable browser and OS that a known vector is using. I could also be unaware of some newer or more-complicated reason for google's warning. You're probably smart enough to know that any/all sites "may" harm your computer and have already invested reasonable countermeasures. I'd say that the suspicion/paranoia you experienced is generally healthy even if there is no cause for alarm regarding the site you mentioned. disclaimer: Given the value of a dollar these days, my $0.02 may be worth even less than it used to. From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 23:11:57 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? In-Reply-To: References: <1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316362338.35739.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316363978.97344.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316387517.59712.YahooMailNeo@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> My interest stems from something I worked on back in the 1986-1987 time frame which has relevance to quantum computing.? The work was never taken up by anyone else as far as I can tell.? I need to understand more about the current art as I expand on my earlier work to see if it will be useful. ? Dennis May From: Noon Silk To: Dennis May ; ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? 2011/9/19 Dennis May Thanks,? I have joined and we see what it has to offer. It's mostly philosphy. ? Dennis > -- Noon Silk Fancy a quantum lunch? http://groups.google.com/group/quantum-lunch?hl=en "Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy ? the joy of being this signature." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 23:22:18 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Unions Message-ID: <1316388138.84395.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Unions can represent one more form of uncertainty when making economic calculations.? In some companies and industries unions reduce uncertainty because the company now has one face to deal with instead of a large number of individuals.? This?advantage?generally exists in lower pay jobs in high turn over locations and industries.? If an employee doesn't get satisfaction it falls on the union. ? For the majority of industries the uncertainty created by unions raises the cost of operation and is sometimes enough to drive them out of the state or out of certain locations. ? There are a number of unpleasant facts and sometimes risk in?dealing with unions.? Violence, property destruction, work disruptions, organized crime, political interference, political payoffs to Democrats, and collaboration with seedy groups. ? If I were to locate a new company I would only consider right to work states. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 23:45:09 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:45:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316389509.89611.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Keith Henson wrote: ? "But without selling power to earth, I don't see space being industrialized this side of the singularity at all." I see automated and remote mining and manufacturing ahead of human presence as the way to get space? industrialization done on the cheap.? A few high value products and materials would be worth sending back to Earth. ? Dennis May From: Keith Henson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:00 AM,? Dennis May wrote: snip (mostly agree) > The sheer energy density of nuclear power means > it dwarfs all other options. Discounting the cost of fuel to zero, the relevant number is kg/kW. The pressure vessel alone for a 1 GW plant is about 2000 tonnes.? Fuel assemblies, steam generators, pumps, turbines and generators run this up by a factor of 5-10.? That's 10-20 kg/kW and I may be on the low side.? You may be able to put a better number on it as well as an estimate for the cents per kWh they will produce. ? Much of the time > delay for implementation of nuclear power > plants can be reduced by going to standardized > designs. So far that doesn't seem to have happened.? Fukushima didn't help either. At $5,000 to $8,000 per kw, the power cost is going to range up to 10 cents per kWh based on capital cost alone. > As far as big solar projects go - I see them as > being of interest in industrializing space > not moving space nuclear energy [sun] to > the Earth when there are plenty of Earth > based nuclear energy possibilities with much > less capital risk. Perhaps you are right.? But without selling power to earth, I don't see space being industrialized this side of the singularity at all. There is an awful front end cost to get the cost of transport down, but if it can get down to where it is no more than a third of the cost per kW of capacity, then we are talking power cost based on $1600/kW or less. And construction times measured in weeks. If we can't get SBSP cost down in this range, then you really should start thinking about what it would take to build and fuel 1000 new reactors a year. This might interest some people here: http://spacefellowship.com/news/art26681/nasa-announces-two-game-changing-space-technology-projects.html There is serious work starting on beamed energy propulsion. Keith > ? > Dennis May > > From: Keith Henson > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 5:46 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:06 PM,? Dennis May wrote: > >> The projections of what will happen economically >> without massive nuclear energy development is >> not pretty.? Even if that effort began immediately >> it is not clear it could happen fast enough. > > The length of time it takes to build nuclear plants is a big reason to > look at other approaches.? I am not at all sure even what is the best > approach or mix of approaches to get really inexpensive energy.? I can > state that it need to be down in the 1-2 cents per kWh.? That's $800 > to $1600 per kW based on return of capital in ten years and it needs > to scale to 15-20 TW over 20 years. > > That's building around a 1000 1 GW reactors per year. > > I have not looked into this in detail.? I have looked into SBSP and > StratoSolar and they look possible.? Perhaps you know about reactors? > > It seems better to me at this stage to state what is needed in broad > terms rather than being too specific about how to accomplish the task. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:53:52 -0700 (PDT) > From: john clark > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change. > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ?<1316321632.46095.YahooMailClassic at web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > ?BillK wrote: > "Well, the southern USA states have had their worst wildfire season > ever and Texas is still burning. I guess the message will get through eventually. But I suppose that's just a little local fluctuation in temperature?" > So let's see, if there's a very bad blizzard in the winter, as there was just a few months ago, it would be foolish to think that had anything to do with long term global climate change; but if there is a heat wave in the summer that proves the entire planet is getting hotter and is facing disaster. > > "If a US billionaire wanted to produce a new product his first thought would be to get quotes from Chinese factories." > > Correct, and they would do that because it would be cheaper to operate a plant in China than in the USA. > > "That's why the US people are facing poverty and living off food stamps." > > So if workers in the USA are unwilling to work for a wage because they think it's too small even though they are "facing poverty" but Chinese workers are willing to do so then it follows logically that the Chinese workers must be even poorer than the poverty facing workers in the USA. > > "The rich are China's friends." > > Right, or to put it another way, the rich are friends of the poorest of the poor. > > ? John K Clark > > > > > > > ? > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:45:27 -0700 (PDT) > From: Dennis May > To: "extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org" > Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ?<1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo at web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Anyone have a recommendation for a group to listen in on > discussions of quantum computing?? Most I have been > able to locate are the same as dead. > ? > Dennis May > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:36:49 +0100 > From: BillK > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > 2011/9/17 kellycoinguy wrote: >> Bill.. If the rich want to produce spatulas or vacuums.. Then yes they go to >> China to get them built... But if they want true innovation, rather that >> rote duplication of stuff that has already been done, then there is still no >> place to beat the USA. >> >> A big part of successful innovation is venture capital. China's government >> funds some research.. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the US >> private investment in true innovation. >> > > > Your first comment agrees that production facilities are cheaper and > more productive in China. So more US innovation won't create much > employment in the US. > > The financial press has noted that some (many?) US companies are not > bringing new products to market because in the current economic > depression consumer demand has collapsed. The depressed market doesn't > want innovation. The US needs jobs first, then people will have money > to spend. > > There is much concern that US innovation is falling behind other > countries. Even Obama has commented on this. A recent report is here: > > > The pace of US innovation has slowed since the 1970s. Mainly because > government funded research has halved. Basic research is funded by > government. (Barcodes, fiber optics, MRI machines and GPS technology > are just a few of the innovations that came out of government-funded > basic research). > Venture capital funds the development of new trinkets for individual > firms to manufacture in China and sell in the US and make a profit. > And they need consumers willing and able to buy their trinkets. > > > BillK > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 96, Issue 26 > ******************************************** > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 00:06:05 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:06:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Unions In-Reply-To: <1316388138.84395.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316388138.84395.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dennis, You seem to be edging your way into a political discussion slash confrontation. I've noticed a couple of comments aimed at lefties. Let me advise against it. Creates flamage. Wastes time. Also we have a few lefties on the list. None are pushovers. If you have a political or economic point to make, best to stick with the facts of the particular case so that analysis/discussion can be fact-based rather than ideology/partisanship based. Just a suggestion. Welcome to the list. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles 2011/9/18 Dennis May : > Unions can represent one more form of uncertainty when > making economic calculations.? In some companies and > industries unions reduce uncertainty because the company > now has one face to deal with instead of a large number > of individuals.? This?advantage?generally exists in lower > pay jobs in high turn over locations and industries.? If an > employee doesn't get satisfaction it falls on the union. > > For the majority of industries the uncertainty created by > unions raises the cost of operation and is sometimes > enough to drive them out of the state or out of certain > locations. > > There are a number of unpleasant facts and sometimes > risk in?dealing with unions.? Violence, property destruction, > work disruptions, organized crime, political interference, > political payoffs to Democrats, and collaboration with > seedy groups. > > If I were to locate a new company I would only > consider right to work states. > > Dennis May > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From spike66 at att.net Mon Sep 19 01:13:56 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:13:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Unions In-Reply-To: References: <1316388138.84395.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002401cc7669$686adfe0$39409fa0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Jeff Davis Subject: Re: [ExI] Unions >...Dennis, You seem to be edging your way into a political discussion slash confrontation... Apologies Jeff, I started it with my ridicule of the Solyndra deal. Agreed, no need to go there now. >...Welcome to the list. Best, Jeff Davis Indeed so, Dennis. Welcome, and do tell us something about Dennis if you wish. spike From dennislmay at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 02:45:03 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Unions In-Reply-To: <002401cc7669$686adfe0$39409fa0$@att.net> References: <1316388138.84395.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <002401cc7669$686adfe0$39409fa0$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316400303.74824.YahooMailNeo@web112104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> My background: ? Physics, engineering physics, engineering Military R&D Interest in QM and a variety of technology subjects ? Dan Ust suggested I join Exi ? Dennis From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Unions >... On Behalf Of Jeff Davis Subject: Re: [ExI] Unions >...Dennis, You seem to be edging your way into a political discussion slash confrontation... Apologies Jeff, I started it with my ridicule of the Solyndra deal.? Agreed, no need to go there now. >...Welcome to the list.? Best, Jeff Davis Indeed so, Dennis.? Welcome, and do tell us something about Dennis if you wish. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at kurzweilai.net Mon Sep 19 04:11:48 2011 From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:11:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems Message-ID: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Does anyone know of a system for automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised intelligent hyperintelligent learning systems? Imagine a human as an alien spacecraft for which there is no information, so engineers must use black-box analysis to reverse-engineer its design and functions. Now imagine that human with the most advanced self-tracking/monitoring systems imaginable, combined with instrumentation for monitoring all of the imaginable external physical phenomena -- light, sound, speech-to-text, videos being watched, etc., and other people, all recorded in multi-cam HD video and analyzed in real time (motion capture, object detection, movement detection, etc.). Further imagine that this system could systematically modify the environment (light, sound, etc.) while monitoring the human's responses and that of other people and the real world. The system would be compiling a massive realtime multi-yettabyte database while running realtime testing routines in a bank of supercomputers. Now how long do you think it would take such a system to reverse-engineer human intelligence and function and pass a more sophisticated version of the Turing test based on interacting with humans in RT/RL (real time/real life), initially at say, fly level, then cat level, then working up to human genius level and passing it, outputting advanced versions of itself. And is anyone developing something like this, or do I have to take off a few days and develop it myself? OK, a few centuries.... I haven't found anything on this except for Anders Sandberg's highly imaginative "Think Before Asking," http://eclipsephase.com/downloads/ThinkBeforeAsking.pdf, which touches on some aspects of this. All ideas, especially skeptical ones (so I don't waste time on blind alleys) would be greatly appreciated. Yes, this is a totally insane idea, but is it insane enough? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 06:23:36 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:23:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316377832.51817.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <20110918165513.GA25711@leitl.org> <1316367327.8300.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316377832.51817.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110919062336.GH25711@leitl.org> You're top-posting and not trimming your replies (message unchanged below). On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 01:30:32PM -0700, Dennis May wrote: > Every cent redistributed from productive enterprises into > "green" energy further damages the economy.? The numbers > don't add up for solar or wind except in niche applications. > More and more government investment into losing enterprises > with the money being pocketed by political patrons isn't > going to change the simple physics and economics that solar > and wind will never amount to much.? If Germany wants to > go broke like Spain chasing green energy there is no reason > to follow their foolish path. > ? > Once you move outside of the U235 path into other > nuclear energies there is enough to power civilization > until well after the sun itself becomes a problem. > ? > Dennis May > > From: BillK > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 2:03 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change > > 2011/9/18 john clark wrote: > > And that's why wind farms and solar panel companies don't need huge subsidies. Oh wait they do. > > Tax benefits are the only reason wind farms exist and Solyndra just went under taking over half a > > billion dollars of taxpayers money with it; they found out that selling solar panels for half of what it > > cost to make them was not a good business model. Maybe we'll need more than moonbeams and > > lollipops to power the world economy after all. Maybe its time to get serious. > > > > > > Solyndra failed, as you say, because they didn't reduce production > costs like other solar companies were doing. > See: > > > But solar power is a new booming industry. There are always lots of > failures at the start of a new industry. (Remember all the failed > Internet startups?).? The government made a failed investment in the > case of Solyndra, but other investments are doing nicely.? Nobody can > pick winners every time. Even venture funds make mistakes sometimes. > ;) > > I think all western governments decided to encourage investments in > renewable energy industries because private industry won't invest > until they see a near-term profit. Governments need renewable energy > in the near future and they don't want to wait until fuel is $20 USD > per gallon. > > Germany (where Eugen is) is doing very nicely in the renewable energy races. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 06:31:04 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:31:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <20110918165513.GA25711@leitl.org> <1316367327.8300.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316377832.51817.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110919063104.GJ25711@leitl.org> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 04:49:00PM -0400, Mr Jones wrote: > The problem summed up...We see the world as something we've inherited from > our ancestors, rather than something we've borrowed from our children. If > you fail to plan, you plan to fail. We're failing. We don't have to plan. You forgot THE SINGULARITY! Have faith, brothers. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 07:04:38 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110919070438.GK25711@leitl.org> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 03:18:13PM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Dennis May wrote: > > snip (mostly agree) > > > The sheer energy density of nuclear power means > > it dwarfs all other options. This is a particularly batshit crazy remark. Coarse-grained high energy density installations a) produce the power far from where it is consumed, requiring expensive transformation and redistribution infrastructure, and high lossess b) default to the Corium failure mode https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corium_%28nuclear_reactor%29 Building-integrated thin-film PV is air-cooled and produces power exactly where it is consumed. Low energy density is a *feature*, especially in the context of scalability from uW to GW. > ? Much of the time > > delay for implementation of nuclear power > > plants can be reduced by going to standardized > > designs. > > So far that doesn't seem to have happened. Fukushima didn't help either. There are standartized designs. The time delay is due to approval, construction and safety measures (which cause chronical cost creep). It's a mature industry in slow failure mode. If you look at the numbers over last 30 years, you do not see a young, high-growth industry. It's dead, Jim. > At $5,000 to $8,000 per kw, the power cost is going to range up to 10 > cents per kWh based on capital cost alone. > > > As far as big solar projects go - I see them as > > being of interest in industrializing space > > not moving space nuclear energy [sun] to > > the Earth when there are plenty of Earth > > based nuclear energy possibilities with much > > less capital risk. > > Perhaps you are right. But without selling power to earth, I don't > see space being industrialized this side of the singularity at all. We don't need space industrialization for the next 50 years. However, we will need massive amounts of industrialization soon after, so why not starting now? > There is an awful front end cost to get the cost of transport down, > but if it can get down to where it is no more than a third of the cost > per kW of capacity, then we are talking power cost based on $1600/kW > or less. > > And construction times measured in weeks. > > If we can't get SBSP cost down in this range, then you really should > start thinking about what it would take to build and fuel 1000 new > reactors a year. > > This might interest some people here: > > http://spacefellowship.com/news/art26681/nasa-announces-two-game-changing-space-technology-projects.html > > There is serious work starting on beamed energy propulsion. "Ride the light" sounds great, but consider that even defense will be cut. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 08:28:42 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:28:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 9:51 PM, spike wrote: > Solyndra did not reduce production costs, because they could not. ?Read on > please. > > No sane investor would have put money into Solyndra because their factory > was in a non-right-to-work state. ?We already had a local solar panel > manufacturer, First Solar in Santa Clara, but it wisely located its factory > in neighboring Arizona, which is a right-to-work state where labor prices > are within reason. ?In California, factory workers are forced to join the > union. ?Unions drive up wages and costs. I been reading the reports about Solyndra and the financial people don't appear to be claiming that wage costs were the big problem. Only the traditional union bashers are doing this. The situation is obviously confused and being investigated by the FBI. There may even be fraud involved. But their big problem seems to have been a technical problem. They were trying to develop new cylinder-shaped solar devices, which convert sunlight into electricity using a thin film made mainly of copper, indium, gallium and selenium. Standard solar panels are flat and made from silicon. The company said its product was easier to install and lighter, giving it an edge over conventional panels, especially for large rooftops that can?t handle the weight of flat panels. But their auditors didn't like the company accounts. In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on March 16, 2010, Quote: ?The company has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders? deficit,? PricewaterhouseCoopers said. The challenge facing Solyndra only increased as prices of the silicon used in conventional solar panels from China fell, declining 30 percent this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. ?When polysilicon prices dropped Solyndra?s value proposition evaporated,? Joseph Berwind, managing partner of Alternative Energy Investing LLC in Summit, New Jersey, and the author of ?Investing in Solar Stocks,? said in an interview. ------------------------ So they gambled on a new technology, but prices dropped on the old technology and so they ran out of money. To me that seems a reasonable type of failure for a startup in a new fast-changing industry. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 08:32:14 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:32:14 +0200 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110919083214.GT25711@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:28:42AM +0100, BillK wrote: > I been reading the reports about Solyndra and the financial people > don't appear to be claiming that wage costs were the big problem. Only If renewable is dead because of Solyndra, then nuclear is dead because of Siemens http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110918-37657.html Silly? Very. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 08:46:27 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:46:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Having money In-Reply-To: References: <201109171435.p8HEZAxj018386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20110919084627.GW25711@leitl.org> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 04:47:24PM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote: > OTOH, the electronic thing still does not satisfy me entirely. After I got my Nook color, I stopped buying dead tree. The eBooks are here, yet the publishing industry apparently learned nothing from the debacle of music and video industries. Poor authors. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 08:51:00 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:51:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] rich people are our friends. was: RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <002001cc7555$80baaf90$82300eb0$@att.net> References: <002001cc7555$80baaf90$82300eb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110919085100.GX25711@leitl.org> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 09:18:56AM -0700, spike wrote: > Especially if we are not one of them. Not if you have the kind of income disparity US and 3rd world has. (It's not sustainable, of course). From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 11:56:54 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:56:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] nasa announces new launch vehicle In-Reply-To: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110919115654.GJ25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:37:56PM -0700, spike wrote: > I don't know what to think of this: > > > > http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html > > > > Do you? Yes. 30 years too late, and do they even have the cash? If you can't pay Pentagon, will you be able to pay NASA? That's a very intesting question the answer to which we'll soon find out. From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 13:12:40 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:12:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: 2011/9/19 Amara D. Angelica : > Does anyone know of a system for automated black-box-based system design of > unsupervised intelligent hyperintelligent learning systems? [snip] > All ideas, especially skeptical ones (so I don't waste time on blind alleys) > would be greatly appreciated. > > Yes, this is a totally insane idea, but is it insane enough? You can't build something smarter than yourself. You might be able to evolve something that gets smarter. It'd be a good idea to start on that as soon as possible. All things being equal, anyone who has started sooner than you has already won. Your only advantage would be if you are sufficiently smarter (clever-er) than they were at start. If you're preparing to examine aliens, you might want to use crowdsource computing and instead advance the world's communication network(s) so humanity is better able to exchange information in real time. Until your supercomputer has enough on-board computing power to outmatch humanity and its data collection/processing ability (7billion nodes, each capable of observation/synthesis of ideas, etc) then we might well use people for part of the solution. Insane enough? no. add more insanity; I can still understand what you're talking about. From spike66 at att.net Mon Sep 19 15:04:44 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:04:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> Message-ID: <009001cc76dd$77a984b0$66fc8e10$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 9:51 PM, spike wrote: >> Solyndra did not reduce production costs, because they could not. ? >> No sane investor would have put money into Solyndra because their >> factory was in a non-right-to-work state... >...I been reading the reports about Solyndra and the financial people don't appear to be claiming that wage costs were the big problem. Only the traditional union bashers are doing this. The situation is obviously confused and being investigated by the FBI. There may even be fraud involved... Perhaps so, but my argument is that Solyndra never had the *potential* to get their wages down, even after the tooling and fixed assets were capitalized. There is a residual cost in wages and wages are stubbornly high in California with little potential of dropping in the immediately foreseeable. If a factory here wishes to compete on any manufactured item, they need a lights-out factory. But that isn't what they were building. That in itself was a disappointment: the Silicon Valley is a great high tech center with the kinds of people needed to build a lights-out factory. Then the main market would be China and India. But Solyndra didn't go after that market niche, they went after the domestic market which couldn't afford those products because of high unemployment. This makes no sense. There is another home solar niche I have been thinking about: one that can be expanded with minimal installation cost. Now we have these big panels that are costly and require an electrician to install. So to get into the game costs many thousands of dollars up front. What we need is some kind of solar product that can be started small and expanded a couple hundred dollars at a time, that can be installed by the homeowner. spike From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 15:21:55 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:21:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <009001cc76dd$77a984b0$66fc8e10$@att.net> References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> <009001cc76dd$77a984b0$66fc8e10$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110919152155.GQ25711@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:04:44AM -0700, spike wrote: > There is another home solar niche I have been thinking about: one that can Niches will be filled up as industry matures. Growth rates like http://www.pv-tech.org/news/solarbuzz_reports_us_non_residential_solar_project_pipeline_reaches_24gw_on are the opposite of maturity. > be expanded with minimal installation cost. Now we have these big panels > that are costly and require an electrician to install. So to get into the Building your house takes an electrician. When I want to buy a house, I expect the integrated photovoltaics being part of the turn-key system, just the way I can get a Passivhaus or even a zero-energy house off-shelf. Or you can outsource the thing to your architect, if yours is not a stock design delievered turn-key. > game costs many thousands of dollars up front. What we need is some kind of > solar product that can be started small and expanded a couple hundred > dollars at a time, that can be installed by the homeowner. There are inverterless (actually, built-in microinverters) which can be bought and installed incrementally. As to the skills required, electricity can and does kill. You don't want your electric work done by a bozo. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Mon Sep 19 15:22:04 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:22:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nasa announces new launch vehicle In-Reply-To: <20110919115654.GJ25711@leitl.org> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <20110919115654.GJ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <009d01cc76df$e34eab30$a9ec0190$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Subject: Re: [ExI] nasa announces new launch vehicle On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:37:56PM -0700, spike wrote: >> I don't know what to think of this: >> http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html >30 years too late, and do they even have the cash? >If you can't pay Pentagon, will you be able to pay NASA? >That's a very interesting question the answer to which we'll soon find out. The foremost mission as described by NASA chief Charlie Bolden doesn't sound all that expensive: Bolden: When I became the NASA Administrator - before I became the NASA Administrator - [Obama] charged me with three things: One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Mormon world and engage much more with dominantly Mormon nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-s-new-mission -nasa-reach-out-muslim-world We set up a facility in Salt Lake City and keep telling the Mormons what a critically important historic contribution they have made, and we are there. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Sep 19 15:26:04 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <20110918181606.GM25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1316445964.52622.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Sun, 9/18/11, Eugen Leitl wrote: "The sun is good for gigayears" Yes, and at present consumption fission on Earth might only last us 10 to 100 million years, so I admit that is a difference. "peak fissible is less than half human life away." Premium grade triple distilled extra virgin BULLSHIT! Thorium can be used in fission, it produces less and shorter lived radioactive decay products than Uranium, it makes almost no Plutonium that could be used in bombs, it is almost as common as Lead and unlike most present reactors that only use .7% of the Uranium (the U235) in a Thorium reactor you use 100% of the Thorium. ? "No, I'm not interested in discussing that with you" Yes and I can see why, you don't want to be confused with the facts. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 15:50:59 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:50:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316445964.52622.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20110918181606.GM25711@leitl.org> <1316445964.52622.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110919155059.GR25711@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:26:04AM -0700, john clark wrote: > On Sun, 9/18/11, Eugen Leitl wrote: > "The sun is good for gigayears" > Yes, and at present consumption fission on Earth might only last us 10 to 100 million years, so I admit that is a difference. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379 Yes, you can disagree, but I'm not interested in discussing specifics of EROEI of dilute resource enrichment. The issue is settled for me. If it's not settled for you, I'm fine with that. Let's agree to disagree. > "peak fissible is less than half human life away." > Premium grade triple distilled extra virgin BULLSHIT! > Thorium can be used in fission, it produces less and shorter > lived radioactive decay products than Uranium, it makes almost > no Plutonium that could be used in bombs, it is almost as common > as Lead and unlike most present reactors that only use .7% of > the Uranium (the U235) in a Thorium reactor you use 100% of the Thorium. ? We will talk when I can order alternative fuelcycle breeders from Areva which can compete with renewable energy sources available at the time at sufficient substitution rate to matter. When will we talk, you think? I have a hunch, not very soon. > "No, I'm not interested in discussing that with you" > Yes and I can see why, you don't want to be confused with the facts. No, I will not discuss this with you because of massive amounts of above BULLSHIT. Life's too short. From spike66 at att.net Mon Sep 19 15:58:26 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:58:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: <00ad01cc76e4$f89ecec0$e9dc6c40$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Subject: Re: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems 2011/9/19 Amara D. Angelica : >>... Does anyone know of a system for automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised intelligent hyperintelligent learning systems? [snip] >...You can't build something smarter than yourself... Indeed? It depends on how one defines the term smart. Those who wrote chess software reached a point where their own creations could beat the pants off of them. I myself wrote a Sudoku solver which can solve a couple standard 3x3x3 puzzles per second. That software can solve not only 3x3x3s but higher order puzzles up through 14x14x14 sudokus. I sure couldn't do that in a reasonable amount of time. Software isn't smarter than us at everything, but it is smarter than us at an ever-growing collection of specific tasks. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Sep 19 16:06:20 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] solargate In-Reply-To: <20110919083214.GT25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1316448380.55111.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Two years ago in 2009 just before the government invested in Solyndra they received a report from the Energy Department warning that even if the company got the loan guarantee from the government they wanted Solyndra would run out of money in September 2011. They went ahead and gave them the money, our money, anyway. Now for something completely different, in China about 500 people demonstrated in front of a factory protesting the factory's pollution. The pollution must have been really horrible because it takes a certain amount of courage to participate in a demonstration of that sort in China. Incidentally the plant made solar panels.? ? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/asia/china-shuts-solar-panel-factory-after-anti-pollution-protests.html ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 16:12:19 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316445964.52622.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20110918181606.GM25711@leitl.org> <1316445964.52622.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316448739.34792.YahooMailNeo@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> And the 10 to 100 million year fission supply can be stretched to a billion years?plus with hybrid fission-fusion reactors that Teller continued to research well after this article. ? http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1980/eirv07n43-19801104/eirv07n43-19801104_059-teller_bethe_call_for_fusion_hyb.pdf ? http://tinyurl.com/42texoz ? Dennis May ? ? From: john clark To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change On Sun, 9/18/11, Eugen Leitl wrote: "The sun is good for gigayears"Yes, and at present consumption fission on Earth might only last us 10 to 100 million years, so I admit that is a difference. "peak fissible is less than half human life away." Premium grade triple distilled extra virgin BULLSHIT! Thorium can be used in fission, it produces less and shorter lived radioactive decay products than Uranium, it makes almost no Plutonium that could be used in bombs, it is almost as common as Lead and unlike most present reactors that only use .7% of the Uranium (the U235) in a Thorium reactor you use 100% of the Thorium. ? "No, I'm not interested in discussing that with you" Yes and I can see why, you don't want to be confused with the facts. ? John K Clark _______________________________________________extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 19 16:57:13 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:57:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: <201109191657.p8JGvuIA021010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Mike Dougherty wrote: >You can't build something smarter than yourself. Parents often have children who are smarter than they are. -- David. From dennislmay at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 16:44:01 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] solargate In-Reply-To: <1316448380.55111.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20110919083214.GT25711@leitl.org> <1316448380.55111.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316450641.42792.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> A few years ago [another site] we discussed the?labor required to maintain solar and wind energy [highly dispersed systems] if they were to actually gain more than?a niche hold in the energy market.? The number of broken necks falling off roofs for solar and the huge maintenance overhead for wind would require an amazing shift in labor resources and training. ? Large powerplants have maintenance issues like a normal factory.? Solar and wind will be more like everyone going back to the days?of raising their own food and pumping their own water.? There will be real lifestyle changes required and labor diverted from more productive enterprises.? Expect power interruptions, long waits for service calls if you can't do the work yourself and increased prices. ? Dennis May From: john clark To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] solargate Two years ago in 2009 just before the government invested inSolyndra they received a report from the Energy Department warning that even if the company got the loan guarantee from the government they wanted Solyndra would run out of money in September 2011. They went ahead and gave them the money, our money, anyway. Now for something completely different, in China about 500 people demonstrated in front of a factory protesting the factory's pollution. The pollution must have been really horrible because it takes a certain amount of courage to participate in a demonstration of that sort in China. Incidentally the plant made solar panels.? ? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/asia/china-shuts-solar-panel-factory-after-anti-pollution-protests.html ? John K Clark _______________________________________________extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 16:48:46 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <1316448739.34792.YahooMailNeo@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <20110918181606.GM25711@leitl.org> <1316445964.52622.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316448739.34792.YahooMailNeo@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316450926.21712.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I wouldn't worry too much about it one way or the other. I read somewhere energy markets really only forecast about a dozen or so years in a advance well, more or less. (Non-market forecasts can be further into the future, though they are almost all of dubious value.) Think back to the dire warnings of coal's exhaustion by Jevons. What came to pass? Not only did the coal supply not run out, but oil became dominant and other energy sources were discovered, including nuclear. ? Regards, ? Dan From: Dennis May To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change And the 10 to 100 million year fission supply can be stretched to a billion years?plus with hybrid fission-fusion reactors that Teller continued to research well after this article. ? http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1980/eirv07n43-19801104/eirv07n43-19801104_059-teller_bethe_call_for_fusion_hyb.pdf http://tinyurl.com/42texoz ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 17:01:49 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <00ad01cc76e4$f89ecec0$e9dc6c40$@att.net> References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> <00ad01cc76e4$f89ecec0$e9dc6c40$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316451709.27278.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> This was kind of my thought too, though I suspect Mike meant something generally smarter and not merely an application of some method with more precision or rigor than you might have. For instance, people made calculators that could calculate better, faster, and more precisely than they could, but I don't think anyone would argue the calculator was smarter. ? Still, I don't see any iron law of building smarter things -- that the thing built can only be as smart as the builder. There might be intuitive appeal for such a law, but I don't see why it must be so. It smacks of, to me, irreducible complexity -- or irreducible smartness. Also, Mike mentioned, IIRC, evolving something. Well, to me, evolution, in the Darwinian sense, seems a fairly un-smart process, but it does produce, or so current theory would have us believe, smart beings. Presumably, if one could take the road of evolving a smarter being, one could record the steps, figure out what made it smarter, remove the unnecessary steps, and then use that as a recipe for making smarter (then the builder) beings.* ? Regards, ? Dan ? * And building in general doesn't require complete understanding of everything involved. It's, on one level, just applying a recipe. Of course, building something new might involve coming up with the recipe, but, even then, it's unlikely the builder as inventor understands everything there is to know about the thing being build or even the process involved. Much of this is probably more like, "it worked then, so it'll work now" (applying an existing recipe) or "it should work in this way because similar things have been made in a similar way" (mildly innovative recipe). From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Subject: Re: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems 2011/9/19 Amara D. Angelica : >>... Does anyone know of a system for automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised intelligent hyperintelligent learning systems? [snip] >...You can't build something smarter than yourself... Indeed?? It depends on how one defines the term smart.? Those who wrote chess software reached a point where their own creations could beat the pants off of them.? I myself wrote a Sudoku solver which can solve a couple standard 3x3x3 puzzles per second.? That software can solve not only 3x3x3s but higher order puzzles up through 14x14x14 sudokus.? I sure couldn't do that in a reasonable amount of time. Software isn't smarter than us at everything, but it is smarter than us at an ever-growing collection of specific tasks. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Sep 19 17:04:28 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <20110919155059.GR25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1316451868.84524.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379 It says: "neither nuclear breeding reactors nor thorium reactors will play a significant role because of the long lead times for their development and market penetration." One has to ask a long lead time compared with what? Compared with the short lead time needed for the development and market penetration of space based power satellites or the short time needed to turn the entire planet into one giant wind farm? "Yes, you can disagree, but I'm not interested in discussing specifics of EROEI " In a ideal world energy returned on energy invested would be be same as energy returned on money invested so the most efficient energy source would automatically become the most popular,? but that can't happen in a place like Germany which gives huge subsidies to "renewable" energy, much of it paid for with big taxes on nuclear fuel that reactors use. So you end up with a distorted economy doing idiotic things like encouraging farmers to stop growing food and make ethanol instead which drives up food prices.? "of dilute resource" You mean a dilute resource like solar or wind? Energy doesn't get much more diluted than that. "enrichment." Thorium needs no enrichment, in fact the Thorium you did out of the ground is made up of only one isotope and is as I said almost as common as lead.? "The issue is settled for me." So I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and hum, la de daw daw, I can't hear you! ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 17:15:17 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <201109191657.p8JGvuIA021010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> <201109191657.p8JGvuIA021010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1316452517.3857.YahooMailNeo@web160613.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> The current method of making children is more akin to turning the key on a car to make it go than building a car, don't you think? I mean, in my analogy, starting a car is not like being a car maker or even a mechanic. One doesn't need to know much about how to make one -- much less how to make a better one.?The latter is a telling point: parents who produce smarter children don't necessarily know how it's done and the same method -- having sex -- can also produce children of the same or less smarts, no? ? Regards, ? Dan From: David Lubkin To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems Mike Dougherty wrote: >You can't build something smarter than yourself. Parents often have children who are smarter than they are. -- David. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Sep 19 17:49:23 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:49:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] top posting: RE: Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems Message-ID: <010301cc76f4$77dece10$679c6a30$@att.net> It has been an informal protocol here to avoid top posting, and always trim your replies. Otherwise your message gets lost among the previously posted text. Top posting is confusing: it makes everything seem in reverse order. Thanks, Herr Moderator, spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 17:57:28 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] solargate In-Reply-To: <1316450641.42792.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <20110919083214.GT25711@leitl.org> <1316448380.55111.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316450641.42792.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316455048.34053.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dennis wrote: "A few years ago [another site] we discussed the?labor required to maintain solar and wind energy [highly dispersed systems] if they were to actually gain more than?a niche hold in the energy market.? The number of broken necks falling off roofs for solar and the huge maintenance overhead for wind would require an amazing shift in labor resources and training. ? "Large powerplants have maintenance issues like a normal factory.? Solar and wind will be more like everyone going back to the days?of raising their own food and pumping their own water.? There will be real lifestyle changes required and labor diverted from more productive enterprises.? Expect power interruptions, long waits for service calls if you can't do the work yourself and increased prices." ? I think this depends on how it evolves. One can easily imagine all?of the above issues as invitations to inventors and entrepreneurs to find solutions. For instance, if it's hard to fix these things, try to make them cheap and modular -- e.g., so cheap and easy to?install that people replace rather than fix (you don't, I take it, fix light bulbs or socks with holes in them; you chuck them and get new ones). Or make them so durable, they rarely break down -- as is the case with stoves, refrigerators, and dishwashers. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 19 18:35:18 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:35:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <1316452517.3857.YahooMailNeo@web160613.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> <201109191657.p8JGvuIA021010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1316452517.3857.YahooMailNeo@web160613.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201109191836.p8JIa239022951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Dan wrote: >The current method of making children is more akin to turning the >key on a car to make it go than building a car, don't you think? I >mean, in my analogy, starting a car is not like being a car maker or >even a mechanic. One doesn't need to know much about how to make one >-- much less how to make a better one. The latter is a telling >point: parents who produce smarter children don't necessarily know >how it's done and the same method -- having sex -- can also produce >children of the same or less smarts, no? But we don't have to understand how something works to make use of it. If I want a cadre of children smarter than myself, have lots, and cull the ones that don't meet my standards. The fact that less conscious effort is required to build a baby than to build a car doesn't alter my point. Mike had written "You might be able to evolve something that gets smarter." I'd be evolving if I continued the process across multiple generations, but just skimming off the smartest isn't evolution. -- David. From atymes at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 19:25:10 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:25:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Request for help with malware "mystery" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > Also, google might have detected media that exploits certain > misfeatures of IE - so the "may harm your computer" notice could be > true if you have the exploitable browser and OS that a known vector is > using. My own brief investigation suggests this is possibly the case. So: don't use IE. (Which you shouldn't be using anyway, if possible: IE auto-downloads and installs all sorts of bad stuff without telling you.) You might want to tell the site's owners to go to http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/ to get the warning taken care of. (Yeah, the cynical may view this as a ploy to get people to use Google's tools. Thing is, if that was the main purpose, you'd see a lot more of it - and "using the tools" just means free registration, and tiny bit of labor to confirm that you are the owner of the site in question.) Most likely, Google can give them more details about why they're being listed as such. It is possible that someone snuck malware onto their site without them knowing (say, if they're running from a Windows server that got infected). If so, Google will probably tell them exactly what and where (once they have confirmed they are the site owners, and not - for example - the original hacker trying to cover tracks), so they can remove it. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 20:10:11 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:10:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Dennis May > wrote: > > Keith Henson wrote: > ? > "But without selling power to earth, I don't see space being > industrialized this side of the singularity at all." > > I see automated and remote mining and manufacturing > ahead of human presence as the way to get space? > industrialization done on the cheap.? A few high value > products and materials would be worth sending back > to Earth. I have given decades of thought to this problem. In the relatively long run and following a trillion dollar a year power satellite construction business, I can see mining and maybe manufacturing from that mining to support the power satellite business. The Mond process is particularly useful in sorting out nickel-iron objects. But the plant size needed to make it economical is up in the 50,000 ton range, and while automation is useful, it's also going to need some hundreds of people to keep it running. But perhaps you have ideas I missed. Can you be specific about what could be mined or manufactured in space and sent back to earth at a profit? I would also be very interested in your estimates of the mass budget and the capital required. Keith PS. I see no reply to the question of manufacturing the equipment needed for 1000 GW scale reactors per year. > Dennis May > > From: Keith Henson > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 5:18 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:00 AM,? Dennis May wrote: > > snip (mostly agree) > >> The sheer energy density of nuclear power means >> it dwarfs all other options. > > Discounting the cost of fuel to zero, the relevant number is kg/kW. > The pressure vessel alone for a 1 GW plant is about 2000 tonnes.? Fuel > assemblies, steam generators, pumps, turbines and generators run this > up by a factor of 5-10.? That's 10-20 kg/kW and I may be on the low > side.? You may be able to put a better number on it as well as an > estimate for the cents per kWh they will produce. > > ? Much of the time >> delay for implementation of nuclear power >> plants can be reduced by going to standardized >> designs. > > So far that doesn't seem to have happened.? Fukushima didn't help either. > > At $5,000 to $8,000 per kw, the power cost is going to range up to 10 > cents per kWh based on capital cost alone. > >> As far as big solar projects go - I see them as >> being of interest in industrializing space >> not moving space nuclear energy [sun] to >> the Earth when there are plenty of Earth >> based nuclear energy possibilities with much >> less capital risk. > > Perhaps you are right.? But without selling power to earth, I don't > see space being industrialized this side of the singularity at all. > > There is an awful front end cost to get the cost of transport down, > but if it can get down to where it is no more than a third of the cost > per kW of capacity, then we are talking power cost based on $1600/kW > or less. > > And construction times measured in weeks. > > If we can't get SBSP cost down in this range, then you really should > start thinking about what it would take to build and fuel 1000 new > reactors a year. > > This might interest some people here: > > http://spacefellowship.com/news/art26681/nasa-announces-two-game-changing-space-technology-projects.html > > There is serious work starting on beamed energy propulsion. > > Keith > >> ? >> Dennis May >> >> From: Keith Henson >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 5:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:06 PM,? Dennis May wrote: >> >>> The projections of what will happen economically >>> without massive nuclear energy development is >>> not pretty.? Even if that effort began immediately >>> it is not clear it could happen fast enough. >> >> The length of time it takes to build nuclear plants is a big reason to >> look at other approaches.? I am not at all sure even what is the best >> approach or mix of approaches to get really inexpensive energy.? I can >> state that it need to be down in the 1-2 cents per kWh.? That's $800 >> to $1600 per kW based on return of capital in ten years and it needs >> to scale to 15-20 TW over 20 years. >> >> That's building around a 1000 1 GW reactors per year. >> >> I have not looked into this in detail.? I have looked into SBSP and >> StratoSolar and they look possible.? Perhaps you know about reactors? >> >> It seems better to me at this stage to state what is needed in broad >> terms rather than being too specific about how to accomplish the task. >> >> Keith >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 9 >> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:53:52 -0700 (PDT) >> From: john clark >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change. >> Message-ID: >> ? ? ? ?<1316321632.46095.YahooMailClassic at web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> ?BillK wrote: >> "Well, the southern USA states have had their worst wildfire season >> ever and Texas is still burning. I guess the message will get through eventually. But I suppose that's just a little local fluctuation in temperature?" >> So let's see, if there's a very bad blizzard in the winter, as there was just a few months ago, it would be foolish to think that had anything to do with long term global climate change; but if there is a heat wave in the summer that proves the entire planet is getting hotter and is facing disaster. >> >> "If a US billionaire wanted to produce a new product his first thought would be to get quotes from Chinese factories." >> >> Correct, and they would do that because it would be cheaper to operate a plant in China than in the USA. >> >> "That's why the US people are facing poverty and living off food stamps." >> >> So if workers in the USA are unwilling to work for a wage because they think it's too small even though they are "facing poverty" but Chinese workers are willing to do so then it follows logically that the Chinese workers must be even poorer than the poverty facing workers in the USA. >> >> "The rich are China's friends." >> >> Right, or to put it another way, the rich are friends of the poorest of the poor. >> >> ? John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ? >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 10 >> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:45:27 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Dennis May >> To: "extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org" >> Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups? >> Message-ID: >> ? ? ? ?<1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo at web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Anyone have a recommendation for a group to listen in on >> discussions of quantum computing?? Most I have been >> able to locate are the same as dead. >> ? >> Dennis May >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 11 >> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:36:49 +0100 >> From: BillK >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change >> Message-ID: >> ? ? ? ? >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> 2011/9/17 kellycoinguy wrote: >>> Bill.. If the rich want to produce spatulas or vacuums.. Then yes they go to >>> China to get them built... But if they want true innovation, rather that >>> rote duplication of stuff that has already been done, then there is still no >>> place to beat the USA. >>> >>> A big part of successful innovation is venture capital. China's government >>> funds some research.. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the US >>> private investment in true innovation. >>> >> >> >> Your first comment agrees that production facilities are cheaper and >> more productive in China. So more US innovation won't create much >> employment in the US. >> >> The financial press has noted that some (many?) US companies are not >> bringing new products to market because in the current economic >> depression consumer demand has collapsed. The depressed market doesn't >> want innovation. The US needs jobs first, then people will have money >> to spend. >> >> There is much concern that US innovation is falling behind other >> countries. Even Obama has commented on this. A recent report is here: >> >> >> The pace of US innovation has slowed since the 1970s. Mainly because >> government funded research has halved. Basic research is funded by >> government. (Barcodes, fiber optics, MRI machines and GPS technology >> are just a few of the innovations that came out of government-funded >> basic research). >> Venture capital funds the development of new trinkets for individual >> firms to manufacture in China and sell in the US and make a profit. >> And they need consumers willing and able to buy their trinkets. >> >> >> BillK >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 96, Issue 26 >> ******************************************** >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:06:05 -0700 > From: Jeff Davis > To: Dennis May , ?ExI chat list > ? ? ? ? > Subject: Re: [ExI] Unions > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Dennis, > > You seem to be edging your way into a political discussion slash > confrontation. ?I've noticed a couple of comments aimed at lefties. > > Let me advise against it. ?Creates flamage. ?Wastes time. > > Also we have a few lefties on the list. ?None are pushovers. > > If you have a political or economic point to make, best to stick with > the facts of the particular case so that analysis/discussion can be > fact-based rather than ideology/partisanship based. > > Just a suggestion. > > Welcome to the list. > > Best, Jeff Davis > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"Everything's hard till you know how to do it." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ray Charles > > 2011/9/18 Dennis May : >> Unions can represent one more form of uncertainty when >> making economic calculations.? In some companies and >> industries unions reduce uncertainty because the company >> now has one face to deal with instead of a large number >> of individuals.? This?advantage?generally exists in lower >> pay jobs in high turn over locations and industries.? If an >> employee doesn't get satisfaction it falls on the union. >> >> For the majority of industries the uncertainty created by >> unions raises the cost of operation and is sometimes >> enough to drive them out of the state or out of certain >> locations. >> >> There are a number of unpleasant facts and sometimes >> risk in?dealing with unions.? Violence, property destruction, >> work disruptions, organized crime, political interference, >> political payoffs to Democrats, and collaboration with >> seedy groups. >> >> If I were to locate a new company I would only >> consider right to work states. >> >> Dennis May >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:13:56 -0700 > From: "spike" > To: "'ExI chat list'" > Subject: Re: [ExI] Unions > Message-ID: <002401cc7669$686adfe0$39409fa0$@att.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; ? ? ? charset="us-ascii" > >>... On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > Subject: Re: [ExI] Unions > >>...Dennis, You seem to be edging your way into a political discussion slash > confrontation... > > Apologies Jeff, I started it with my ridicule of the Solyndra deal. ?Agreed, > no need to go there now. > >>...Welcome to the list. ?Best, Jeff Davis > > Indeed so, Dennis. ?Welcome, and do tell us something about Dennis if you > wish. > > spike > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:45:03 -0700 (PDT) > From: Dennis May > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Unions > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ?<1316400303.74824.YahooMailNeo at web112104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > My background: > ? > Physics, engineering physics, engineering > Military R&D > Interest in QM and a variety of technology subjects > ? > Dan Ust suggested I join Exi > ? > Dennis > > From: spike > To: 'ExI chat list' > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 8:13 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Unions > >>... On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > Subject: Re: [ExI] Unions > >>...Dennis, You seem to be edging your way into a political discussion slash > confrontation... > > Apologies Jeff, I started it with my ridicule of the Solyndra deal.? Agreed, > no need to go there now. > >>...Welcome to the list.? Best, Jeff Davis > > Indeed so, Dennis.? Welcome, and do tell us something about Dennis if you > wish. > > 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: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:11:48 -0700 > From: "Amara D. Angelica" > To: "'ExI chat list'" > Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised > ? ? ? ?hyperintelligent learning systems > Message-ID: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Does anyone know of a system for automated black-box-based system design of > unsupervised intelligent hyperintelligent learning systems? > > > > Imagine a human as an alien spacecraft for which there is no information, so > engineers must use black-box analysis to reverse-engineer its design and > functions. Now imagine that human with the most advanced > self-tracking/monitoring systems imaginable, combined with instrumentation > for monitoring all of the imaginable external physical phenomena -- light, > sound, speech-to-text, ?videos being watched, etc., and other people, all > recorded in multi-cam HD video and analyzed in real time (motion capture, > object detection, movement detection, etc.). Further imagine that this > system could systematically modify the environment (light, sound, etc.) > while monitoring the human's responses and that of other people and the real > world. The system would be compiling a massive realtime multi-yettabyte > database while running realtime testing routines in a bank of > supercomputers. > > > > Now how long do you think it would take such a system to reverse-engineer > human intelligence and function and pass a more sophisticated version of the > Turing test based on interacting with humans in RT/RL (real time/real life), > initially at say, fly level, then cat level, then working up to human genius > level and passing it, outputting advanced versions of itself. > > > > And is anyone developing something like this, or do I have to take off a few > days and develop it myself? OK, a few centuries.... I haven't found anything > on this except for Anders Sandberg's highly imaginative "Think Before > Asking," ? > http://eclipsephase.com/downloads/ThinkBeforeAsking.pdf, which touches on > some aspects of this. > > > > All ideas, especially skeptical ones (so I don't waste time on blind alleys) > would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Yes, this is a totally insane idea, but is it insane enough? > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:23:36 +0200 > From: Eugen Leitl > To: Dennis May , ?ExI chat list > ? ? ? ? > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change > Message-ID: <20110919062336.GH25711 at leitl.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > You're top-posting and not trimming your replies (message > unchanged below). > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 01:30:32PM -0700, Dennis May wrote: >> Every cent redistributed from productive enterprises into >> "green" energy further damages the economy.? The numbers >> don't add up for solar or wind except in niche applications. >> More and more government investment into losing enterprises >> with the money being pocketed by political patrons isn't >> going to change the simple physics and economics that solar >> and wind will never amount to much.? If Germany wants to >> go broke like Spain chasing green energy there is no reason >> to follow their foolish path. >> ? >> Once you move outside of the U235 path into other >> nuclear energies there is enough to power civilization >> until well after the sun itself becomes a problem. >> ? >> Dennis May >> >> From: BillK >> To: ExI chat list >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 2:03 PM >> Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change >> >> 2011/9/18 john clark wrote: >> > And that's why wind farms and solar panel companies don't need huge subsidies. Oh wait they do. >> > Tax benefits are the only reason wind farms exist and Solyndra just went under taking over half a >> > billion dollars of taxpayers money with it; they found out that selling solar panels for half of what it >> > cost to make them was not a good business model. Maybe we'll need more than moonbeams and >> > lollipops to power the world economy after all. Maybe its time to get serious. >> > >> > >> >> Solyndra failed, as you say, because they didn't reduce production >> costs like other solar companies were doing. >> See: >> >> >> But solar power is a new booming industry. There are always lots of >> failures at the start of a new industry. (Remember all the failed >> Internet startups?).? The government made a failed investment in the >> case of Solyndra, but other investments are doing nicely.? Nobody can >> pick winners every time. Even venture funds make mistakes sometimes. >> ;) >> >> I think all western governments decided to encourage investments in >> renewable energy industries because private industry won't invest >> until they see a near-term profit. Governments need renewable energy >> in the near future and they don't want to wait until fuel is $20 USD >> per gallon. >> >> Germany (where Eugen is) is doing very nicely in the renewable energy races. >> >> >> BillK >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A ?7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:31:04 +0200 > From: Eugen Leitl > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change > Message-ID: <20110919063104.GJ25711 at leitl.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 04:49:00PM -0400, Mr Jones wrote: >> The problem summed up...We see the world as something we've inherited from >> our ancestors, rather than something we've borrowed from our children. ?If >> you fail to plan, you plan to fail. ?We're failing. > > We don't have to plan. You forgot THE SINGULARITY! Have faith, brothers. > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 96, Issue 28 > ******************************************** > From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 22:22:54 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:22:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <00ad01cc76e4$f89ecec0$e9dc6c40$@att.net> References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> <00ad01cc76e4$f89ecec0$e9dc6c40$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM, spike wrote: >>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty >>...You can't build something smarter than yourself... > > Indeed? ?It depends on how one defines the term smart. ?Those who wrote > chess software reached a point where their own creations could beat the > pants off of them. ?I myself wrote a Sudoku solver which can solve a couple > standard 3x3x3 puzzles per second. ?That software can solve not only 3x3x3s > but higher order puzzles up through 14x14x14 sudokus. ?I sure couldn't do > that in a reasonable amount of time. > > Software isn't smarter than us at everything, but it is smarter than us at > an ever-growing collection of specific tasks. everything depends on how we define terms, of course. In this case I was talking about the general complexity of a "built" or "engineered" intelligence. Of course I can write a program to do maths faster than I can do maths, but that doesn't make the program smart at all - let's say that I have introspected some of my own smarts, then encapsulated that algorithm in a recipe (thanks dan_ust for using the term first). I/we can do this because the complexity of the program is such that we have extra capacity for complexity from which to reason about the nature of the program. This reminds me of the Archimedes quote, 'If you give me a lever and a place to stand, I can move the world." I think the concept of the lever is straightforward enough, but the place to stand in order to use it is the key to Archimedes quandary. I believe this more succinctly demonstrates the problem of building an intelligence greater than that of the builder's own. I specifically left evolution as an example of achieving growth beyond the builder's intelligence. I agree with Dan that evolution is a fairly haphazard approach to growth, but it does seem to pay dividends in the long-term. GA's are slow. Perhaps that's a feature rather than a flaw. Perhaps there is some random jumble of intelligence blocks that crystallize like Penrose tiles which will suddenly produce a non-linear jump in machine intelligence. We're still far short of knowing the tiling rules to predict how or when that might next happen. (may it'll involve a monolith with dimensions of increasing squares? :) David, re: parent's children being smarter - It's the cliche dichotomy of nature vs. nurture. Does a formal system train more or less equivalent wetware to perform at a higher level or is there something inherent to a better brain? If you believe better brains are based on genetics, then super-intelligence is a matter of isolating the best genes - right? If training, then what is wrong with the current training regimen that we're short of our potential? Are we short of it? I hope we are. I'm not sure if this topic has been done to death here, though I haven't seen it in the last 3 years if it was done long ago. From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 22:31:32 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:31:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <20110919152155.GQ25711@leitl.org> References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> <009001cc76dd$77a984b0$66fc8e10$@att.net> <20110919152155.GQ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > As to the skills required, electricity can and does kill. You don't > want your electric work done by a bozo. haha. take that, all you DIY homeowners. I'm a homeowner, but after a simple plumbing job turned into a complex plumbing job with a helping of minor carpentry I decided to leave this work to professionals. From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 22:48:50 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:48:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:28 AM, BillK wrote: > To me that seems a reasonable type of failure for a startup in a new > fast-changing industry. That may be Bill, and investors should be happy to lose their money for such slip ups. However, tax payers are not so forgiving. Let the market do it's work, and let the government get out of the way! How hard is it to see that solar panels are continually getting cheaper by an exponential curve? Couldn't these geniuses see that was going to be the case? -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 22:52:41 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:52:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: <20110919152155.GQ25711@leitl.org> References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> <009001cc76dd$77a984b0$66fc8e10$@att.net> <20110919152155.GQ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > As to the skills required, electricity can and does kill. You don't > want your electric work done by a bozo. The thing is that even good electricians are bozos about solar. It took me three tries to find an electrician that could tell his ass from a hole in the ground regarding solar, and he had to commute 150 miles each way to my house. What a bargain to pay for him as opposed to the idiots who failed to even recognize that what the house was missing was a good GROUND!!! I'm so happy to be back on the grid... until that blows up, of course... LOL -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 22:36:21 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:36:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > You can't build something smarter than yourself. I call bull shit on this one. Suppose that I can build something half as smart as I am, then run it at four times the speed I run. It would be twice as smart, even though you didn't know how to build something that initially was smarter than me... This is just a silly thing to say. How would you even define smarter? Hell a 4 function calculator is smarter than me at multiplication. Something smarter that me isn't the light speed limit for Thor's sake!!! It's not even the sound barrier. -Kelly From lubkin at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 19 23:05:14 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:05:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> <00ad01cc76e4$f89ecec0$e9dc6c40$@att.net> Message-ID: <201109192306.p8JN5w1o011683@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Mike Dougherty wrote: >David, re: parent's children being smarter - It's the cliche dichotomy >of nature vs. nurture. Does a formal system train more or less >equivalent wetware to perform at a higher level or is there something >inherent to a better brain? If you believe better brains are based on >genetics, then super-intelligence is a matter of isolating the best >genes - right? If training, then what is wrong with the current >training regimen that we're short of our potential? Are we short of >it? I hope we are. I'm not sure if this topic has been done to >death here, though I haven't seen it in the last 3 years if it was >done long ago. A friend of mine retired from nuclear engineering to closely following the psychometric research and rigorously responding whenever he sees sloppy writing on the subject. He sums up the research on the heritability of intelligence here: http://members.cox.net/variance/pages/heritability.htm If anyone has any concrete questions on intelligence, I can forward them to him. We, here, have a particular need to be on top of what is known about the malleability of intelligence; enhancing our own is an abiding extropian interest. -- David. From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 23:13:46 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:13:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> You can't build something smarter than yourself. > > I call bull shit on this one. Suppose that I can build something half > as smart as I am, then run it at four times the speed I run. It would > be twice as smart, even though you didn't know how to build something > that initially was smarter than me... > > This is just a silly thing to say. How would you even define smarter? > Hell a 4 function calculator is smarter than me at multiplication. > > Something smarter that me isn't the light speed limit for Thor's > sake!!! It's not even the sound barrier. I concede that your calculator is a higher performance rules processor for simple math. Outside the trivial domain of input, transform, output - I don't expect your calculator to spontaneously know how to pour a bowl of cereal. I don't have one of my own to test the theory, but I expect that a 2 year old could figure out the bowl of cereal with only a few examples and hunger for motivation. I don't define intelligence as the ability to process some rules. That would lead to clocks being "intelligent" about the passage of time or thermostats being "intelligent" about temperature of the house. I'll admit that my original blanket-statement lacked definition - I'm glad so many pounced. :) From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 23:20:09 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:20:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nukes have a PR problem bigger than that of marijuana... The cigarette companies killed weed in the early 20th century, and it has never made a legal comeback... Similarly, non-nuclear energy companies have slandered nuclear to the point that it is unlikely to make a great comeback. While I am a big fan of solar, it has serious problems. I am also a big fan of wind, and it will win in niches, as will solar, tide, etc. It will take a multi-faceted approach to win the energy war, and everything will have to play it's part. The interesting thing in this group is that nobody has brought up the alternative fossil fuels in this conversation yet. Oil shales, poor coals, and especially methane hydrates have a potentially important future. The new methods for extracting natural gas, discussed at length, are also very important. I'm afraid with all these things out there, we're going to be pumping carbon into the atmosphere for a long time... Of course, I also think that the overall cost of solar photovoltaics is following an exponential curve downward, and as soon as people start talking about neighborhood solar, rather than roof top solar, I think we'll see a pretty big turnaround there. Will it be enough to prevent the harvest of all that lovely methane on the deep ocean floor? We'll see. Stay tuned. I really do like nuclear, and oil, and all the other yummy sources of energy. I like energy, and all of you do too, other than a few socialist lunatics who are hypocrites. I've only ever heard of one guy who really walked the walk... and he literally walked and sailed all over the earth to prove his point. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_francis_walks_the_earth.html Very inspiring lunatic. -Kelly From dennislmay at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 23:22:39 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change In-Reply-To: References: <01be01cc7644$bdd29510$3977bf30$@att.net> <009001cc76dd$77a984b0$66fc8e10$@att.net> <20110919152155.GQ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1316474559.58039.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> DIY plumbing - only use PEX and sharkbite fittings.? You'll never use anything else again. ? Dennis From: Mike Dougherty To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] solargate: was RE: A Nobel laureate and climate change On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > As to the skills required, electricity can and does kill. You don't > want your electric work done by a bozo. haha.? take that, all you DIY homeowners. I'm a homeowner, but after a simple plumbing job turned into a complex plumbing job with a helping of minor carpentry I decided to leave this work to professionals. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 23:47:29 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:47:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >>> You can't build something smarter than yourself. >> >> I call bull shit on this one. Suppose that I can build something half >> as smart as I am, then run it at four times the speed I run. It would >> be twice as smart, even though you didn't know how to build something >> that initially was smarter than me... >> >> This is just a silly thing to say. How would you even define smarter? >> Hell a 4 function calculator is smarter than me at multiplication. >> >> Something smarter that me isn't the light speed limit for Thor's >> sake!!! It's not even the sound barrier. > > I concede that your calculator is a higher performance rules processor > for simple math. ?Outside the trivial domain of input, transform, > output - I don't expect your calculator to spontaneously know how to > pour a bowl of cereal. ?I don't have one of my own to test the theory, > but I expect that a 2 year old could figure out the bowl of cereal > with only a few examples and hunger for motivation. > > I don't define intelligence as the ability to process some rules. > That would lead to clocks being "intelligent" about the passage of > time or thermostats being "intelligent" about temperature of the > house. > > I'll admit that my original blanket-statement lacked definition - I'm > glad so many pounced. ?:) Do you have something "intelligent" to say about it now that you've had a chance to reconsider your position? Since more intelligent life has been spontaneously appearing for the last billion years or so on this planet, it seems like a tautology that something more intelligent is around the corner. Since we're past genes, and on to memes and temes, it seems likely to me that we will have something to do with the creation of this "more intelligent" life... -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 23:53:46 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:53:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >>> You can't build something smarter than yourself. >> >> I call bull shit on this one. Suppose that I can build something half >> as smart as I am, then run it at four times the speed I run. It would >> be twice as smart, even though you didn't know how to build something >> that initially was smarter than me... >> >> This is just a silly thing to say. How would you even define smarter? >> Hell a 4 function calculator is smarter than me at multiplication. >> >> Something smarter that me isn't the light speed limit for Thor's >> sake!!! It's not even the sound barrier. > > I concede that your calculator is a higher performance rules processor > for simple math. ?Outside the trivial domain of input, transform, > output - I don't expect your calculator to spontaneously know how to > pour a bowl of cereal. ?I don't have one of my own to test the theory, > but I expect that a 2 year old could figure out the bowl of cereal > with only a few examples and hunger for motivation. > > I don't define intelligence as the ability to process some rules. > That would lead to clocks being "intelligent" about the passage of > time or thermostats being "intelligent" about temperature of the > house. > > I'll admit that my original blanket-statement lacked definition - I'm > glad so many pounced. ?:) Do you have something "intelligent" to say about it now that you've had a chance to reconsider your position? Since more intelligent life has been spontaneously appearing for the last billion years or so on this planet, it seems like a tautology that something more intelligent is around the corner. Since we're past genes, and on to memes and temes, it seems likely to me that we will have something to do with the creation of this "more intelligent" life... -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 23:04:50 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:04:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] solargate In-Reply-To: <1316455048.34053.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20110919083214.GT25711@leitl.org> <1316448380.55111.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316450641.42792.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316455048.34053.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/19 Dan : > I think this depends on how it evolves. One can easily imagine all?of the > above issues as invitations to inventors and entrepreneurs to find > solutions. For instance, if it's hard to fix these things, try to make them > cheap and modular -- e.g., so cheap and easy to?install that people replace > rather than fix (you don't, I take it, fix light bulbs or socks with holes > in them; you chuck them and get new ones). Or make them so durable, they > rarely break down -- as is the case with stoves, refrigerators, and > dishwashers. Dan, it's going to take a long time, if ever for this to happen. Remember the bad old days with computers, installing device drivers, serial and parallel ports, cards, etc. and now we have USB. Well, it's going to take something like that level of standardization to make solar and wind turn key, and I don't expect it any time soon. It took 20 years to get USB, it really requires getting to the point where differentiation will not gain further profitability. Then standardization makes sense, only when it becomes a commodity. We have a long way to go before solar is a commodity. I type this on my qwerty keyboard... still... sigh. -Kelly From dennislmay at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 00:54:46 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy References: Message-ID: <1316480086.29337.YahooMailNeo@web112116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I wrote: ? > I see automated and remote mining and manufacturing > ahead of human presence as the way to get space > industrialization done on the cheap.? A few high value > products and materials would be worth sending back > to Earth. ? Keith Henson wrote: > But perhaps you have ideas I missed. Can you be > specific about what could be mined or manufactured > in space and sent back to earth at a profit? ? Low-g mining done remotely on asteroids and ice bodies can process nickel-iron for further infrastructure building on low-g and free flying structures.? The first generation involves many small remote control mining devices to build the technology.? There is good reason to believe heavy metals would have collected in the cores of whatever failed planet bodies became the asteroid belt. ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907132044.htm "During the formation of Earth, molten iron sank to its centre to make the core. This took with it the vast majority of the planet's precious metals -- such as gold and platinum. In fact, there are enough precious metals in the core to cover the entire surface of Earth with a four-metre thick layer." "Our work shows that most of the precious metals on which our economies and many key industrial processes are based have been added to our planet by lucky coincidence when the Earth was hit by about 20 billion billion tonnes of asteroidal material." A busted up core in the asteroid belt should have more "Ore" than the surface of the Earth does.? The more valuable ores could be shipped back to Earth. I'm not interested in holding out for grand schemes that never happen.? I want to see tiny remote control mining operations demonstrating and keeping what they mine and build upon.? Every government effort is abandoned without leaving something to build upon.? Iron-nickel can be built upon and added to creating a basis for ever expanding mining.? The up front cost is the remote control center back on Earth and getting the small mining devices to the places they can start mining and manufacturing.? At some point enough infrastructure can be built remotely to do repairs on existing infrastructure and simple repairs to the remote control devices.? Avoid the manned expenses until enough infrastructure exists to justify it.? Remotes can build up resources in advance to reduce the manned expenses. Everyone would like there to be a golden egg waiting in space to pay the way for industrialization. If you wait for the golden egg it many never happen. I say create the opportunity. A remote mining demonstrator fusing iron-nickel dust into useful structures might go a long way towards opening up capital. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 02:56:55 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:56:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Dennis May wrote: snip > I'm not interested in holding out for grand schemes > that never happen.? I want to see tiny remote control > mining operations demonstrating and keeping what > they mine and build upon.? Have you ever worked the engineering numbers? Dr. Eric Drexler and I have done some of them, as has Dr John Lewis of the University of Arizona. Do you have any proposals to get around the surface radiation and conduction problems for small systems? How long do your proposed "tiny remote control mining operations" take to build their own mass in products? Have you considered the speed of light delay in remote control? > Every government effort > is abandoned without leaving something to build > upon.? Iron-nickel can be built upon and added to > creating a basis for ever expanding mining.? The up > front cost is the remote control center back on Earth > and getting the small mining devices to the places > they can start mining and manufacturing.? Have you thought about how big these need to be? I can make a case for one massing 50,000 tons, incorporating a 5-10 GW power satellite and manned by 500 people. I expect this plant to make it's own mass in product (nickel) in around 50 days. It's really not obvious to me how to scale it down or operate it with a few hours of delay in the control loop. > At some > point enough infrastructure can be built remotely > to do repairs on existing infrastructure and simple > repairs to the remote control devices.? Avoid the > manned expenses until enough infrastructure exists > to justify it.? Remotes can build up resources in > advance to reduce the manned expenses. I would very much appreciate details on your proposal, proposed processes, launch masses, transit times, production rates, control strategies and the supporting spreadsheets. > Everyone would like there to be a golden egg > waiting in space to pay the way for industrialization. > If you wait for the golden egg it many never happen. > I say create the opportunity. > > A remote mining demonstrator fusing iron-nickel > dust into useful structures might go a long way > towards opening up capital. No doubt it would. How do you propose to make iron-nickel dust? How do you propose to move it to the location you want to fuse it? What energy source are you proposing to fuse it? I am trying not to be snarkey because if you really have good idea on how to do this, I would like to help. Best wishes, Keith Henson > Dennis May From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Sep 20 03:50:17 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:50:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] H+ Magazine's New Article Covering H+ Leadership: MINDS Message-ID: http://hplusmagazine.com/ Great article Giulio! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Chair, Humanity+ PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK Co-Editor, The Transhumanist Reader -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 06:24:08 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:24:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nasa announces new launch vehicle In-Reply-To: <009d01cc76df$e34eab30$a9ec0190$@att.net> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <20110919115654.GJ25711@leitl.org> <009d01cc76df$e34eab30$a9ec0190$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:22 AM, spike wrote: > The foremost mission as described by NASA chief Charlie Bolden doesn't sound > all that expensive: > > Bolden: ?When I became the NASA Administrator - before I became the NASA > Administrator - [Obama] charged me with three things: One was he wanted me > to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted > me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps > foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Mormon world and > engage much more with dominantly Mormon nations to help them feel good about > their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering. > > http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-s-new-mission > -nasa-reach-out-muslim-world > > We set up a facility in Salt Lake City and keep telling the Mormons what a > critically important historic contribution they have made, and we are there. ...while it is believable he said "Mormon", if you read the article, he really didn't. From spike66 at att.net Tue Sep 20 12:37:15 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:37:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nasa announces new launch vehicle In-Reply-To: References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <20110919115654.GJ25711@leitl.org> <009d01cc76df$e34eab30$a9ec0190$@att.net> Message-ID: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >> We set up a facility in Salt Lake City and keep telling the Mormons >> what a critically important historic contribution they have made, and we are there. >>http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-s-new-missi on-nasa-reach-out-muslim-world >...while it is believable he said "Mormon", if you read the article, he really didn't. Ja, Mormon, Zoroastrian, Latter Day Druids, one of those religion biggies. I sometimes get them a bit mixed in my mind. But apparently the critically important mission for NASA is to help the religion people feel good about themselves so they are less motivated to slay unbelievers. How far NASA has fallen from these golden days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY I am a lucky man, for I was present on Cape Canaveral for that launch. That morning is my earliest really clear memory. I remember details of that day like nothing else from the 60s. That guy at 1:55 is Walter Cronkite. He pretty much sums up the universal emotion of the magic moment. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Sep 20 13:38:41 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/14/china-bans-time-travel-for-television/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 14:17:30 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:17:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Do you have something "intelligent" to say about it now that you've > had a chance to reconsider your position? Since more intelligent life > has been spontaneously appearing for the last billion years or so on > this planet, it seems like a tautology that something more intelligent > is around the corner. Since we're past genes, and on to memes and > temes, it seems likely to me that we will have something to do with > the creation of this "more intelligent" life... Nope. I have nothing "intelligent" to add. In the scope of observing the last billion years (or so), what interval is considered 'spontaneously'? 10,000 years? By what mechanism is intelligence appearing? mutation or engineering? "seems like a tautology" is hardly a rigorous proof. Pointing at a progression of genes/memes/temes is also not an inherently inductive process leading directly to the conclusion "... and then the next thing." I agree we'll be involved in the next phase of intelligence on earth - I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. I am doubtful that an engineer is going to be able to draw literal blueprints for building intelligence that exceeds his or her own. What I am suggesting should be a definition of intelligence is not the ability to follow directions really quickly and accurately. For example, mechanical automatons are not intelligent. Nor are music-box dancers, variable-settings toasters, thermostats or calculators. I think Intelligence must be something more than imitation and repetition. Is a parrot intelligent because it can mimic the sounds you make? Is it intelligent because it learned how you call the dog by name? Another example: http://books.google.com/books?id=OAJW7JA24A8C&q=food-washing#v=onepage Maybe potato washing was discovered by accident or perhaps invented through some need. The application of the principle of food washing to separate rice from sand is the kind of intelligence I am suggesting is not available to a calculator. I do think computers will be able to emulate this process. I doubt that it will be built. I expect that it will be trained. Neural Nets can do amazing things - they have to be trained. Genetic Algorithms can scour a multidimensional solution space; evolution takes time. Can we assemble these (and other) pieces according to some plan? Sure, and we Frankenstein's monster is a similar collection of parts stuck together. I expect growing up Frankenstein's baby will ultimately be a more elegant/scalable solution than starting from monster parts and smoothing out the ugly bits. I don't have working code as proof of anything. Obviously my opinion is only that. As long as the few thousand people in a world of 7 billion are actively thinking about and discussing these ideas, I consider my small contribution (even if it's wrong) to be participation. That may be the best I can do for now. From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 14:09:44 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> And it's about time! Just kidding... :) ? Regards, ? Dan From: john clark To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:38 AM Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/14/china-bans-time-travel-for-television/ _______________________________________________extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Sep 20 14:55:52 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:55:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00d201cc77a5$64d32490$2e796db0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:10 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] China bans time travel And it's about time! Just kidding... :) Regards, Dan From: john clark Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/14/china-bans-time-travel-for-televisi on/ >.And it's about time! Are any of you old enough to remember a show called "It's About Time" from the 1960s? Two astronauts accidentally break the light barrier and go back in time to the caveman days. Wacky funny silliness for a six year old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_About_Time_(TV_series) spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 15:23:46 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:23:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> Do you have something "intelligent" to say about it now that you've >> had a chance to reconsider your position? Since more intelligent life >> has been spontaneously appearing for the last billion years or so on >> this planet, it seems like a tautology that something more intelligent >> is around the corner. Since we're past genes, and on to memes and >> temes, it seems likely to me that we will have something to do with >> the creation of this "more intelligent" life... > > Nope. ?I have nothing "intelligent" to add. Well, at least that helps me understand your definition of intelligence... ;-) > In the scope of observing the last billion years (or so), what > interval is considered 'spontaneously'? ?10,000 years? ?By what > mechanism is intelligence appearing? ?mutation or engineering? For me and my house, mutation and natural selection of replicators. At this stage of our evolution, however, I believe memes and temes are more important replicators in terms of the evolution of intelligence than genes. If you don't think memes can mutate into something with higher information content, then there is no help for you... :-) It happens every single day. > "seems like a tautology" is hardly a rigorous proof. ?Pointing at a > progression of genes/memes/temes is also not an inherently inductive > process leading directly to the conclusion "... and then the next > thing." While blindly extrapolating curves into the future is fraught with danger, I can see no alternative approach that gives you a real clue. I prefer Kurzweil to Nostradamus or Isaiah. And while Kurzweil has been and will continue to be wrong on minor points (even if he is reluctant to admit it), his track record thus far is pretty admirable. If he has stiff competition, I am unaware of who that would be. When I have picked up other books about the future, it feels like the author is just pulling shit out of their ass, if you'll pardon the expression. Kurzweil, on the other hand, shares his trick (like Penn and Teller) and teaches you how "you too can predict the future"... > I agree we'll be involved in the next phase of intelligence on earth - > I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. ?I am doubtful that an engineer > is going to be able to draw literal blueprints for building > intelligence that exceeds his or her own. Why? This is the point where your reasoning seems to go off the rails. > What I am suggesting should > be a definition of intelligence is not the ability to follow > directions really quickly and accurately. ?For example, mechanical > automatons are not intelligent. ?Nor are music-box dancers, > variable-settings toasters, thermostats or calculators. ?I think > Intelligence must be something more than imitation and repetition. ?Is > a parrot intelligent because it can mimic the sounds you make? ?Is it > intelligent because it learned how you call the dog by name? Clearly, your point is well made... but it does not support your thesis. > Another example: > http://books.google.com/books?id=OAJW7JA24A8C&q=food-washing#v=onepage > Maybe potato washing was discovered by accident or perhaps invented > through some need. ?The application of the principle of food washing > to separate rice from sand is the kind of intelligence I am suggesting > is not available to a calculator. ?I do think computers will be able > to emulate this process. Again, I would ask WHY you believe this. I'm not trying to be difficult here, just follow your reasoning processes. If the brain is a machine, and we're learning to build machines that are better and better each year, then some day, it follows we should be able to build a machine that performs just as well as a brain does. What is the counter argument to that? That the brain is just a conduit into a higher spiritual realm where the real thinking takes place? That the brain works off of quantum effects that we won't be able to understand for centuries? What? > I doubt that it will be built. ?I expect > that it will be trained. ?Neural Nets can do amazing things - they > have to be trained. I'm totally with you here. If we build a machine like a brain, it will clearly have to be programmed like a brain (at least the first few times) through a learning experience. Intelligence comes from experience. You won't create an intelligent machine out of the box... you will only create a machine that is capable of becoming intelligent over time with the assimilation of information. > Genetic Algorithms can scour a multidimensional > solution space; evolution takes time. ?Can we assemble these (and > other) pieces according to some plan? ?Sure, and we Frankenstein's > monster is a similar collection of parts stuck together. ?I expect > growing up Frankenstein's baby will ultimately be a more > elegant/scalable solution than starting from monster parts and > smoothing out the ugly bits. Can't argue with that... but if what you're saying is that you can't build pre-configured intelligence, that is quite a different thing than I thought you were saying. I understood you to say that we will never achieve intelligent machinery equivalent to the brain's power, flexibility and intuitive majesty. > I don't have working code as proof of anything. ?Obviously my opinion > is only that. ?As long as the few thousand people in a world of 7 > billion are actively thinking about and discussing these ideas, I > consider my small contribution (even if it's wrong) to be > participation. ?That may be the best I can do for now. Do not think of your contribution as being null and void. Your brain, the most wonderful machine ever produced (to this point) is a collection of individual cells, each of which is apparently not so terribly special on its own. You and I are single cells in the collective of human thought, and as such, we are certainly no less (nor much more) important to human kind's collective thoughts than anyone else!! -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 15:42:35 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:42:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] nasa announces new launch vehicle In-Reply-To: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/14 spike : > I don?t know what to think of this: > > http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html I thought NASA had begun to pull their heads out of their dark moist nether regions, but this seems to indicate NOT SO MUCH! I thought they were going to have one vehicle that launched people, and another to launch stuff and stop with that. I thought they were going to cooperate with private industry in doing things more efficiently. I thought they were getting away somewhat from monkeys in cans, and moving towards robotics and autonomy. I really liked the part about "this will create good American jobs"... The taxes required to pay for this monster will suck away American jobs from the private sector at a higher rate than this will create jobs... why can't people just THINK!!! AAAARRRGGH!!!!!! Just another government power grab! The vehicle will be reconfigurable for different missions.... Yikes!!! I certainly won't fly a machine that was put together for one mission!! That's the model that has served us SO VERY WELL in the nuclear industry. One plan, 1000 rockets, that's a plan that will work! 100 rockets with 100 different plans, that is insanity! Look kids, it's just like LEGO!!!! At least LEGO will profit from this, selling models of this silly, silly machine that once again tries to be everything to everybody. So, this will create jobs, at least a few, in Scandinavia!!! Will NASA never, ever learn? How's that for an opinion Spike? -Kelly From dennislmay at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 15:32:54 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316532774.3892.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> They were worried about my plan to start a General Tso's original chicken recipe chain. Dennis From: Dan To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] China bans time travel And it's about time! Just kidding... :) ? Regards, ? Dan From: john clark To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:38 AM Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/14/china-bans-time-travel-for-television/ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat_______________________________________________extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ddraig at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 15:02:59 2011 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:02:59 +1000 Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/21 Dan And it's about time! Just kidding... :) > Awwww, nooooooo!!!! ;p 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://tinyurl.com/he-is-right-you-know-jpg* our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 15:11:05 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:11:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] nasa announces new launch vehicle In-Reply-To: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <20110919115654.GJ25711@leitl.org> <009d01cc76df$e34eab30$a9ec0190$@att.net> <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> Message-ID: On 20 September 2011 14:37, spike wrote: > How far NASA has fallen from these golden days: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY > Indeed. They seem to have mostly become a PR agency throwing a bone from time to time to the deplorably small space constituency with things such as contests for the best design for Pluto horse open sleigh or by investing a coupla millions in rather wild speculations as those of the Breakthrough Propulsion Project . :-( -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 16:53:10 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <00d201cc77a5$64d32490$2e796db0$@att.net> References: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <00d201cc77a5$64d32490$2e796db0$@att.net> Message-ID: <1316537590.61645.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> spike spike66 at att.net?wrote: ? "Are any of you old enough to remember a show called ?It?s About Time? from the 1960s?? Two astronauts accidentally break the light barrier and go back in time to the caveman days.? Wacky funny silliness for a six year old. ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_About_Time_(TV_series)" ? No, but I wonder if it's on Hulu. I have enjoyed some of the older science fiction TV series on DVD, such as "The Omega Factor" and "UFO." Did you see these when you were growing up? Of course, watching on hulu or DVD is probably not like the original runs. I mean, no ads (or fewer) and you can watch a good chunk of a season in one sitting. ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 17:46:48 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:46:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. ?I am doubtful that an engineer >> is going to be able to draw literal blueprints for building >> intelligence that exceeds his or her own. > > Why? This is the point where your reasoning seems to go off the rails. I'm trying to imagine how to express this. My first (hopefully) clear thought goes to the classic example of recursion, Factorial. A description about the function is relatively short and simple. A description about the process of evaluation is also short and simple. This concept of "short and simple" is a measure of complexity. I admit I don't have a doctoral-level appreciation of complexity as a rigorous mathematical concept - mostly drawing from colloquial understanding that complex things are difficult to understand and this special usage of complexity explains the difficulty of understanding to the amount of information necessary to accurately describe something. So Factorial is not complex at all. However, the resource utilization of a typical desktop machine to use this approach makes this an expensive method for finding larger values of N!. At some point the "stack" runs out of space. Let's assume we don't know about trampolining or continuation-passing style or functional programming for a moment. Say our AI-builder is reasoning about how to implement an AI-builder. In order to implement the Factorial function from the only working model available would be to examine its own stack during the process. This introspection capability is obviously implemented outside the Factorial function itself. So this introspection takes some space in addition to the recursion stack. I know it's a leap to suggest that the introspection function may also be recursive, so I'll state it but I can't defend it. So the builder needs to continue observing this model. The observation space competes with the Factorial stack space. So resource contention eventually prevents Factorial( large N ) from completing and the observation space notes an unwanted kind of halting. We're clever enough to solve this problem. Maybe we're even clever enough to implement the AI-builder with stack overflow protection or some heuristic to know how/when to use tail-recursion. So now it's not killed by stack overflow, but when the introspection module is turned to observe the recursion protection heuristic it risks another kind of halting problem (how does it know how to get out of the how-to-get-out code?) We seem very capable of bogging down on a problem, then jumping out or over something like an infinite sum to arrive at its limit. I have yet to hear about someone implementing this ability in a program. It's a big enough achievement that we probably would have learned about someone clever "solving" the halting problem if it had been done. Ok, so you're still waiting for me to explain why the AI-builder can't build better than its own capability? I have to go back to complexity. Suppose you are sufficiently capable of modelling my thought process that you create a 1:1 model of every detail of my brain and its entire history (which is really just the physical state remaining after all previous processing). Maybe you use 10% of your computation resources to model my own. Let's say you use another 10% of your resources to observe the functioning of the model, then from inductive examples distill a general rule that predicts my output for any input with 100% accuracy - but that general rule requires only 2% of your resources to compute. It's clear that running the expensive model is a waste of resource, so instead you use that 2% shortcut to predict all of my future output. Now suppose the UI that was used to inspect the working model of my brain is pointed instead at the real-time workings of your own brain. I'm sure there would be similarities at first. At some point the view of brain structure responsible for extracting meaning from the interface would become a case of recursion - much like turning a video camera on it's own display. What happens when the model viewer is inspecting the model viewer infrastructure - does your awareness of its function change its nature? When a microphone is place in front of a speaker the resulting feedback usually destroys/overwhelms the microphone, the speaker or the signal processor at some point. Well, this is what I meant with the reference to Archimedes' observation that even with a world-moving lever, he still needs somewhere to stand in order to use it: Introspection on recursive introspection leaves you with no place to stand. I think a team of developers standing "on the shoulders of giants" does not suffer from this problem. That's why I point to growing/training/evolving a solution in an iterative way would be viable where directly architecting one likely will not. I think it will take said team a lot of work to produce the framework that will allow software to emulate human reasoning in a way that it will properly ground symbols in order to reason about itself. I think the resulting machine may well be more intelligent than any individual developer on that team but probably less than the sum of the whole team. Though the machine would be part of the team at that point. Once all the original humans are replaced, I suspect that an individual super-intelligent machine will not be any more able to replace itself without a team of other machines than a single human was able to build the first machine without help. I will admit (again) that I may have confused the first few terms in this induction process and that the whole thing becomes unstable and falls apart. This is further evidence that it's Herculean difficulty (if not impossible) to manage this concept without a team. > Clearly, your point is well made... but it does not support your thesis. Thanks for that. I didn't know what part of what I wrote was failing earlier in the thread. > better each year, then some day, it follows we should be able to build > a machine that performs just as well as a brain does. What is the > counter argument to that? That the brain is just a conduit into a > higher spiritual realm where the real thinking takes place? That the > brain works off of quantum effects that we won't be able to understand > for centuries? What? No counter. I think brains perform well enough, but fall down on some key skills. > times) through a learning experience. Intelligence comes from > experience. You won't create an intelligent machine out of the box... > you will only create a machine that is capable of becoming intelligent > over time with the assimilation of information. I think you have asserted here what I originally tried to say. > Can't argue with that... but if what you're saying is that you can't > build pre-configured intelligence, that is quite a different thing > than I thought you were saying. I understood you to say that we will > never achieve intelligent machinery equivalent to the brain's power, > flexibility and intuitive majesty. Pre-configured intelligence = ? I grant that the genetics to produce a human brain is a fairly terse code capable of unfolding an amazing information processing machine. We may be able to produce as elegant a machine; I won't. You won't. We might. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 15:01:28 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:01:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] nasa announces new launch vehicle In-Reply-To: <20110919115654.GJ25711@leitl.org> References: <007101cc7361$3e0727a0$ba1576e0$@att.net> <20110919115654.GJ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 19 September 2011 13:56, Eugen Leitl wrote: > 30 years too late, and do they even have the cash? > > If you can't pay Pentagon, will you be able to pay NASA? > That's a very intesting question the answer to which > we'll soon find out. > This was exactly my reaction. But, hey, NASA, let you surprise us all... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ddraig at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 18:55:05 2011 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 04:55:05 +1000 Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <1316537590.61645.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <00d201cc77a5$64d32490$2e796db0$@att.net> <1316537590.61645.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/21 Dan : > No, but I wonder if it's on Hulu. I have enjoyed some of the older science > fiction TV series on DVD, such as "The Omega Factor" and "UFO." Did you see > these when you were growing up? UFO, the Gerry Anderson show? Yeah, I watched that when I was about 6 or 7, it was my favourite show at the time. 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://tinyurl.com/he-is-right-you-know-jpg our aim is wakefulness,? our enemy is dreamless sleep From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 20 15:51:37 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:51:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <1316532774.3892.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1316532774.3892.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/20 Dennis May > They were worried about my plan to start > a General Tso's original chicken recipe > chain. > No, they were worried about my plan to take the elder, successful General Tso back in time to form an unstoppable partnership with his young self, renaming the company "Tso & Tso". - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 20 20:44:44 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <00d201cc77a5$64d32490$2e796db0$@att.net> References: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <00d201cc77a5$64d32490$2e796db0$@att.net> Message-ID: <201109202045.p8KKjU8c007466@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike wrote: >Are any of you old enough to remember a show called "It's About >Time" from the 1960s? Two astronauts accidentally break the light >barrier and go back in time to the caveman days. Wacky funny >silliness for a six year old. Not only do I remember it, but I can still sing the theme song! As for the actual topic, I clicked over to the actual report from the PRC State Administration of Radio Film and Television. Google Translate renders the concern, which CNN thinks includes time travel stories, as > {W]e also found some signs of incorrect creation: individual > returns filed through the drama of fantasy and drama, random > compilation of fairy tales, the plot weird, bizarre, absurd > way, and even rendering of feudal superstition, fatalism and > reincarnation, ambiguous values, the lack of a positive > ideological significance. Does anyone here read Chinese well enough to tell if CNN's version is accurate? I'm learning, but far from good enough. -- David. From gsantostasi at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 20:57:00 2011 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:57:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] China bans time travel In-Reply-To: <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <008f01cc7792$08195430$184bfc90$@att.net> <1316525921.92524.YahooMailClassic@web82903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316527784.82658.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: If now they could ban time altogether..... Giovanni 2011/9/20 Dan > And it's about time! Just kidding... :) > > Regards, > > Dan > *From:* john clark > *To:* ExI chat list > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:38 AM > *Subject:* [ExI] China bans time travel > ** > > http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/14/china-bans-time-travel-for-television/ > ** > _______________________________________________**extropy-chat mailing list > **extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org** > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat****** > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 22:24:41 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:24:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Have you ever worked the engineering numbers? ?Dr. Eric Drexler and I > have done some of them, as has Dr John Lewis of the University of > Arizona. Care to share them, then? > Have you thought about how big these need to be? ?I can make a case > for one massing 50,000 tons, incorporating a 5-10 GW power satellite > and manned by 500 people. ?I expect this plant to make it's own mass > in product (nickel) in around 50 days. ?It's really not obvious to me > how to scale it down or operate it with a few hours of delay in the > control loop. That seems excessive to me*, but let's take that as a starting point. How do the 500 people break down? What are their tasks? On what basis do you say that each task requires that many people? How is that 5-10 GW power budget, and 50 Kton mass budget, allocated? How do you figure that mass production rate? * There are mines on Earth that operate with less than 25 employees. Even accounting for oil platform style operations, life support technicians, power plant technicians, and so on, a 20-fold increase in the minimum possible staffing level suggests there may be unexamined ways to optimize or scale down operations. As to the delay - this is one of the reasons I favor gathering asteroids at the Lagrange points or in lunar orbit. (Not to mention, delta-v. If you're going to wind up using all or most of the asteroid's mass, then you're eventually going to need to provide the delta-v to move it anyway. Plus, if the processing facility masses a significant fraction of any one asteroid, then not moving the facility saves delta-v - making it possible to, say, start by moving a small asteroid to the facility, and scale up by gathering more small asteroids, then eventually start mining big ones worth $billions.) BTW, it is of note that, even on Earth, "fully automated" mines (as in, no one on-site) are only recently becoming a reality. See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/rio-to-trial-automated-mining/story-e6frg9df-1111115351260 One might consider contracting development of the mining & processing plant to Rio Tinto or similar. Yes, it's in space, zero gravity, no air, and so on - but the basic problems in designing, constructing, and operating such a facility seem more similar to those of automated mines on Earth than to, say, rockets. > I am trying not to be snarkey because if you really have good idea on > how to do this, I would like to help. A "good idea" usually won't have the kind of advanced analysis you're asking for, if it's really just an idea and not something with a lot of money already invested (at which point, if you want to help, you apply for employment with the entity). If a version of this that you've worked on already does have that analysis, OTOH, then deriving from that and seeing how to scale it down might be useful. From atymes at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 22:43:33 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:43:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: 2011/9/18 Amara D. Angelica : > Does anyone know of a system for automated black-box-based system design of > unsupervised intelligent hyperintelligent learning systems? If it is unsupervised, how does anyone (including itself) know it is learning? You can record all the data you want, but without some method of generating and validating hypotheses, it's just data. And that method is usually where the "supervision" comes in. The only existence proof of a completely unsupervised evolution has had a runtime in the billions of years. Most simplifications that allow emulation of reality at faster than real time, eliminate one or more factors that this process used to determine which organisms reproduced and how often. In order to, say, take a random character generator and evolve it toward something that can output English, you need an algorithm that can determine whether "abfdslkjlr" or "fslweo.pds" is better, because that's about the coherency of output you're going to get for the first several generations. Unless, that is, you're able to screen 38^140 or so candidates per generation (letters, numbers, space, and period, for a Twitter post) - which is analogous to how that existence proof did it. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 23:35:56 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:35:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> Have you ever worked the engineering numbers? ?Dr. Eric Drexler and I >> have done some of them, as has Dr John Lewis of the University of >> Arizona. > > Care to share them, then? Sure. Getting rid of waste heat by radiation is one of the fundamental problems in space. http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/L5news1979.htm July and August issues. Moving, shaping metal is another one. Henson, H.K., and K.E. Drexler: Vapor-phase Fabrication of Massive Structures in Space, Space Manufacturing AIAA 1977 That was long before there was much of a net and other than a library, I am not certain what you might do to find it. AIAA may have it behind a paywall. # Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets by John S. Lewis; Perseus Publishing; (September 1997); ISBN 0-201-32819-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Lewis > >> Have you thought about how big these need to be? ?I can make a case >> for one massing 50,000 tons, incorporating a 5-10 GW power satellite >> and manned by 500 people. ?I expect this plant to make it's own mass >> in product (nickel) in around 50 days. ?It's really not obvious to me >> how to scale it down or operate it with a few hours of delay in the >> control loop. > > That seems excessive to me*, but let's take that as a starting point. ?How > do the 500 people break down? ?What are their tasks? ?On what basis > do you say that each task requires that many people? ?How is that 5-10 > GW power budget, and 50 Kton mass budget, allocated? ?How do you > figure that mass production rate? 50,000 tons was based on best estimate of how long it would take a plant to make its own mass in product and the demand for nickel (1000 tons per day) for a relatively mature power sat industry. 5-10 GW of power was based on the energy to melt, roll into thin ribbon, move it into 750 psi warm CO and sort out the carbonals. Besides, you want to just use a power satellite off the production line. The power sat alone is 25,000 tons. > * There are mines on Earth that operate with less than 25 employees. > Even accounting for oil platform style operations, life support technicians, > power plant technicians, and so on, a 20-fold increase in the minimum > possible staffing level suggests there may be unexamined ways to > optimize or scale down operations. Maybe. It's not really a mine as much as a smelter and a good sized one at that. I figured 100 people actually working in the processing plant and the rest being support and dependents. These people are isolated, with transit times as bad as to Mars. They have no choice about growing at least some of their food. > As to the delay - this is one of the reasons I favor gathering asteroids at > the Lagrange points or in lunar orbit. ?(Not to mention, delta-v. ?If you're > going to wind up using all or most of the asteroid's mass, then you're > eventually going to need to provide the delta-v to move it anyway. ?Plus, > if the processing facility masses a significant fraction of any one asteroid, > then not moving the facility saves delta-v - making it possible to, say, > start by moving a small asteroid to the facility, and scale up by gathering > more small asteroids, then eventually start mining big ones worth > $billions.) You might be correct that that is a better approach. I don't think it would work with the one I analyzed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_DA though. If you just need mass and are not particular about it, the moon is handy and a moving cable lunar elevator is within the strength of Spectra fiber. Mass payback of 100 days. > BTW, it is of note that, even on Earth, "fully automated" mines (as in, > no one on-site) are only recently becoming a reality. ?See > http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/rio-to-trial-automated-mining/story-e6frg9df-1111115351260 Well, maybe. Of course if anything jams up the automation, you will lose a couple of years of production before a human can be on site. > One might consider contracting development of the mining & processing > plant to Rio Tinto or similar. ?Yes, it's in space, zero gravity, no air, and > so on - but the basic problems in designing, constructing, and operating > such a facility seem more similar to those of automated mines on Earth > than to, say, rockets. > >> I am trying not to be snarkey because if you really have good idea on >> how to do this, I would like to help. > > A "good idea" usually won't have the kind of advanced analysis you're > asking for, if it's really just an idea and not something with a lot of > money already invested (at which point, if you want to help, you apply > for employment with the entity). > > If a version of this that you've worked on already does have that > analysis, OTOH, then deriving from that and seeing how to scale it > down might be useful. What I have done on this topic is just slightly beyond the "back of the envelope" stage while matching the scale of the project to the demand for Invar for a modest 200 GW per year power sat project. Perhaps I am too hard on people to ask that they back up "good ideas" with a little physics and chemistry. From dennislmay at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 01:05:32 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:05:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy References: Message-ID: <1316567132.93585.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> While I appreciate that large?scale industrial planning has its place I suspect it is far too early to generate a lot of detail when basic experiments in processing on the actual bodies has yet to be done. ? The history of space launches is full of simple technical failures and problems related to things like friction, inappropriate lubricants, inadequate?testing before launch, dust, loose parts, inappropriate seal material, growth of fungus, inadequate backups, unexpected vibration modes, and communication problems. ? If we were in a different economic and political environment I would say think big and bold. Unfortunately I don't think big and bold space projects can be sold at this time.? Building up from demonstrator projects seems the only possible way to get things started in the near term.? That means all remote and/or automated processes at first and proving the technology. Once a toehold is going larger and larger follow on projects can be contemplated. ? Keith Henson wrote: ? "How do you propose to make iron-nickel dust? How do you propose to move it to the location you want to fuse it? What energy source are you proposing to fuse it?" ? Since I am taking about a small private venture I would want to test several processes with each launch.? Depending on what is found you have the options of making and/or collecting dust/fines. Plasma or lasers can produce fines, electrostatic systems can collect and process dust/fines.? Lasers can process materials as they are collected. ? http://www.additive3d.com/lens.htm ? The first generation tests will be small and likely solar powered.? Later generations would be nuclear powered.? Eventually materials from space would be processed to provide fuel for the nuclear power plants. ? Keith Henson wrote: "I am trying not to be snarkey because if you really have good idea on how to do this, I would like to help." ? I appreciate?that you have contemplated?larger scale processes.? Once demonstrations and actual fabrication from native materials has been done larger scale industrial processes will be 3rd and?4th generation projects. ? A great deal of ground testing on processes needs to be done before a demonstrator mining/fabrication process is sent to low-g bodies for testing.? I would expect several hundred smaller processing units over several generations would be tried before ramping up to larger scale processes.? The more that can be done ahead of time on the cheap the less it will cost to move to large scale production - since more of the starter material will have originated in space. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 01:34:54 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316568894.39486.YahooMailNeo@web112104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Keith Henson?wrote: ?? From spike66 at att.net Wed Sep 21 04:10:04 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:10:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] virtual tombs Message-ID: <005301cc7814$57c0bd70$07423850$@att.net> Now why didn't we think of this? Oh wait, we did, at least ten years ago: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/20/virtual-tombs-offer-customers-chan ce-to-live-forever-online/ spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Sep 21 10:37:16 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:37:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: <4E79BE5C.6010304@aleph.se> Amara D. Angelica wrote: > > Does anyone know of a system for automated black-box-based system > design of unsupervised intelligent hyperintelligent learning systems? > What about http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/goedelmachine.html http://www.hutter1.net/ai/aixigentle.htm At least AIXI is hyperintelligent; not sure about whether there is any proof that the G?del machine will get there. AIXItl has been implemented for real, but is of course slow enough that we do not need to worry about it triggering a singularity on this side of the heat death of the universe. Which is good, since it is not hard to prove that it is a fairly unfriendly AI for most utility functions. > Now how long do you think it would take such a system to > reverse-engineer human intelligence and function and pass a more > sophisticated version of the Turing test based on interacting with > humans in RT/RL (real time/real life), initially at say, fly level, > then cat level, then working up to human genius level and passing it, > outputting advanced versions of itself. > There are some theorems for AIXI and related Solomonoff learners showing that they can learn to predict inputs amazingly well amazingly quickly - the total number of bits wrong in an infinite sequence is bounded, and looks fairly low. The bad news is that pure AIXI is not implementable in this universe :-) In practice I suspect the answer is "fairly slowly". You need to see example outputs due to visiting many parts of the internal state space, likely several times. That means that for a human even an optimal learner will likely need *a lot* of data. I have been thinking of turning this into a serious research project sometime, analysing exactly what the theory of Markov chains and similar structures tell us about the feasibility to infer the cognitive structure of intelligent creatures. My intuition is that it is not feasible, but it needs to be turned into a stringent proof. (Loose argument: there are 1e15 synapses in the brain, we need ~36 bits per synapse to encode where they connect. Plus a few bits of synaptic strength etc. So the information needed to describe a brain is of the order of 4e16 bits. If a bit of information allows us to narrow down connectivity by half, then we would just need this number of bits to determine the brain - if we get 12.7 megabit per second we might be able to do it in a century. This is already tricky, since we do not generate that much external information per second (consider when we are asleep). Worse, most of the activity and memories in our brains are hidden or does not recur often, so we can not refine our model as strongly as assumed above. It might turn out that our regular behavior is easy to turn into chatbots on the other hand...) > > And is anyone developing something like this, or do I have to take off > a few days and develop it myself? OK, a few centuries.... I haven't > found anything on this except for Anders Sandberg's highly imaginative > "Think Before Asking," > http://eclipsephase.com/downloads/ThinkBeforeAsking.pdf, which touches > on some aspects of this. > Thanks for mentioning it. We (Stuart Armstrong and me) are presenting the paper it was based on at a philosophy and AI conference in Thessaloniki in two weeks. And anybody who says you cannot make something smarter than yourself has been wrong since Arthur Samuel's checker program. :-) -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From amara at kurzweilai.net Wed Sep 21 11:34:28 2011 From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 04:34:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <4E79BE5C.6010304@aleph.se> References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> <4E79BE5C.6010304@aleph.se> Message-ID: <08c801cc7852$6d3a7220$47af5660$@net> Anders: Wow, thanks! But "not implementable in this universe"? Damn, I was hoping for something more like a quickie Arduino/Python project.... From artillo at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 12:59:24 2011 From: artillo at gmail.com (artillo at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:59:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net><1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> BillK said: "DIY energy supplies and zero footprint living is the way to go for the general population. But it probably means a big drop in living standards." I agree we do need to go towards DIY energy but I don't think it will mean a big drop in living standards. I think if it is done properly it will actually mean a huge improvement in a good portion of the population's living standards, especially the extremely poor. Not having to worry about paying the electric bill vs. buying food for your children in the dead of Winter would be a basic example of this. The question then becomes, HOW do we get people on board with this idea? How can it be implemented in such a way as to produce a change in mentality from the way previous generations did it? The first answer that comes to my mind is to show them proven example after proven example and spread the word as best we can with all means available to us. Let's face it, the vast majority of the population is hopelessly ignorant and too lazy to look things up for themselves, so it will initially have to be spoon-fed to them until they develop a taste for it. Look how long it took us to even start the "green" movement (which has origins back to at least the 60's!). Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: BillK Sender: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.orgDate: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:06:54 To: ExI chat list Reply-To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires 2011/9/17 Dennis May wrote: > You meet millionaires all the time and likely don't know it. > I can't say I've ever met a billionaire.? I think the extent of the > rich I've ever been around is in the under 50 million range. > Most millionaires are not cocky about their money.? Most > people who act cocky about money are immature and > likely wannabes in debt. > Agreed. Millionaires are not considered really rich these days. Especially if you include property and pension funds and other assets not readily available for spending. And yes, most ordinary millionaires are just like the people next door. (Us ordinary millionaires must stick together, after all). ;) I was referring to people whose annual *income* is in the billions, never mind their total assets. These people don't even think about the cost of something. They just do it, because price doesn't matter to them. And these people own and run companies who also work on their behalf. They don't even need to use their own money when a company can hire lawyers and mercenaries to do their bidding. But to maintain this lifestyle, they end up doing what benefits the corporation as well as themselves, rather than looking at what the longer term future demands. This has led to the current economic problems. Which is still working to benefit the companies that caused the problems. (But I suppose there must be some nice guys in there as well. All generalisations have exceptions. Not all lawyers or parking officials are totally evil). But even the coal and oil corporations are slowly diversifying into renewable resources. The problem that society has is that they are deliberately diversifying slowly, so as to extract the maximum profit from dwindling resources. And as the oil price increases, that means that high price expectations mean that they can charge more for the renewable energy replacements that they will provide. Energy will still be available. It will just be very expensive when coming from the grid. (Not a problem for the super-rich, of course). DIY energy supplies and zero footprint living is the way to go for the general population. But it probably means a big drop in living standards. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dennislmay at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 15:31:15 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net><1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <1316619075.60584.YahooMailNeo@web112104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Large up front expenses, high operating and maintenance costs, short life cycle, and/or reduced availability [lower standard of living] is why DIY energy has only worked in niche markets.? Not every household is going to have an engineer and maintenance man available to take care of such systems.? If DIY energy becomes available through the free market that's fine.? If it requires continual taxpayer input it is nothing but a wealth redistribution program in disguise. ? I have done small DIY home energy projects - 12 volt lighting, LED lighting, wood heat, wood heated hot water, minor wind mill experiments, and a few local water wells.? DIY will not work for the vast majority of people - diverting resources assuming it will - will only lead to major economic disruptions and severe lowering of the standard of living for many.? There is a reason why central power and water distribution occurred.? A local cemetary [Cox] has a number of childen buried who died from well water contamination issues. Local and DIY was my father's generation here in NE Missouri and they had a very low standard of living compared to now. ? Dennis May From: "artillo at gmail.com" To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires BillK said: "DIY energy supplies and zero footprint living is the way to go for the general population. But it probably means a big drop in living standards." I agree we do need to go towards DIY energy but I don't think it will mean a big drop in living standards. I think if it is done properly it will actually mean a huge improvement in a good portion of the population's living standards, especially the extremely poor. Not having to worry about paying the electric bill vs. buying food for your children in the dead of Winter would be a basic example of this. The question then becomes, HOW do we get people on board with this idea? How can it be implemented in such a way as to produce a change in mentality from the way previous generations did it? The first answer that comes to my mind is to show them proven example after proven example and spread the word as best we can with all means available to us. Let's face it, the vast majority of the population is hopelessly ignorant and too lazy to look things up for themselves, so it will initially have to be spoon-fed to them until they develop a taste for it. Look how long it took us to even start the "green" movement (which has origins back to at least the 60's!). Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: BillK Sender: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.orgDate: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:06:54 To: ExI chat list Reply-To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires 2011/9/17 Dennis May wrote: > You meet millionaires all the time and likely don't know it. > I can't say I've ever met a billionaire.? I think the extent of the > rich I've ever been around is in the under 50 million range. > Most millionaires are not cocky about their money.? Most > people who act cocky about money are immature and > likely wannabes in debt. > Agreed. Millionaires are not considered really rich these days. Especially if you include property and pension funds and other assets not readily available for spending. And yes, most ordinary millionaires are just like the people next door. (Us ordinary millionaires must stick together, after all).? ;) I was referring to people whose annual *income* is in the billions, never mind their total assets. These people don't even think about the cost of something. They just do it, because price doesn't matter to them. And these people own and run companies who also work on their behalf. They don't even need to use their own money when a company can hire lawyers and mercenaries to do their bidding. But to maintain this lifestyle, they end up doing what benefits the corporation as well as themselves, rather than looking at what the longer term future demands. This has led to the current economic problems. Which is still working to benefit the companies that caused the problems. (But I suppose there must be some nice guys in there as well. All generalisations have exceptions. Not all lawyers or parking officials are totally evil). But even the coal and oil corporations are slowly diversifying into renewable resources. The problem that society has is that they are deliberately diversifying slowly, so as to extract the maximum profit from dwindling resources. And as the oil price increases, that means that high price expectations mean that they can charge more for the renewable energy replacements that they will provide.? Energy will still be available. It will just be very expensive when coming from the grid. (Not a problem for the super-rich, of course). DIY energy supplies and zero footprint living is the way to go for the general population. But it probably means a big drop in living standards. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 15:48:38 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:48:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: Understanding the dynamics of millionaires and billionaires is, I think, quite relevant to the future, and here is why... In the future ALL of us will have what billionaires have today, except in greater quantity and variety. We will some day in the not too distant future, be able to produce custom yachts for a single use, not even billionaires do that today! We will be able to create our own custom planets in virtual reality... with creatures even the super rich would not be able to create today! So what is the psychology of the super rich? I have met a number of people worth in excess of $500 million, and quite a number with over $25 million, and consider some of them to be much more than mere acquaintances. At one time, briefly, I myself was technically a multimillionaire (barely). When I talk to them, here is what I observe... having more money makes you more of what you were before. If you were eccentric, money makes you more eccentric. (That's what it did to me). If you are kind, money makes you more kind. If you are selfish, money makes you more selfish, and so forth. Bill Gates is more "Bill Gates" than he would be without money... what is that? Insufferable, smart, generous? All of the above? Nathan Myrvold is more curious. Alan Ashton is more kind and religious. Bruce Bastion is more openly gay. My neighbor Nedra ($50 million) is more eccentric, with 4 foot long orange hair, driving a pink Mercedes Benz, adopting children with special needs, buying houses without looking at them, and donating things to causes she believes in. John Pestana is more interested in cars and collecting, pursues his passion for model trains to a degree none of us could, helps budding entrepreneurs, invests in small businesses, and is an all around great guy to spend an afternoon with. Larry Miller collected very rare coins, and took great joy in it, he bought the Jazz basketball team, he built a race track, he was a great guy to just hang with. Steven Covey works harder on his books, pays to recover important artifacts and restore them, works on his church work, and lives a very balanced life of business and family. Ray Noorda drove his old beat up pickup truck to work every day, years after it should have been junked, in fact... he spent a lot of time with his child, who had mental deficiencies. He never moved out of his modest house in his modest neighborhood. Of everyone, money seemed to affect Ray less than anyone. He became more humble, because he was humble to begin with. One acquaintance who was arrogant, became more so... Those that feel confident, feel more confident with money... Those that are insecure, are still insecure and even fearful, even with loads of money... now they fear kidnapping and that sort of thing. One of the richest people I know is among the most unhappy and paranoid people I have ever met. I won't tell his name because he made me sign a non-disclosure agreement that said I would never reveal that I worked for him... what I did... would NEVER work for a competitor... and would never reveal the location of his work space, which has an entrance that looks like something from a bad B movie. I couldn't leave a scrap of paper on my desk at night... and none of his machines had a floppy disk drive (tells you something about WHEN this happened... oops, maybe I let too much slip out there just now.) All of these people became more of what they were before. I had the absolute joy of knowing Alan Ashton before he was super rich, as well as after... He just became more of what he was before... just like the rest of them. So the take home question for each of us is "what are we?" And when we become more of what we are, will that be a good thing or a bad thing? We will all be rich... indeed in 15th century terms, the vast majority of humanity is very rich today. -Kelly From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Sep 21 16:15:41 2011 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:15:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <564c83b7e30abb6662a3955c665cc895.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > I have met a number of people worth in excess of $500 million, and > quite a number with over $25 million, and consider some of them to be > much more than mere acquaintances. At one time, briefly, I myself was > technically a multimillionaire (barely). When I talk to them, here is > what I observe... having more money makes you more of what you were > before. (snip) What an excellent post, Kelly Anderson! A keeper, something to study on. Thanks for your insight. :) Regards, MB From lubkin at unreasonable.com Wed Sep 21 16:31:07 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:31:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <201109211632.p8LGWdg5001532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Kelly wrote: >Understanding the dynamics of millionaires and billionaires is, I >think, quite relevant to the future, and here is why... In the future >ALL of us will have what billionaires have today, except in greater >quantity and variety. We will some day in the not too distant future, >be able to produce custom yachts for a single use, not even >billionaires do that today! We will be able to create our own custom >planets in virtual reality... with creatures even the super rich would >not be able to create today! : >So the take home question for each of us is "what are we?" And when we >become more of what we are, will that be a good thing or a bad thing? Interesting. One piece you're leaving out though is that much the same enabling technology will also allow you to change yourself in fundamental ways. For millennia, people have been dissatisfied with themselves, with their personality or how it manifests in behavior. And sought to change it. That will become much easier and more thorough. Just as John Varley looked at the ramifications of a society where a complete, wholly functional sex change is as easy as getting your hair permed, where you might have given birth to some of your children and sired others, one can imagine that the qualities you talk about would become malleable at will. There has been some sf that's played with this: A society where personality is a matter of fashion. Or you can dial down your boyfriend's jealousy. (The classic that will instantly come to Damien's mind is Cordwainer Smith's "Scanners Live in Vain," which lures you in with its first lines -- Martel was angry. He did not even adjust his blood away from anger.) -- David. From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 16:45:09 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:45:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: <201109211632.p8LGWdg5001532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> <201109211632.p8LGWdg5001532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:31 AM, David Lubkin wrote: > Kelly wrote: > >> So the take home question for each of us is "what are we?" And when we >> become more of what we are, will that be a good thing or a bad thing? > > Interesting. Thanks. > One piece you're leaving out though is that much the same enabling > technology will also allow you to change yourself in fundamental > ways. Yes this is possible... but will that leave us being ourselves? Some of my kids take powerful medications that change their brain chemistry. In a very real way, they are not themselves, and that's in 2011.. So I see your point, and it is a good one. The question then becomes, if you could change your personality, would you choose to do so, and just how would you change it? I pretty much like where I am right now... I would like to understand people better... learn more about how to keep people I love from getting hurt... the typical regrets. But I can't think of a personality trait I would change... Perhaps if I could make myself crawl back into the hole of believing in God, I might be tempted to do that, just for the security blanket of it all ... :-) > For millennia, people have been dissatisfied with themselves, with > their personality or how it manifests in behavior. And sought to > change it. That will become much easier and more thorough. If you are dissatisfied, yes. People will do that. I don't think I will, but maybe. Happy pills anyone? :-) > Just as John Varley looked at the ramifications of a society where a > complete, wholly functional sex change is as easy as getting your > hair permed, where you might have given birth to some of your > children and sired others, one can imagine that the qualities you talk > about would become malleable at will. In VR, nobody knows you're a kangaroo... > There has been some sf that's played with this: A society where > personality is a matter of fashion. Or you can dial down your boyfriend's > jealousy. Ah, if other people have charge of my personality, then I'm SURE it would be changed... LOL!!! > (The classic that will instantly come to Damien's mind is Cordwainer > Smith's "Scanners Live in Vain," which lures you in with its first lines -- > > Martel was angry. He did not even adjust his blood away from anger.) And why would he? :-) -Kelly From dennislmay at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 18:45:23 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Bio Circuit Work Message-ID: <1316630723.2337.YahooMailNeo@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Proton-Based Transistor Could Let Machines Communicate With Living Things ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920111803.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Sep 21 19:44:33 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:44:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <08c801cc7852$6d3a7220$47af5660$@net> References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> <4E79BE5C.6010304@aleph.se> <08c801cc7852$6d3a7220$47af5660$@net> Message-ID: <4E7A3EA1.5030506@aleph.se> Amara D. Angelica wrote: > Anders: Wow, thanks! But "not implementable in this universe"? Damn, I was > hoping for something more like a quickie Arduino/Python project.... > Well, there are those projects that are easy. And then those that require a lot of effort. And then there are those that require changing the laws of physics. The latter are much more rewarding than the former :-) -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From aleksei at iki.fi Wed Sep 21 20:10:05 2011 From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:10:05 +0300 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: <564c83b7e30abb6662a3955c665cc895.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> <564c83b7e30abb6662a3955c665cc895.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:15 PM, MB wrote: > > What an excellent post, Kelly Anderson! ?A keeper, something to study on. > > Thanks for your insight. ?:) Indeed, it was very interesting and insightful. Thanks, I've archived it away now :) ...and am glad I exceptionally happened to check what's being discussed on ExI chat just now. -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei From atymes at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 21:06:50 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:06:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bio Circuit Work In-Reply-To: <1316630723.2337.YahooMailNeo@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316630723.2337.YahooMailNeo@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: "Human devices, from light bulbs to iPods, send information using electrons. Human bodies and all other living things, on the other hand, send signals and perform work using ions or protons." ...ignoring the fact that electrons *are* ions, and electron-based machinery has been communicating with living organisms for decades now. Neuron chips were available in the late '90s. Nice to see progress, but the claims are more overblown than usual in this article. 2011/9/21 Dennis May : > Proton-Based Transistor Could Let Machines Communicate With Living Things > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920111803.htm > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 01:46:14 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:46:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:00 AM, May wrote: snip Dennis, there is a vast literature on the subjects you have been talking about, much of it where people actually worked the numbers. Re cooling, there is rule of thumb number anyone can calculate on the radiator area you need per kW of waste heat at room temperature. I suggest you might want to look up the formula and calculate it. There is a subtle problem with scaling down heaters like induction furnaces and scaling up radiators. Best wishes, Keith From rtomek at ceti.pl Thu Sep 22 02:30:41 2011 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 04:30:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines Message-ID: Very nice idea. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14967535 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 dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 03:04:02 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The cooling numbers I used were?from space based cooling radiator engineering. ? It takes huge radiators for cooling industrial processes in space.? Thus the interest in ice bodies where you have a ready place to dump heat with the side benefit of melting ice for radiation shielding and water mining. Dennis From: Keith Henson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:00 AM,? May wrote: snip Dennis, there is a vast literature on the subjects you have been talking about, much of it where people actually worked the numbers. Re cooling, there is rule of thumb number anyone can calculate on the radiator area you need per kW of waste heat at room temperature.? I suggest you might want to look up the formula and calculate it. There is a subtle problem with scaling down heaters like induction furnaces and scaling up radiators. Best wishes, Keith _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 03:04:24 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> That is just sad. ? Dennis From: Tomasz Rola To: ExI chat list Cc: Tomasz Rola Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:30 PM Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines Very nice idea. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14967535 Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.? ? ? ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home? ? ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...? ? ? ** **? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ** ** Tomasz Rola? ? ? ? ? mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com? ? ? ? ? ? ** _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 03:31:28 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316662288.7247.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Rejecting heat issues is why so many science fiction space stories and movies are so far off base.? Their ships and space stations would turn to toast in no time whatsoever.? ? Dennis From: Dennis May To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy The cooling numbers I used were?from space based cooling radiator engineering. ? It takes huge radiators for cooling industrial processes in space.? Thus the interest in ice bodies where you have a ready place to dump heat with the side benefit of melting ice for radiation shielding and water mining. Dennis From: Keith Henson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:00 AM,? May wrote: snip Dennis, there is a vast literature on the subjects you have been talking about, much of it where people actually worked the numbers. Re cooling, there is rule of thumb number anyone can calculate on the radiator area you need per kW of waste heat at room temperature.? I suggest you might want to look up the formula and calculate it. There is a subtle problem with scaling down heaters like induction furnaces and scaling up radiators. Best wishes, Keith _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Thu Sep 22 04:08:23 2011 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:08:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Dennis May wrote: > That is just sad. ? > Dennis Not for me. I see it like this: in spite of being economically handicaped, those guys try and make things that improve their lifes. I won't cry for them but I think they are great. 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 dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 03:57:59 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: <1316662288.7247.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316662288.7247.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316663879.17535.YahooMailNeo@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In the early stages of space industrialization using small automated mining and processing stations dispersed will have the advantage of not needing additional resources devoted to cooling.? Efficiency will require heat dumps which will not exist in many circumstances - particularly early on. ? Another example of heat issues.? Many years ago I heard talk of projections of how?gray goo could consume planetary bodies in short order.? The projections failed to take basic thermodynamics into account. The friction generated by processing would have turned the planetary body molten hot with no place to reject heat for further processing. ? Dennis From: Dennis May To: "extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org" Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy Rejecting heat issues is why so many science fiction space stories and movies are so far off base.? Their ships and space stations would turn to toast in no time whatsoever.? ? Dennis From: Dennis May To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy The cooling numbers I used were?from space based cooling radiator engineering. ? It takes huge radiators for cooling industrial processes in space.? Thus the interest in ice bodies where you have a ready place to dump heat with the side benefit of melting ice for radiation shielding and water mining. Dennis From: Keith Henson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:00 AM,? May wrote: snip Dennis, there is a vast literature on the subjects you have been talking about, much of it where people actually worked the numbers. Re cooling, there is rule of thumb number anyone can calculate on the radiator area you need per kW of waste heat at room temperature.? I suggest you might want to look up the formula and calculate it. There is a subtle problem with scaling down heaters like induction furnaces and scaling up radiators. Best wishes, Keith _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Thu Sep 22 04:40:24 2011 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:40:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E7ABC38.50306@moulton.com> On 09/21/2011 09:08 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Dennis May wrote: >> That is just sad >> Dennis > > Not for me. I see it like this: in spite of being economically > handicaped, > those guys try and make things that improve their lifes. I won't cry for > them but I think they are great. > And further the solution appears to be more robust than a lot of "aid solutions" which fall apart when the donor source dries up. As long as the seam at the roof does not leak too much it looks like an idea with potential. Fred From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 05:54:12 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:54:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Dennis May wrote: snip > The cooling numbers I used were?from space based > cooling radiator engineering. Sorry, I could not get into the URLs you posted. They took me to ads. If you could repeat it here, how many square meters does it take to get rid of a kW at room temperature? (call it 70 F) Keith From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 22 08:13:43 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:13:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110922081343.GP25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:04:02PM -0700, Dennis May wrote: > The cooling numbers I used were?from space based > cooling radiator engineering. > ? > It takes huge radiators for cooling industrial processes > in space.? Thus the interest in ice bodies where you Radiative losses go with T^4, so use a higher temperature. E.g. sodium-potassium cooled nuclear reactors in space need pretty small surface area to radiate nonnegligible power. > have a ready place to dump heat with the side > benefit of melting ice for radiation shielding and > water mining. If you're much beyond Mars (=half solar flux of Earth) you don't even need to shadow your radiators. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 22 08:15:51 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:15:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110922081551.GQ25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:04:24PM -0700, Dennis May wrote: > That is just sad. Sound like a first-world problem. Here's another, even more useful application of plastic water bottles: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004261.html ? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 13:05:30 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316696730.89921.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com wrote: > That is just sad. ? Why is it sad? Seems to me like people overcoming a bad situation in a clever way. ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 13:08:59 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: <4E7ABC38.50306@moulton.com> References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E7ABC38.50306@moulton.com> Message-ID: <1316696939.18954.YahooMailNeo@web160606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> F. C. Moulton moulton at moulton.com wrote: > And further the solution appears to be more robust than a lot of >?"aid solutions" which fall apart when the donor source dries up. >?As long as the seam at the roof does not leak too much it looks >?like an idea with potential. I was thinking much the same things -- about how this doesn't require constantly pumping in help or other resources to keep it going -- and, yeah, I was wondering, because it rains a lot in that region, how they would deal with that. I suppose, with the latter, one could seal up the opening between the bottle and the roof... Or one could just remove the whole setup when it's raining really hard. After all, there's not going to be much sunlight during a downpour. ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 13:20:34 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: <20110922081551.GQ25711@leitl.org> References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110922081551.GQ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1316697634.19368.YahooMailNeo@web160619.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org wrote: > Sound like a first-world problem. Here's another, even more >?useful application of plastic water bottles: > > http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004261.html I don't know if it's more or less useful, but it's certainly interesting. And, again, another example of people innovating their way around a problem. ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 14:21:52 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:21:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/21 Dennis May : > That is just sad. A meme that reproduces from 1 to 15,000 in a few months is anything but sad. I would guess that Dennis hasn't spent a lot of time in favellas or other shanty towns. Stuart Brand gives a 6 minute introduction to why squatter cities are vital to the future. http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_on_squatter_cities.html I love these people. I have spent time with them, lots of time. They are more productive by far than the poor in the United States, who mainly sit around waiting for checks to be dropped from the magic government blimp... These people are upwardly mobile, and moving fast!!! For most of them, life in the squatter city is the very first experience with electricity, and perhaps surprisingly television. It opens up a whole new world of education and experience and opportunity. To be able to read inside during the day would be a great blessing to these folks. My only fear is that this will lead to more indoor use of charcoal and other cooking fuels, which is the biggest health problem faced in squatter cities around the world... -Kelly From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 15:11:11 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316704271.12696.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com wrote: > 2011/9/21 Dennis May : >> That is just sad. > > A meme that reproduces from 1 to 15,000 in a few months >?is anything but sad. ? Depends on the meme, don't you think? ? >?I would guess that Dennis hasn't spent a lot of time in > favellas or other shanty towns. Stuart Brand gives a 6 >?minute introduction to why squatter cities are vital to the >?future. > > http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_on_squatter_cities.html ? I happen to think many of these spontaneous communities are good examples to study -- as opposed to the kind of top-down organization of centralized urban planning. (Of course, almost all communities combine the two -- usually with the state or elites trying to impose their master plan and failing, and then a few years later a new elite trying to do the same, dictated by whatever's fashionable at the time.) ? > I love these people. I have spent time with them, lots of time. >?They are more productive by far than the poor in the United >?States, who mainly sit around waiting for checks to be >?dropped from the magic government blimp... ? I don't know if I'd generalize, but this might have to do with there being wealth transfers in the first place. And given some circulation of the poor out of poverty in the States, there are, I hope you'll admit, many exceptions. ? >?These people are upwardly mobile, and moving fast!!! >?For most of them, life in the squatter city is the very first > experience with electricity, and perhaps surprisingly television. >?It opens up a whole new world of education and experience >?and opportunity. ? I imagine some of the problem here is that few in the West would want to live in one of these places and they are probably making the comparison between life in one of these squatter cities with, say, life in an affluent suburb of, say, London or Boston rather than, say, where the people in the squatter cities came from. ? > To be able to read inside during the day would be a great >?blessing to these folks. My only fear is that this will lead to >?more indoor use of charcoal and other cooking fuels, >?which is the biggest health problem faced in squatter >?cities around the world... ? Well, sunlight can be used for cooking too, no? Just a matter of innovating around that problem. ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 15:31:15 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: <20110922081343.GP25711@leitl.org> References: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110922081343.GP25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1316705475.95101.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I was thinking, too, why not dissipative heating of the sort where you just bleed away something? Has anyone done any work on this? Imagine, for instance, just having some fluid that leaks away as it gets hotter. Granted, this means you have to replenish or you'll run out and then overheat (if you keep generating heat at the same rate and don't have an alternative). ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Thu Sep 22 17:08:28 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:08:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] FTL neutrinos (?) In-Reply-To: <1316705475.95101.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20110922081343.GP25711@leitl.org> <1316705475.95101.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8EB2505FFE2841EDA5E9B05BD9C3C406@PCserafino> about (eventually) FTL neutrinos http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/ http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/italian-out-of-tune-superluminal.html From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 16:32:39 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:32:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 96, Issue 36 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: snip > Radiative losses go with T^4, so use a higher temperature. > E.g. sodium-potassium cooled nuclear reactors in space need > pretty small surface area to radiate nonnegligible power. That's true, but not the whole story. NASA got hung up by a hand waving analysis of this kind back in 1962 and I don't think ever considered it again. Most of the time systems that need radiators are making power with the temperature difference between a hot source and a cold sink. The Carnot efficiency is 1-Tcold/Thot, real engines are around 75% of theory. I.e., the colder the better for the heat sink. Of course colder radiators are larger and heavier. So the question becomes, what temperature is best (lowest mass per kW of output). You can set this up as as an equation for the sum of radiator mass and heat source mass then solve for the temperature where the derivative is zero. Or put the equations in a spread sheet and graph the mass/kW. I did the latter using the assumption that solar heat collectors (one side) and heat radiators (both sides) mass about the same. Results here https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZiotdmmTJQsZGhzcXd2djZfMjVma2twOTRkZA&hl=en_US I can also send people the spreadsheet if anyone wants it. Keith From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 22 20:11:31 2011 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:11:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E7B9673.3010405@mac.com> On 09/21/2011 06:46 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:00 AM, May wrote: > > snip > > Dennis, there is a vast literature on the subjects you have been > talking about, much of it where people actually worked the numbers. > > Re cooling, there is rule of thumb number anyone can calculate on the > radiator area you need per kW of waste heat at room temperature. I > suggest you might want to look up the formula and calculate it. > > There is a subtle problem with scaling down heaters like induction > furnaces and scaling up radiators. > > Best wishes, > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat This is so much of a snip that a catching up reader has no idea what is being discussed. Surely not optimal. From atymes at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 03:16:18 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:16:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Seeing through others' eyes Message-ID: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/scientists-youtube-videos-mind/story?id=14573442 Anyone know if this is for real? From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 23 04:57:43 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: <4E79BE5C.6010304@aleph.se> Message-ID: <1316753863.40841.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ?On Wed, 9/21/11, Anders Sandberg wrote: "Loose argument: there are 1e15 synapses in the brain, we need ~36 bits per synapse to encode where they connect. Plus a few bits of synaptic strength etc. So the information needed to describe a brain is of the order of 4e16 bits. " But you'd almost certainly need a lot less than that to make a human like mind. Take a look at the January 28 1994 issue of Science, Dan Madison and Erin Schuman found that Long Term Potentiation spreads out over a large area so you have lots of copies of the same identical information, so a single synapse can't be the equivalent of one bit of information, instead a bunch of potentiated synapses work together to store that bit of information. Below is the abstract of Madison and Schuman's paper: "The long-lasting increase in synaptic strength known as long-term potentiation has been advanced as a potential physiological mechanism for many forms of both developmental and adult neuronal plasticity. In many models of plasticity, intercellular communication has been proposed to account for observations in which simultaneously active neurons are strengthened together. The data presented here indicate that long-term potentiation can be communicated between synapses on neighboring neurons by means of a diffusible messenger. This distributed potentiation provides a mechanism for the cooperative strengthening of proximal synapses and may underlie a variety of plastic processes in the nervous system."????????????????????? ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 23 05:48:42 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> CERN reports that in one of their massive and extremely expensive experiments called "Opera" they found evidence that Neutrinos travel faster than light! There has been a wacky theory for some years that Neutrinos do that but almost nobody believed it and until now there was zero evidence of it.? It's still hard for me to believe and I have a hunch it will turn out to be a mistake, but then again this is CERN we're talking about and they're as good as it gets. They're going to publish all the data tomorrow and hold a press conference.? ? http://online.wsj.com/article/AP58b5aed0a77c45ddb163d90951b36b35.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_experiment ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Fri Sep 23 05:58:44 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:58:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] FTL neutrinos (?) In-Reply-To: <8EB2505FFE2841EDA5E9B05BD9C3C406@PCserafino> References: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20110922081343.GP25711@leitl.org><1316705475.95101.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <8EB2505FFE2841EDA5E9B05BD9C3C406@PCserafino> Message-ID: <851B4F49D7B4498A8000EBDE38222526@PCserafino> > about (eventually) FTL neutrinos > http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/ > http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/italian-out-of-tune-superluminal.html and http://quantummoxie.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/faster-than-light-ftl-particles-detected-implications-for-physics/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/ From amara at kurzweilai.net Fri Sep 23 06:09:04 2011 From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:09:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <068601cc79b7$4c4b2170$e4e16450$@net> http://www.kurzweilai.net/opera-neutrino-experiment-on-breaking-speed-of-lig ht-update-1-live-webcast-arxiv-paper-posted -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Fri Sep 23 06:11:08 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:11:08 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F4EEBEDA5CD4F39973027341FA6F5BF@PCserafino> CERN reports that in one of their massive and extremely expensive experiments called "Opera" they found evidence that Neutrinos travel faster than light! There has been a wacky theory for some years that Neutrinos do that but almost nobody believed it and until now there was zero evidence of it. It's still hard for me to believe and I have a hunch it will turn out to be a mistake, but then again this is CERN we're talking about and they're as good as it gets. They're going to publish all the data tomorrow and hold a press conference. http://online.wsj.com/article/AP58b5aed0a77c45ddb163d90951b36b35.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_experiment John K Clark # Authors: _OPERA_ (http://arxiv.org/find/hep-ex/1/au:+OPERA/0/1/0/all/0/1) Subjects: High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex) The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. The measurement is based on high-statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the CNGS timing system and of the OPERA detector, as well as a high precision geodesy campaign for the measurement of the neutrino baseline, allowed reaching comparable systematic and statistical accuracies. An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 \pm 6.9 (stat.) \pm 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 \pm 0.28 (stat.) \pm 0.30 (sys.)) \times 10-5. _http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf_ (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf) From giulio at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 06:25:01 2011 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:25:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I think it is too early to rule out experimental errors. But, if this is true, WOW. 2011/9/23 john clark > > CERN reports that in one of their massive and extremely expensive experiments called "Opera" they found evidence that Neutrinos travel faster than light! There has been a wacky theory for some years that Neutrinos do that but almost nobody believed it and until now there was zero evidence of it.? It's still hard for me to believe and I have a hunch it will turn out to be a mistake, but then again this is CERN we're talking about and they're as good as it gets. They're going to publish all the data tomorrow and hold a press conference. > > http://online.wsj.com/article/AP58b5aed0a77c45ddb163d90951b36b35.html > > http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922 > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_experiment > > ?John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From protokol2020 at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 07:32:33 2011 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:32:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] FTL neutrinos (?) In-Reply-To: <851B4F49D7B4498A8000EBDE38222526@PCserafino> References: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110922081343.GP25711@leitl.org> <1316705475.95101.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <8EB2505FFE2841EDA5E9B05BD9C3C406@PCserafino> <851B4F49D7B4498A8000EBDE38222526@PCserafino> Message-ID: > it should be possible to use them to send information into the past if this result holds up. There is no need to suppose, that we would be able to send signals to the past with FTL neutrinos. Einstein could be just more wrong than that. IFF FTLN are true. On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:58 AM, scerir wrote: > about (eventually) FTL neutrinos >> http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/**19/can-neutrinos-be-**superluminal/ >> http://motls.blogspot.com/**2011/09/italian-out-of-tune-** >> superluminal.html >> > > and > http://quantummoxie.wordpress.**com/2011/09/22/faster-than-** > light-ftl-particles-detected-**implications-for-physics/ > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/**44629271/ns/technology_and_** > science-science/ > > ______________________________**_________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/**mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-**chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 23 08:55:50 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:55:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: <4E7B9673.3010405@mac.com> References: <4E7B9673.3010405@mac.com> Message-ID: <20110923085550.GG25711@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:11:31PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > This is so much of a snip that a catching up reader has no idea what is > being discussed. Surely not optimal. Assuming threading info wasn't mangled in action you could use a thread-aware MUA to access the context. From amon at doctrinezero.com Fri Sep 23 08:52:50 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:52:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Musical compilation (free download) to raise awareness of transhumanism Message-ID: Hi All - This isn't usual fare for transhumanist lists, I know, but relevant and worth drawing your attention to, I think. Zero State is a new futurist/transhumanist movement which seeks to raise awareness of and engagement with transhumanist concerns not only by addressing scientific/technological issues, but also with activities in the social, political, economic, and artistic domains. I'd like to draw your attention to an example of the latter - an alternative & electronic music compilation released for free download today via "Zero State Media", the movement's publishing wing, in collaboration with Line Out Records. This is the first such compilation to be released by ZSM (perhaps by anybody!) Although some of you may be interested in the music itself, the point here is to draw your attention to an initiative by which non-transhumanists are exposed to our ideas via channels other than news of technological developments or rational argument. If you know of anyone who may appreciate seeing this message, please do feel free to re-post or pass it on! Free download - ZERO STATE MEDIA : UPLOAD 2011 http://lineoutrecords.com/downloads/zsm-upload2011/ More information about Zero State: http://zerostate.net Line Out Records website: http://lineoutrecords.com Cheers, Amon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 09:34:53 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:34:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 23 September 2011 08:25, Giulio Prisco wrote: > I think it is too early to rule out experimental errors. But, if this > is true, WOW. > The real issue, however, is whether info can be transferred at a FTL speed. This would be an even bigger WOW, since it would mean that special relativity can actually be breached... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 10:40:30 2011 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:40:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Modern physics already acknowledges FTL _correlations_ (EPR quantum entanglement), but according to current theories these cannot be used to transmit actual information. 2011/9/23 Stefano Vaj : > On 23 September 2011 08:25, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> >> I think it is too early to rule out experimental errors. But, if this >> is true, WOW. > > The real issue, however, is whether info can be transferred at a FTL speed. > This would be an even bigger WOW, since it would mean that special > relativity can actually be breached... > > -- > Stefano Vaj > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From scerir at alice.it Fri Sep 23 10:30:42 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:30:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] FTL neutrinos (?) In-Reply-To: <851B4F49D7B4498A8000EBDE38222526@PCserafino> References: <1316660642.17097.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20110922081343.GP25711@leitl.org><1316705475.95101.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com><8EB2505FFE2841EDA5E9B05BD9C3C406@PCserafino> <851B4F49D7B4498A8000EBDE38222526@PCserafino> Message-ID: >> about (eventually) FTL neutrinos >> http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/ >> http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/italian-out-of-tune-superluminal.html > > and > http://quantummoxie.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/faster-than-light-ftl-particles-detected-implications-for-physics/ > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/ and now Dorigo re-writes something about it http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/sixsigma_signal_superluminal_neutrinos_opera-82744 http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/blog/new_results_opera_due_tomorrow-82907 From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 23 11:05:55 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:05:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110923110555.GL25711@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:34:53AM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote: > The real issue, however, is whether info can be transferred at a FTL speed. > This would be an even bigger WOW, since it would mean that special > relativity can actually be breached... FTL is equivalent to causality violations and retrograde information transmission, which is a pretty tall order. I would not be holding my breath. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From giulio at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 11:13:49 2011 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:13:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <20110923110555.GL25711@leitl.org> References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110923110555.GL25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:34:53AM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote: > >> The real issue, however, is whether info can be transferred at a FTL speed. >> This would be an even bigger WOW, since it would mean that special >> relativity can actually be breached... > > FTL is equivalent to causality violations and retrograde information > transmission, which is a pretty tall order. I would not be holding my breath. I guess there may have been experimental and/or data analysis errors. Yet, it seems that similar results had already be obtained in 2007: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html and it would not be the first time that new experimental results force a deep paradigm shift in physics. Let's watch the webcast at 4pm (EU time) and hear what they say. > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A ?7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 11:00:22 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:00:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Modern physics already acknowledges FTL _correlations_ (EPR quantum > entanglement), but according to current theories these cannot be used > to transmit actual information. > > Ethan Siegel points out that the experiment has already been done on a far larger scale and found no FTL effect. Quote: Supernova 1987A, which took place in the Large Magellanic Cloud 168,000 light-years away. This supernova was discovered, optically, on February 24, 1987. About three hours earlier, 23 neutrinos were detected over a timespan of less than 13 seconds. The reason for the 3 hour delay? When the core of a star collapses (in a type II supernova; see here), most of the energy is radiated away in the form of neutrinos, which pass freely through the outer material of the star, while the emission of visible light occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface. However! Even if you assume that the light and neutrinos were created at the same time, but the visible light moved at c and the neutrinos moved faster than light, which is why they got here first, know what value you'd get for the speed of these neutrinos? 1.0000000020 c, which is inconsistent with the results from the OPERA collaboration. -------- So some reservations about the FTL effect should be held pending further data. BillK From anders at aleph.se Fri Sep 23 13:11:23 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:11:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Seeing through others' eyes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E7C857B.4080407@aleph.se> Adrian Tymes wrote: > http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/scientists-youtube-videos-mind/story?id=14573442 > > Anyone know if this is for real? > The authors site is here, with FAQ: https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011 The paper is here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900937-7 -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From scerir at alice.it Fri Sep 23 13:49:26 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:49:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01AA4E00DFAD438186F0A927D26F6C4A@PCserafino> > The real issue, however, is whether info can be transferred at a FTL speed. > This would be an even bigger WOW, since it would mean that special > relativity can actually be breached... > Stefano Vaj There is a distinction between the concepts of an invariant speed and that of a maximum speed. As far as I remember special relativity only requires, for its consistency, that there be an invariant speed. Given the SR procedure of clock synchronization, in which light signals are used, one might think that if FTL signals are possible, they could be used to synchronize clocks in an alternative way, undermining SR at its foundations. But this is not the case, I guess. From amara at kurzweilai.net Fri Sep 23 14:25:15 2011 From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:25:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <01AA4E00DFAD438186F0A927D26F6C4A@PCserafino> References: <1316756922.91586.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <01AA4E00DFAD438186F0A927D26F6C4A@PCserafino> Message-ID: <0a4601cc79fc$9e099790$da1cc6b0$@net> Does this raise a question regarding the parton and quark models for baryons? -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 6:49 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Faster than light?? > The real issue, however, is whether info can be transferred at a FTL speed. > This would be an even bigger WOW, since it would mean that special > relativity can actually be breached... > Stefano Vaj There is a distinction between the concepts of an invariant speed and that of a maximum speed. As far as I remember special relativity only requires, for its consistency, that there be an invariant speed. Given the SR procedure of clock synchronization, in which light signals are used, one might think that if FTL signals are possible, they could be used to synchronize clocks in an alternative way, undermining SR at its foundations. But this is not the case, I guess. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 23 14:57:59 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ?On Fri, 9/23/11, Giulio Prisco wrote: " The real issue, however, is whether info can be transferred at a FTL speed. This would be an even bigger WOW, since it would mean that special relativity can actually be breached" If this experiment is valid (a literally astronomically large if) then, unlike the strange correlations seen in things like the Bell inequality experiment, neutrinos clearly COULD be used for faster than light communication, you could send a signal with them. It could be argued, perhaps, that relativity doesn't say nothing can move faster than light but only says that things that have real mass can't travel at the speed of light. Tachyons are hypothetical particles with imaginary mass and they ALWAYS travel faster than light, the faster they go the less energy they have. A few years ago there were several experiments trying to determine the mass-squared of the neutrino, and they all came up with a negative number, but most thought the error bars were too large to draw any huge conclusions from this; but a negative mass-squared is just what you'd expect from something with an imaginary mass. As to whether neutrinos can send a signal into the past, once this question has been completely sorted out I'll post a message to the list explaining everything you'd ever want to know about it. You'll get it yesterday. ?John K Clark PS: I wonder if China has banned news of this experiment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 15:04:52 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy References: <4E7B9673.3010405@mac.com> Message-ID: <1316790292.34128.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Keith Henson wrote: ? > Dennis, there is a vast literature on the subjects you have been > talking about, much of it where people actually worked the numbers. ? > Re cooling, there is rule of thumb number anyone can calculate on the > radiator area you need per kW of waste heat at room temperature. I > suggest you might want to look up the formula and calculate it. ? > There is a subtle problem with scaling down heaters like induction > furnaces and scaling up radiators. ? Samantha Atkins wrote: ? "This is so much of a snip that a catching up reader has no idea what is?being discussed. Surely not optimal." ? I was discussing the fact that large surface area radiators are?required in space to reject accumulating heat. ? Back in 2006 I ran some numbers using the data from radiators used on the International Space Station to see what was required for a 3,000 megawatt space station [Ice_Station on yahoogroups]. ? In my view the industrialization of space would start out small doing demonstrator projects for low-g mining and processing - done using remote control and automated processing. ? Keith Henson has been providing the numbers for powering and cooling a large scale manned nickel mining process. ? My numbers were for cooling a mixed living quarters light industrial city intended to be located near mining and processing centers on low-g ice bodies. That mining and processing would be done primarily by automated and remote control means.? Ideally large scale processing would be done on ice bodies using the ice/water for a heat sink thus avoiding the large overhead of building heat radiators.? The Ice Station rotates inside an ice shell providing artificial gravity and radiation protection. ? The Ice Station could be cooled by a large radiator, an umbilical system to the ice body, or as Dan Ust suggested - rejecting volatiles. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 23 15:15:02 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <0a4601cc79fc$9e099790$da1cc6b0$@net> Message-ID: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 9/23/11, Amara D. Angelica wrote: "Does this raise a question regarding the parton and quark models for baryons?" If this turns out to be true (and I did say "if") it would raise profound questions about EVERYTHING we know, or thought we knew, about physics. So I still think a big mistake, or rather a very subtle mistake, is the most likely explanation; but this does come from CERN so you've got to take it seriously. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 15:40:14 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John Clark wrote: ? >If this experiment is valid (a literally astronomically large if) >then, unlike the strange correlations seen in things like the >Bell inequality experiment, neutrinos clearly COULD be >used for faster than light communication, you could send a >signal with them. ? I would not be too concerned about any Earth shattering consequences if it were found that neutrinos were found to travel slightly faster than the speed of light - or other means of signaling faster than light were discovered. ? It would only mean that a variation of Lorentz Ether Theory would replace Special Relativity in some circumstances.? Tachyons and time travel?would not be a part of such a theory.? Standard LET provides the same math and numbers as Special Relativity but it can be adapted to supraluminal signaling - whereas Special Relativity cannot. ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 23 16:34:24 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:34:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316795664.64698.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 9/23/11, Dennis May wrote: "I would not be too concerned about any Earth shatteringconsequences if it were found that neutrinos were foundto travel slightly faster than the speed of light - or othermeans of signaling faster than light were discovered. It would only mean that a variation of Lorentz EtherTheory would replace Special Relativity" If Special Relativity is untrue then General relativity certainly is, I'd say that was pretty damn Earth shattering. "Tachyons and time travel?would not be a part of such a theory."? Maybe maybe not, its far too early to make any dogmatic assertions, but I will say that I'd be very sirprise if the luminiferous Ether made a comeback after more than a century. And it will probably all turn out to be a mistake, but if not all bets are off. ?John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 16:53:54 2011 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:53:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316795664.64698.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316795664.64698.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I just watched the webcast. It is a complex experimental setup involving quite accurate distance (over hundreds of km) and time measurements. They have described their error analysis in detail but I would not rule out that there may be other errors. I will not be surprised if this turns out to be a false alarm, but paradigm shifts triggered by new experimental results have occurred in physics before. 2011/9/23 john clark > > On Fri, 9/23/11, Dennis May wrote: > > "I would not be too concerned about any Earth shattering > consequences if it were found that neutrinos were found > to travel slightly faster than the speed of light - or other > means of signaling faster than light were discovered. > It would only mean that a variation of Lorentz Ether > Theory would replace Special Relativity" > > If Special Relativity is untrue then General relativity certainly is, I'd say that was pretty damn Earth shattering. > > "Tachyons and time travel?would not be a part of such a theory." > > Maybe maybe not, its far too early to make any dogmatic assertions, but I will say that I'd be very sirprise if the luminiferous Ether made a comeback after more than a century. > > And it will probably all turn out to be a mistake, but if not all bets are off. > > ?John K Clark > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 16:55:28 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:55:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316795664.64698.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316795664.64698.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/23 john clark > And it will probably all turn out to be a mistake, but if not all bets are > off. > > Does that include your longstanding bet with {everybody} regarding the existence of psi effects? .. not as if anyone actually took that bet, but if they had - is this news enough to challenge such certainty? I'm only half-kidding. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 17:15:43 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? References: <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316795664.64698.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316798143.89193.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John Clark wrote: ? "If Special Relativity is untrue then General relativity certainly is, I'd say that was pretty damn Earth shattering." ? Special Relativity and General Relativity requiring replacement is big news for orthodox mainstream physics - but not everyone. Time travel would be Earth shattering. ? More about General Relativity: ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110223092406.htm ? I wrote the author and he explained a more about his work. In an unbiased atmosphere his work?would have?effectively ended?General Relativity as a viable theory.? General Relativity plus dark matter cannot produce galaxy velocity profiles - while remaining consistent with statistical mechanics and the assumptions underlying dark matter.? Observational evidence effectively ends the debate for those not wedded to General Relativity. ? John Clark wrote: ? "...I will say that I'd be very sirprise if the luminiferous Ether made a comeback after more than a century." ? The math is indistinguishable from Special Relativity so in that respect it never left.? I was fortunate enough to have had this explained to me in great detail in undergraduate Special Relativity.? Many have come to the erroneous conclusion that because Special Relativity has achieved mainstream orthodoxy that it defeated LET in some technical aspect.? That?is not the case at all.? Special Relativity's sole claim is that without observational evidence of preferred reference frames none are required.? Any observation of any signal being able to exceed the speed of light would be that observational evidence differentiating the two theories. LET would still require additional work - SR would be done. ? Dennis May > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 19:25:03 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316805903.58776.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com wrote: > John Clark wrote: >> If this experiment is valid (a literally astronomically large if) >> then, unlike the strange correlations seen in things like the >> Bell inequality experiment, neutrinos clearly COULD be >> used for faster than light communication, you could send a >> signal with them. >? > I would not be too concerned about any Earth shattering > consequences if it were found that neutrinos were found > to travel slightly faster than the speed of light - or other > means of signaling faster than light were discovered. >? > It would only mean that a variation of Lorentz Ether > Theory would replace Special Relativity in some > circumstances.? Tachyons and time travel would not be > a part of such a theory.? Standard LET provides the > same math and numbers as Special Relativity but it > can be adapted to supraluminal signaling - whereas > Special Relativity cannot. >? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory ? And what modifications would you recommend to LET? Is your position currently that some variant of LET is the case or just that LET is better than STR? ? Also, have you read Earman's _World Enough and Space-Time_? ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 20:07:26 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316805903.58776.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316805903.58776.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316808446.58305.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I wrote: ? > I would not be too concerned about any Earth shattering > consequences if it were found that neutrinos were found > to travel slightly faster than the speed of light - or other > means of signaling faster than light were discovered. > It would only mean that a variation of Lorentz Ether > Theory would replace Special Relativity in some > circumstances.? Tachyons and time travel would not be > a part of such a theory.? Standard LET provides the > same math and numbers as Special Relativity but it > can be adapted to supraluminal signaling - whereas > Special Relativity cannot. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory ? Dan Ust wrote: > And what modifications would you recommend to LET? > Is your position currently that some variant of LET is the > case or just that LET is better than STR? I support an aether based relativity.? The Lorentz-Poincar? idea of what would compose an aether is not the kind of aether I would support but the basics are there for expanding and changing the theory for a different kind of aether theory.? I have discussed this type of aether elsewhere - primarily on physics_frontier on YahooGroups. This aether is composed of vast numbers of particles much much smaller than the smallest known subatomic particles.? They travel much much faster than the speed of light.? There is also a sea of very low energy photons in this background.? Dan Ust wrote: > Also, have you read Earman's _World Enough and Space-Time_? No. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 23 20:20:57 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1316809257.73343.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 9/23/11, BillK wrote: "Ethan Siegel points out that the experiment has already been done on a far larger scale and found no FTL effect." Well yeah, if the neutrinos from the 1987 supernova moved as fast as the ones in this new experiment they would have arrived on Earth in 1982, 5 years before the light did, but that didn't happen. However (and I'm just playing devils advocate here) its possible that supernova neutrinos were ultra powerful and so moved just an infinitesimal amount faster than light, but the man made neutrinos were much less energetic and so moved much faster. Weird stuff like that happens with imaginary mass, the faster it goes the less energy it has, at infinite speed it would have zero energy and at light speed it would have infinite energy. So there would be no way to slow down something with imaginary mass so it moved slower than light because that would take infinite energy.? So the two experiments don't necessarily contradict each other. ? ? John K Clark? Quote: Supernova 1987A, which took place in the Large Magellanic Cloud 168,000 light-years away. This supernova was discovered, optically, on February 24, 1987. About three hours earlier, 23 neutrinos were detected over a timespan of less than 13 seconds. The reason for the 3 hour delay? When the core of a star collapses (in a type II supernova; see here), most of the energy is radiated away in the form of neutrinos, which pass freely through the outer material of the star, while the emission of visible light occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface. However! Even if you assume that the light and neutrinos were created at the same time, but the visible light moved at c and the neutrinos moved faster than light, which is why they got here first, know what value you'd get for the speed of these neutrinos? 1.0000000020 c, which is inconsistent with the results from the OPERA collaboration. So some reservations about the FTL effect should be held pending further data. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 23 20:35:15 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1316810115.36975.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 9/23/11, Mike Dougherty wrote: "Does that include your longstanding?bet with {everybody} regarding the existence of psi effects?.. not as if anyone actually took that bet, but if they had - is this news enough to challenge such certainty? I'm only half-kidding." If CERN announced they have discovered evidence for the existence of psi I would be very surprised, but no more surprised than this FTL announcement. In both instances I would remain skeptical, but coming from CERN I would treat the claim with respect and await the results of others trying to duplicate the experiment. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Sep 23 22:11:41 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:11:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316809257.73343.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316809257.73343.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E7D041D.5090603@aleph.se> john clark wrote: > On *Fri, 9/23/11, BillK //* wrote: > > "Ethan Siegel points out that the experiment has already been done > on a > far larger scale and found no FTL effect." > > > Well yeah, if the neutrinos from the 1987 supernova moved as fast as > the ones in this new experiment they would have arrived on Earth in > 1982, 5 years before the light did, but that didn't happen. However > (and I'm just playing devils advocate here) its possible that > supernova neutrinos were ultra powerful and so moved just an > infinitesimal amount faster than light, but the man made neutrinos > were much less energetic and so moved much faster. > The energy of the neutrinos from SN 1987 was measured, and was 10-20 MeV if I understand the papers right. So that would mean a squared neutrino mass of around -2*10^-66 kg if one were to assume the real reason of the early arrival was FTL and not shockwave delay. The CNGS beam had an average energy of 17 GeV (!). So it had more energetic neutrinos that ought to travel slower if they were tachyons. But they had a velocity of around 3 times the speed of light! The squared mass ends up as -10^50 kg. So either we know nothing about neutrino types, or these results indicate a mistake somewhere. According to my friend at super-kamiokande, nobody over there believes the new results are due to FTL, but they are all excited anyway since if it *were* true they would be right at the hottest field ever... (I'm happy I wore my CERN sweater to work today. And XKCD said it best: http://xkcd.com/955/ ) -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 22:08:28 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Ether vs. Relativity/was Re: Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316808446.58305.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316805903.58776.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1316808446.58305.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316815708.81524.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com wrote: >> I would not be too concerned about any Earth shattering >> consequences if it were found that neutrinos were found >> to travel slightly faster than the speed of light - or other >> means of signaling faster than light were discovered. > >> It would only mean that a variation of Lorentz Ether >> Theory would replace Special Relativity in some >> circumstances.? Tachyons and time travel would not be >> a part of such a theory.? Standard LET provides the >> same math and numbers as Special Relativity but it >> can be adapted to supraluminal signaling - whereas >> Special Relativity cannot. > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > Dan Ust wrote: >> And what modifications would you recommend to LET? >> Is your position currently that some variant of LET is the >> case or just that LET is better than STR? > > I support an aether based relativity.? The Lorentz-Poincar? > idea of what would compose an aether is not the kind of > aether I would support but the basics are there for > expanding and changing the theory for a different kind > of aether theory.? I have discussed this type of aether > elsewhere - primarily on physics_frontier on YahooGroups. > This aether is composed of vast numbers of particles much > much smaller than the smallest known subatomic particles.? > They travel much much faster than the speed of light.? There > is also a sea of very low energy photons in this background.?? Is you view that this must be particle-based to banish fields from physics? Or why do you believe there are really tiny particles? Is this akin to Ancient Greek atomism? (Not trying to be sarcastic, but wondering if this is all based on some of local contact being the fundamental way things interact in your view.) ? > Dan Ust wrote: >> Also, have you read Earman's _World Enough and Space-Time_? > > No. I bring this book up because it considers both pre-Newtonian and post-Newtonian space-time theories. ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 21:56:59 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:56:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316810115.36975.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316810115.36975.YahooMailClassic@web82902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/23 john clark > If CERN announced they have discovered evidence for the existence of psi I would be very surprised, but no more surprised than this FTL announcement. In both instances I would remain skeptical, but coming from CERN I would treat the claim with respect and await the results of others trying to duplicate the experiment. Funny angle: SR is a basic feature of the simulation we live in. CERN's results are the product of a trivial bug in the software, to be fixed in release 1.1. :-))) -- Stefano Vaj From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 00:00:46 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:00:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Getting rid of waste heat by radiation is one of the > fundamental problems in space. > http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/L5news1979.htm > July and August issues. Look, I'm gonna stick my neck out here. I read this, and I thought "Huh?" Then, I followed the link, but didn't actually read the article -- the download took a couple of minutes and I never got back to it. So my backside is hanging out there, no protection (didn't do my home work), and I'm up against one heavyweight -- Drexler -- and Keith. So here goes, and if I'm an idiot,...well ...I'll just have to deal with it. Dennis wants to explore asteroid mining, and in that regard has spoken of low-g bodies. Also he's spoken of some sort of metallic dust as the product of this mining. So let's work with those assumptions. Now, you wanna get rid of waste heat. Fine. Here's what you do: Crazy-ass idea #1: "Radiators schmadiators!" Use your metallic dust product as your coolant "fluid". Place it in hot waste heat location where it absorbs some of that waste heat. Transport away from there to the asteroid surface, and toss it up into the air, er,... the vast blackness of space. Toss it just a smidgeon less than escape velocity -- which for a low-g body would be quite slow actually -- so that it spends a loooooong time "out there" cooling before settling back to the surface. Rinse and repeat. "Problem" solved. No radiators needed. And by the way, those dust particles, lots of surface area. Sorry, the dog ate my spreadsheets. Okay, let the reaming begin. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 01:39:35 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] [atlantis_II] Ether vs. Relativity/was Re: Faster than light?? References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316805903.58776.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1316808446.58305.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316815708.81524.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316828375.51090.YahooMailNeo@web112119.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I wrote: ? > I support an aether based relativity. The Lorentz-Poincar? > idea of what would compose an aether is not the kind of > aether I would support but the basics are there for > expanding and changing the theory for a different kind > of aether theory. I have discussed this type of aether > elsewhere - primarily on physics_frontier on YahooGroups. > This aether is composed of vast numbers of particles much > much smaller than the smallest known subatomic particles. > They travel much much faster than the speed of light. There > is also a sea of very low energy photons in this background.? ? Dan Ust wrote: > Is you view that this must be particle-based to banish fields > from physics? Or why do you believe there are really tiny > particles? Is this akin to Ancient Greek atomism? (Not trying > to be sarcastic, but wondering if this is all based on some of > local contact being the fundamental way things interact in > your view.) ? It is my view that all fields are composed of particles and some kind of local contact.? Every attempt to get away from particle based fields has eventually run into dead ends, the requirement for endless epicycles, or stagnation where different portions of physics cannot be reconciled. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 02:08:49 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:08:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Dennis May wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: > ? >> Dennis, there is a vast literature on the subjects you have been >> talking about, much of it where people actually worked the numbers. > ? >> Re cooling, there is rule of thumb number anyone can calculate on the >> radiator area you need per kW of waste heat at room temperature. > ?I >> suggest you might want to look up the formula and calculate it. > ? >> There is a subtle problem with scaling down heaters like induction >> furnaces and scaling up radiators. > ? > Samantha Atkins wrote: > ? > "This is so much of a snip that a catching up reader > has no idea what is?being discussed. ?Surely not optimal." > ? > I was discussing the fact that large surface area radiators > are?required in space to reject accumulating heat. > ? > Back in 2006 I ran some numbers using the data from > radiators used on the International Space Station to > see what was required for a 3,000 megawatt space > station [Ice_Station on yahoogroups]. If you still have the numbers I would be very interested in seeing them. 3 GW is up in power satellite scale. > In my view the industrialization of space would > start out small doing demonstrator projects for > low-g mining and processing - done using remote > control and automated processing. > ? > Keith Henson has been providing the numbers for > powering and cooling a large scale manned nickel > mining process. Most of what I have been trying to see if you understand is scale free, i.e., kW/square meters. > My numbers were for cooling a mixed living quarters > light industrial city intended to be located near > mining and processing centers on low-g ice bodies. > That mining and processing would be done primarily > by automated and remote control means.? Ideally > large scale processing would be done on ice bodies > using the ice/water for a heat sink thus avoiding > the large overhead of building heat radiators.? The > Ice Station rotates inside an ice shell providing > artificial gravity and radiation protection. > ? > The Ice Station could be cooled by a large radiator, > an umbilical system to the ice body, or as Dan > Ust suggested - rejecting volatiles. Might I suggest the cooling an industrial facility in space by evaporating volatiles isn't the best use of volatiles? From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 02:23:04 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316830984.40984.YahooMailNeo@web112104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Dust - even metal dust - is generally a good insulator so transferring heat to it would be time consuming as would getting it to radiate the heat away. ? Our old plasma table at work had?a dust collection system.? The dust produced from cutting stainless steel on a plasma table might?resemble some forms of?nickel-iron dust.? The dust has?a huge volume per weight and would be very hard on any? mechanism transferring it.? We once dumped a partial barrel of it by accident?and the?dust spread over the ground like a fog floating downhill for a good 15?yards or more. ? Dennis May From: Jeff Davis To: ExI chat list Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Getting rid of waste heat by radiation is one of the > fundamental problems in space. > http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/L5news1979.htm > July and August issues. Look, I'm gonna stick my neck out here.? I read this, and I thought "Huh?" Then, I followed the link, but didn't actually read the article -- the download took a couple of minutes and I never got back to it.? So my backside is hanging out there, no protection (didn't do my home work), and I'm up against one heavyweight -- Drexler -- and Keith. So here goes, and if I'm an idiot,...well ...I'll just have to deal with it. Dennis wants to explore asteroid mining, and in that regard has spoken of low-g bodies.? Also he's spoken of some sort of metallic dust as the product of this mining.? So let's work with those assumptions. Now, you wanna get rid of waste heat.? Fine.? Here's what you do: Crazy-ass idea #1:? "Radiators schmadiators!"? Use your metallic dust product as your coolant "fluid".? Place it in hot waste heat location where it absorbs some of that waste heat.? Transport away from there to the asteroid surface, and toss it up into the air, er,... the vast blackness of space.? Toss it just a smidgeon less than escape velocity -- which for a low-g body would be quite slow actually -- so that it spends a loooooong time "out there" cooling before settling back to the surface.? Rinse and repeat.? "Problem" solved.? No radiators needed.? And by the way, those dust particles, lots of surface area. Sorry, the dog ate my spreadsheets. Okay, let the reaming begin. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ray Charles _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 02:33:23 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1316831603.68922.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I wrote: ? > Back in 2006 I ran some numbers using the data from > radiators used on the International Space Station to > see what was required for a 3,000 megawatt space > station [Ice_Station on yahoogroups]. ? Keith Henson wrote: > If you still have the numbers I would be very interested in seeing > them. 3 GW is up in power satellite scale. ? http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ice_Station/message/56 ? Unfortunately one of the links has died.? I only did a direct scale up of numbers from an ISS panel as a ballpark figure. I wanted to use what was already known. ? You might look back through Ice_Station to see how the general concepts evolved and why things were sized as they were. Keith Henson wrote: > Might I suggest the cooling an industrial facility in space by > evaporating volatiles isn't the best use of volatiles? I agree but you never know what the economics might be at some particular time in the future.? In some locations and situations there may be such an excess of volitiles that saving them is impractical. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 03:03:48 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] [atlantis_II] Ether vs. Relativity/was Re: Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316828375.51090.YahooMailNeo@web112119.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316805903.58776.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1316808446.58305.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316815708.81524.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1316828375.51090.YahooMailNeo@web112119.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316833428.4542.YahooMailNeo@web112120.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I wrote: > It is my view that all fields are composed of particles and some > kind of local contact. Every attempt to get away from particle > based fields has eventually run into dead ends, the requirement > for endless epicycles, or stagnation where different portions of > physics cannot be reconciled. ? Particles Appear to Travel Faster Than Light: OPERA Experiment Reports Anomaly in Flight Time of Neutrinos ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110923084425.htm ? If the experiments continue to find a velocity only slightly above the speed of light the aether theory I have been working with since 1990 might provide an explanation for a particle which travels only slightly?slower or faster?than photons. ? The theory?is a terminal velocity model of the photon.? If another particle has slightly different characteristics than a photon its terminal velocity could?be slightly different. ? More about the theory if anyone is interested. ? Dennis May ? ? ? . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 04:11:59 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:11:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM, ?Adrian Tymes wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >>> Have you ever worked the engineering numbers? ?Dr. Eric Drexler and I >>> have done some of them, as has Dr John Lewis of the University of >>> Arizona. >> >> Care to share them, then? > > Sure. ?Getting rid of waste heat by radiation is one of the > fundamental problems in space. > Moving, shaping metal is another one. ...that's not the numbers. That's just citing what the problem is. > 50,000 tons was based on best estimate of how long it would take a > plant to make its own mass in product and the demand for nickel (1000 > tons per day) for a relatively mature power sat industry. Thing is, we do not (yet) have a relatively mature power sat industry. Discussion of mining is being done in today's context - in which there only seems to be one destination for the goods: down the gravity well on Earth. > 5-10 GW of > power was based on the energy to melt, roll into thin ribbon, move it > into 750 psi warm CO and sort out the carbonals. Where do you get these numbers from? > Besides, you want > to just use a power satellite off the production line. ?The power sat > alone is 25,000 tons. The second statement is why you don't want to just use a power satellite off the production line. > Maybe. ?It's not really a mine as much as a smelter and a good sized > one at that. ?I figured 100 people actually working in the processing > plant and the rest being support and dependents. ?These people are > isolated, with transit times as bad as to Mars. ?They have no choice > about growing at least some of their food. 1) Oil platform style operations. No dependents. Rotate people. (Yes, this absolutely requires a drop in the cost per kg to launch. OTOH, the kind of traffic this would generate would, itself, cause much of that drop.) 2) 100 people to work the processing plant? Stuff like that can be fully automated - and even if light speed lag prevents that, automation can still cut that to less than 10, maybe no more than 5, mainly as troubleshooters. > You might be correct that that is a better approach. ?I don't think it > would work with the one I analyzed, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_DA though. That would be one of the larger asteroids. Save it for later, after you have a robust asteroid moving capability. Start with (much) smaller rocks. >?Of course if anything jams up the automation, you will > lose a couple of years of production before a human can be on site. Unless you have redundant automation. Say, some of those Personal Satellite Assistants, deliberately isolated from the main automation so they can fix stuff when the main automation goes FUBAR. > What I have done on this topic is just slightly beyond the "back of > the envelope" stage while matching the scale of the project to the > demand for Invar for a modest 200 GW per year power sat project. > Perhaps I am too hard on people to ask that they back up "good ideas" > with a little physics and chemistry. Then let's talk physics. You ran the numbers for 1986 DA? Let's take a rock 1/1,000,000th of it. That's about 2*10^7 kg, and 23 meters across. If a 50,000 ton processing plant can do 1986 DA in acceptable time, then a 50 ton plant can do this in acceptable time. That's a handful of people, for the entire station. (Decreased operational requirements aside, good luck fitting 500 people plus life support in 50 tons.) Of course, park it in lunar orbit and you don't even have to have people permanently on site. Assuming a similar distribution to 1986 DA - that's a trillion dollars for the platinum, plus relatively ignorable amounts of other metals. Scaling that down, that's a million for this mini-rock. Now, here's the thing. Having launched all that mass, if you're bringing the small rock into lunar orbit or some other fixed location, you can use iron slag & solar energy (if, say, you're using an ion engine: that's ionizables & electricity) to refuel the rock mover, and bring in another one while you're processing the first, without having to launch anything more to move it. So you get another million. And another, and another. Sure, the price of platinum eventually tapers off - but you can do a 50 ton mission for tens of millions these days. It won't taper off fast enough to prevent you from recovering investment plus interest. Also, smaller bodies have an advantage in radiating heat: more surface area per mass. One could do (far) worse than to simply ape the ISS, straight up. That's certainly not cooking its crew, and I believe the ISS is somewhere around 500 tons at this time. Ore refining can be done in graphite centrifuges, with large lenses to focus solar radiation in. Melt the ore in contact with the walls, spin it up, spin-gravity-sort the output. Granted, we're talking big lenses, tiny centrifuges, but it gets the job done. How's that for starters? From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Sep 24 04:20:00 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E7D041D.5090603@aleph.se> Message-ID: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ?On Fri, 9/23/11, Anders Sandberg wrote: "The energy of the neutrinos from SN 1987 was measured, and was 10-20 MeV [...] The CNGS beam had an average energy of 17 GeV (!). So it had more energetic neutrinos that ought to travel slower if they were tachyons." I believe that 17 Gev figure refers to the energy of the protons in the beam that produces the neutrinos not to the energy of the neutrinos themselves.? "But they had a velocity of around 3 times the speed of light!" I thought they said they only measured a velocity 20 parts in a million faster than light. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 05:48:04 2011 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:48:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4E7D041D.5090603@aleph.se> <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yes, they said they only measured a velocity 20 parts in a million faster than light. (60 nanoseconds delay, equivalent to 20 m over 730 km, with an error of 10 nanoseconds). Full video of CERN briefing here: http://www.kurzweilai.net/opera-neutrino-experiment-on-breaking-speed-of-light-webcast 2011/9/24 john clark > > "But they had a velocity of around 3 times the speed of light!" > > I thought they said they only measured a velocity 20 parts in a million faster than light. > > ?John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 06:09:37 2011 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316844577.37724.YahooMailNeo@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? ? ? If neutrinos only have spin and imaginary mass as their quantum properties, then they or antineutrinos could be responsible for the EPR non-locality phenomenon. ? ? Stuart LaForge "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators." - P. J. O'Rourke From eugen at leitl.org Sat Sep 24 09:28:11 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:28:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 08:40:14AM -0700, Dennis May wrote: > I would not be too concerned about any Earth shattering > consequences if it were found that neutrinos were found > to travel slightly faster than the speed of light - or other > means of signaling faster than light were discovered. I'd call retrograde signalling in time (which can be indefinite via a chain of routers) and causality violations pretty Earth-shattering. It would e.g. allow post-Singularity entities to reach back in time, which can produce some pretty dramatic pyrotechnics. If the reshaping of timelines is iterative, you might not want to talk to even near-term future. ? > It would only mean that a variation of Lorentz Ether > Theory would replace Special Relativity in some > circumstances.? Tachyons and time travel?would not be > a part of such a theory.? Standard LET provides the > same math and numbers as Special Relativity but it > can be adapted to supraluminal signaling - whereas > Special Relativity cannot. > ? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From max at maxmore.com Sat Sep 24 07:18:52 2011 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:18:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Thinking Apes' Critique of Trans-Simianism Message-ID: Somehow I didn't see this until now, although I've read other writing by the author: http://dresdencodak.com/2009/05/15/a-thinking-apes-critique-of-trans-simianism-repost/ Hilarious. Although I'm skeptical about the Singularity, I don't hesitate to recommend this amusing piece. --Max -- Max More Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader* CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation 7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480/905-1906 ext 113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sat Sep 24 11:17:01 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:17:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> john clark wrote: > On *Fri, 9/23/11, Anders Sandberg //* wrote: > > "The energy of the neutrinos from SN 1987 was measured, and was 10-20 > MeV [...] The CNGS beam had an average energy of 17 GeV (!). So it had > more energetic neutrinos that ought to travel slower if they were > tachyons." > > I believe that 17 Gev figure refers to the energy of the protons in > the beam that produces the neutrinos not to the energy of the > neutrinos themselves. > Nope, that is the neutrino energy. The protons were more energetic: > For CNGS neutrino energies, = 17 GeV, > The CNGS beam is produced by accelerating protons to 400 GeV/c with > the CERN Super > Proton Synchrotron (SPS). John: > > "But they had a velocity of around 3 times the speed of light!" > > I thought they said they only measured a velocity 20 parts in a > million faster than light. > Ah, one should not read experimental physics papers too late in the evening. (v-c)/c = 2.48e-5 - I missed the hundredthousandth factor. Redoing my calculation of the mass-square, I now get a squared mass of CERN neutrinos as -4.53e-56 kg. That is still 10 orders of magnitude "more" than for the supernova neutrinos. So if both are FTL, then they have to be very different beasts yet not detect in any different ways. I noticed that most popular media prematurely claiming Einstein was wrong don't notice that there is an even more plausible conclusion if these findings are real: causality is wrong. It could simply be that we live in a relativistic universe where there is retrocausation going on, and paradoxes are avoided by the Novikov self-consistency principle. In many ways relativity seems to have a more solid conceptual footing (physics is invariant under the Poincare group) than causality (there is a strict symmetry breaking along the timelike direction); if I were forced to drop one it would be causality. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From protokol2020 at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 11:23:44 2011 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:23:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> Message-ID: > Einstein was wrong don't notice that there is an even more plausible conclusion if these findings are real: causality is wrong. It's far more likely that Einstein was wrong than the causality, IMO. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 10:59:43 2011 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:59:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists want to have more children Message-ID: I thought this article about scientists wanting to have more children would interest the list. It reminded me of the challenges Amara Graps has faced in raising her daughter. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700171230/Scientists-want-to-have-more-children-study-shows.html?s_cid=rss-32 John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 13:32:23 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1316871143.57103.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I wrote: ? > I would not be too concerned about any Earth shattering > consequences if it were found that neutrinos were found > to travel slightly faster than the speed of light - or other > means of signaling faster than light were discovered. ? Eugen Leitl wrote: ? > I'd call retrograde signalling in time (which can be >?indefinite via a chain of routers) and causality violations > pretty Earth-shattering. It would e.g. allow post-Singularity > entities to reach back in time, which can produce some > pretty dramatic pyrotechnics. If the reshaping of timelines > is iterative, you might not want to talk to even near-term > future. If it is verified that there are?particles traveling faster than the speed of light Special Relativity will unravel and questions of time travel and causality violations?will disappear?as well. ? Lorentz Ether Theory and related theories do not suffer from this type of brittle inability to adapt to new observation. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Sep 24 14:27:54 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> Message-ID: <1316874474.88002.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Sat, 9/24/11, Anders Sandberg wrote: ?"I believe that 17 Gev figure refers to the energy of the protons in the beam that produces the neutrinos not to the energy of the neutrinos themselves." ? "Nope, that is the neutrino energy. The protons were more energetic" Yes, you're right. I noticed that they used Muon neutrinos not Electron neutrinos, I know they oscillate but maybe the 450 mile 3 millisecond trip is not long enough for much oscillations to happen and the Muon neutrino travels at a much different speed than the Electron or Tau neutrino. I know I'm thinking out loud and grasping at straws and the most likely explanation is simply experimental error; but then again this is CERN and they must have sweated bullets before publication knowing it would make a big splash and worried that they'd end up looking like fools, so they must be pretty confident of their data. I hope this doesn't turn into a cold fusion type fiasco. I don't know what to think. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 14:53:46 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:53:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive > energy Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: snip > Crazy-ass idea #1: ?"Radiators schmadiators!" ?Use your metallic dust > product as your coolant "fluid". ?Place it in hot waste heat location > where it absorbs some of that waste heat. ?Transport away from there > to the asteroid surface, and toss it up into the air, er,... the vast > blackness of space. ?Toss it just a smidgeon less than escape velocity > -- which for a low-g body would be quite slow actually -- so that it > spends a loooooong time "out there" cooling before settling back to > the surface. ?Rinse and repeat. ?"Problem" solved. ?No radiators > needed. ?And by the way, those dust particles, lots of surface area. It's been proposed, by NASA, decades ago for use in free space. Low g airless might be a new idea. Transferring heat to solids without any gas is tricky. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 15:39:48 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:39:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316874474.88002.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <1316874474.88002.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/24 john clark wrote: > I don't know what to think. > > Remain skeptical. A new Scientist article points out: Quote: There is still room for uncertainty in the neutrinos' departure time, Plunkett says, because there is no neutrino detector on CERN's end of the line. The only way to know when the neutrinos left is to extrapolate from data on the blob of protons used to produce them. --------------------------- Centauri Dreams also thinks the supernova results are more reliable. BillK From scerir at alice.it Sat Sep 24 15:43:42 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:43:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> Message-ID: <008033A9467F41488F95FFCBE634B794@PCserafino> Anders writes: > Redoing my calculation of the mass-square, I now get a squared mass of CERN neutrinos > as -4.53e-56 kg. That is still 10 orders of magnitude "more" than for the supernova > neutrinos. So if both are FTL, then they have to be very different beasts yet not detect > in any different ways. The OPERA paper gives a (v-c)/c = 2.48 (? 0.28 (stat.) ? 0.30 (sys.)) ?10^(-5). On the contrary the neutrinos (10 MeV neutrinos arrival times compared to the optical observations) emitted by the SN1987A gave (v-c)/c < 2?10^(-9). Now If OPERA results were taken as true, the neutrinos would lead the gamma flux by on the order of 1 e^(10) seconds for SN1987A. From scerir at alice.it Sat Sep 24 16:05:36 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:05:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> Message-ID: <465E3800994548B0ADF22DFB048BBABC@PCserafino> Anders writes: > I noticed that most popular media prematurely claiming Einstein was wrong don't notice > that there is an even more plausible conclusion if these findings are real: causality is > wrong. It could simply be that we live in a relativistic universe where there is > retrocausation going on, and paradoxes are avoided by the Novikov self-consistency > principle. In many ways relativity seems to have a more solid conceptual footing > (physics is invariant under the Poincare group) than causality (there is a strict > symmetry breaking along the timelike direction); if I were forced to drop one it would > be causality. Faster-than-c signals, special relativity, and causality http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091 Stefano Liberati, Sebastiano Sonego, Matt Visser Abstract: Motivated by the recent attention on superluminal phenomena, we investigate the compatibility between faster-than-c propagation and the fundamental principles of relativity and causality. We first argue that special relativity can easily accommodate -- indeed, does not exclude -- faster-than-c signalling at the kinematical level. As far as causality is concerned, it is impossible to make statements of general validity, without specifying at least some features of the tachyonic propagation. We thus focus on the Scharnhorst effect (faster-than-c photon propagation in the Casimir vacuum), which is perhaps the most plausible candidate for a physically sound realization of these phenomena. We demonstrate that in this case the faster-than-c aspects are 'benign' and constrained in such a manner as to not automatically lead to causality violations. From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 16:08:40 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? Message-ID: <1316880520.58528.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> scerir wrote: > Now If OPERA results were taken as true, the neutrinos would > lead the gamma flux by on the order of 1 e^(10) seconds for SN1987A. Was anyone looking for a second signal 300+ years ago? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 16:17:23 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <465E3800994548B0ADF22DFB048BBABC@PCserafino> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <465E3800994548B0ADF22DFB048BBABC@PCserafino> Message-ID: <1316881043.53728.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> scerir wrote" ? > Faster-than-c signals, special relativity, and causality > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091 >Stefano Liberati, Sebastiano Sonego, Matt Visser >Abstract: Motivated by the recent attention on superluminal phenomena, we investigate > the compatibility between faster-than-c propagation and the fundamental principles of > relativity and causality. We first argue that special relativity can easily accommodate -- > indeed, does not exclude -- faster-than-c signalling at the kinematical level. As far as > causality is concerned, it is impossible to make statements of general validity, without > specifying at least some features of the tachyonic propagation. We thus focus on the > Scharnhorst effect (faster-than-c photon propagation in the Casimir vacuum), which is > perhaps the most plausible candidate for a physically sound realization of these > phenomena. We demonstrate that in this case the faster-than-c aspects are 'benign' and > constrained in such a manner as to not automatically lead to causality violations. The orthodox view could be that neutrinos are traveling at true vacuum speed because they do not interact with the E&M portions of vacuum in the same manner that photons do. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Sat Sep 24 16:32:08 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:32:08 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316880520.58528.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316880520.58528.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > scerir wrote: > >> Now If OPERA results were taken as true, the neutrinos would >> lead the gamma flux by on the order of 1 e^(10) seconds for SN1987A. > > Was anyone looking for a second signal 300+ years ago? > > Dennis May not to mention the superspeed of gravitons! From atymes at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 16:41:48 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:41:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I'd call retrograde signalling in time (which can be > indefinite via a chain of routers) and causality violations > pretty Earth-shattering. I do not see why FTL automatically means time travel. Aside from the paper scerir posted, let's take a simple example: Points A and B are 1 kilometer apart. They have a mechanism for sending, back and forth, signals in 1 microsecond - a bit over 3 times the speed of light. Point A sends a FTL signal to point B. Point B then returns a FTL signal to point A. >From point A's point of view, the second signal was received 2 microseconds after the first was sent. Perhaps this could allow point B to act on something before the physical consequences could ordinarily reach it. (Say, if point A were at the epicenter of an earthquake, point B could be prepared for it. Indeed, because earthquakes propagate much more slowly than light over fiber optics, this effect - without FTL - is being investigated as part of an earthquake warning system in California.) The only "time travel" comes about if one believes that time and causality propagate at the speed of light. If, instead, one believes that all points in the universe have their own time, which may pass at different rates (thanks to relativity) but each point's rate is consistent with itself, then there is no time travel. Though, even if this did allow for information to be sent to the past, it appears that you'd need specialized equipment for those relays. Not all of said equipment has been constructed yet, and what there is, is not set up in a relay. Therefore, no information can travel from the future into today. The earliest point in history that information could time travel to, is when said equipment first becomes operational. There would likely also be bandwidth limitations; at any point where those are used up, that point in history becomes inaccessible to further future information, and likely all points before it too. From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 16:39:47 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316880520.58528.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316882387.82779.YahooMailNeo@web112120.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> scerir wrote: > Now If OPERA results were taken as true, the neutrinos would > lead the gamma flux by on the order of 1 e^(10) seconds for SN1987A. ? I wrote: > Was anyone looking for a second signal 300+ years ago? ? scerir wrote: > not to mention the superspeed of gravitons! ? The model of gravity I support is two component - one a flux of supraluminal particles creating the main force of gravity, the second are luminal speed carriers which act as a modifier.? The second luminal component generates what is approximated as MOND in the description of the velocity profiles of spiral galaxies.? These same two carriers are also part of the alternative quantum mechanics I support. ? As mentioned in a previous post General Relativity plus Dark Matter is no longer a viable explanation of the velocity profiles of spiral galaxies - the statistical mechanics of that explanation is impossible. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 16:51:23 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1316883083.63266.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Adrian Tymes ? > I do not see why FTL automatically means time travel. ? It doesn't.? Once you observe any special frame of reference the assumptions underlying Special Relativity evaporate - any claim of time being equivalent to a dimension [versus being just another variable] evaporate and there is no implied time travel. ? You can't assume the results of?Special Relativity are still true while undermining its sole claim to validity. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Sep 24 16:52:51 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <008033A9467F41488F95FFCBE634B794@PCserafino> Message-ID: <1316883171.20004.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Sat, 9/24/11, scerir wrote: "If OPERA results were taken as true, the neutrinos would lead the gamma flux by on the order of 1 e^(10) seconds for SN1987A. The OPERA neutrinos supposedly move 20 parts per million faster than light, supernova SN-1987A was about 168,000 light years away (the exact distance is a bit uncertain), so if the supernova neutrinos moved as fast as the OPERA neutrinos they would have arrived on Earth at least 3 years before the light or gamma rays did, but that didn't happen. Then again there is no reason to think that all neutrinos move at the same speed; all electrons and protons don't move at the same speed so why should neutrinos? However the true explanation of all this is probably that somebody accidentally put his finger on the scale or forgot to remove the lens cap or something equally mundane, but if not WOW!? ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 17:14:38 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:14:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive > energy Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM, ?Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >>>> Have you ever worked the engineering numbers? ?Dr. Eric Drexler and I >>>> have done some of them, as has Dr John Lewis of the University of >>>> Arizona. >>> >>> Care to share them, then? >> >> Sure. ?Getting rid of waste heat by radiation is one of the >> fundamental problems in space. > >> Moving, shaping metal is another one. > > ...that's not the numbers. ?That's just citing what the problem is. Did you read the references? They are full of design detail, scaling laws, specific masses, etc. # Henson, H.K., and K.E. Drexler: Vapor-phase Fabrication of Massive Structures in Space, Space Manufacturing AIAA 1977 # Henson, H.K., and K.E. Drexler: Gas Entrained Solids: A Heat Transfer Fluid for Use in Space Space Manufacturing AIAA 1979 The second one was reprinted in the L5 News. The take home number from the first one is that a metal vaporizer can move its own mass in metal in less than a day. > >> 50,000 tons was based on best estimate of how long it would take a >> plant to make its own mass in product and the demand for nickel (1000 >> tons per day) for a relatively mature power sat industry. > > Thing is, we do not (yet) have a relatively mature power sat industry. > Discussion of mining is being done in today's context - in which there > only seems to be one destination for the goods: down the gravity well > on Earth. > >> 5-10 GW of >> power was based on the energy to melt, roll into thin ribbon, move it >> into 750 psi warm CO and sort out the carbonals. > > Where do you get these numbers from? Dr. Lewis. But it isn't hard to work out. 1000 t/day of NI takes processing 10,000 tons of asteroid (at 10% Ni). That's 10 million kg/day or 400,000 kg/h. To heat and melt iron takes 54 kJ/mol. There are 17.9 mol in a kg so it takes around 1000 kJ/kg to heat and melt a kg or around 1/4th a kWh/kg. So just the first step would be drawing 100,000 kW or 0.1 GW. What with radiation loses (high at this temp) and the rest of the process, a good fraction of a GW is a reasonable estimate. So a 5 GW power sat might be a little oversized, but then you need to consider that 1986 DA swings out beyond Mars. That cuts the output down by a factor of 4, so one rated at 5 GW in earth orbit would not be oversized after all. >> Besides, you want >> to just use a power satellite off the production line. ?The power sat >> alone is 25,000 tons. > > The second statement is why you don't want to just use a power satellite > off the production line. At 1000t/day, the asteroid processor repays its mass cost in 50 days. The nickel (or Invar) it makes is worth at least the $100/kg transport cost up to GEO. Or around 37 B/year. Assuming, of course, that you are making power satellites in the TW/year numbers. >> Maybe. ?It's not really a mine as much as a smelter and a good sized >> one at that. ?I figured 100 people actually working in the processing >> plant and the rest being support and dependents. ?These people are >> isolated, with transit times as bad as to Mars. ?They have no choice >> about growing at least some of their food. > > 1) Oil platform style operations. ?No dependents. ?Rotate people. That would depend on some really high delta V transport. Minimum energy orbits take years, not 30 minutes to fly out to the platform. > (Yes, > this absolutely requires a drop in the cost per kg to launch. ?OTOH, the > kind of traffic this would generate would, itself, cause much of that drop.) For power satellites to make sense at all the cost to GEO has to get down to $100/kg or less. > 2) 100 people to work the processing plant? ?Stuff like that can be fully > automated - and even if light speed lag prevents that, automation can > still cut that to less than 10, maybe no more than 5, mainly as > troubleshooters. Perhaps. I have worked in oil refineries, which have about the lowest ratio of people to product in all of industry and the most automation. They still have several hundred people in a typical refinery. >> You might be correct that that is a better approach. ?I don't think it >> would work with the one I analyzed, >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_DA though. > > That would be one of the larger asteroids. ?Save it for later, after you have > a robust asteroid moving capability. ?Start with (much) smaller rocks. Why? The point is to make the demand for product. The processing plant gets sized for that rather than the size of the asteroid. >>?Of course if anything jams up the automation, you will >> lose a couple of years of production before a human can be on site. > > Unless you have redundant automation. ?Say, some of those Personal > Satellite Assistants, deliberately isolated from the main automation so > they can fix stuff when the main automation goes FUBAR. You have more trust in automation than I do. I once saw a process upset in an oil refinery cascade into sinking the floating roof on a tank full of 700 deg F thick oil. >> What I have done on this topic is just slightly beyond the "back of >> the envelope" stage while matching the scale of the project to the >> demand for Invar for a modest 200 GW per year power sat project. >> Perhaps I am too hard on people to ask that they back up "good ideas" >> with a little physics and chemistry. > > Then let's talk physics. > > You ran the numbers for 1986 DA? ?Let's take a rock 1/1,000,000th > of it. ?That's about 2*10^7 kg, and 23 meters across. > > If a 50,000 ton processing plant can do 1986 DA in acceptable time, Estimated mass 2 x 10^10 tonnes/(10,000 t/d x 356 day/yr) or about 5,500 years. I picked it because it was the best known mostly metal composition, not because I could use it up in a few decades. > then a 50 ton plant can do this in acceptable time. ?That's a handful > of people, for the entire station. ?(Decreased operational requirements > aside, good luck fitting 500 people plus life support in 50 tons.) ?Of > course, park it in lunar orbit and you don't even have to have people > permanently on site. > > Assuming a similar distribution to 1986 DA - that's a trillion dollars > for the platinum, plus relatively ignorable amounts of other metals. > Scaling that down, that's a million for this mini-rock. > > Now, here's the thing. ?Having launched all that mass, if you're > bringing the small rock into lunar orbit or some other fixed location, Lots of luck trying to get permission to move big chunks anywhere near earth orbit. > you can use iron slag & solar energy (if, say, you're using an ion > engine: that's ionizables & electricity) to refuel the rock mover, and > bring in another one while you're processing the first, without having > to launch anything more to move it. ?So you get another million. > And another, and another. ?Sure, the price of platinum eventually > tapers off - but you can do a 50 ton mission for tens of millions > these days. Falcon Heavy is 50 tons to LEO for $100 M IIRC. Half that to GEO. Typical one way missions to asteroids are around 7 km/s beyond LEO (or was that GEO?). You won't have a lot of choice since the metal type asteroids are rare and I have dibs on `986 DA. :-) > It won't taper off fast enough to prevent you from > recovering investment plus interest. > > Also, smaller bodies have an advantage in radiating heat: more > surface area per mass. ?One could do (far) worse than to simply > ape the ISS, straight up. ?That's certainly not cooking its crew, > and I believe the ISS is somewhere around 500 tons at this time. > > Ore refining can be done in graphite centrifuges, with large lenses > to focus solar radiation in. ?Melt the ore in contact with the walls, > spin it up, spin-gravity-sort the output. ?Granted, we're talking big > lenses, tiny centrifuges, but it gets the job done. > > How's that for starters? Reflectors are much lighter than lenses. Keith From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Sep 24 17:43:47 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1316886227.34755.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Concerning the 1987 supernova, if a neutrino burst happened much before 1987 I'm not sure anybody would have noticed. Three detectors saw the supernova neutrinos in 1987, the Kamioka Observatory saw the most but it didn't become operational until April 1983, the IMB Neutrino Obsevatory went online in 1982 and the Baksan Neutrino Obsevatory in 1977; however none of them was in continuous operation before 1987, they went on and off line. ?John K Clark Kamioka Observatory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 20:48:43 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:48:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Thinking Apes' Critique of Trans-Simianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/9/24 Max More > Somehow I didn't see this until now, although I've read other writing by > the author: > > > http://dresdencodak.com/2009/05/15/a-thinking-apes-critique-of-trans-simianism-repost/ > Hilarious. > > Although I'm skeptical about the Singularity, I don't hesitate to recommend > this amusing piece. > This is a little old (2007?), but indeed hilarious. The rhetorics on the Vile Offspring and the "non-eudaemonic" threat to "humanist" values have also made in the meantime this satyre even more topical. I was thinking of translating it in Italian, one day or another... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 20:44:23 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan Ust) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:44:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [atlantis_II] Ether vs. Relativity In-Reply-To: <1316828375.51090.YahooMailNeo@web112119.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316805903.58776.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1316808446.58305.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316815708.81524.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1316828375.51090.YahooMailNeo@web112119.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1098E38F-BB09-4505-9E13-9EFFB627E7C3@yahoo.com> > Not saying I agree with, but that's interesting and I think akin to Descartes view of the matter. (Cartesian materialism, anyone?) > > I can see how basing fields that way (not a new idea, of course) can be viewed as the solution to many problems. > > I also see this as an update of Greek atomism. Do you agree? > > Regards, > > Dan > > On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Dennis May wrote: > >> I wrote: >> >> > I support an aether based relativity. The Lorentz-Poincar? >> > idea of what would compose an aether is not the kind of >> > aether I would support but the basics are there for >> > expanding and changing the theory for a different kind >> > of aether theory. I have discussed this type of aether >> > elsewhere - primarily on physics_frontier on YahooGroups. >> > This aether is composed of vast numbers of particles much >> > much smaller than the smallest known subatomic particles. >> > They travel much much faster than the speed of light. There >> > is also a sea of very low energy photons in this background. >> >> Dan Ust wrote: >> >> > Is you view that this must be particle-based to banish fields >> > from physics? Or why do you believe there are really tiny >> > particles? Is this akin to Ancient Greek atomism? (Not trying >> > to be sarcastic, but wondering if this is all based on some of >> > local contact being the fundamental way things interact in >> > your view.) >> >> It is my view that all fields are composed of particles and some >> kind of local contact. Every attempt to get away from particle >> based fields has eventually run into dead ends, the requirement >> for endless epicycles, or stagnation where different portions of >> physics cannot be reconciled. >> >> Dennis May__,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 21:22:23 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:22:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Thinking Apes' Critique of Trans-Simianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/9/24 Stefano Vaj wrote: > This is a little old (2007?), but indeed hilarious. The rhetorics on the > Vile Offspring and the "non-eudaemonic" threat to "humanist" values have > also made in the meantime this satyre even more topical. > > I was thinking of translating it in Italian, one day or another... > > Easy. Microsoft translates it here: Now all you have to do is correct that into *real* Italian. :) BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 23:11:17 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 01:11:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Thinking Apes' Critique of Trans-Simianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24 September 2011 23:22, BillK wrote: > 2011/9/24 Stefano Vaj wrote:Easy. Microsoft translates it here: > < > http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=BVNav&from=en&to=it&a=http%3A%2F%2Fdresdencodak.com%2F2009%2F05%2F15%2Fa-thinking-apes-critique-of-trans-simianism-repost%2F > > > > Now all you have to do is correct that into *real* Italian. :) > > Afraid it works better the opposite direction. The real point of automatic translation for such purposes would be to save you typing time. Well, editing that would actually take more than translating from scratch... :-) BTW, is the English version the original, or was the post actually translated from some other language? -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 23:25:42 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:25:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Thinking Apes' Critique of Trans-Simianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/9/24 Stefano Vaj : > BTW, is the English version the original, or was the post actually > translated from some other language? English is the original, despite what the post claims. From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 23:53:32 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:53:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Though, even if this did allow for information to be > sent to the past, it appears that you'd need > specialized equipment for those relays. ?Not all of > said equipment has been constructed yet, and what > there is, is not set up in a relay. ?Therefore, no > information can travel from the future into today. Yes, but any time travel, even a few nanoseconds back, would have tremendous potential implications for computation speeds! And that's reason enough to be excited by the possibility that something new has been discovered that could eventually be taken advantage of... though the power requirements for such computation could be so astronomical as to make it a moot point. -Kelly From atymes at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 00:29:44 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:29:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Yes, but any time travel, even a few nanoseconds back, would have > tremendous potential implications for computation speeds! You miss my point. If this sort of time travel might be possible, but it requires a sufficiently complex system that it would not naturally occur (which is a high barrier - but which might be realized in this case, since natural evolution does not often play with neutrino generators & detectors), then the mere fact that we do not already observe its effects is not disproof. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 02:00:58 2011 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:00:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> <564c83b7e30abb6662a3955c665cc895.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: I've found this thread fascinating, and will now add some of my own thoughts. I used to work in the hospitality field, and so got to meet my share of millionaires and even a few billionaires. I found many of these people (especially the older ones) to be courteous and friendly, while I remember a young trust fund venture capitalist (family business) who was so obnoxiously arrogant to everyone, I wanted to deck him hard for his own good. A rather eccentric and very tall, gangly old man (dressed like he was an old west undertaker) came to the lodge to visit, and he would just lounge around on some big rocks outside and watch the world go by. I went out to say hello and see if he needed anything, and I got a Yoda-like sharing of wisdom from him. I was later told he was one of the wealthiest people in the state. A fairly "local" billionaire came by (I'm not saying his name), who had started life with nothing, but had a fantastic work ethic and built a business empire. He had come by to have someone ask him for donations to a worthy cause, and as I listened in to the conversation I had to stifle a laugh as a skilled persuader found himself hitting a "friendly" brick wall with this wealthy man! lol This billionaire seemed almost to have ADD, but it was more like the reverse, where he was looking at everything, asking about everything, at a machine gun pace, but taking in everything that might be of importance to him. You could tell by the questions and insights he made, that he was quite sharp, though he did not quite seem that way at first. This man traveled either alone (often driving a car that would not be given a second look), or with an old buddy who was a retired fighter pilot, who was sort of a chauffeur/body guard. I remember when this billionaire drove up in a "best they build" Rolls Royce, and I was astonished by the size and beauty of it. This guy was like a happy teenager with a Camaro as he talked about it. He was once overheard saying to his lawyer over the phone, "it's only thirty million dollars, you take care of the matter however you see fit." This impressed people... At one time a conference at this lodge caused a family of multi-billionaires from Europe to take interest and send representatives. I was astonished to meet their "major domo" and some doctors they sent for training. The family did not have time or perhaps the interest to come, and so they sent others to learn and report. The major domo was very thorough and good at his job, but I did not like him. He came across sort of like a nerdy villainous character from an old silent movie. But it was interesting to see how though he was not apparently rich himself, just by his close affiliation with the super-rich, some women very much sucked up to him, with embarrassing fervor. Dennis May wrote: I've met several people who were at best in the lower middle class who acted as though they had real money and flaunted it for those in the lower middle class or the poor. In the same community one of the wealthier men in the area didn't become wealthy until he was in his late 50's to early 60's. You would see him at Wal-Mart in bib overalls sitting on the bench by the greeter. >>> There is a joke in Scottsdale, Arizona about "$30,000 a year Scottsdale Millionaires" who like to represent themselves to others as being rich, but by doing so actually do without the basics of life! lol On the other hand, I read about two eccentric Texas brothers, raised by a super-rich father, who got a huge kick out of living a middle class lifestyle. They made me think of the Otaku anime cosplayers. Dennis May continues: You meet millionaires all the time and likely don't know it. I can't say I've ever met a billionaire. I think the extent of the rich I've ever been around is in the under 50 million range. Most millionaires are not cocky about their money. Most people who act cocky about money are immature and likely wannabes in debt. >>> This is very true. My eyes were opened by reading the great book, "The Millionaire Next Door." I recommend it to everyone. I find most millionaires to be very hardworking, intelligent, alert and pretty decent people. But of course there are some horrific exceptions. I once worked for a man who held a bank check for half million dollars in my face, and arrogantly said, "you have never had a check like this, but I have many times!" He was a man in his sixties who could easily regress to the state of a vicious teenager. Growing up in Alaska, I remember how as a young boy, a good friend of my mother started up a health food store. It prospered and by the time I was grown, this woman and her husband had multiple locations and a flagship store that could rival a Safeway in size. They looked like a blue collar couple (think John Goodman and Rosanne), and it was those skills from that very background, that lead to their great success. They were humble and *very very* hardworking. I remember how when I was about thirteen, the husband sat me down for "a talk." I thought it was going to be about sex, but instead it was about dealing with police, and how I must be very calm, yet friendly, if ever stopped by them, because my very life depended on it, due to abusive and out of control officers. I have never forgotten that talk. I worked for them for awhile, and he was sort of like an uncle to me. I read a funny letter to the editor where a man embarrassingly complained about how hard it is to only be worth twelve million dollars! lol He said that he realized many would not feel sorry for him and his wife, but that he did feel very frustrated by all the cool things "real rich people" could do, that he could not! Buy a professional sports team franchise, a customized 747, a next generation super-yacht...? Nope!!! He just did not have the money to have the fun he wanted in life. I read the book "Bobos in Paradise" that talked in fascinating detail about the social hierarchy among the wealthy. At a dinner party, deferential treatment is given based on wealth (among other things), and the guy worth $200 million just does not rate on par with the 1.2 billionaire, just as he is seen as the social inferior of the fellow worth 5 billion. And a "titan/demigod" of wealth (Gates, etc.) can make them all by comparison be seen as minor players. A proper dinner host keeps these things in mind, but tries to keep it low-key as they plan the gathering. It made me think of Victorian England... Dennis May continues: Many with money are too busy doing what they like to change their behavior or spend money like they have it >>> An interesting comment. Yes, for some, real introspection will end with great wealth, but for others, it will not. I agree with the notion that riches magnify the major aspects (good or bad) of a person's personality and character. And I do think that some wealthy people do realize that if they are not careful, their possessions will in time actually own *them.* John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 03:24:36 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] [atlantis_II] Ether vs. Relativity In-Reply-To: <1098E38F-BB09-4505-9E13-9EFFB627E7C3@yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316805903.58776.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1316808446.58305.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316815708.81524.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1316828375.51090.YahooMailNeo@web112119.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1098E38F-BB09-4505-9E13-9EFFB627E7C3@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316921076.38273.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I agree. ? Dennis From: Dan Ust To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] [atlantis_II] Ether vs. Relativity Not saying I agree with, but that's interesting and I think akin to Descartes view of the matter. (Cartesian materialism, anyone?)? > > >I can see how basing fields that way (not a new idea, of course) can be viewed as the solution to many problems.? > > >I also see this as an update of Greek atomism. Do you agree? > >Regards, > > >Dan > >On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Dennis May wrote: > > >I wrote: >>? >>> I support an aether based relativity. The Lorentz-Poincar? >>> idea of what would compose an aether is not the kind of >>> aether I would support but the basics are there for >>> expanding and changing the theory for a different kind >>> of aether theory. I have discussed this type of aether >>> elsewhere - primarily on physics_frontier on YahooGroups. >>> This aether is composed of vast numbers of particles much >>> much smaller than the smallest known subatomic particles.? >>> They travel much much faster than the speed of light. There >>> is also a sea of very low energy photons in this background.?? >>? >>Dan Ust wrote: >> >>> Is you view that this must be particle-based to banish fields? >>> from physics? Or why do you believe there are really tiny? >>> particles? Is this akin to Ancient Greek atomism? (Not trying? >>> to be sarcastic, but wondering if this is all based on some of? >>> local contact being the fundamental way things interact in? >>> your view.) >>? >>It is my view that all fields are composed of particles and some >>kind of local contact.? Every attempt to get away from particle? >>based fields has eventually run into dead ends, the requirement >>for endless epicycles, or stagnation where different portions of >>physics cannot be reconciled. >>? >>Dennis May__,_._,___ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Sun Sep 25 09:36:22 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:36:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Tymes" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Faster than light?? > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> I'd call retrograde signalling in time (which can be >> indefinite via a chain of routers) and causality violations >> pretty Earth-shattering. > > I do not see why FTL automatically means time travel. > Aside from the paper scerir posted, let's take a simple > example: > > Points A and B are 1 kilometer apart. They have a > mechanism for sending, back and forth, signals in 1 > microsecond - a bit over 3 times the speed of light. > > Point A sends a FTL signal to point B. > > Point B then returns a FTL signal to point A. > > From point A's point of view, the second signal was > received 2 microseconds after the first was sent. > > Perhaps this could allow point B to act on something > before the physical consequences could ordinarily > reach it. (Say, if point A were at the epicenter of an > earthquake, point B could be prepared for it. Indeed, > because earthquakes propagate much more slowly > than light over fiber optics, this effect - without FTL - > is being investigated as part of an earthquake warning > system in California.) > > The only "time travel" comes about if one believes > that time and causality propagate at the speed of > light. If, instead, one believes that all points in the > universe have their own time, which may pass at > different rates (thanks to relativity) but each point's > rate is consistent with itself, then there is no time > travel. > > Though, even if this did allow for information to be > sent to the past, it appears that you'd need > specialized equipment for those relays. Not all of > said equipment has been constructed yet, and what > there is, is not set up in a relay. Therefore, no > information can travel from the future into today. > The earliest point in history that information could > time travel to, is when said equipment first becomes > operational. There would likely also be bandwidth > limitations; at any point where those are used up, > that point in history becomes inaccessible to further > future information, and likely all points before it too. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From scerir at alice.it Sun Sep 25 09:49:55 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:49:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: Adrian Tymes: > I do not see why FTL automatically means time travel. Maybe the question can be also re-stated as "Though there exist reference frames in which superluminal photons would reach detector, by the clock of an observer in this frame, earlier than they were emitted, is it impossible to send photons back to their source prior to their emission in the proper time of the source?". There are papers trying to answer to that question. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9807067 http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0561 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204022 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9202090 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027 From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 10:04:26 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:04:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Thinking Apes' Critique of Trans-Simianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 25 September 2011 01:25, Adrian Tymes wrote: > 2011/9/24 Stefano Vaj : > > BTW, is the English version the original, or was the post actually > > translated from some other language? > > English is the original, despite what the post claims. > In jest it is claimed that it translated from some obscure simian language, but its origins made me think it could have been originally written in German. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 10:20:10 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:20:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> <564c83b7e30abb6662a3955c665cc895.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: 2011/9/25 John Grigg > This is very true. My eyes were opened by reading the great book, "The > Millionaire Next Door." I recommend it to everyone. I find most > millionaires to be very hardworking, intelligent, alert and pretty decent > people. But of course there are some horrific exceptions. I once worked > for a man who held a bank check for half million dollars in my face, and > arrogantly said, "you have never had a check like this, but I have many > times!" He was a man in his sixties who could easily regress to the state > of a vicious teenager. > In Europe many super-rich are born in their wealth, and are still in the business of imitating aristocracy, where both hard-working and arrogance/showing off are definitely no-nos. "New" rich, who include second- and third-generation rich, even though the social mobility involved is most often limited to "from upper-middle class to upper class", are generated almost exclusively by economic or political paradigm-shifts, Mr. Berlusconi being a case in point, and usually have a more flamboyant way of life. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Sep 25 10:48:03 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:48:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > Einstein was wrong don't notice that there is an even more plausible > conclusion if these findings are real: causality is wrong. > > It's far more likely that Einstein was wrong than the causality, IMO. This is an interesting statement. Let's (for this thread) drop the question about what we actually think of FTL or relativity, and instead look at the quite interesting meta-question "How do we judge the likeliehood of radical changes of physics?" Assuming we were to have to either drop relativity or causality, but did not know which, what method would we use to determine the most rational course of action? Obviously we would try acquire relevant information to make the choice, but if that was not forthcoming it seems we would use other principles. One would be simplicity: which of the two is the most complex or introduces more concepts? But both can be formulated in very succinct ways with simple postulates. The common sense approach, basing judgements on past experience, might seem to give an overwhelming support to causality rather than relativity. But this is likely suffering from serious parochialism, since we live in an environment where relativistic effects are minor. On the other hand, it is not clear what environment would correspond to a "neutral" view of the laws of physics. Looking at a review of the topic like http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-process/ and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/ it might look like causation is on shakier ground because there are so many different schools of thought, and arguments against retrocausation mainly seem to build on avoiding paradoxes. But having multiple interpretations or models just shows that it is a pretty active area; the lack of consensus might be due to lack of data to force a particular conclusion. In physics this is usually bad news: there is floppiness in the theory, and Popper et al. will claim it is unfalsifiable or at least a worse theory than one with less freedom. But in philosophy this might be a less strong argument: we might just not have found the right way of expressing ourselves that unifies the different takes on the topic. The proof by paradox is in worse shape. Just because the consequences are nonintuitive doesn't mean they cannot happen. Just consider much of modern physics. If we are talking about radical new possibilities we should expect unprecendented things that are outside our normal experience. However, most people would think that true paradoxes cannot happen: we can't get actual contradictions in the laws of physics, and hence theories suggesting them must be wrong. But we accept some contradictions in our understanding because we think the real state of the laws of nature is contradiction-free and our theories are just partial models (standard example relativity and quantum mechanics). We also often find that other laws of physics intervene to prevent contradictions: Novikov's self consistency principle seems to show that quantum mechanics prevents many time-travel paradoxes by giving them zero probability. The reductios do not take this into account, and hence fail. While reductio ad absurdum works fine in math (where intervening extra laws cannot happen if we make a good proof) it might not work well on physics at all. In the end it seems that knowing one possibility is wrong and the other right (or, with some small probability, both are wrong and the world is even stranger) leads to a situation a bit like moral uncertainty: you think there are moral rules you should follow, but you are not entirely certain which are the right ones. As long as you keep to situatons where both give the same results you can act with confidence. But elsewhere, finding good rational action strategies is tough. Some of the ideas in moral uncertainty theory might be applicable, but it seems that the one thing all theories support is the gathering of more information. Which might be easier in physics than in ethics. (however, if we actually had reason to think we could get metaethically relevant information from some experiment, it would probably be more important than any physics experiments we could imagine, since the information would promote acts of true value directly. The LHC will just tell us a bit about how the world is, while a Large Ethics Collider would tell us a bit about what we ought to be doing (if anything). ) -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 25 12:22:16 2011 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:22:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive > energy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1316953336.62291.YahooMailClassic@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I remember reading "Man and the planets" by Duncan Lunan, from 1980, which summarised some thinking about exploiting the solar system that had been going around in the late 70s. One method mentioned was constructing a large plastic film in a sphere around your asteroid, metallising half of it to form a reflector which then heats up the asteroid. The most volatile parts vaporise and form a shell on the inside of the film. You cut this apart, then repeat the process for higher and higher temperatures, each time getting a different set of temperature-controlled vapor, until you are left with highly refractory stuff in the centre. Not having a copy of the book to hand, I can't quote the original source that Lunan would have quoted from. It's an interesting idea, and certainly seems less mass-intensive than some solutions. Tom From protokol2020 at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 14:10:49 2011 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:10:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> Message-ID: Interesting points. But as I see things, the Relativity is not well since the Ehrenfest's paradox. What means, that the Relativity was not a good answer to Michaelson Morley experiment. I have no answers myself of course, I just see the troubles with the current set of physics. It would be no great surprise for me if those FTL neutrinos are a real thing and not a fluke of some kind. It just can't go worse, than it already is for more than 100 years. The Relativity was invented to eliminate apparent paradox of MM failure to measure our speed agains the aether. Unfortunately Ehrenfest stroked and the solution was never viable, in fact. I am a purist, when comes to logic. On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Tomaz Kristan wrote: > >> > Einstein was wrong don't notice that there is an even more plausible >> conclusion if these findings are real: causality is wrong. >> >> It's far more likely that Einstein was wrong than the causality, IMO. >> > > This is an interesting statement. Let's (for this thread) drop the question > about what we actually think of FTL or relativity, and instead look at the > quite interesting meta-question "How do we judge the likeliehood of radical > changes of physics?" > > Assuming we were to have to either drop relativity or causality, but did > not know which, what method would we use to determine the most rational > course of action? Obviously we would try acquire relevant information to > make the choice, but if that was not forthcoming it seems we would use other > principles. > > One would be simplicity: which of the two is the most complex or introduces > more concepts? But both can be formulated in very succinct ways with simple > postulates. > > The common sense approach, basing judgements on past experience, might seem > to give an overwhelming support to causality rather than relativity. But > this is likely suffering from serious parochialism, since we live in an > environment where relativistic effects are minor. On the other hand, it is > not clear what environment would correspond to a "neutral" view of the laws > of physics. > > Looking at a review of the topic like > http://plato.stanford.edu/**entries/causation-process/and > http://plato.stanford.edu/**entries/causation-backwards/ > it might look like causation is on shakier ground because there are so many > different schools of thought, and arguments against retrocausation mainly > seem to build on avoiding paradoxes. But having multiple interpretations or > models just shows that it is a pretty active area; the lack of consensus > might be due to lack of data to force a particular conclusion. In physics > this is usually bad news: there is floppiness in the theory, and Popper et > al. will claim it is unfalsifiable or at least a worse theory than one with > less freedom. But in philosophy this might be a less strong argument: we > might just not have found the right way of expressing ourselves that unifies > the different takes on the topic. > > The proof by paradox is in worse shape. Just because the consequences are > nonintuitive doesn't mean they cannot happen. Just consider much of modern > physics. If we are talking about radical new possibilities we should expect > unprecendented things that are outside our normal experience. However, most > people would think that true paradoxes cannot happen: we can't get actual > contradictions in the laws of physics, and hence theories suggesting them > must be wrong. But we accept some contradictions in our understanding > because we think the real state of the laws of nature is contradiction-free > and our theories are just partial models (standard example relativity and > quantum mechanics). We also often find that other laws of physics intervene > to prevent contradictions: Novikov's self consistency principle seems to > show that quantum mechanics prevents many time-travel paradoxes by giving > them zero probability. The reductios do not take this into account, and > hence fail. While reductio ad absurdum works fine in math (where intervening > extra laws cannot happen if we make a good proof) it might not work well on > physics at all. > > In the end it seems that knowing one possibility is wrong and the other > right (or, with some small probability, both are wrong and the world is even > stranger) leads to a situation a bit like moral uncertainty: you think there > are moral rules you should follow, but you are not entirely certain which > are the right ones. As long as you keep to situatons where both give the > same results you can act with confidence. But elsewhere, finding good > rational action strategies is tough. Some of the ideas in moral uncertainty > theory might be applicable, but it seems that the one thing all theories > support is the gathering of more information. Which might be easier in > physics than in ethics. > > (however, if we actually had reason to think we could get metaethically > relevant information from some experiment, it would probably be more > important than any physics experiments we could imagine, since the > information would promote acts of true value directly. The LHC will just > tell us a bit about how the world is, while a Large Ethics Collider would > tell us a bit about what we ought to be doing (if anything). ) > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy > Faculty Oxford University > ______________________________**_________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/**mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-**chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 14:26:53 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 07:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive > energy In-Reply-To: <1316953336.62291.YahooMailClassic@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <1316953336.62291.YahooMailClassic@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316960813.80401.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Tom Nowell wrote: ? "One method mentioned was constructing a large plastic film in a sphere around your asteroid, metallising half of it to form a reflector which then heats up the asteroid. The most volatile parts vaporise and form a shell on the inside of the film. You cut this apart, then repeat the process for higher and higher temperatures, each time getting a different set of temperature-controlled vapor, until you are left with highly refractory stuff in the centre." ? Each cycle would leave a certain amount of vapor in the space between the asteroid and the film which would be lost when you cut away the film.? This would be a larger amount for vapor created at low temperatures and less when at high temperatures. ? The idea is generally sound and resembles distillation of hydrocarbons into different fractions but I would favor the container remaining intact the whole time and removing the fractions as they are generated instead of starting and stopping the process. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 15:54:54 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:54:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> <564c83b7e30abb6662a3955c665cc895.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: 2011/9/24 John Grigg : > This is very true.? My eyes were opened by reading the great book, "The > Millionaire Next Door."? I recommend it to everyone. Yes, I also recommend this book to everyone. Those who want to be millionaires, as well as those who want to understand them. My grandfather was one of these kinds of millionaires. He followed what today would be called the Dave Ramsey plan. Dave is the author of "The Total Money Makeover", also a good read. Grandpa avoided debt, paying for EVERYTHING, including his first house in cash. He borrowed money once early in his life, to buy a fridge, it was a $7 payment every month. He had to scrounge so hard for that $7 (in the 30s) that it put him off of borrowing for his entire life. Like many who lived through the depression, he always thought another would come, and he wanted to be ready for it. He was right, but didn't live quite long enough to see what we're going through now. I don't think understanding these kinds of millionaires gives us as much insight into our future as the other kind... the ultra rich who are not caught in a pattern of saving everything they find. We will have no reason not to "spend" our capabilities in the future. It's all just going to be computation, and savings will not enter into it. So while this is a pattern for a successful life, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to have a better financial future, I don't think it is quite as relevant to the future we envision here. > I read the book "Bobos in Paradise" that talked in fascinating detail about > the social hierarchy among the wealthy.? At a dinner party, deferential > treatment is given based on wealth (among other things), and the guy worth > $200 million just does not rate on par with the 1.2 billionaire, just as he > is seen as the social inferior of the fellow worth 5 billion.? And a > "titan/demigod" of wealth (Gates, etc.)?can make them all by comparison be > seen as minor players.? A proper dinner host keeps these things in mind, but > tries to?keep it?low-key as they plan the gathering.? It made me think of > Victorian England... I've never seen or heard of this sort of behavior around here... but that could be a side effect of the leveling influence of Mormonism. It encourages humility, and discourages this kind of chest beating. I can't say it doesn't happen elsewhere... I have also heard that there are differences in some societies between old money and new money... but I don't know how relevant that is either. > An interesting comment.? Yes, for some, real?introspection will end with > great wealth, but for?others, it will not.? I agree with the notion that > riches magnify the major aspects (good or bad)?of a person's?personality and > character.? And I do think that some wealthy people do realize that if they > are not careful, their possessions will in time actually own *them.* This is perhaps the most important point in your post... I have come to believe that after some amount of money, usually between $30 and $50 million dollars, there is a shift from "I have money" to "money owns me"... at that point society begins to look at them as a philanthropic resource to be tapped. Like a gold mine. And their life begins to look like a series of meetings where people try to talk them out of some of their money. I have one neighbor that is worth in the neighborhood of $40 million... who had an unfortunate meeting with an accountant who thought he could save him some money on taxes. He set up a tax haven of some kind, and in the end he spent a year and a half in jail. His unfortunate wife, who was truly innocent, but signed the return, also spent a year in jail. The accountant also spent some time in jail. While he was in jail, he had a 64,000 square foot home constructed within sight, but a couple of miles away from my home at the time. It was reputed to be the largest single family residence in Utah. It's a true mansion! By the time he got out of jail, it was at least half done. His money truly owned, and in fact, imprisoned him. Had he been less greedy, or more wise, it would not have happened. There are others with so much money that I know who are constantly hounded. People want them to support this charity and that. I have decided that if I ever get into the situation of earning a great deal of money, that I will make sure and stop collecting money at $30 million. I simply will not have money own me. There is nothing I want that comes with more money than that. I will just stop. It is not for me. I do not want to be one of the rich that part of the underclass wants to "eat". -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 16:05:39 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:05:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Singularity, Politicians and the Great Debt Message-ID: I have a theory that I would like to get your opinions on... It is clear to me that the debt being incurred by the United States can not be paid off by a natural historical growth curve in the economy... but that with an event like the Singularity, paying off a $14 trillion dollar debt would become possible, perhaps even easy... Do you think that our political leaders are aware of the possibility of the coming Singularity and are depending upon that to pull our grandchildren out of the mess they have created? Or do you think they are really just as stupid as they look? I await your learned opinions. Thank you. -Kelly From eugen at leitl.org Sun Sep 25 16:17:40 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:17:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Singularity, Politicians and the Great Debt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110925161739.GV25711@leitl.org> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:05:39AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote: > It is clear to me that the debt being incurred by the United States > can not be paid off by a natural historical growth curve in the > economy... but that with an event like the Singularity, paying off a > $14 trillion dollar debt would become possible, perhaps even easy... > Do you think that our political leaders are aware of the possibility > of the coming Singularity and are depending upon that to pull our As far as I can tell, only a tiny fringe is aware of the possibility. None of it impacts policy. > grandchildren out of the mess they have created? Or do you think they > are really just as stupid as they look? They (the top 0.5% to 0.1%) are not stupid -- their house is in order. Is yours? > I await your learned opinions. Thank you. From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 16:13:44 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> Message-ID: <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Anders Sandberg wrote: ? "How do we judge the likeliehood of radical changes of physics?" "Assuming we were to have to either drop relativity or causality, but did not know which, what method would we use to determine the most rational course of action?" Implicit in the questions is the idea that there is a "we" - a collective decision to be made to establish a new consensus or orthodoxy that we all somehow share.? I would argue that the pressures to form a poorly conceived or unwilling?consensus has in a number of instances lead to bad?science and in this case a bad physics affecting all of science. A related problem is the collectivist funding of education and science under the banner of consensus and orthodoxy.? After all we can't have government money funding the wrong ideas so we must use the gun of government to decide which views are to be supported - and by default those which are to be divested of support.? Who will control the gun of government in making the consensus decisions and direct future education for all?? The decision makers will be those who are able to best integrate into the structure of government and adapt to the needs and desires of government. What happens to private investment in science when the money is taken from private hands then directed towards those supporting government directed orthodox science? I support a free market in science where all can compete for acceptance of ideas and money to fund research.? Consensus can exist along side differing views that are never resolved.? Consensus funded at the point of a gun can keep everyone on the same page but if that page is the wrong page the error is difficult to correct and the damage can continue for generations. I have very specific and radical views of what needs to change in physics.? I do not expect the orthodoxy to suddenly pivot [as if an oil tanker at full steam can turn on a dime].? I do however resent public funding of opposing viewpoints and public funding of education pushing those opposing viewpoints using my hard earned money taken at gunpoint. I am very happy to discuss what needs to happen in physics to correct the errors of the past and forge better theories but I do not see it as a directed process where the mysterious "we" has any final say. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Sep 25 16:34:56 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:34:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive energy In-Reply-To: <1316830984.40984.YahooMailNeo@web112104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316830984.40984.YahooMailNeo@web112104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110925163456.GX25711@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 07:23:04PM -0700, Dennis May wrote: > Dust - even metal dust - is generally a good insulator so transferring heat to it > would be time consuming as would getting it to radiate the heat away. > ? > Our old plasma table at work had?a dust collection system.? The dust produced > from cutting stainless steel on a plasma table might?resemble some forms > of?nickel-iron dust.? The dust has?a huge volume per weight and would be very That was most likely mostly oxide, unless your plasma cutter was powered by inert gas (argon) and dumped into an inert gas blanket as well. > hard on any? mechanism transferring it.? We once dumped a partial barrel of it > by accident?and the?dust spread over the ground like a fog floating downhill for > a good 15?yards or more. You're still top-posting occasionally. Lots better now, though. ? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 16:56:03 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:56:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/25 Dennis May wrote: > What happens to private investment in science when the money > is taken from private hands then directed towards those supporting > government directed orthodox science? > > Private investment in science doesn't exist. It is a myth used for the purposes of argument. Private investment is for near-term profit. You obviously want to live in a sort of utopia nothing like the world we actually live in. BillK From artillo at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 16:28:11 2011 From: artillo at gmail.com (artillo at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:28:11 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Singularity, Politicians and the Great Debt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1962242776-1316968120-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1338271464-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> Absolutely stupider than they look. Most of them can't even see past the next election cycle. And seriously, how many of them can even comprehend how important upcoming scientific and technological breakthroughs are going to change our lives for the better and actually embrace those changes rather than just seeing them as a way for them and their cronies to get even further 'ahead' of the little people? Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Kelly Anderson Sender: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.orgDate: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:05:39 To: ExI chat list Reply-To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] The Singularity, Politicians and the Great Debt I have a theory that I would like to get your opinions on... It is clear to me that the debt being incurred by the United States can not be paid off by a natural historical growth curve in the economy... but that with an event like the Singularity, paying off a $14 trillion dollar debt would become possible, perhaps even easy... Do you think that our political leaders are aware of the possibility of the coming Singularity and are depending upon that to pull our grandchildren out of the mess they have created? Or do you think they are really just as stupid as they look? I await your learned opinions. Thank you. -Kelly _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 17:30:27 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I wrote: > What happens to private investment in science when the money > is taken from private hands then directed towards those supporting > government directed orthodox science? ? Bill K wrote: > Private investment in science doesn't exist. It is a myth used for the > purposes of argument. > Private investment is for near-term profit. > You obviously want to live in a sort of utopia nothing like the world > we actually live in. ? Are you saying science investment must come from money taken at the point of a gun?? I see it as a problem of investors not putting money into science because it is difficult to financially compete with others who are able to extract money as needed at the point of a gun. ? Long term investment was common in freer economic times.? Short term thinking is the result of uncertainty caused by government interference in private markets. ? The world we live in is not as economically free as times when long term thought and investment produced consistently better growth rates - and booms in engineering and growth in science. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 17:20:13 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Singularity, Politicians and the Great Debt References: Message-ID: <1316971213.69495.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Kelly Anderson wrote:? > It is clear to me that the debt being incurred by the United States > can not be paid off by a natural historical growth curve in the > economy...do you think they are really just as stupid as they look? There?were long stretches of growth in the 6%-8% range per year in the United States and Scotland in the 1800's?during a time?of generally greater economic freedom.? It is my view that such growth rates are the norm in a free market - anything less is the sign of government interference in markets. The United States could fix its economic problems but I see no evidence of the political will to do.? A great deal of the debt could be relieved simply by selling off assets held by the federal government for no good reason - same with many states. Investment will remain on the sidelines until there is a change of administration.? A great number of problems will need to be addressed and hard political problems confronted if there is going to be any kind of economic recovery any time soon. Vested interests will fight reform so there is likely little chance of recovery before a severe collapse. If there were a 100 year tax holiday on the industrialization of space I believe a growth rate faster than seen in the old West would be possible.? Much of that growth would involve automation, AI,?and remote processing which can bring untold wealth.? That kind of wealth can fund human betterment in many directions. I don't view those ruining global finances as stupid.? Many have political goals and political investments which are irreconcilable with freedom and growth.? Their personal power comes at the expense of everyone else.? Instead of everyones standard of living rising only the connected and corrupt are likely to do well. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 17:51:47 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:51:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 25 September 2011 12:48, Anders Sandberg wrote: > This is an interesting statement. Let's (for this thread) drop the question > about what we actually think of FTL or relativity, and instead look at the > quite interesting meta-question "How do we judge the likeliehood of radical > changes of physics?" > Much as I am fond of QM, I never liked much SR from an aesthetical POV, let alone the severe limitations it seems to impose as far as the realm of possibilities is concerned. But I came with years to appreciate its consistency and to some extent its "unavoidability", so I am quite at loss for the time being in assessing the conceptual consequences of an even marginal falsification of the theory... But, hey, I am just a poor lawyer. Let's theorical physicists and science philosophers have their day. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 20:25:43 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:25:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, scerir wrote: > Adrian Tymes: >> I do not see why FTL automatically means time travel. > > Maybe the question can be also re-stated as "Though there exist reference > frames in which superluminal photons would reach detector, by the clock of > an observer in this frame, earlier than they were emitted, is it impossible > to send photons back to their source prior to their emission in the proper > time of the source?". I believe that would be a fair statement. Of the papers you linked, one seemed to assume "time = lightcone", then superimposed different lightcones (and thus, different - incompatible - standards of "time"), one seemed to assume time travel (in various ways) to prove time travel, and the other three argued against. From scerir at alice.it Sun Sep 25 21:14:15 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 23:14:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com><4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se><4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> Message-ID: <8610F8296F1E4DA4A69370C1267ED6D2@PCserafino> Anders: >> Let's (for this thread) drop the question >> about what we actually think of FTL or relativity, and instead look at the >> quite interesting meta-question "How do we judge the likeliehood of radical >> changes of physics?" Stefano: > Much as I am fond of QM, I never liked much SR from an aesthetical POV, let > alone the severe limitations it seems to impose as far as the realm of > possibilities is concerned. As for QM there are really strange situations. So strange that nobody is even able to think of some "radical" conceptual "change". Apparently this was well known to Bohr who wrote: "[......] with regard to the dynamical behaviour of the individual units obviously necessitates a complete renunciation of following their course in space and time." One of these strangest situations is usually called the "quantum liar" paradox. It is well known that two quantum systems can be entangled "ex ante" (from the past to the future) by means of a SPDC source, or some other method. Here there is, so to speak, a "causal" vertex (or perhaps a common cause) in the past. It is also well known that two quantum systems (i.e. two atoms) can be entangled "ex post" (from the future to the past). So, here there is a "causal" vertex in the future, where is located the detector which registers the photon emitted by one or by the other of the two distant quantum systems (atoms) [1]. [1] Creation of entangled states of distant atoms by interference. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810013 C. Cabrillo, J.I. Cirac, P. Garcia-Fernandez, P. Zoller Abstract: We propose a scheme to create distant entangled atomic states. It is based on driving two (or more) atoms with a weak laser pulse, so that the probability that two atoms are excited is negligible. If the subsequent spontaneous emission is detected, the entangled state is created. We have developed a model to analyze the fidelity of the resulting state as a function of the dimensions and location of the detector, and the motional properties of the atoms. It is less known that we can entangle two quantum systems having no "causal" vertex in the past and no "causal" vertex in the future. This is called the "quantum liar" paradox. It is possible to read something about it here (chapter 7) http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/Elitzur-Dolev13.pdf or here (chapter 10) http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/MultipleIFM.pdf There are many speculations here, trying to explain the paradox in terms of block-world http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510090 or in terms of "higher spaces of possibilities" http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1626 or in terms of quantum effects coming from outside space-time http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 So, there are new and huge conceptual problems here. And nobody can even imagine what kind of "radical change" is needed. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 21:15:54 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:15:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive > energy In-Reply-To: <1316953336.62291.YahooMailClassic@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <1316953336.62291.YahooMailClassic@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Tom Nowell wrote: > One method mentioned was constructing a large plastic film in a sphere around your asteroid, metallising half of it to form a reflector which then heats up the asteroid. The most volatile parts vaporise and form a shell on the inside of the film. You cut this apart, then repeat the process for higher and higher temperatures, each time getting a different set of temperature-controlled vapor, until you are left with highly refractory stuff in the centre. Thanks, Tom, for this little bit. Can't say precisely why -- probably my obsession with what I refer to as "gadgeteering" -- but certain ideas nail me in my pleasure center and send my mind racing. I stopped reading science fiction when I was 13 or 14. Dang! I have GOT to get back to it, ...catch up on my reading. Though these days it would be science non-fiction (science prognostication?, science imagineering?, science prophecy?). This space habitat (slash starship) idea has just totally infected my brain. First, it was JD Bernal. Then about two and a half years ago, the serial Fermi paradox discussion provoked an exchange between Eugene and BillK, where Eugene said -- (ymmv) -- "You don't see any engineered galaxies, do ya? Ergo, we're all alone." and BillK replied (ymmv) and I agreed -- "Not so fast. Our still-barbarically-limited understanding of things makes that assessment premature ." Within that exchange Eugene also insisted that galactic expansion would be mediated by von Neumann probes, not "monkeys in a can". Then appeared the old nostrum: there's no point in even attempting to travel to the nearest star because when, after so many lifetimes your descendants finally arrived, they would be greeted by others who had arrived ahead of them, courtesy of better tech. I thought about that, and developed a little "attitude". That damn nostrum is the perfect recipe for NEVER making the attempt. A variation of the "it'll never work" mantra of the ignorant and vision-less. "It'll never work" is all it takes to make me respond, "When do we start." That was the moment I became a true believer,... in the superiority of possibilities beyond the gravity well. And asteroid mining is step three in the program of setting off to the stars. One of the more interesting parts of this ?ber-escapist dream is trying to figure out who would start such a project and the nature of the motivation. Would it be a government project? A religious/cult group? Corporate? Social rejectionist? Explorers slash adventurers? Survivalists? Any of these seemed plausible, so I just chose my favorite: rejectionists. People fed up with the horseshit of life on planet Moron. My wife is harassing me. She insists that I have work to do, so I'll wrap this up for the moment with an observation: Against all earth-centric prejuduce, life outside the gravity well may prove decidedly "better" than life shackled to dirt. Better or not, it's coming, it's the future. The notion that going to the stars is a fool's errand cause "you can't get there from here" -- ie the trip time exceeds the current human lifespan -- is based on the premise that arriving at the destination is everything. But clearly, the multi-lifetime duration of the trip means that the trip itself -- living in-transit in interstellar space -- not the arrival, is the true life-style choice of these "travelers". For those embarking on the trip, transitioning to a life in interstellar space is the goal, rather than the destination. If the resources for such a life-style are abundant in the asteroid belt, Oort cloud, and Kuiper belt, then gravity-well-independent life should take off, both within the local system and in the vast shrinking interval beyond. Best, Jeff Davis "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sun Sep 25 21:51:23 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:51:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <201109252233.p8PMXScl019678@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Unless I missed it, no one has yet posted a link to the actual paper. It's: http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam -- David. From atymes at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 22:42:03 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:42:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Singularity, Politicians and the Great Debt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Do you think that our political leaders are aware of the possibility > of the coming Singularity and are depending upon that to pull our > grandchildren out of the mess they have created? Or do you think they > are really just as stupid as they look? I'm going to have to go with group consensus on this one. They are neither specifically aware of the Singularity, nor are they particularly stupid. They are perhaps short-sighted, but more importantly, for the most part they simply do not care about the damage they are doing. From atymes at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 23:00:57 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:00:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/25 Dennis May : > I wrote: >> What happens to private investment in science when the money >> is taken from private hands then directed towards those supporting >> government directed orthodox science? > > Bill K wrote: > >> Private investment in science doesn't exist. It is a myth used for the >> purposes of argument. > >> Private investment is for near-term profit. > >> You obviously want to live in a sort of utopia nothing like the world >> we actually live in. > > Are you saying science investment must come from money taken > at the point of a gun? Public funding is not literally taken at the point of a gun, in almost all cases. For one, there aren't enough guns. If everyone stopped paying taxes, it would be impossible to collect enough taxes to force everyone to pay. The system only works because most people willingly go along with it. Metaphorically - "almost all long-term science investment (and the majority of investments that can rightfully be called 'science' have a long-term focus; shorter-term investments are more often rightfully called 'technology', or things less related to science) only comes from institutions, such as governments, that care about long-term" is, I believe, a factually accurate statement. > I see it as a problem of investors not putting > money into science because it is difficult to financially compete with > others who are able to extract money as needed at the point of a gun. It's not about competition. It's about lack of provable return on investment. Private money demands provable return on investment (and specifically, return to the investor, not just society at large) - which basic science can, inherently, almost never offer. > Long term investment was common in freer economic times. Actually, no, it wasn't. Depending on which times you mean, either the investors you're thinking of were actually the government (and really were taking more of its income at gunpoint or swordpoint), or the investments you're thinking of weren't long term (by today's standards), or what you're thinking of wasn't nearly as common as you think it was, or the times were not as economically free (i.e., in the '60s & '70s, tax rates were much higher than they are today, and anyone who tried finance practices that financiers are vilified for today would not have been allowed to succeed - by the government, by the established finance industry, or both). From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 23:29:51 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: <8610F8296F1E4DA4A69370C1267ED6D2@PCserafino> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com><4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se><4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <8610F8296F1E4DA4A69370C1267ED6D2@PCserafino> Message-ID: <1316993391.37277.YahooMailNeo@web112103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Scerir wrote: ? "As for QM there are really strange situations. So strange that nobody is even able to think of some "radical" conceptual "change"." ? "So, there are new and huge conceptual problems here. And nobody can even imagine what kind of "radical change" is needed." ? A version of Bohm-like mechanics [de Broglie-Bohm] using in part the work of Gregory S. Duane to explain both the mechanism for entanglement and the source of "pilot" waves provides the "radial change" needed in terms of not so radial classical mechanics. ? I have been discussing this for a number of years at physics_frontier on YahooGroups. ? Duane, G.S., 2001: Violation of Bell?s inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353. Duane, G.S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor. Phys., ?44, 1917-1932. ? Not so sexy physics doesn't get lots of airplay.? What is required are vast numbers of small particles traveling at speeds much faster than the speed of light allowing complex systems to interact.? Large numbers, fast speeds, and small complex objects?seem to be conceptual barriers.? People are apparently more comfortable doing away with?causality. postulating hidden dimensions, unseen?universes, and creating arbitrary assertions leading to logical?paradoxes. ? For over 30 years now I have been trying to understand why the classical physics conceptual barriers?are so difficult for so many. ? I have concluded the primary barrier is a form of innumeracy plaguing even those with advanced mathematical backgrounds.? Instead of one-two-many even well educated people reach a conceptual barrier where they throw up their hands and come to believe another explanation involving smaller numbers and simple forms must be at work. ? http://numberwarrior.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/is-one-two-many-a-myth/ ? There are other issues - cultural, educational, and philosophical at work but at root these other factors would not take hold so strongly if there were not also a basic genetic/biological issue in brain development and ability to conceptualize in?play. ? A sense of mystery is a powerful cultural artifact.? This kind of quantum mechanics leaves no sense of mystery. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 23:37:50 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroidal mining was Nukes was less expensive > energy In-Reply-To: References: <1316953336.62291.YahooMailClassic@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316993870.79028.YahooMailNeo@web112116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Jeff Davis wrote: < ...For those embarking on < the trip, transitioning to a life in interstellar space is the goal, < rather than the destination. If the resources for such a life-style < are abundant in the asteroid belt, Oort cloud, and Kuiper belt, then < gravity-well-independent life should take off, both within the local < system and in the vast shrinking interval beyond. ? My view exactly - traveling to the stars is no goal.? The valuable resources are the cold low-g ice bodies and resources which populate the space between the stars. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 23:59:45 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1316995185.23965.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: ? > Public funding is not literally taken at the point of a gun, ..." ? Refuse to pay and you will see the guns which were always present. ? Adrian Tymes wrote: > almost all long-term science investment (and the majority of > investments that can rightfully be called 'science' have a > long-term focus;?...only comes from institutions, such as > governments, that care about long-term" is, I believe, a > factually accurate statement." Most all major advancements in science have come from individuals or very small groups of people.? Many of these scientists did work at universities.? Hisotorically many universities have been?privately founded and funded. There is no priority in assuming a government role in that respect.? Less and less private money goes into institutions of higher learning today because government confiscates it first?then demands a role in education. Adrian Tymes wrote: > Private money demands provable return on investment > (and specifically, return to the investor, not just society > at large) - which basic science can, inherently, almost > never offer. Wealhy people have a long history of investing in educational institutions without a provable return on investment.? You seem to be confusing individual wealth with certain types of corporate entities.? Corporations often fund specific research overlapping with longer term needs.? Wealthy individuals can do whatever they want with their money left over after confiscation. I wrote: > Long term investment was common in freer economic times. Adrian Tymes wrote: > Actually, no, it wasn't. Depending on which times you mean, I mean economically freer times - the growth days of Scotland and the US in the 1800's - 6% to 8% real growth year after year, decade after decade.? Real economic freedom has not existed in the US for well over a century and certainly could have been much better then. We should not settle for the crumbs we are being left with today. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 02:54:36 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:54:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: <1316995185.23965.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316995185.23965.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/25 Dennis May : > Adrian Tymes wrote: >> Public funding is not literally taken at the point of a gun, ..." > > Refuse to pay and you will see the guns which were always > present. If one or a few do. My point is that this is only possible because most do not. If most refused to, there would not be enough guns. The government is well aware of this. It is therefore factually incorrect to speak of guns as the only, or even the primary, or in practice even a significant, means of taking the money. Yes, it's there in a few cases. The rest of the cases lend it an entirely different character than if it was usually taken at the point of a gun. > Adrian Tymes wrote: >> almost all long-term science investment (and the majority of >> investments that can rightfully be called 'science' have a >> long-term focus;?...only comes from institutions, such as >> governments, that care about long-term" is, I believe, a >> factually accurate statement." > > Most all major advancements in science have come from > individuals or very small groups of people.? Many of these > scientists did work at universities.? Hisotorically many > universities have been?privately founded and funded. And many have been publicly funded - even the ones that were privately founded. Unless you can show that dramatically more private money than public has gone into them - including government-sponsored research contracts, on the public side - your argument here is invalid. Even if it weren't, I said "institutions, such as governments". Universities are certainly institutions, and they care more about long-term stuff than most private money. > You > seem to be confusing individual wealth with certain types > of corporate entities. Because corporate entities collectively control more private money than do individuals (not counting individual investments in corporate entities, since you make the distinction). > Wealthy > individuals can do whatever they want with their money And, by and large, have not been investing it in science. Or things that benefit other people. That's the main reason for the current economic situation: money has gotten concentrated in the hands of a few, and is staying there. > I mean economically freer times - the growth days of Scotland > and the US in the 1800's - 6% to 8% real growth year after > year, decade after decade. "Growth" is not "freedom". By many measures, there was much less you could do with your money back then. Many of the things that are popular among the rich to do today, hadn't been invented yet. I will agree, though, that there is more money for science in years when there is more economic growth. However, that's a much different problem than economic freedom. If your argument is that the "high" tax rates and regulations of today are constraining people from using it to create wealth, that claim has been examined in depth - in the halls of Congress, in universities across the globe, on blogs galore - and found to be false. People will invest in what they think will benefit them. A higher tax rate, it has been observed many times (perhaps most famously, recently, by Warren Buffet), does not tend to change any investor's mind about whether or how to invest. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 03:18:43 2011 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> Message-ID: <1317007123.11774.YahooMailNeo@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> From: Stefano Vaj >To: ExI chat list >Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:51 AM >Subject: Re: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities > > >On 25 September 2011 12:48, Anders Sandberg wrote: > >This is an interesting statement. Let's (for this thread) drop the question about what we actually think of FTL or relativity, and instead look at the quite interesting meta-question "How do we judge the likeliehood of radical changes of physics?" >> >Much as I am fond of QM, I never liked much SR from an aesthetical POV, let alone the severe limitations it seems to impose as far as the realm of possibilities is concerned. >But I came with years to appreciate its consistency and to some extent its "unavoidability", so I am quite at loss for the time being in assessing the conceptual consequences of an even marginal? falsification of the theory... Aesthetics aside, I don't see how this neccesarily violates?special relativity. The mathematics of SR predicts tachyons if the equations are continued to the complex plane. Science just may have found the first example.?Seems more like a win for SR. ? Just my two cents. ? Stuart LaForge "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators." - P. J. O'Rourke From spike66 at att.net Mon Sep 26 06:33:26 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 23:33:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <046001cc7c16$32ca5f70$985f1e50$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Subject: Re: [ExI] Faster than light?? >...I'd call retrograde signalling in time (which can be indefinite via a chain of routers) and causality violations pretty Earth-shattering. It would e.g. allow post-Singularity entities to reach back in time, which can produce some pretty dramatic pyrotechnics. If the reshaping of timelines is iterative, you might not want to talk to even near-term future. Eugen Ja. If this is right, then the Singularity could be caused by a future AI iteratively reaching back in time to cause itself to happen sooner than it has already. Or something. You already know what I am going to say: this FTL neutrino thing must be wrong. Special relativity is just too cool to be wrong. While on a camping trip this weekend, I was thinking about a technical paper I discovered something I had never noticed before: as a consequence of the photon momentum equations, the traditional Bradbury MBrain is thermally unstable. To keep it in equilibrium, some high frequency light must be intentionally shed. Not only can an MBrain move a star, it must do so. Otherwise it overheats. More on that after I check these equations about 20 more times. Then I come home this evening to find that CERN has announced FTL neutrinos. Oh, life is gooood. spike From amon at doctrinezero.com Mon Sep 26 08:26:48 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:26:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? Message-ID: On 26 September 2011 03:54, Adrian Tymes wrote: > 2011/9/25 Dennis May : > > Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> Public funding is not literally taken at the point of a gun, ..." > > > > Refuse to pay and you will see the guns which were always > > present. > > If one or a few do. My point is that this is only possible because > most do not. If most refused to, there would not be enough guns. > The government is well aware of this. > Sorry to ask a tangential and probably quite naiive question, but it has been on my mind and is relevant here. I've given it a new thread name, since it's not about QM or paradigm shifts. The exchange above seems to point to a potential tension between democracy and libertarianism. What I mean is that the libertarian political impulse is to minimise or eliminate government and tax, but what if it turns out that, in the end, that's not really what people turn out to want. That the reason they continue to pay tax is not because they fear the guns, but because it seems not unreasonable to pay some tax. Sure, a lot of people don't like paying tax (or too much of it), or like seeing it mis-spent event less, but I wonder what the "average libertarian" (if there is such a creature), but the vast majority don't talk about taxation as if they've been robbed at gunpoint, in my personal experience. So, say that a libertarian party of some sort came to be running a major country (not to name names), government was radically pruned accordingly, but then the voters reacted in a strongly negative way. Are there any indications how libertarians would be likely to react? The reason I ask is because libertarianism seems, on the one hand, to be quite a mild, democracy-abiding mainstream-ish point of view, and so I'd expect no more desire to subvert democracy than you'd get from the major parties. On the other hand, however, libertarianism is sort of a "meta"-political movement in that libertarians hope to radically restructure the system itself, and that kind of revolutionary sentiment - ironically - doesn't tend to like being told that it's time is up. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Mon Sep 26 08:33:29 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:33:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26 September 2011 09:26, Amon Zero wrote: > but I wonder what the "average libertarian" (if there is such a creature), > but the vast majority don't talk about taxation as if they've been robbed at > gunpoint, in my personal experience. > Apologies for the word salad above, keyboard is misbehaving. What I meant to say is that I wondered what the 'average libertarian' would make of a situation in which the general populace rejected libertarian reforms? Accept general sentiment, or fix government against the populace's (largely passive) will "for their own good"? - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 09:02:47 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:02:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <046001cc7c16$32ca5f70$985f1e50$@att.net> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> <046001cc7c16$32ca5f70$985f1e50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:33 AM, spike wrote: > Then I come home this evening to find that CERN has announced FTL neutrinos. > Oh, life is gooood. > > Slashdot draws attention to a press release from the Italian Minister for Education which implies that she thinks they have built a real 900 km tunnel between Switzerland and Italy. Quote: Italy has contributed to the construction of the tunnel between CERN and Gran Sasso Laboratories, through which the experiment took place, with a sum now estimated at around 45 million euros. --------- Original here: That should help trade once the tunnel is open to container trucks. BillK From protokol2020 at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 09:29:01 2011 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:29:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> <046001cc7c16$32ca5f70$985f1e50$@att.net> Message-ID: Say, that there was a tunel. It isn't, but say it was. In that case a laser beam could be send down from CERN to Grand Sasso and maybe it would be established, that the laser's photons are also too quick. In that case, it's just a possitioning error. Which may be reconsiderd without a tunnel. Less than 20 meters, why not. A fancy GPS error is not out of question. Should not be. And that error could be also a relativistic one. That would be irrony! On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:02 AM, BillK wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:33 AM, spike wrote: > > Then I come home this evening to find that CERN has announced FTL > neutrinos. > > Oh, life is gooood. > > > > > > > Slashdot draws attention to a press release from the Italian Minister > for Education which implies that she thinks they have built a real 900 > km tunnel between Switzerland and Italy. > > Quote: > Italy has contributed to the construction of the tunnel between CERN > and Gran Sasso Laboratories, through which the experiment took place, > with a sum now estimated at around 45 million euros. > --------- > > Original here: > > > > That should help trade once the tunnel is open to container trucks. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 10:05:14 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:05:14 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 26 September 2011 01:00, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Public funding is not literally taken at the point of a gun, in almost all > cases. For one, there aren't enough guns. If everyone stopped paying > taxes, it would be impossible to collect enough taxes to force everyone > to pay. The system only works because most people willingly go along > with it. > Yes, but this is a kind or not-unraveling, metastable situation. The outlaw is keeping forty hostages, they could easily overwhelm him, but none is especially willing to accept his or her very high probability of taking a bullet by moving first. So, I would not read too much into it in terms of mainstream happiness about being amongst those who pay taxes. OTOH, I am pretty positive that while breakthroughs do not escape classic economics in its broadest sense, they are never ever the product of strictly-construed (as in "monetary returns") market mechanisms. In fact, there are convincing theorisations that seem to demonstrate that this has never been the case in the past, and is not likely to be in the future. See La recherche et la technologie, enjeux de puissance de Val?rie M?rindol, David-W Versailles et Patrice Cardot. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Mon Sep 26 10:09:46 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:09:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org><046001cc7c16$32ca5f70$985f1e50$@att.net> Message-ID: Tomaz: > Say, that there was a tunel. It isn't, but say it was. In that case a laser > beam could be send down from CERN to Grand Sasso and maybe it would be > established, that the laser's photons are also too quick. > > In that case, it's just a possitioning error. Which may be reconsiderd > without a tunnel. Less than 20 meters, why not. A fancy GPS error is not out > of question. Should not be. > > And that error could be also a relativistic one. That would be irrony! The MSW effect [1] causes the electron neutrino to have a different effective mass. It's quite a strong effect (at least in the plasma of the sun). Is it possible to have a MSW effect for neutrinos passing through the earth? The assumption being that neutrinos are more massive as they pass through the earth, thus explaining the high velocity being observed as compared to neutrinos propagating through the vacuum or cosmic space. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheyev%E2%80%93Smirnov%E2%80%93Wolfenstein_effect From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 10:16:22 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:16:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/9/26 Amon Zero > The exchange above seems to point to a potential tension between democracy > and libertarianism. > Yes, libertarianism is not about democracy. In turn, democracy is not concerned with limiting the power of the state, but with the designation of who is in power. This makes all the difference, eg, between the American and the French Revolutions. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 10:28:11 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:28:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Automated black-box-based system design of unsupervised hyperintelligent learning systems In-Reply-To: References: <02a501cc7682$41226160$c3672420$@net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >>> I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. ?I am doubtful that an engineer >>> is going to be able to draw literal blueprints for building >>> intelligence that exceeds his or her own. >> >> Why? This is the point where your reasoning seems to go off the rails. > > I'm trying to imagine how to express this. ?My first (hopefully) clear > thought goes to the classic example of recursion, Factorial. ?A > description about the function is relatively short and simple. ?A > description about the process of evaluation is also short and simple. > This concept of "short and simple" is a measure of complexity. ?I > admit I don't have a doctoral-level appreciation of complexity as a > rigorous mathematical concept - mostly drawing from colloquial > understanding that complex things are difficult to understand and this > special usage of complexity explains the difficulty of understanding > to the amount of information necessary to accurately describe > something. ?So Factorial is not complex at all. I think you grasp the point of complexity correctly. > However, the resource > utilization of a typical desktop machine to use this approach makes > this an expensive method for finding larger values of N!. ?At some > point the "stack" runs out of space. ?Let's assume we don't know about > trampolining or continuation-passing style or functional programming > for a moment. ?Say our AI-builder is reasoning about how to implement > an AI-builder. ?In order to implement the Factorial function from the > only working model available would be to examine its own stack during > the process. But this is not done without the assistance of computers... From what you're arguing here, it would be impossible for us to create an MRI machine. You're not implementing the AI brain using our brain to emulate the AI brain, you're using a computer... so this doesn't quite make sense to me yet. If you said, "our brains are not smart enough to run an emulation of a brain." then of course, I would say, "duh"... but that's not what we're trying to do. >?This introspection capability is obviously implemented > outside the Factorial function itself. ?So this introspection takes > some space in addition to the recursion stack. ?I know it's a leap to > suggest that the introspection function may also be recursive, so I'll > state it but I can't defend it. ? So the builder needs to continue > observing this model. ?The observation space competes with the > Factorial stack space. ?So resource contention eventually prevents > Factorial( large N ) from completing and the observation space notes > an unwanted kind of halting. OK. I still don't see how it applies to AI, but I'm following. > ? ?We're clever enough to solve this problem. ?Maybe we're even > clever enough to implement the AI-builder with stack overflow > protection or some heuristic to know how/when to use tail-recursion. > So now it's not killed by stack overflow, but when the introspection > module is turned to observe the recursion protection heuristic it > risks another kind of halting problem (how does it know how to get out > of the how-to-get-out code?) ?We seem very capable of bogging down on > a problem, then jumping out or over something like an infinite sum to > arrive at its limit. ?I have yet to hear about someone implementing > this ability in a program. ?It's a big enough achievement that we > probably would have learned about someone clever "solving" the halting > problem if it had been done. This isn't how AI is implemented as I understand it... > ?Ok, so you're still waiting for me to explain why the AI-builder > can't build better than its own capability? ?I have to go back to > complexity. ?Suppose you are sufficiently capable of modelling my > thought process that you create a 1:1 model of every detail of my > brain and its entire history (which is really just the physical state > remaining after all previous processing). ?Maybe you use 10% of your > computation resources to model my own. ?Let's say you use another 10% > of your resources to observe the functioning of the model, then from > inductive examples distill a general rule that predicts my output for > any input with 100% accuracy - but that general rule requires only 2% > of your resources to compute. ?It's clear that running the expensive > model is a waste of resource, so instead you use that 2% shortcut to > predict all of my future output. > ?Now suppose the UI that was used to inspect the working model of my > brain is pointed instead at the real-time workings of your own brain. > I'm sure there would be similarities at first. ?At some point the view > of brain structure responsible for extracting meaning from the > interface would become a case of recursion - much like turning a video > camera on it's own display. ?What happens when the model viewer is > inspecting the model viewer infrastructure - does your awareness of > its function change its nature? ?When a microphone is place in front > of a speaker the resulting feedback usually destroys/overwhelms the > microphone, the speaker or the signal processor at some point. All AI systems have feedback systems. So I kind of get where you are coming from... but again, you seem to be saying that we have to use a human brain to emulate a human brain, which isn't what we're doing. > Well, this is what I meant with the reference to Archimedes' > observation that even with a world-moving lever, he still needs > somewhere to stand in order to use it: ?Introspection on recursive > introspection leaves you with no place to stand. > > I think a team of developers standing "on the shoulders of giants" > does not suffer from this problem. ?That's why I point to > growing/training/evolving a solution in an iterative way would be > viable where directly architecting one likely will not. We do have to create a "learning" system... You can't program intelligence by brute force, you have to finesse a system that gets better over time by looking at what it did before. That's what all animals do with their brains, and I do think that is a core feature of any successful AI. > I think it will take said team a lot of work to produce the framework > that will allow software to emulate human reasoning in a way that it > will properly ground symbols in order to reason about itself. ?I think > the resulting machine may well be more intelligent than any individual > developer on that team but probably less than the sum of the whole > team. ?Though the machine would be part of the team at that point. > Once all the original humans are replaced, I suspect that an > individual super-intelligent machine will not be any more able to > replace itself without a team of other machines than a single human > was able to build the first machine without help. Using your logic, why not just build a second machine with a bigger stack? Or a faster clock speed? > I will admit (again) that I may have confused the first few terms in > this induction process and that the whole thing becomes unstable and > falls apart. ?This is further evidence that it's Herculean difficulty > (if not impossible) to manage this concept without a team. > >> Clearly, your point is well made... but it does not support your thesis. > > Thanks for that. ?I didn't know what part of what I wrote was failing > earlier in the thread. > >> better each year, then some day, it follows we should be able to build >> a machine that performs just as well as a brain does. What is the >> counter argument to that? That the brain is just a conduit into a >> higher spiritual realm where the real thinking takes place? That the >> brain works off of quantum effects that we won't be able to understand >> for centuries? What? > > No counter. ?I think brains perform well enough, but fall down on some > key skills. Clearly, our brains are limited. There are well documented cases of optical illusion for example. Also, cases where economists can show that we consistently make the wrong economic decisions under certain circumstances. There are huge holes in our thinking processes that are obviously deficient. That may imply that any intelligence we create would also have these holes, but perhaps not if we are aware of some of them. For example, there may be some instances where feedback from emotional thought interferes with logical thought, and that could be avoided in a designed system. Do we really need our AGI to have an adrenal system??? I dunno. Seems kind of dangerous, but maybe it would be helpful for military robots. >> times) through a learning experience. Intelligence comes from >> experience. You won't create an intelligent machine out of the box... >> you will only create a machine that is capable of becoming intelligent >> over time with the assimilation of information. > > I think you have asserted here what I originally tried to say. Ah. So we agree that you can't hard code intelligence. But do you agree that we can build learning machines that have the capacity to surpass our own intelligence once they have been sufficiently taught? >> Can't argue with that... but if what you're saying is that you can't >> build pre-configured intelligence, that is quite a different thing >> than I thought you were saying. I understood you to say that we will >> never achieve intelligent machinery equivalent to the brain's power, >> flexibility and intuitive majesty. > > Pre-configured intelligence = ? ? ?I grant that the genetics to > produce a human brain is a fairly terse code capable of unfolding an > amazing information processing machine. ?We may be able to produce as > elegant a machine; I won't. You won't. We might. The structure of the brain is much simpler than the information stored in a brain that has already learned. The structure of your neural pathways is far more complex than could be expressed within the DNA. You are born knowing relatively little, but some. -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 10:10:28 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:10:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/9/26 Amon Zero : > The exchange above seems to point to a potential tension between democracy > and libertarianism. What I mean is that the libertarian political impulse is > to minimise or eliminate government and tax, but what if it turns out that, > in the end, that's not really what people turn out to want. I would point out that the people rarely get what they want out of their votes. People who voted for Obama, for example, did not want a 9% unemployment level. > That the reason > they continue to pay tax is not because they fear the guns, but because it > seems not unreasonable to pay some tax. Sure, a lot of people don't like > paying tax (or too much of it), or like seeing it mis-spent event less, but > I wonder what the "average libertarian" (if there is such a creature), but > the vast majority don't talk about taxation as if they've been robbed at > gunpoint, in my personal experience. Most people don't appreciate the fact that taxation is a forced redistribution of wealth the way most libertarians understand it. That's because most people haven't been forced to think about this point. Every addition to government power is at the cost of the loss of someone's liberty. Obama seems to thing, for example, that it's OK for the super rich to lose another bit of their liberty (property) in order to pay for his job bill. > So, say that a libertarian party of some sort came to be running a major > country (not to name names), government was radically pruned accordingly, > but then the voters reacted in a strongly negative way. Are there any > indications how libertarians would be likely to react? Libertarians would be pleased. People who voted for them in that instance might not be pleased, in that they might not have understood the platform they were voting for, but that happens in every election. I don't think most people who voted in the last election knew what they were voting for. In the next election, they won't have that excuse, and so I doubt that Obama will be reelected on that basis. > The reason I ask is because libertarianism seems, on the one hand, to be > quite a mild, democracy-abiding mainstream-ish point of view, and so I'd > expect no more desire to subvert democracy than you'd get from the major > parties. There is nothing mainstream about libertarianism. Most people in America, anyway, see it as totally natural and moral to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Most also see it as totally moral to steal from the rich and give to other rich who happen to be doing things that the government approves of, such as making weapons or building housing for the poor. > On the other hand, however, libertarianism is sort of a > "meta"-political movement in that libertarians hope to radically restructure > the system itself, and that kind of revolutionary sentiment - ironically - > doesn't tend to like being told that it's time is up. Libertarians don't want to radically restructure the system, they hope to privatize the system. Sell off the post office, the highway system, the parks system, the prison system, legalize many of the victimless crimes to reduce the need for the prison system we have today, and return property to those it rightfully belongs to, the people who earned the money in the first place. The liberty part of libertarianism is the critical issue. Looking back at what the founding fathers did, we're a long way from that... It is radical, to be sure, in that Robin Hood is viewed as a hero by most. I'm not sure I understand what your asking entirely... but I've done my best to reply to what I think you're asking. If I didn't hit the nail on the head, please ask again. -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 10:48:49 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:48:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: <1316704271.12696.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316704271.12696.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/22 Dan : > Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com wrote: >> 2011/9/21 Dennis May : >>> That is just sad. >> >> A meme that reproduces from 1 to 15,000 in a few months >>?is anything but sad. > > Depends on the meme, don't you think? A meme's 'success' is ONLY measured in terms of it's effectiveness as a replicator. In that sense, and that sense only, it is a good meme if it reproduces quickly. Even if it's a porn video of Paris Hilton, it's still a 'good' meme in this sense. Just like good genes are only measured in their reproductive success. Memes, like genes, are "selfish" in the Dawkins sense. Aside from that, from a sociological point of view, I think this is a pretty "good" idea in that sense too. >>?I would guess that Dennis hasn't spent a lot of time in >> favellas or other shanty towns. Stuart Brand gives a 6 >>?minute introduction to why squatter cities are vital to the >>?future. >> >> http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_on_squatter_cities.html > > I happen to think many of these spontaneous communities are good examples to > study -- as opposed to the kind of top-down organization of centralized > urban planning. (Of course, almost all communities combine the two -- > usually with the state or elites trying to impose their master plan and > failing, and then a few years later a new elite trying to do the same, > dictated by whatever's fashionable at the time.) The point for me is that the shanty town is an expression of unencumbered liberty (for the most part, they are occasionally attacked by bulldozers) and thus is one of the more efficient mechanisms for raising the living standard of the poor. Did you happen to watch Steward Brand's talk? >> I love these people. I have spent time with them, lots of time. >>?They are more productive by far than the poor in the United >>?States, who mainly sit around waiting for checks to be >>?dropped from the magic government blimp... > > I don't know if I'd generalize, but this might have to do with there being > wealth transfers in the first place. And given some circulation of the poor > out of poverty in the States, there are, I hope you'll admit, many > exceptions. People go in and out of poverty in the States largely because there is an insignificant level of real poverty in the US. How many people in the US live on less than a dollar a day? Pretty much nobody. You can panhandle $200 a day pretty easily in most US cities if you have a good spot. Interestingly, spots are often sold by pimps, it's an interesting aside... but you go and try panhandling at a good spot without paying off the proper pimp, and you risk getting the hell beat out of you. >>?These people are upwardly mobile, and moving fast!!! >>?For most of them, life in the squatter city is the very first >> experience with electricity, and perhaps surprisingly television. >>?It opens up a whole new world of education and experience >>?and opportunity. > > I imagine some of the problem here is that few in the West would want to > live in one of these places and they are probably making the comparison > between life in one of these squatter cities with, say, life in an affluent > suburb of, say, London or Boston rather than, say, where the people in the > squatter cities came from. One of the major problems in the third world is that people come from the first world with first world solutions connected to first world money. They need to learn to think in third world terms first, and then bring the money to bear in a third world way. That's why we need to Wikify third world solutions. Allow the third world to solve their own problems from the bottom up, and only then add money. I have first hand knowledge of how stupid Americans are in applying money to problems in Haiti... ridiculous in local terms!!! I've done ridiculous things myself, being well intentioned, but naive. Most people in the first world have trouble putting themselves into a third world mentality. These people are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination! But they do think very differently. >> To be able to read inside during the day would be a great >>?blessing to these folks. My only fear is that this will lead to >>?more indoor use of charcoal and other cooking fuels, >>?which is the biggest health problem faced in squatter >>?cities around the world... > > Well, sunlight can be used for cooking too, no? Just a matter of innovating > around that problem. Sunlight cannot be used for cooking with the same efficiency as charcoal without a very large apparatus. It requires different (lower temp) recipes with a reasonable sized apparatus. Perhaps different ingredients. The learning curve is too high, and the materials to construct a solar oven may not always be available. But yes, there is the possibility that there is a third world solution to cooking with the sun. Keep thinking along these lines, WITH the input of people actually in the third world, and maybe you'll come up with something. The best solution I've seen is a mechanism for producing a low cost, locally produced, substitute for charcoal. I highly recommend this talk as it addresses these concerns well: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/amy_smith_shares_simple_lifesaving_design.html -Kelly From protokol2020 at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 10:28:58 2011 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:28:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> <046001cc7c16$32ca5f70$985f1e50$@att.net> Message-ID: > Is it possible to have a MSW effect for neutrinos passing through the earth? I guess so, sounds very plausible to me. Relativity stil in troubles, though! At least as I understand the situation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 11:11:46 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 05:11:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/26 Stefano Vaj : > Yes, but this is a kind or not-unraveling, metastable situation. The outlaw > is keeping forty hostages, they could easily overwhelm him, but none is > especially willing to accept his or her very high probability of taking a > bullet by moving first. So, I would not read too much into it in terms of > mainstream happiness about being amongst those who pay taxes. This herd mentality is very much a part of modern "democracies"... it is most easily observed on the highway. The sheep (drivers) are pursued by the wolf (speed cop) and if the entire herd moves at 10 over the speed limit, the wolf will usually only go after some sheep going 20 over... The repercussions of a speeding ticket are smaller than those of not paying your taxes... and so the whole thing really becomes an issue of game theory. They also make a big example out of tax evaders, so that nobody gets any fancy ideas. But I can think of scenarios where mass tax evasion could easily emerge. Think of it as a stampede... LOL. -Kelly From amon at doctrinezero.com Mon Sep 26 11:29:07 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:29:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26 September 2011 11:10, Kelly Anderson wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand what your asking entirely... but I've done > my best to reply to what I think you're asking. If I didn't hit the > nail on the head, please ask again. > Hi Kelly - Thanks for your response - You said that across-the-board privatization does not amount to a radical restructuring of the political-economic system. I would disagree, but I suppose that boils down to opinion and semantics. Following that, at the end of your post you pointed out it wasn't clear what my question was. Fair enough - I think these two points are related. For my part, I believe that the full libertarian project is an extremely radical one. This is not to comment on whether I agree with it or not, but let's just say that I didn't realise how radical it is (or how common a radical version of it is) until perhaps a week ago. This led me to wonder if, having succeeded in putting the plan into action, most libertarians would be happy to meekly back-track if asked to do so by the general population (for whatever reason, lack of understanding the libertarian argument, or whatever). Now, I know that answer in the real world would obviously be that some libertarians would be more respectful of majority decision and opposing opinions (i.e. democracy) than would others. The same is true for every belief system. What I wondered was whether we have any reason to imagine that libertarians might broadly tend toward disrespecting a democratic decision to repeal libertarian decisions. You yourself seem to have given a clear "no", that for you a libertarian government would be as democratic as any other, its decisions as subject to repeal as any other. Would I be right in saying that? I should also mention, though, that you hint at a lack of education on the part of the voters. I wonder if you imagine if they'd embrace libertarian reforms after a bit of appropriate education, and the likelihood of repeal would therefore be slim? Cheers, A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 11:01:10 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 05:01:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Destructive uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <1315020817.25084.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E625A00.8010707@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 7 September 2011 19:28, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> OK, so here's a scenario... suppose that I have my brain frozen (and >> that this is not considered murder or suicide) and sliced into thin >> segments, scanned and uploaded. Suppose further that this takes 6 >> months for whatever reason. I have not then experienced perfect >> continuity, but rather more something like having been on a 6 month >> vacation. ?So what I'm saying is the continuity includes continuous >> interaction with my friends and relatives, etc. > > One experiences to some extent the passing of time during and after a > period of sleep, but this is not the case with a deep coma, and would > not be the case if your brain is restored to a status similar to that > of, say, March 15, 2011. Such experience is that of somebody who > simply travels in zero subjective time to a given point in the > future... Exactly. >>If we continued conscious awareness when doubled, or tripled >> if the process is non-destructive, which one are we aware of, or are we >> aware in multiple places at the same time? > > As long as something is doubled, two entities immediately diverge, > each perceiving retrospective continuity and individuality. In a > non-destructive uploading scenario, B would describe it as moving from > platform A to platform B, and leaving behind a copy, A as the > opposite... My point is that they are diverging from a similar base in my scheme. Having diverged from a temporally proximate identical state, merging them together again would be easier. >> I completely disagree here. Merging a thread from an emulant back into >> a wet ware brain would require that the emulant be based upon that >> brain. Merging new neuronal connections from my emulant into your >> brain would be VERY confusing because you store your concepts in a >> different hologram within your brain than I do. > > Mmhhh. Brains change with time anyway. I assume that the brain of two > twins at birth is way more similar than that of one of them will be > after thirty years to its previous stage. That's why my scheme would probably work best for reintegrating very short bursts of independent streams of thought. Perhaps even only a day, at first, could be reintegrated during the sleep states. Then rediverge in the morning again. >> So my assertion is that only an emulation of MY brain can be remerged >> into my brain, at least easily. Do you understand my point? And this >> may be something that only happens for a brief period of time before >> we fully understand the brain enough to translate changes in my brain >> to changes in yours... but that seems many orders of magnitude more >> complex. > > Possibly. And as a byproduct you might also find a sure recipe to > create Multiple Personality Disorders at will. :-) This comment was the main reason to reply to such an old thread (sorry about that, been real busy) Multiple Personality Disorder is generally caused not by an excess of experience, but rather by severe abuse that causes the conscious mind to retreat, allowing a second personality to develop that faces the abuse in the place of the first personality. It is a protective mechanism. If that second personality is unable to sustain the further abuse inflicted, a third personality can develop and so forth. Torture victims often develop alternative personalities for just such a purpose. If two threads of execution of brain emulators were just going through daily life, MPD is very unlikely to be a side effect. -Kelly From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 13:19:29 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:19:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 26 September 2011 13:11, Kelly Anderson wrote: > But I can think of > scenarios where mass tax evasion could easily emerge. > Just think of... Italy. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 13:23:34 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:23:34 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26 September 2011 12:10, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Most people don't appreciate the fact that taxation is a forced > redistribution of wealth the way most libertarians understand it. > This only in the broadest sense. Actually, taxation may on the contrary un-distribute wealth by concentrating a relevant chunk thereof it in fewer hands. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 13:59:24 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? References: Message-ID: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On?Monday, September 26, 2011 4:26 AM??Amon Zero amon at doctrinezero.com?wrote: > The exchange above seems to point to a potential tension between > democracy and libertarianism. What I mean is that the libertarian > political impulse is to minimise or eliminate government and tax, > but what if it turns out that, in the end, that's not really what > people turn out to want. That the reason they continue to pay tax > is not because they fear the guns, but because it seems not > unreasonable to pay some tax. Sure, a lot of people don't like > paying tax (or too much of it), or like seeing it mis-spent event > less, but I wonder what the "average libertarian" (if there is > such a creature), but the vast majority don't talk about taxation > as if they've been robbed at gunpoint, in my personal experience. ? A good way to find out what people want is to allow them the option of not paying taxes or not obeying various rules and regulations. Force or the the threat of it makes this nearly impossible. If people want, for instance, to fund this or that program or to not, say, smoke pot, then, absent force or its threat, they will simply do or not do these things. Force or its threat make it hard to determine here. ? Now, regarding taxes, the funny thing, yes, most people pay with little griping. But the examples of non-payers have their property seized or being hauled off to jail seems fairly telling. Why not, if you believe most will pay anyhow, remove the the threat of this. (And, in fact, mere social pressure could be used, if you feel this or that program is truly a good thing. In other words, you and others could try to persuade non-payers to fund it voluntarily or use non-coercive sanctions against them.) ? > So, say that a libertarian party of some sort came to be running > a major country (not to name names), government was radically > pruned accordingly, but then the voters reacted in a strongly > negative way. Are there any indications how libertarians would be > likely to react? ? Libertarian government in the usual sense is, in my mind, an oxymoron. In the "usual sense," I mean a coercive monopolist -- not the absence of any social order or rules. In other words, a truly libertarian society would be anarchistic but not antinomian. That, of course, in the context of current society and culture, not only taboo, but also a long way off -- not impossible, but it will take time for enough people to grasp and become comfortable with the idea. ? > The reason I ask is because libertarianism seems, on the one hand, > to be quite a mild, democracy-abiding mainstream-ish point of > view, and so I'd expect no more desire to subvert democracy than > you'd get from the major parties. On the other hand, however, > libertarianism is sort of a "meta"-political movement in that > libertarians hope to radically restructure the system itself, and >? that kind of revolutionary sentiment - ironically - doesn't tend > to like being told that it's time is up. ? It depends on how you define "libertarianism." For some, this is just a fuzzy idea of lower taxes and less regulations. In my mind, that's not libertarian any more than free trade is when government bureaucrats foist all sorts of regulations on commerce, including tariffs and even prohibiting certain trades, but do this slightly less than the anti-trade types would like. In my view, libertarianism is the view that coercion should not be initiated against people and their property. This simple view is quite radical and, yes, it does clash with democracy as commonly understood -- either in its pure majoritarianism fashion or its more lukewarm constitutional republic one. In the latter, coercion may be initiated if enough people agree and vote on it. ? Of course, just because an idea is radical or uncomfortable doesn't mean it's invalid or wrong. Also, I'm not sure anyone here has made a case that libertarianism had its day and now its time is past. I don't know what that means here or why any idea would be judged that way by people pretending to be rational and scientific (in the broadest sense). I would expect folks like that to judge any idea, including libertarianism, on its merits and against such evidence that would be relevant to it. ? Add to this, just because an idea is radical doesn't also mean it would be impossible to implement or for large numbers of people to attempt to do so. Here, I believe, libertarianism has an advantage: almost all human interactions, especially interactions on this list, are non-coercive -- even don't bear the threat of coercion in them. Such relationships are the basic stuff of society. Coercive relations, especially coercive ones organized around government, though by no means insignificant, are the exception not the rule in society. Libertarianism in practice would mean removing those coercive relations -- well, as much as possible. One can look at this as wanting a triumph of reason and freedom over irrationality and force. Surely, that would be more Extropian than the alternative. ? Regards, ? Dan From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 14:24:53 2011 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:24:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/9/26 Amon Zero : > On 26 September 2011 11:10, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> >> I'm not sure I understand what your asking entirely... but I've done >> my best to reply to what I think you're asking. If I didn't hit the >> nail on the head, please ask again. > > > Hi Kelly - Thanks for your response - no problem. > You said that across-the-board privatization does not amount to a radical > restructuring of the political-economic system. I would disagree, but I > suppose that boils down to opinion and semantics. Following that, at the end > of your post you pointed out it wasn't clear what my question was. Fair > enough - I think these two points are related. OK, sounds like we both were unclear. Across the board privatization WOULD be a radical restructuring. It would create a radical level of freedom that America has not experienced since 1900 or earlier. > For my part, I believe that the full libertarian project is an extremely > radical one. Agreed. That's why I would take it slow... get there gradually. You can't do it all in a day. > This is not to comment on whether I agree with it or not, but > let's just say that I didn't realise how radical it is (or how common a > radical version of it is) until perhaps a week ago. This led me to wonder > if, having succeeded in putting the plan into action, most libertarians > would be happy to meekly back-track if asked to do so by the general > population (for whatever reason, lack of understanding the libertarian > argument, or whatever). I understand the radical nature of what is proposed, and I am for it. The general populace is free to elect a new government at the next election if they don't like it. Seeing as how it took a hundred years for the progressives to construct this monstrosity, it could take a while for the libertarians to deconstruct it. Nobody that I know of is proposing the immediate and complete deconstruction of the US Government, but rather a gradual progressive movement back to the founding principles of radically small government. Clearly different libertarians are going to disagree on the order of deconstruction, and on the rate of said deconstruction. That's fine, that's all in the details. The point is to reverse the out of control growth of the government. The first thing *I* would do as king of the world is institute a flat income tax with no tax exemptions whatsoever. This would allow for the downsizing of the IRS. It would make even the poorest among us players with skin in the game. I would not tax military income, income of government employees (though I would lower their incomes by the flat tax rate across the board on a one time basis), or money that comes from the government in other ways, such as welfare, social security, adoption subsidies, etc. (these would also be reduced accordingly) No sense running money through the system twice. I would then try to continually reduce this flat tax rate to zero. I don't know what the flat tax rate would have to be in the short term, but probably it would come between 15 and 20 percent trending downwards. I would not have a corporate tax, as that leads in many cases to double taxation, which is not fair and hurts the economy. With a zero corporate tax rate, we would become more than competitive with the rest of the world again nearly immediately. I would also tax luxury import goods. That alone ran the whole government in the old days. Finally, I would tax gasoline at a rate suitable to paying for the proper share of roads, as well as foreign wars in the middle east. I think this is good energy policy. The primary benefit of the flat tax with no deductions is that it would get congress out of the "legislating morality" business. It would also downsize the IRS considerably. Tax evasion would still be punishable by imprisonment for the near term. As part of this, I would create a government sponsored plan to reeducate all the tax accountants, most IRS employees and lawyers to doing something actually productive to society, rather than just interpreting the current tax system. We don't need rioting accountants in the street, LOL. Next, I would try to get the ball rolling on a balanced budget amendment. Mike Lee has some good ideas here, and I would probably refer to his work to get started. Next, I would probably privatize the interstate highway system, the national parks system, the national forest system, and other things that would be relatively easy to sell off. I would use the money raised in these efforts to pay off the debt. Once the highway system was dismantled, the gas tax could go away, or those funds given to the privateers. The rates charged for road use etc. would be managed much the same way as utility rates are managed today. Government supervision would be required to avoid price gouging. Things like the department of education and the EPA would be dismantled slowly, and their function returned to the states, where it belongs constitutionally. That would have to follow the easier stuff, since I wouldn't want a radical immediate loss of government function, leading to a loss of faith in what government was left. Each state would be left to its own to figure out their own tax codes, etc. They would become more competitive with each other. The big pigs social security, medicare and medicaid... fixing those is hard. I would take whatever steps possible to assist people in creating personal savings accounts, while at the same time trying to keep the promises made already. I think that privatization of parts of these systems is possible, but I haven't personally studied that in depth. We would have to attack these systems hard, and it might take 100 years to get rid of them entirely, but I would do my best to minimize them. I personally would also be likely to lean against labor unions... slightly. > Now, I know that answer in the real world would obviously be that some > libertarians would be more respectful of majority decision and opposing > opinions (i.e. democracy) than would others. The same is true for every > belief system. What I wondered was whether we have any reason to imagine > that libertarians might broadly tend toward disrespecting a democratic > decision to repeal libertarian decisions. Every two years the public gets to reelect public officials if they don't like it. Those who haven't liked what Obama has done spoke last fall, and will speak again next fall. That's the way the US works. There is not much that can be done between elections in our system. You get what you elect, and are stuck with it for at least two years. > You yourself seem to have given a clear "no", that for you a libertarian > government would be as democratic as any other, its decisions as subject to > repeal as any other. Would I be right in saying that? Absolutely. I don't want to overthrow the government, nor remove the constitution. I want to restore America to it's former status as the beacon of economic as well as political freedom to the world. > I should also mention, > though, that you hint at a lack of education on the part of the voters. I > wonder if you imagine if they'd embrace libertarian reforms after a bit of > appropriate education, and the likelihood of repeal would therefore be slim? It's hard to say if libertarian implementation would result in immediate economic growth, after all, you've just thrown all the accountants and IRS employees and tax lawyers out of business. It will take time for the rest of the economy to absorb them... so it might not work within a two year window. Obama's plans certainly haven't worked within a two year window, and I doubt they ever will. As to the lack of education of the American public, that is a failure of the school systems. Since I don't believe in federalization of the education system, I see that as the responsibility of the states. I have every confidence that many states would start educating the public on the importance of constitutional principles, but sadly I don't hold out as much hope for the universities of our great country. That is a matter for another post altogether. Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged is a great introduction to these principles, it's not an easy read as it is both long and long winded. I recommend the audio book if you like that sort of thing better. Unfortunately, the recent movie only goes half way through the book, and rumor is the second half won't be made due to sluggish box office performance of the first movie. For what it's worth, the tea party is very much a libertarian leaning movement. Not quite as radical as I am, but getting in the right direction. -Kelly From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 14:23:49 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317047029.20783.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On?Monday, September 26, 2011 9:19 AM Stefano Vaj stefano.vaj at gmail.com?wrote: ?On 26 September 2011 13:11, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> But I can think of?scenarios where mass tax evasion could easily emerge. > > Just think of... Italy. :-) And many other places. And, in US history, the Whiskey Rebellion among other times. (In one way, one might view the run up to the secession from the British Empire as mass tax evasion followed by tax protest followed by actual hostilities.) ? Regards, ? Dan From dennislmay at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 14:51:47 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316704271.12696.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317048707.30938.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Kelly Anderson wrote: ? "One of the major problems in the third world is that people come from the first world with first world solutions connected to first world money. They need to learn to think in third world terms first, and then bring the money to bear in a third world way. That's why we need to Wikify third world solutions. Allow the third world to solve their own problems from the bottom up, and only then add money." ? It is my view that first world people should concentrate on things they can impact which would allow long term consequences for improving people's lives.? Many improverished people will remain that way generation after generation because of a lack of property rights. Spend your 1st world resources helping such people with property rights and a legal system to enforce property rights. ? I am one generation removed from what could be viewed as 3rd world conditions here in rural Missouri.? I know a little something about tin roof buildings since I have a garage built of recycled material just like that seen in the video starting this thread.? I had/have close relatives who lived in such buildings - very common 1-2 generations ago and can still be seen in some places in rural Alabama and Arkansas.? Ruining?the?resale value of tin in your roof by by placing holes in it is a tradeoff some may have not considered while being convinced of the value of lighting.? The solution may work for some people but you can bet a few young kids got their asses whipped after dad came home and there?were holes in his tin. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Sep 26 14:47:24 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:47:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <04ce01cc7c5b$3479afc0$9d6d0f40$@att.net> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] Faster than light?? On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I'd call retrograde signalling in time (which can be indefinite via a > chain of routers) and causality violations pretty Earth-shattering. I thought of an example. Assume FTL signaling is possible, but we don't think it is. A quasar could be a very tight cluster of distant stars inhabited by an advanced species. They emit signals for some reason we don't yet understand, perhaps a navigation beacon or something. A central commander gives orders to the outliers to change the emitted signal to such and such and sends out the command faster than light. They all do so. From the point of view of all distant non-FTL-hipsters, the cluster of stars appears to change in a few light hours when they are actually ordinary stars spaced over perhaps a few light months, leading the ignorant (us) to assume the object is a lot smaller than it really is, and emitting energy from that small space at an astonishing rate. spike From lubkin at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 26 15:08:52 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:08:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201109261509.p8QF9B5U027581@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Kelly wrote: >As to the lack of education of the American public, that is a failure >of the school systems. There are several things at play in the school systems. The school systems are (among other things) successful at the goal of inculcating views that perpetuate the status quo. A sustainable libertarian society will require a critical mass of activists who either avoided or overcame indoctrination (the American Revolution was a minority movement), then enough success to keep from getting tossed out, then generations raised to replace the great mass of irredeemable nekulturny (we've seen across many instances that people don't change, e.g., the maxim that science advances funeral by funeral), and eternal vigilance. Or a fresh start elsewhere. I think a sea-based libertopia is doomed to fail (too inherently vulnerable to outside force) but space-based might work. -- David. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 15:21:02 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:21:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: <1317047029.20783.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317047029.20783.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 26 September 2011 16:23, Dan wrote: > And many other places. And, in US history, the Whiskey Rebellion among > other times. (In one way, one might view the run up to the secession from > the British Empire as mass tax evasion followed by tax protest followed by > actual hostilities.) > There is however a difference between a tax strike and ordinary tax evasion, where the goal is not necessarily that of obtaining the abolishment/reduction of a tax or challenging the power imposing it, but rather simply that of... avoiding payment. One reason anti-tax movements in Italy have never been very strong, and mostly limited to political and theoretical debate, is that at a time around one third of the Italian economy was not paying taxes at all, and tax evaders usually are reluctant to attract attention on themselves or even to the class and sector they belong to. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 15:23:39 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: <1317048707.30938.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316704271.12696.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317048707.30938.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317050619.3832.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On?Monday, September 26, 2011 10:51 AM Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com?wrote: > It is my view that first world people should > concentrate on things they can impact which > would allow long term consequences for > improving people's lives.? ? Well, an easy to solve many of these problems would be to just allow unrestricted immigration to and from?the First World. This would allow people to quickly move from very bad locations to better ones. ? This would be very unpopular and the welfare states would likely have to go, along with many regulations that restrict the flow of people and goods. All of this is very unpopular because most people in all societies have a deep seated antipathy toward foreigners. Bryan Caplan, in his _The Myth of the Rational Voters_, call this xenophobia "anti-foreign bias." ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Sep 26 15:54:27 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:54:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Singularity, Politicians and the Great Debt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04ea01cc7c64$925d3ea0$b717bbe0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson ... >...It is clear to me that the debt being incurred by the United States can not be paid off by a natural historical growth curve in the economy... but that with an event like the Singularity, paying off a $14 trillion dollar debt would become possible, perhaps even easy... Do you think that our political leaders are aware of the possibility of the coming Singularity and are depending upon that to pull our grandchildren out of the mess they have created? Or do you think they are really just as stupid as they look? -Kelly Kelly, the California legislature has depended on assumptions every bit as bold as assuming the Singularity would come along and fix everything. They didn't assume that particular outcome, but the assumptions are as optimistic as that one. spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 16:03:28 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Judging radical possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <1316838000.88506.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E7DBC2D.7050409@aleph.se> <4E7F06E3.30801@aleph.se> <1316967224.27544.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316971827.65199.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317047029.20783.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317053008.79853.YahooMailNeo@web160609.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Monday, September 26, 2011 11:21 AM Stefano Vaj stefano.vaj at gmail.com?wrote: On 26 September 2011 16:23, Dan wrote: >> And many other places. And, in US history, the Whiskey Rebellion among other >>?times. (In one way, one might view the run up to the secession from the British >>?Empire as mass tax evasion followed by tax protest followed by actual hostilities.) > > There is however a difference between a tax strike and ordinary tax evasion, where >?the goal is not necessarily that of obtaining the abolishment/reduction of a tax or >?challenging the power imposing it, but rather simply that of... avoiding payment. ? Agreed that there's a difference. It's also true that it's probably not the evasion leading to protest and rebellion, but the state reacting by enforcement that leads to the latter. And this might explain why enforcement tends to be lax in most places at most times. I'm not saying this is a conscious decision by the state, but it's probably a Darwinian thing: states that enforce like hell tend to foment protests and rebellions that lead to them being overthrown. ? > One reason anti-tax movements in Italy have never been very strong, and mostly >?limited to political and theoretical debate, is that at a time around one third of the >?Italian economy was not paying taxes at all, and tax evaders usually are reluctant >?to attract attention on themselves or even to the class and sector they belong to. That's true too. Protest and rebellion are not low profile and likely to only happen when enough people either don't fear reprisals or when they feel it's much worse to continue than to protest and rebell. But I gather, fitting in to what I wrote above, many if not most states don't allow things to get the bad for fear of inciting their own downfall. (In Darwinian fashion, those that do aren't around long and their successors likely learn. Sure seems to be the case in the US and much of Europe.) ? Regards, ? Dan From atymes at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 16:30:42 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:30:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Dan wrote: > A good way to find out what people want is to allow them the option of not paying taxes or not obeying various rules and regulations. (Using "you" generically here, not specifically referring to Dan.) And here lies the problem. It's almost always about making other people pay taxes and obey rules & regulations. The compromise is that you have to do it too. Consider if nobody else had to pay for car insurance. Would it make sense for you to carry enough insurance to cover your repairs and the other person's, in case of accident? Of course not, unless you happen to have that much money lying around for general emergency purposes anyway. So no one but the rich would do it. Consider if it was completely voluntary whether or not to limit what you dump in the river. Almost no factory in America would voluntarily comply - and the majority of those that did, would either be those not near a river, or with little to dump. And there goes everyone else's clean drinking water. Imagine getting kicked out onto the street, because thugs wanted to crash in your house for a bit - and then move on to the next house after they've trashed it. They, of course, recognize no rules but their own. Why should any of your neighbors help you - it's not their problem, until the thugs have actually moved into each one of their houses in turn. If this seems far fetched, imagine your reaction if thugs did this to your neighbor's house 3 houses down - then 2, then 1. Not your problem, right? So when they come for you, it's not your neighbors' problem either. Most other people who would affect you in the proposed voluntary tax & regulation system are as uninterested in the welfare of others as, or more so than, you. > Now, regarding taxes, the funny thing, yes, most people pay with little griping. But the examples of non-payers have their property seized or being hauled off to jail seems fairly telling. Why not, if you believe most will pay anyhow, remove the the threat of this. Because most people wouldn't pay if it was known that non-compliers get off scot free. Again, it is the bargain - the social contract - that everyone has to pitch in, that is the main thing suppressing rebellion here. Jail is more about enforcing that bargain - "how dare you try to skip out on what the rest of us are doing" - than about the tax itself. Consider why Warren Buffet complains about the low tax rates of himself and his kin - yet he does not simply voluntarily pay more. It's perfectly possible for him to pay more, and he clearly views it as wrong that he does not, yet he doesn't. Why? Because it is not fair that all the other billionaires get to pay so little. When they have to pay more, he will too. In fact, I wonder if a party that promoted the social contract as its main issue, with "restoring fairness to America" being its main slogan, might do well. It would likely take on anti-corruption as a strong secondary theme - and, well, "cut fraud, waste, and corruption" always sells well. Granted, single issue parties tend to do poorly because they haven't thought through other things people care about, but I wonder if a sufficiently nuanced platform could be built from this as the main issue. From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 18:30:40 2011 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:30:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <04ce01cc7c5b$3479afc0$9d6d0f40$@att.net> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316792414.74326.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110924092811.GZ25711@leitl.org> <04ce01cc7c5b$3479afc0$9d6d0f40$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:47 PM, spike wrote: > > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > Subject: Re: [ExI] Faster than light?? > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > I'd call retrograde signalling in time (which can be indefinite via a > > chain of routers) and causality violations pretty Earth-shattering. > > > I thought of an example. Assume FTL signaling is possible, but we don't > think it is. A quasar could be a very tight cluster of distant stars > inhabited by an advanced species. They emit signals for some reason we > don't yet understand, perhaps a navigation beacon or something. A central > commander gives orders to the outliers to change the emitted signal to such > and such and sends out the command faster than light. They all do so. > From > the point of view of all distant non-FTL-hipsters, the cluster of stars > appears to change in a few light hours when they are actually ordinary > stars > spaced over perhaps a few light months, leading the ignorant (us) to assume > the object is a lot smaller than it really is, and emitting energy from > that > small space at an astonishing rate. No, it wouldn't work. The problem is, if every star in the cluster changes its luminosity at the same time (according to an observer situated in the cluster's center), light from the closest star will reach us well before the light from the stars at the opposite end, along the line of sight. Even if you assume that a quasar is a spherical object with uniform brightness, and instantaneous uniform change across its whole surface, light from the sides will reach us later than light from the point closest to us. In order to simulate a small space, you would need to coordinate the luminosity change so that the stars farther from us change before the rest (again according to an observer at the center of the cluster). Of course, such a trick would work only in a specified direction, which raises some questions about what those aliens are up to :-) Alfio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 26 21:56:52 2011 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:56:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> On 09/23/2011 08:15 AM, john clark wrote: > On *Fri, 9/23/11, Amara D. Angelica //* wrote: > > "Does this raise a question regarding the parton and quark models for > baryons?" > > If this turns out to be true (and I did say "if") it would raise > profound questions about EVERYTHING we know, or thought we knew, about > physics. So I still think a big mistake, or rather a very subtle > mistake, is the most likely explanation; but this does come from CERN > so you've got to take it seriously. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat How exactly does it draw everything into question if an exotic subatomic particle travels faster than light when sufficiently energized? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 26 21:58:11 2011 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:58:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1316844577.37724.YahooMailNeo@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1316789879.19978.YahooMailClassic@web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1316844577.37724.YahooMailNeo@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E80F573.1050701@mac.com> On 09/23/2011 11:09 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > If neutrinos only have spin and imaginary mass as their quantum properties, then they or antineutrinos could be responsible for the EPR non-locality phenomenon. > > I understand that we verified some time ago that their mass, while small, is not at all 'imaginary'. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 27 06:44:55 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:44:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> Message-ID: <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:56:52PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On 09/23/2011 08:15 AM, john clark wrote: > How exactly does it draw everything into question if an exotic subatomic > particle travels faster than light when sufficiently energized? End of relativity, end of causality, ability to signal backwards in time. From protokol2020 at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 07:11:17 2011 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:11:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: > End of relativity, end of causality, ability to signal backwards in time. IF some assumptions of relativity are correct, only then FTL particles would mean ability to signal backward in time. Only then. But if the Relativity is even more wrong, then no signaling backward in time. That the transluminal speed means travelling back in time is a solely relativistic concept. Nor the causality must die if the Relativity goes. Both, the causality and ther imposibility of time travel are alive and well inside a Newtonian world. Probably inside many other theoriethical worlds. Which one is realy THIS, I don't know. Have no idea. On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:56:52PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On 09/23/2011 08:15 AM, john clark wrote: > > > How exactly does it draw everything into question if an exotic subatomic > > particle travels faster than light when sufficiently energized? > > End of relativity, end of causality, ability to signal backwards in time. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Sep 27 08:06:29 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:06:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > End of relativity, end of causality, ability to signal backwards in > time. > > > IF some assumptions of relativity are correct, only then FTL particles > would mean ability to signal backward in time. Only then. > > But if the Relativity is even more wrong, then no signaling backward > in time. That the transluminal speed means travelling back in time is > a solely relativistic concept. How do you patch together the symmetry group of space if you want to keep causality for the hypervolume outside the lightcone while keeping the familiar (and empirically tested) Poincare group inside? -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From protokol2020 at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 10:31:12 2011 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:31:12 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> Message-ID: I don't think that enough Relativity remains, that the "light cone" for example, is a meaningful concept anymore. The "cathegorical aparatus" od SR may be invalid and there is no point to maintain it. IFF indeed neutrinos go faster then light. I have no answers, though. I only see troubles for Einsteinian worldwiev, but no alternative. Much less Einsteinenan alternative. Looks like to me, that a lot of people are searching just that. Mending the General Relativity to remain inside said paradigm. On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Tomaz Kristan wrote: > >> > End of relativity, end of causality, ability to signal backwards in >> time. >> >> >> IF some assumptions of relativity are correct, only then FTL particles >> would mean ability to signal backward in time. Only then. >> >> But if the Relativity is even more wrong, then no signaling backward in >> time. That the transluminal speed means travelling back in time is a solely >> relativistic concept. >> > > How do you patch together the symmetry group of space if you want to keep > causality for the hypervolume outside the lightcone while keeping the > familiar (and empirically tested) Poincare group inside? > > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy > Faculty Oxford University > ______________________________**_________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/**mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-**chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 11:22:28 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 04:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> ?On Monday, September 26, 2011 12:30 PM Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Dan wrote: >>? A good way to find out what people want is to allow them the option of >>? not paying taxes or not obeying various rules and regulations. > > (Using "you" generically here, not specifically referring to Dan.) > > And here lies the problem.? It's almost always about making other people > pay taxes and obey rules & regulations.? The compromise is that you have > to do it too. The?more fundamental problem is why anyone has to pay this or obey that. The problem you're underlying is different and really only applies to people who want to be outside whatever system of rules and regulations they're thinking of. (By the way, this comes down to my stab at a general theory of why many people don't want freedom or at least want it heavily constrained. I think there are often two fears motivating these folks: fear of what others will do with freedom and fear of what they'll do with freedom. An example of the first is when someone who doesn't use illegal drugs wants them to stay illegal for fear of rampaging junkies or doped up layabouts. An example of the latter is people who fear that if the government doesn't force them to pay into a retirement fund, they'll blow every last cent they have partying right up until the eve of their retirement.) After all, you wouldn't, I trust, argue that you'd poke out your left?eye simply because it's the law and the legislators who voted for the law and the police who are enforcing it have done so. (Sorry, for the somewhat gruesome example.) ? > Consider if nobody else had to pay for car insurance.? Would it make sense > for you to carry enough insurance to cover your repairs and the other person's, > in case of accident?? Of course not, unless you happen to have that much > money lying around for general emergency purposes anyway.? So no one but > the rich would do it. >?? > Consider if it was completely voluntary whether or not to limit what you dump > in the river.? Almost no factory in America would voluntarily comply - and the > majority of those that did, would either be those not near a river, or > with little > to dump.? And there goes everyone else's clean drinking water. >? > Imagine getting kicked out onto the street, because thugs wanted to crash > in your house for a bit - and then move on to the next house after they've > trashed it.? They, of course, recognize no rules but their own.? Why should > any of your neighbors help you - it's not their problem, until the thugs have > actually moved into each one of their houses in turn.? If this seems far > fetched, imagine your reaction if thugs did this to your neighbor's house 3 > houses down - then 2, then 1.? Not your problem, right?? So when they come > for you, it's not your neighbors' problem either. Elsewhere, I've gone over how libertarianism would deal with issues like this, including on this list and other lists you and I have both participated in. Recall, I didn't say libertarianism (as a form of anarchism) was antinomian. Also, my view of a libertarian community is just one where initiation of coercion is outlawed -- not where anything goes or whoever can take your wallet may do so without fear of retribution. In this vein, most likely with roads, they'll be privately owned and the owners, in order to avoid lawsuits or boycotts and to keep customers will likely require some form of insurance or deal with this in some fashion. (This might not be uniform. Yes, horrors!, there might be roads where it literally is drive at your own risk and others where there are so many hassles with complying with the rules, you'll want to avoid them. For some, such possibilities -- regardless of how dangerous government roads are or even arbitrary the rules are.) The road owners, of course, will bear most of cost of whatever decision they make. (And, yes, some will be paid by the users, but this is much more limited -- just like any private concern that's unable to shift costs to others: it's failures tend to be limited and others have a strong interest in seeing they don't pay for others mistakes.) ? Much the same goes for dumping polluntants in a river. What matters here is others who live near or might be affected by such dumping -- if the river itself is unowned. If it is owned, then anyone dumping in it without the owner's consent would be a simple matter, no? It's a clear violation of property rights. But even presuming the river is unowned (and some rivers and bodies of water are, today, owned, so ownership herei s not some far out radical idea only an LSD dropping anarchist might dream up in her less lucid moments), the damage such pollutants would cause to others, especially those in proximity to the river would give them, in a libertarian community, the right to claim damages and force the polluter to stop. (Of course, in the best case, this would play out peacefully in an anarchic court system or even less formally by persuading the polluter to stop and pay up. But if the polluter doesn't, and there's a just case, then in terms of libertarianism, she or he has initiated force and retaliation is just. But, in any real world case,?this has to be proved -- not presumed.) ? And the same goes for the home invaders you mention. People can invade one's home and take it now. If they are state sanctioned, well, get used to living somewhere else. But in a libertarian society, you'd have the right to retaliate. Also, in libertarianism itself, there is no sanction against people cooperating or working together. There's no reason why, in this example, your neighbors might not held you to stop the invaders and you might not help them. In fact, there's a strong reason to believe in real world communities that this would be the case. Robert Ellickson's _Order Without Law_ illustrates how neighbors settle disputes -- usually, the longer they live near each other, all else being equal, the more likely they are to help each other out and even, when disputes arise, to settle them informally and amicably. ? You might point out that this last is a lot to worry about, but we already have this today. Absent police and governemnt, people do help each other out, as in natural disasters or in the recent London riots. And people help each other out even when there are police and others they could foist the problem on. You're sort of counting on people to be be much worse under libertarianism than they are now under statism. (For the record, I'm not saying every last person will become an angel or a saint absent the state. Instead, I think people will mostly remain the same. The big differences, though, will be that the costs can't be shifted and voluntary solutions will be far easier. In my mind, while this doesn't guarantee anything, but it seems to shift the odds in favor of better behavior.) ? > Most other people who would affect you in the proposed voluntary tax & > regulation system are as uninterested in the welfare of others as, or more so > than, you. Uh, what exactly do you mean here? Are you making a claim about how interested I am in the welfare of others? I don't want to brag here, but I do donate to charities and do other things to help out people. I also don't believe people who want to force others are all that interested in others' welfare -- or their use of force corrupts that. It's kind of like saying I want people to be more rational, so let me get out a bicycle chain to beat them into rationality. ? >>? Now, regarding taxes, the funny thing, yes, most people pay with little >>? griping. But the examples of non-payers have their property seized or >>? being hauled off to jail seems fairly telling. Why not, if you believe >>? most will pay anyhow, remove the the threat of this. > > Because most people wouldn't pay if it was known that non-compliers get off > scot free. ? This was my point. Amon Zero seemed to be stating that people want to pay taxes. If you really want to know if they do, then one must remove the penalty for not paying. This is sort of like?someone saying people love to give him money for what project he's working on. He just promise to shoot anyone who doesn't pay him. And sure enough, lots of people do pay him. A few don't, but he actually only shoots an even smaller number. Naturally, in this situation, I'd expect many more people to not pay him if there were no penalty. ? > Again, it is the bargain - the social contract - that > everyone has to > pitch in, that is the main thing suppressing rebellion here.? Jail is more about > enforcing that bargain - "how dare you try to skip out on what the rest of us > are doing" - than about the tax itself. The social contract is a myth created to justify statism. Real contracts involve actual consent -- i.e., voluntary "uncoerced"?agreement?freely entered into --?and are not binding on every last person. The notion that people owe loyalty and wealth to the state because of some social contract should be laughable rather than taken seriously by intelligent people. To me, the notion of a social contract is merely a way of convincing people to put up with oppression. ? > Consider why Warren Buffet complains about the low tax rates of himself and > his kin - yet he does not simply voluntarily pay more.? It's perfectly possible > for him to pay more, and he clearly views it as wrong that he does not, yet he > doesn't.? Why?? Because it is not fair that all the other billionaires > get to pay > so little.? When they have to pay more, he will too. See above. I'm not defending billionaires or anyone here, but that someone must pay because others pay doesn't?follow -- any more than someone telling me he pays a tithe to a church should mean I should have to pay the same. ? > In fact, I wonder if a party that promoted the social contract as its > main issue, > with "restoring fairness to America" being its main slogan, might do well.? It > would likely take on anti-corruption as a strong secondary theme - and, well, > cut fraud, waste, and corruption always sells well.? Granted, single issue > parties tend to do poorly because they haven't thought through other things > people care about, but I wonder if a sufficiently nuanced platform could be > built from this as the main issue. ? Both major parties and many smaller ones in the US and many parties around the world, including most of the ones in power in the US and elsewhere now do make exactly this case: they are the fair ones, supporting some sort of social contract, cutting waste, fighting corruption. (And, of course, their opposition tells us, sincerely, that those in power are breaking the contract, unfair, corrupt, wasteful, and sometimes even illegimate.) ? Regards, ? Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 11:47:43 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> Message-ID: <1317124063.95564.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On?Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:31 AM Tomaz Kristan protokol2020 at gmail.com?wrote: > I don't think that enough Relativity remains, that the "light cone" for example, is a >?meaningful concept anymore. ? I think it might be meaningful outside that context, but I agree with your broader notion that if the fundamental underpinning of the STR does, then there's good reason to question the whole apparatus. One problem that would aise for?successor theories is how to include STR as a limit case for all the phenomena it does cover well. ? > The "cathegorical aparatus" od SR may be invalid and there is no point to maintain it. >?IFF indeed neutrinos go faster then light. ? I'm not sure it's "if and only if." Dennis might bring up other reasons he believes STR is wrong and needs to be replaced. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he didn't come to these views because of some recent data. ? > I have no answers, though. I only see troubles for Einsteinian worldwiev, but no alternative. > Much less Einsteinenan alternative. > > Looks like to me, that a lot of people are searching just that. Mending the General Relativity >?to remain inside said paradigm. Dennis would also have an alternative paradigm here. Again, not that I agree with him on this, but I'm not wed to any particular theory. I'm also sure, too, most here would change their minds if the evidence is corroborated or a better alternative were presented. ? Regards, ? Dan From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 27 12:05:39 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:05:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26 September 2011 15:24, Kelly Anderson wrote: > > Clearly different libertarians are going to disagree on the order of > deconstruction, and on the rate of said deconstruction. That's fine, > that's all in the details. The point is to reverse the out of control > growth of the government. Lots of interesting points in there, cheers Kelly, but nothing i personally feel inclined or qualified to argue one way or the other. I think you're right that different libertarians hold different views about how to approach the entire endeavour, and that a similar spread of attitudes would exist in response to any potential mass opposition to it. The main reason I asked in the first place was that I was starting to think that a much narrower set of views were generally considered to "count" as libertarian than I had originally understood, so what I thought of as my own 'moderate', 'atypical', or 'lapsed' Minarchism was in fact nothing of the sort (I very much like the idea of government with very strict jurisdictional boundaries, but personally draw those boundaries in places that put me at odds with most libertarians). I've found this conversation reassuring, to see that there is not a single school of thought on all matters libertarian. Cheers, A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 27 12:15:25 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:15:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27 September 2011 13:05, Amon Zero wrote: > > The main reason I asked in the first place was that I was starting to think > that a much narrower set of views were generally considered to "count" as > libertarian than I had originally understood, so what I thought of as my own > 'moderate', 'atypical', or 'lapsed' Minarchism was in fact nothing of the > sort (I very much like the idea of government with very strict > jurisdictional boundaries, but personally draw those boundaries in places > that put me at odds with most libertarians). I've found this conversation > reassuring, to see that there is not a single school of thought on all > matters libertarian. > Actually, Dan, Kelly, any interested others - I do have another question for you regarding the above - I personally like the idea of Universal Health Care very much, but don't worry, I'm not going to argue for that here, I don't expect you to agree with me. Such a system requires taxation to exist, for a start (unless it is some variant of the Swiss or German systems, in which private health insurance is mandatory). What I'm curious about, is why (or indeed if) it is ok for libertarians to advocate taxation to support "Night Watchman" State functions (army, police, courts), but other arguably essential functions such as healthcare are beyond the pale? The two answers I'm familiar with are that (A) no taxation is ok at all, army etc should also be private, and (B) army/police/courts are essential or can be privatized, whereas (e.g.) healthcare is not or cannot. Since we're highly unlikely to argue one another around to each other's point of view I won't be tempted to deconstruct your arguments (assuming i could!), but I am genuinely curious what principle draws a line between armies and hospitals. I could understand the line being drawn there by some libertarians and not others, but I have been given the impression that this is tantamount to a definition of libertarianism; that tax for armies/police/courts is ok but nothing else is. Would you agree? - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Sep 27 11:36:26 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:36:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4E81B53A.9090601@aleph.se> Tomaz Kristan wrote: > I don't think that enough Relativity remains, that the "light cone" > for example, is a meaningful concept anymore. The light cone can still be defined as the events that are hit by a spherically expanding wavefront of light. Even if you throw out the theoretical apparatus of SR that gives it a somewhat privileged position it remains as a set of points. And we have fairly good empirical evidence that for timelike trajectories inside observed lightcones the symmetries of space behave like SR says, so any generalisation that turns into SR for "low" velocities must also have nearly the same symmetries inside the lightcone. I am no expert, but it looks like one needs a rather nonlinear symmetry group to patch that together with a very non-SR behavior (whatever is needed to save causality) outside the light cone. One of the key conceptual selling points of SR is that it is the simplest theory you can get by insisting on identical physics in inertial frames and constancy of observed lightspeed; you get the Poincare group from that. Of course, a trans-SR theory might drop symmetries like boost invariance, but then it better either provide amazingly good empirical evidence or some profoundly satisfying conceptual explanation. Ever since Emma Noether we have a pretty solid reason to regard symmetries as important. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 12:36:07 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 05:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines In-Reply-To: References: <1316660664.5432.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316704271.12696.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317126967.86454.YahooMailNeo@web160614.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On?Monday, September 26, 2011 6:48 AM?Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com wrote: >?Did you happen to watch Steward Brand's talk? No. Once I saw it was a vid, I wandered off it. > I highly recommend this talk as it addresses these concerns well: > http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/amy_smith_shares_simple_lifesaving_design.html I'm more a reader and I read faster than the talkers. So, if there's a transcript, this would be preferable. Regards, Dan From protokol2020 at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 13:12:39 2011 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:12:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E81B53A.9090601@aleph.se> References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> <4E81B53A.9090601@aleph.se> Message-ID: The question is how big the revision must be. Depends on which is true: A - No revision needed, they made more or less stupid error of some kind at the meassuring of nevtrinos speed. B - c is a little higher and photons are a bit slower than c. Neutrinos travel with a velocity between those two. Minor revisions, something like Anders seems to think. C - We must go back to the MM experiment and explain its outcome differently than Einstein tried to. C would not surprise me at all. (Not since I've realized Ehrenfest's paradox). That the C is the hardest way, does not matter, realy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Tue Sep 27 11:56:51 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:56:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 27 September 2011 12:22, Dan wrote: > > > Because most people wouldn't pay if it was known that non-compliers get > off > > scot free. > > This was my point. Amon Zero seemed to be stating that people want to pay > taxes. If you really want to know if they do, then one must remove the > penalty for not paying. Actually Dan, I didn't state that. I just wondered what might happen if libertarians were able to remove the penalty as you suggest, and then it turned out that there wasn't a mass abandonment of tax payment. I didn't claim that people do or don't want to pay taxes, even went so far as to say that we're all aware of people who'd rather pay less or not see the money mis-spent. I agree with you that this (whether or not people would pay tax in the absence of penalities) is essentially an empirical question, although there are clear confounding factors. If this were an experiment, such factors would need to be eliminated: 1) Currently the penalties are inextricably entangled with the payment system. To truly test sentiment, it would have to remain just as easy to pay, while removing penalty for not paying. That sounds tricky to me. 2) A related issue is the matter of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" systems. As Judgment & Decision Making researchers well know, the vast majority of people make the default decision because it requires less effort, even if there is no other disincentive to take the non-default option. So if you made tax payment opt-in nearly no-one would pay it, even if you remove all the emotive stuff about guns and liberty. Simply put, if you made *anything* an opt-in alternative then it automatically becomes much less behaviourally popular. Anyway, none of this is directly relevant to my original question, which was whether libertarians would just accept majority judgment if it turned out that people *did* want to pay taxes. (Just to reiterate, this is a hypothetical). Best, A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 14:02:06 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1317132126.86586.YahooMailNeo@web160607.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:15 AM Amon Zero amon at doctrinezero.com wrote: > On 27 September 2011 13:05, Amon Zero wrote: >> The main reason I asked in the first place was that I was starting >> to think that a much narrower set of views were generally considered >> to "count" as libertarian than I had originally understood, so what I >> thought of as my own 'moderate', 'atypical', or 'lapsed' Minarchism >> was in fact nothing of the sort (I very much like the idea of government >> with very strict jurisdictional boundaries, but personally draw those >> boundaries in places that put me at odds with most libertarians). I've >> found this conversation reassuring, to see that there is not a single >> school of thought on all matters libertarian. > > Actually, Dan, Kelly, any interested others - I do have another question > for you regarding the above - > > I personally like the idea of Universal Health Care very much, but don't > worry, I'm not going to argue for that here, I don't expect you to agree > with me. Such a system requires taxation to exist, for a start (unless it > is some variant of the Swiss or German systems, in which private health > insurance is mandatory). As an aside, and this doesn't directly address?the fundamental issue you raise below, government intervention in healthcare in the US is much higher, in terms of dollars than in so called socialized medicine countries and, also, government intervention in healthcare in the US and other countries has tended to created many of the problems involved in this area, including driving up costs. Also, long ago,?people outside the state and without the state's help (in other words, without using the state to force someone to get what one wants) were solving the healthcare problem. See 'How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis: Medical Insurance that Worked - Until Government "Fixed" It' by Roderick Long at: ? http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/HowGovernmentSolved.html ? and the references therein. ? > What I'm curious about, is why (or indeed if) it is ok for libertarians > to advocate taxation to support "Night Watchman" State functions (army, > police, courts), but other arguably essential functions such as healthcare > are beyond the pale? No, it's not okay. It's a blatant contradiction of the core libertarian principle -- that principle being non-initiation of force. One can't initiate force even if one believes an army and courts or hospitals, schools, roads, and museums are good and in the public interest. One must get people to fund and participate in these things voluntarily. ? > The two answers I'm familiar with are that (A) no taxation is ok at all, > army etc should also be private, and (B) army/police/courts are essential > or can be privatized, whereas (e.g.) healthcare is not or cannot. ? See above. Of course, some people who call themselves libertarians do argue for such essential functions, but, IMO, they're simply going against their libertarian core principle here. I believe some are maybe misunderstanding libertarianism, but others are probably afraid of embracing just where this leads: anarchism. (There should be nothing wrong with this, but, sadly, most people conflate anarchism with chaos and social disorder and many who fancy themselves libertarians seem to make the same mistake. George H. Smith recently posted an old paper on his here on this and related issues at http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8257&view=findpost&p=90331?I hope you'll at least skim it.) ? > Since we're highly unlikely to argue one another around to each other's > point of view I won't be tempted to deconstruct your arguments (assuming > i could!), but I am genuinely curious what principle draws a line between > armies and hospitals. I could understand the line being drawn there by > some libertarians and not others, but I have been given the impression > that this is tantamount to a definition of libertarianism; that tax for > armies/police/courts is ok but nothing else is. Would you agree? ? I think it's a fundamental distinction and an important question to raise. In my view, anyone who agrees with forcing people to pay for something is already showing himself or herself not to be libertarian. ? Regards, ? Dan From spike66 at att.net Tue Sep 27 14:26:38 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:26:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <072801cc7d21$78981f90$69c85eb0$@att.net> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: . >> How exactly does it draw everything into question if an exotic subatomic particle travels faster than light .? >.End of relativity, end of causality, ability to signal backwards in time. Not only that, it would completely blow our minds. If a signal is sent back in time from the future, it would rely on particles of imaginary mass. How can we ever rely on any signal that is sent using imaginary mass? We would need to assume the signals are false. I wouldn't be able to trust my future self, if he sent me a warning signal to not make an investment for instance. He knows, because he made that investment when he was me, back when then was now, and lost money. Oh the confusion. If causality is violated, we will not be able to trust anything. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 27 14:56:22 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:56:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201109271456.p8REughb010867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Amon Zero wrote: >What I'm curious about, is why (or indeed if) it is ok for >libertarians to advocate taxation to support "Night Watchman" State >functions (army, police, courts), but other arguably essential >functions such as healthcare are beyond the pale? > >The two answers I'm familiar with are that (A) no taxation is ok at >all, army etc should also be private, and (B) army/police/courts are >essential or can be privatized, whereas (e.g.) healthcare is not or cannot. > >Since we're highly unlikely to argue one another around to each >other's point of view I won't be tempted to deconstruct your >arguments (assuming i could!), but I am genuinely curious what >principle draws a line between armies and hospitals. I could >understand the line being drawn there by some libertarians and not >others, but I have been given the impression that this is tantamount >to a definition of libertarianism; that tax for armies/police/courts >is ok but nothing else is. Would you agree? The philosophical approach is that the only libertarian principle is non-initiation of force or fraud and the only legitimate government function is enforcing that principle. Thus armies, police, courts, not hospitals. The pragmatic approach is asking whether a completely private version of this function can work. I see minarchists as agnostic on AnCap -- open to the idea but not convinced. They are swayable by argument and evidence. One important aspect of "armies" is what do you do with them. I take defense of others to be a legitimate use of force, as a delegated self-defense. Hence, police and armies. If my neighbor is putting his wife into a wood chipper, I think I can reasonably conclude that this isn't consensual and take action on her behalf. If Saddam is doing the same thing, which he did, there is a fair question -- and subsequent divide among libertarians -- of what to do about it. Some libertarians will argue that military has a legitimate role only in *defending* and only in defending *us*. Others see a short- or long-term threat to the nation that warrants action. Others make a defense of others argument. But uniting all three is (I think) no objection to a domestic group voluntarily forming their own army and deploying it overseas for defense of others missions. -- David. From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 15:17:55 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:56 AM Amon Zero ? wrote: > On 27 September 2011 12:22, Dan ? wrote: >>> Because most people wouldn't pay if it was known that non-compliers get off >>> scot free. >> >> This was my point. Amon Zero seemed to be stating that people want to >> pay taxes. If you really want to know if they do, then one must remove >> the penalty for not paying. > > Actually Dan, I didn't state that. I just wondered what might happen if > libertarians were able to remove the penalty as you suggest, and then it > turned out that there wasn't a mass abandonment of tax payment. I didn't > claim that people do or don't want to pay taxes, even went so far as to > say that we're all aware of people who'd rather pay less or not see the > money mis-spent. I'd have little problem as a libertarian if people want to keep paying -- save with them paying for?activities that by their nature violate rights. By the latter, I do not mean if most people want to pay for, say, hospitals or?roads. These don't essentially violate rights. (They might accidentally do so, e.g., in the case where the?road is not only funded with taxes, but also relies on eminent domain to seize property from people who won't sell or sell at the price the state is offering.) But things like bombing foreign innocent people and enforcing victimless crime laws (e.g., laws against smoking pot, playing pokey?with real money,?or engaging in the sex trade) would still be a problem. This would be no different in my mind, than some people voluntarily putting together money and resources to rob a store or kill someone. But other than things like that, I'd have no problem, again, as a libertarian. (I might have a problem in terms of seeing the particular program as wasteful, counterproductive, or just plain wrong, but that's another matter.) ? Of course, were people to voluntarily support these things, there really is no problem from a libertarian perspective. And, I hope you'd agree, from this perspective, people would still be allowed to change their minds and not continue funding this or that thing or to adjust the amount they give. (Yup, some might even decide to give more.) ? > I agree with you that this (whether or not people would pay tax in the > absence of penalities) is essentially an empirical question, although > there are clear confounding factors. If this were an experiment, such > factors would need to be eliminated: > > 1) Currently the penalties are inextricably entangled with the payment > system. To truly test sentiment, it would have to remain just as easy to > pay, while removing penalty for not paying. That sounds tricky to me. The trickiness is just to make it voluntary. Actually, that sounds, to me, extremely simple. The result would, of course, show how many people really wanted to pay. And, as long as the penalties were no longer imposed, one would have to assume people would paying not from fear of suffering the penalties. ? > 2) A related issue is the matter of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" systems. As > Judgment & Decision Making researchers well know, the vast majority of > people make the default decision because it requires less effort, even if > there is no other disincentive to take the non-default option. So if you > made tax payment opt-in nearly no-one would pay it, even if you remove all > the emotive stuff about guns and liberty. Simply put, if you made *anything* > an opt-in alternative then it automatically becomes much less behaviourally > popular. While that might be true, this doesn't in my mind mean everyone should be forced to adhere because many or most people do. Once there is an exit option, even if most people don't use it, this doesn't mean the option is invalid. And, yes, some people might stay out of habit, but my guess is were it voluntary, given the level of taxation, people who continued to pay would mostly be those who wanted to. (Also, chances are, the rhetoric and methods to get people to pay would be far different -- moving from threatening to people pleading for specific programs. In fact, absent government, my guess is many of the things would be separated so that one might decide to donate to, say, the local hospital over building a new rec center rather than having someone else make that decision for you.) ? >?Anyway, none of this is directly relevant to my original question, which > was whether libertarians would just accept majority judgment if it turned > out that people *did* want to pay taxes. ? Do you just mean: if most people want to pay for these things absent coercion, then they should be allowed to. Yes, I'd agree. And that would be consistent with libertarianism as I understand -- with the exception of paying for things that inherently or essentially violate rights. Or do you mean: if most people want to pay for these things absent coercion, then everyone else should pay for these things too? In that case, no. Even if the majority wants to pay, this should no infringe on anyone else's freedom to not pay and to not be coerced for not paying. ? >?(Just to reiterate, this is a hypothetical). ? I have nothing against hypotheticals. ? Regards, ? Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Tue Sep 27 17:19:01 2011 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:19:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com><4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org><4E818405.1010605@aleph.se><4E81B53A.9090601@aleph.se> Message-ID: <2E01CCBB136445418CBCFD2D9A2A6831@PCserafino> Tomaz Kristan > The question is how big the revision must be. [...] Vic (a neutrino physics connoisseur) wrote something http://tinyurl.com/3l8fl7s From spike66 at att.net Tue Sep 27 17:39:00 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:39:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] mbrains again: request Message-ID: <07ae01cc7d3c$582f0cd0$088d2670$@att.net> It has been almost seven months since Robert Bradbury suddenly passed away. We miss him like he left us yesterday. I am preparing a technical paper on MBrains for presentation the first week of November. Had Robert been here, he would be delighted at what I discovered this weekend, or think I discovered, while on a camping trip far from the internet and my old textbooks, having to rely on pencil and paper calculations. I need some math and thermodynamics hipsters to check my work, as independently as possible. Here's the discovery. As far back as ten years ago, I was fooling with MBrain orbit calculations and discovered that an MBrain can move an entire star. This past weekend, I was using the same equations I derived back then and discovered the original comment was an understatement. Not only can an MBrain move a star, it must move a star. Above a certain total area covered by MBrain MNeurons, if the MBrain does not exhaust a certain percentage of the star's light on the first reflection, the swarm cannot reach thermal equilibrium and maintain temperatures within the solid phase range of known materials. I can't find the error in my calcs. Thermodynamics and physics hipsters, have I given you enough information? I need you to derive equations independently for a check of my work. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 18:21:30 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <201109271456.p8REughb010867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201109271456.p8REughb010867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1317147690.95711.YahooMailNeo@web160616.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:56 AM David Lubkin lubkin at unreasonable.com wrote: > The philosophical approach is that the only libertarian principle is > non-initiation of force or fraud and the only legitimate government > function is enforcing that principle. Thus armies, police, courts, > not hospitals. ? The problem with this view is that if taxation is used to support the "armies, police, courts," then the libertarian principle is violated: force has been initiated. Thus, to be consistent, one has to either accept the principle and not use taxes to support those functions -- any more than one would use taxes to support hospitals, schools, and roads -- or one must deny the principle -- allowing that force can be initiated just as long as the initiation is done for the right reasons. The former position is, in my view, the consistent libertarian one and ends in anarchism, which is, in my view, the correct view to take. The latter position is the statist one and would end in quibbles over what government functions are essential with the only difference between the so called libertarian and any other variety of statist being which favored programs and policies get tax funds (and which ones don't). ? > The pragmatic approach is asking whether a completely private > version of this function can work. I see minarchists as agnostic > on AnCap -- open to the idea but not convinced. They are > swayable by argument and evidence. ? Knowing many actual minarchists, I'm not so sure. Minarchists -- people who believe in a libertarian state (an oxymoron by my reckoning) -- are often the most vehements critics of anarchism in any form, including market anarchism. Granted, some minarchists do, no doubt, become anarchists; probably most market anarchists went through an evolution from minarchist to anarchist. But that most market anarchists were once minarchists doesn't mean most minarchists will become anarchists. (An analogy might prove helpful here. Most atheists in the West today probably came from a monotheist background -- not a polytheist one. From that, though, it doesn't follow that if you meet a polytheist, you want to convert him to an Abrahamic faith in hopes that she'll eventually become an atheist.) ? Aside from this quibble, almost any function government has done has been done privately and voluntarily before. So, for those interested in whether a private and voluntary solution is possible, it's usually good to look at history and see where it has been done privately and voluntarily. (This doesn't mean, however, that all functions must be privatized. I certainly don't want a private DEA harassing people for using recreational substances others don't want them using.) This does apply to security and dispute resolution. Today in some places and at various other times in history, these have been done voluntarily and privately. What's more, this has often gone on for a long period of time, such as several generations or centuries, so it's not like one month with a private voluntarily funded fire squad in one tiny hamlet -- an example which would prove almost nothing in my mind. ? > One important aspect of "armies" is what do you do with them. >From a libertarian perspective, one thing you don't do with them is initiate force. Another thing is, as mentioned above, you can't initiate force to fund or otherwise support them; in other words, you can't force people to pay for armies. ? > I take defense of others to be a legitimate use of force, as a > delegated self-defense. Hence, police and armies. If my neighbor > is putting his wife into a wood chipper, I think I can reasonably > conclude that this isn't consensual and take action on her behalf. > If Saddam is doing the same thing, which he did, there is a fair > question -- and subsequent divide among libertarians -- of what > to do about it. I think libertarianism as such allows for people to protect the individual negative rights of others, but only if those others aren't against this AND this can never be used as a pretext to violate rights, such as by stealing from still others to pay for this. Those who pretend to be libertarians but support current wars and police actions seem to ignore this if they don't openly set aside the libertarian principle. These wars are not only supported with tax money, but also violate the rights of innocents, especially innocent foreigners. ? > Some libertarians will argue that military has a legitimate role > only in *defending* and only in defending *us*. Others see a short- > or long-term threat to the nation that warrants action. Others make > a defense of others argument. ? See above. ? > But uniting all three is (I think) no objection to a domestic group > voluntarily forming their own army and deploying it overseas for > defense of others missions. ? Correct, provided this private group does no violate rights in the process. ? Regards, ? Dan From dennislmay at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 18:30:09 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> <1317124063.95564.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317148209.98718.YahooMailNeo@web112119.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Dan Ust wrote: ? > ...Dennis might bring up other reasons he believes STR is wrong > and needs to be replaced. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he > didn't come to these views because of some recent data. ? The only thing separating LET relativity from Einstein relativity is the non-detection of preferred?frames of reference.? The mathematics are identical - the interpretations different. ? Once any preferrred reference frame or effect requiring differing reference frames is detected LET relativity can be adapted to include these other reference frames.? Adapting Einstein relativity involves changing it from a causal theory to one which no longer accepts causality.? Paradoxes multiply without bound. ? The kind of QM I support requires an LET-like relativity and as a result things like the CMBR can be seen as a non-linear QM effect totally unrelated to any Big Bang theory - among other alternative explanations for several astronomical observations. Special Relativity is brittle - LET is adaptable. Dan Ust wrote: > Dennis would also have an alternative paradigm here [General > Relativity]. Again, not that I agree with him on this, but I'm not > wed to any particular theory. I'm also sure, too, most here would > change their minds if the evidence is corroborated or a better > alternative were presented. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110223092406.htm The work of Professor Stacy McGaugh is very straight forward. If you?examine spiral galaxies with nearly identical amounts of visible matter they should have a variety of velocity profiles because the "Dark Matter" required to fix General Relativity is independent of the visible matter.? What is found instead is spiral galaxies with nearly identical amounts of visible matter have nearly identical velocity profiles.? Other astronomical predictions require Dark Matter concentrations to vary widely from local visible matter concentrations.? The statistical mechanics of the situation is impossible - General Relativity as a general theory is disproved by observation. I support an alternative related to Professor Stacy McGaugh's support for MOND theory.? MOND has no mechanism at present.? My theory is a mechanism to give MOND-like results.? It is a kind of Le Sage gravity with two components.? The supraluminal component is the primary source of gravity.? The luminal component is the MOND-like modifier.? These carriers are also the carriers enabling deBB-like quantum mechanics. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 18:46:27 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> <4E81B53A.9090601@aleph.se> Message-ID: <1317149187.15506.YahooMailNeo@web112106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Tomaz Kristan wrote: >? The question is how big the revision must be. Depends on which is true: >? ...c is a little higher and photons are a bit slower than c. Neutrinos >? travel with a velocity between those two. Minor revisions,... I mentioned in a previous post that orthodox physics might take this view if the experimental results hold up. Neutrinos travel faster than observable light because they are not interacting with the E&M components of the vacuum as strongly as light does.? This creates an ideal speed of light c versus a measurable speed of light c' with neutrinos doing whatever they do. Next you will need to see if there are preferred frame of reference for neutrino speed n' which is believed to be less than ideal c. In large frames of reference it will become possible to send and decode signals faster than c'.? If yet other effects are discovered or other particles exhibit unique speeds the simplicity of Einstein Relativity and claims of no preferred reference frames will become harder and harder to justify.? Then we are back to some form of LET-like theory. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 19:15:18 2011 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:15:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] NYT article about the struggle to develop an effective curriculum to teach good character to children Message-ID: Paul Tough: What if the Secret to Success Is Failure? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/what-if-the-secret-to-success-is-failure.html Dominic Randolph can seem a little out of place at Riverdale Country School--which is odd, because he's the headmaster. Riverdale is one of New York City's most prestigious private schools, with a 104-year-old campus that looks down grandly on Van Cortlandt Park from the top of a steep hill in the richest part of the Bronx. On the discussion boards of UrbanBaby.com, worked-up moms from the Upper East Side argue over whether Riverdale sends enough seniors to Harvard, Yale and Princeton to be considered truly "TT" (top-tier, in UrbanBabyese), or whether it is more accurately labeled "2T" (second-tier), but it is, certainly, part of the city's private-school elite, a place members of the establishment send their kids to learn to be members of the establishment. Tuition starts at $38,500 a year, and that's for prekindergarten. Randolph, by contrast, comes across as an iconoclast, a disrupter, even a bit of an eccentric. He dresses for work every day in a black suit with a narrow tie, and the outfit, plus his cool demeanor and sweep of graying hair, makes you wonder, when you first meet him, if he might have played sax in a ska band in the '80s. (The English accent helps.) He is a big thinker, always chasing new ideas, and a conversation with him can feel like a one-man TED conference, dotted with references to the latest work by behavioral psychologists and management gurus and design theorists. When he became headmaster in 2007, he swapped offices with his secretary, giving her the reclusive inner sanctum where previous headmasters sat and remodeling the small outer reception area into his own open-concept work space, its walls covered with whiteboard paint on which he sketches ideas and slogans. One day when I visited, one wall was bare except for a white sheet of paper. On it was printed a single black question mark. For the headmaster of an intensely competitive school, Randolph, who is 49, is surprisingly skeptical about many of the basic elements of a contemporary high-stakes American education. He did away with Advanced Placement classes in the high school soon after he arrived at Riverdale; he encourages his teachers to limit the homework they assign; and he says that the standardized tests that Riverdale and other private schools require for admission to kindergarten and to middle school are "a patently unfair system" because they evaluate students almost entirely by I.Q. "This push on tests," he told me, "is missing out on some serious parts of what it means to be a successful human." The most critical missing piece, Randolph explained as we sat in his office last fall, is character--those essential traits of mind and habit that were drilled into him at boarding school in England and that also have deep roots in American history. "Whether it's the pioneer in the Conestoga wagon or someone coming here in the 1920s from southern Italy, there was this idea in America that if you worked hard and you showed real grit, that you could be successful," he said. "Strangely, we've now forgotten that. People who have an easy time of things, who get 800s on their SAT's, I worry that those people get feedback that everything they're doing is great. And I think as a result, we are actually setting them up for long-term failure. When that person suddenly has to face up to a difficult moment, then I think they're screwed, to be honest. I don't think they've grown the capacities to be able to handle that." Randolph has been pondering throughout his 23-year career as an educator the question of whether and how schools should impart good character. It has often felt like a lonely quest, but it has led him in some interesting directions. In the winter of 2005, Randolph read "Learned Optimism," a book by Martin Seligman, a psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania who helped establish the Positive Psychology movement. Randolph found the book intriguing, and he arranged a meeting with the author. As it happened, on the morning that Randolph made the trip to Philadelphia, Seligman had scheduled a separate meeting with David Levin, the co-founder of the KIPP network of charter schools and the superintendent of the KIPP schools in New York City. Seligman decided he might as well combine the two meetings, and he invited Christopher Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan, who was also visiting Penn that day, to join him and Randolph and Levin in his office for a freewheeling discussion of psychology and schooling. Levin had also spent many years trying to figure out how to provide lessons in character to his students, who were almost all black or Latino and from low-income families. At the first KIPP school, in Houston, he and his co-founder, Michael Feinberg, filled the walls with slogans like "Work Hard" and "Be Nice" and "There Are No Shortcuts," and they developed a system of rewards and demerits designed to train their students not only in fractions and algebra but also in perseverance and empathy. Like Randolph, Levin went to Seligman's office expecting to talk about optimism. But Seligman surprised them both by pulling out a new and very different book, which he and Peterson had just finished: "Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification," a scholarly, 800-page tome that weighed in at three and a half pounds. It was intended, according to the authors, as a "manual of the sanities," an attempt to inaugurate what they described as a "science of good character." It was, in other words, exactly what Randolph and Levin had been looking for, separately, even if neither of them had quite known it. Seligman and Peterson consulted works from Aristotle to Confucius, from the Upanishads to the Torah, from the Boy Scout Handbook to profiles of Pok?mon characters, and they settled on 24 character strengths common to all cultures and eras. The list included some we think of as traditional noble traits, like bravery, citizenship, fairness, wisdom and integrity; others that veer into the emotional realm, like love, humor, zest and appreciation of beauty; and still others that are more concerned with day-to-day human interactions: social intelligence (the ability to recognize interpersonal dynamics and adapt quickly to different social situations), kindness, self-regulation, gratitude. In most societies, Seligman and Peterson wrote, these strengths were considered to have a moral valence, and in many cases they overlapped with religious laws and strictures. But their true importance did not come from their relationship to any system of ethics or moral laws but from their practical benefit: cultivating these strengths represented a reliable path to "the good life," a life that was not just happy but also meaningful and fulfilling. Six years after that first meeting, Levin and Randolph are trying to put this conception of character into action in their schools. In the process, they have found themselves wrestling with questions that have long confounded not just educators but anyone trying to nurture a thriving child or simply live a good life. What is good character? Is it really something that can be taught in a formal way, in the classroom, or is it the responsibility of the family, something that is inculcated gradually over years of experience? Which qualities matter most for a child trying to negotiate his way to a successful and autonomous adulthood? And are the answers to those questions the same in Harlem and in Riverdale? Levin had believed in the importance of character since KIPP's inception. But on the day of his trip to see Seligman, he was feeling a new urgency about the subject. Six years earlier, in 1999, the first group of students to enter KIPP Academy middle school, which Levin founded and ran in the South Bronx, triumphed on the eighth-grade citywide achievement test, graduating with the highest scores in the Bronx and the fifth-highest in all of New York City. Every morning of middle school they passed a giant sign in the stairwell reminding them of their mission: "Climb the Mountain to College." And as they left KIPP for high school, they seemed poised to do just that: not only did they have outstanding academic results, but most of them also won admission to highly selective private and Catholic schools, often with full scholarships. But as Levin told me when we spoke last fall, for many students in that first cohort, things didn't go as planned. "We thought, O.K., our first class was the fifth-highest-performing class in all of New York City," Levin said. "We got 90 percent into private and parochial schools. It's all going to be solved. But it wasn't." Almost every member of the cohort did make it through high school, and more than 80 percent of them enrolled in college. But then the mountain grew steeper, and every few weeks, it seemed, Levin got word of another student who decided to drop out. According to a report that KIPP issued last spring, only 33 percent of students who graduated from a KIPP middle school 10 or more years ago have graduated from a four-year college. That rate is considerably better than the 8 percent of children from low-income families who currently complete college nationwide, and it even beats the average national rate of college completion for all income groups, which is 31 percent. But it still falls well short of KIPP's stated goal: that 75 percent of KIPP alumni will graduate from a four-year college, and 100 percent will be prepared for a stable career. As Levin watched the progress of those KIPP alumni, he noticed something curious: the students who persisted in college were not necessarily the ones who had excelled academically at KIPP; they were the ones with exceptional character strengths, like optimism and persistence and social intelligence. They were the ones who were able to recover from a bad grade and resolve to do better next time; to bounce back from a fight with their parents; to resist the urge to go out to the movies and stay home and study instead; to persuade professors to give them extra help after class. Those skills weren't enough on their own to earn students a B.A., Levin knew. But for young people without the benefit of a lot of family resources, without the kind of safety net that their wealthier peers enjoyed, they seemed an indispensable part of making it to graduation day. What appealed to Levin about the list of character strengths that Seligman and Peterson compiled was that it was presented not as a finger-wagging guilt trip about good values and appropriate behavior but as a recipe for a successful and happy life. He was wary of the idea that KIPP's aim was to instill in its students "middle-class values," as though well-off kids had some depth of character that low-income students lacked. "The thing that I think is great about the character-strength approach," he told me, "is it is fundamentally devoid of value judgment." Still, neither Levin nor Dominic Randolph had a clear vision of how to turn an 800-page psychology text into a practical program. After that first meeting in Seligman's office, Levin and Randolph kept in touch, calling and e-mailing, swapping articles and Web links, and they soon discovered that they shared a lot of ideas and interests, despite the very different school environments in which they worked. They decided to join forces, to try to tackle the mysteries of character together, and they turned for help to Angela Duckworth, who at the time was a graduate student in Seligman's department (she is now an assistant professor). Duckworth came to Penn in 2002 at the age of 32, after working for a decade as a teacher and a charter-school consultant. When she applied to the Ph.D. program at Penn, she wrote in her application essay that her experiences in schools had given her "a distinctly different view of school reform" than the one she started out with in her 20s. "The problem, I think, is not only the schools but also the students themselves," she wrote. "Here's why: learning is hard. True, learning is fun, exhilarating and gratifying--but it is also often daunting, exhausting and sometimes discouraging.... To help chronically low-performing but intelligent students, educators and parents must first recognize that character is at least as important as intellect." Duckworth's early research showed that measures of self-control can be a more reliable predictor of students' grade-point averages than their I.Q.'s. But while self-control seemed to be a critical ingredient in attaining basic success, Duckworth came to feel it wasn't as relevant when it came to outstanding achievement. People who accomplished great things, she noticed, often combined a passion for a single mission with an unswerving dedication to achieve that mission, whatever the obstacles and however long it might take. She decided she needed to name this quality, and she chose the word "grit." She developed a test to measure grit, which she called the Grit Scale. It is a deceptively simple test, in that it requires you to rate yourself on just 12 questions, from "I finish whatever I begin" to "I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one." It takes about three minutes to complete, and it relies entirely on self-report--and yet when Duckworth took it out into the field, she found it was remarkably predictive of success. At Penn, high grit ratings allowed students with relatively low college-board scores to nonetheless achieve high G.P.A.'s. Duckworth and her collaborators gave their grit test to more than 1,200 freshman cadets as they entered West Point and embarked on the grueling summer training course known as Beast Barracks. The military has developed its own complex evaluation, called the Whole Candidate Score, to judge incoming cadets and predict which of them will survive the demands of West Point; it includes academic grades, a gauge of physical fitness and a Leadership Potential Score. But at the end of Beast Barracks, the more accurate predictor of which cadets persisted and which ones dropped out turned out to be Duckworth's 12-item grit questionnaire. Levin and Randolph asked Duckworth to use the new methods and tools she was developing to help them investigate the question of character at KIPP and Riverdale, and she and a handful of Penn graduate students began making regular treks from Philadelphia to New York. The first question Duckworth addressed, again, was the relative importance of I.Q. and self-control. She and her team of researchers gave middle-school students at Riverdale and KIPP a variety of psychological and I.Q. tests. They found that at both schools, I.Q. was the better predictor of scores on statewide achievement tests, but measures of self-control were more reliable indicators of report-card grades. Duckworth's research convinced Levin and Randolph that they should try to foster self-control and grit in their students. Yet those didn't seem like the only character strengths that mattered. The full list of 24, on the other hand, felt too unwieldy. So they asked Peterson if he could narrow the list down to a more manageable handful, and he identified a set of strengths that were, according to his research, especially likely to predict life satisfaction and high achievement. After a few small adjustments (Levin and Randolph opted to drop love in favor of curiosity), they settled on a final list: zest, grit, self-control, social intelligence, gratitude, optimism and curiosity. Over the course of the next year and a half, Duckworth worked with Levin and Randolph to turn the list of seven strengths into a two-page evaluation, a questionnaire that could be completed by teachers or parents, or by students themselves. For each strength, teachers suggested a variety of "indicators," much like the questions Duckworth asked people to respond to on her grit questionnaire, and she road-tested several dozen of them at Riverdale and KIPP. She eventually settled on the 24 most statistically reliable ones, from "This student is eager to explore new things" (an indicator of curiosity) to "This student believes that effort will improve his or her future" (optimism). For Levin, the next step was clear. Wouldn't it be cool, he mused, if each student graduated from school with not only a G.P.A. but also a C.P.A., for character-point average? If you were a college-admissions director or a corporate human-resources manager selecting entry-level employees, wouldn't you like to know which ones scored highest in grit or optimism or zest? And if you were a parent of a KIPP student, wouldn't you want to know how your son or daughter stacked up next to the rest of the class in character as well as in reading ability? As soon as he got the final list of indicators from Duckworth and Peterson, Levin started working to turn it into a specific, concise assessment that he could hand out to students and parents at KIPP's New York City schools twice a year: the first-ever character report card. Back at Riverdale, though, the idea of a character report card made Randolph nervous. "I have a philosophical issue with quantifying character," he explained to me one afternoon. "With my school's specific population, at least, as soon as you set up something like a report card, you're going to have a bunch of people doing test prep for it. I don't want to come up with a metric around character that could then be gamed. I would hate it if that's where we ended up." Still, he did think that the inventory Duckworth and Peterson developed could be a useful tool in communicating with students about character. And so he has been taking what one Riverdale teacher described as a "viral approach" to spreading the idea of this new method of assessing character throughout the Riverdale community. He talks about character at parent nights, asks pointed questions in staff meetings, connects like-minded members of his faculty and instructs them to come up with new programs. Last winter, Riverdale students in the fifth and sixth grades took the 24-indicator survey, and their teachers rated them as well. The results were discussed by teachers and administrators, but they weren't shared with students or parents, and they certainly weren't labeled a "report card." As I spent time at Riverdale last year, it became apparent to me that the debate over character at the school wasn't just about how best to evaluate and improve students' character. It went deeper, to the question of what "character" really meant. When Randolph arrived at Riverdale, the school already had in place a character-education program, of a sort. Called CARE, for Children Aware of Riverdale Ethics, the program was adopted in 1989 in the lower school, which at Riverdale means prekindergarten through fifth grade. It is a blueprint for niceness, mandating that students "Treat everyone with respect" and "Be aware of other people's feelings and find ways to help those whose feelings have been hurt." Posters in the hallway remind students of the virtues related to CARE ("Practice Good Manners ... Avoid Gossiping ... Help Others"). In the lower school, many teachers describe it as a proud and essential part of what makes Riverdale the school that it is. When I asked Randolph last winter about CARE, he was diplomatic. "I see the character strengths as CARE 2.0," he explained. "I'd basically like to take all of this new character language and say that we're in the next generation of CARE." In fact, though, the character-strength approach of Seligman and Peterson isn't an expansion of programs like CARE; if anything, it is a repudiation of them. In 2008, a national organization called the Character Education Partnership published a paper that divided character education into two categories: programs that develop "moral character," which embodies ethical values like fairness, generosity and integrity; and those that address "performance character," which includes values like effort, diligence and perseverance. The CARE program falls firmly on the "moral character" side of the divide, while the seven strengths that Randolph and Levin have chosen for their schools lean much more heavily toward performance character: while they do have a moral component, strengths like zest, optimism, social intelligence and curiosity aren't particularly heroic; they make you think of Steve Jobs or Bill Clinton more than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. The two teachers Randolph has chosen to oversee the school's character initiative are K.C. Cohen, the guidance counselor for the middle and upper schools, and Karen Fierst, a learning specialist in the lower school. Cohen is friendly and thoughtful, in her mid-30s, a graduate of Fieldston, the private school just down the road from Riverdale. She is intensely interested in character development, and like Randolph, she is worried about the character of Riverdale students. But she is not yet entirely convinced by the seven character strengths that Riverdale has ostensibly chosen. "When I think of good character, I think: Are you fair? Are you honest in dealings with other people? Are you a cheater?" she told me. "I don't think so much about: Are you tenacious? Are you a hard worker? I think, Are you a good person?" Cohen's vision of character is much closer to "moral character" than "performance character," and so far, that vision remains the dominant one at Riverdale. When I spent a day at the school in March, sitting in on a variety of classes and meetings, messages about behavior and values permeated the day, but those messages stayed almost entirely in the moral dimension. It was a hectic day at the middle school--it was pajama day, plus there was a morning assembly, and then on top of that, the kids in French class who were going on the two-week trip to Bordeaux for spring break had to leave early in order to make their overnight flight to Paris. The topic for the assembly was heroes, and a half-dozen students stood up in front of their classmates--about 350 kids, in all--and each made a brief presentation about a particular hero he or she had chosen: Ruby Nell Bridges, the African-American girl who was part of the first group to integrate the schools in New Orleans in 1960; Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian fruit vendor whose self-immolation helped spark the recent revolt in that country; the actor and activist Paul Robeson. In the assembly, in classes and in conversations with different students, I heard a lot of talk about values and ethics, and the values that were emphasized tended to be social values: inclusion, tolerance, diversity. (I heard a lot more about black history at Riverdale than I did at the KIPP schools I visited.) One eighth-grade girl I asked about character said that for her and her friends, the biggest issue was inclusion--who was invited to whose bat mitzvah; who was being shunned on Facebook. Character, as far as I could tell, was being defined at Riverdale mostly in terms of helping other people--or at least not hurting their feelings. Randolph told me that he had concerns about a character program that comprised only those kind of nice-guy values. "The danger with character is if you just revert to these general terms--respect, honesty, tolerance--it seems really vague," he said. "If I stand in front of the kids and just say, 'It's really important for you to respect each other,' I think they glaze over. But if you say, 'Well, actually you need to exhibit self-control,' or you explain the value of social intelligence--this will help you collaborate more effectively--then it seems a bit more tangible." When I spoke to Karen Fierst, the teacher who was overseeing the character project for the Riverdale lower school, she said she was worried that it would be a challenge to convince the students and their parents that there was anything in the 24 character strengths that might actually benefit them. For KIPP kids, she said, the notion that character could help them get through college was a powerful lure, one that would motivate them to take the strengths seriously. For kids at Riverdale, though, there was little doubt that they would graduate from college. "It will just happen," Fierst explained. "It happened to every generation in their family before them. And so it's harder to get them to invest in this idea. For KIPP students, learning these strengths is partly about trying to demystify what makes other people successful--kind of like, 'We're letting you in on the secret of what successful people are like.' But kids here already live in a successful community. They're not depending on their teachers to give them the information on how to be successful." At KIPP Infinity middle school, which occupies one floor of a school on West 133rd Street, across from the M.T.A.'s giant Manhattanville bus depot, report-card night last winter fell on a cold Thursday at the beginning of February. Report-card night is always a big deal at KIPP schools--parents are strongly urged to attend, and at Infinity, almost all of them do--but this particular evening carried an extra level of anxiety for both the administrators and the parents, because students were receiving their very first character report cards, and no one knew quite what to expect. Logistically, the character report card had been a challenge to pull off. Teachers at all four KIPP middle schools in New York City had to grade every one of their students, on a scale of 1 to 5, on every one of the 24 character indicators, and more than a few of them found the process a little daunting. And now that report-card night had arrived, they had an even bigger challenge: explaining to parents just how those precise figures, rounded to the second decimal place, summed up their children's character. I sat for a while with Mike Witter, a 31-year-old eighth-grade English teacher, as he talked through the character report card with Faith Flemister and her son Juaquin Bennett, a tall, hefty eighth grader in a gray hooded sweatshirt. "For the past few years we've been working on a project to create a clearer picture for parents about the character of your child," Witter explained to Flemister. "The categories that we ended up putting together represent qualities that have been studied and determined to be indicators of success. They mean you're more likely to go to college. More likely to find a good job. Even surprising things, like they mean you're more likely to get married, or more likely to have a family. So we think these are really important." Flemister nodded, and Witter began to work his way down the scores on Juaquin's character report card, starting with the good news: every teacher had scored him as a perfect 5 on "Is polite to adults and peers," and he did almost as well on "Keeps temper in check." They were both indicators for interpersonal self-control. "I can tell this is a real strength for you," Witter said, turning to Juaquin. "This kind of self-control is something you've developed incredibly well. So that makes me think we need to start looking at: What's something we can target? And the first thing that jumps out at me is this." Witter pulled out a green felt-tip marker and circled one indicator on Juaquin's report card. " 'Pays attention and resists distraction,' " Witter read aloud, an indicator for academic self-control. "That's a little lower than some of the other numbers. Why do you think that is?" "I talk too much in class," Juaquin said, a little sheepishly, looking down at his black sneakers. "I sometimes stare off into space and don't pay attention." The three of them talked over a few strategies to help Juaquin focus more in class, and by the end of the 15-minute conversation, Flemister seemed convinced by the new approach. "The strong points are not a surprise," she said to Witter as he got up to talk to another family. "That's just the type of person Juaquin is. But it's good how you pinpoint what he can do to make things easier on himself. Then maybe his grades will pick up." A month later, I returned to KIPP to visit Witter's classroom. By that point in the school year, character language had permeated Infinity. Kids wore T-shirts with the slogan "Infinite Character" and Seligman's 24 character strengths listed on the back. The walls were covered with signs that read "Got self-control?" and "I actively participate!" (one indicator for zest). There was a bulletin board in the hallway topped with the words "Character Counts," where students filled out and posted "Spotted!" cards when they saw a fellow student performing actions that demonstrate character. (Jasmine R. cited William N. for zest: "William was in math class and he raised his hand for every problem.") I came to Witter's class to observe something that Levin was calling "dual-purpose instruction," the practice of deliberately working explicit talk about character strengths into every lesson. Levin wanted math teachers to use the strengths in word problems; he explained that history teachers could use them to orient a class discussion about Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad. And when I arrived in Witter's class at 7:45 on a Thursday morning in March, he was leading a discussion about Chinua Achebe's novel "Things Fall Apart." Above Witter's head, at the front of the class, the seven character strengths were stenciled in four-inch-high letters, white on blue, from optimism to social intelligence. He asked his students to rank Okonkwo, the protagonist, on his various character strengths. There was a lot of back and forth, but in the end, most students agreed that Okonkwo rated highest on grit and lowest on self-control. Then a student named Yantzee raised his hand. "Can't a trait backfire at you?" he asked. "Sure, a trait can backfire," Witter said. "Too much grit, like Okonkwo, you start to lose your ability to have empathy for other people. If you're so gritty that you don't understand why everyone's complaining about how hard things are, because nothing's hard for you, because you're Mr. Grit, then you're going to have a hard time being kind. Even love--being too loving might make you the kind of person who can get played." There was a ripple of knowing laughter from the students. "So, yes, character is something you have to be careful about. Character strengths can become character weaknesses." Though the seven character strengths aren't included in every lesson at KIPP, they do make it into most conversations about discipline. One day last winter, I was speaking with Sayuri Stabrowski, a 30-year-old seventh-and-eighth-grade reading teacher at KIPP Infinity, and she mentioned that she caught a girl chewing gum in her class earlier that day. "She denied it," Stabrowski told me. "She said, 'No, I'm not, I'm chewing my tongue.' " Stabrowski rolled her eyes as she told me the story. "I said, 'O.K. fine.' Then later in the class, I saw her chewing again, and I said: 'You're chewing gum! I see you.' She said, 'No, I'm not, see?' and she moved the gum over in her mouth in this really obvious way, and we all saw what she was doing. Now, a couple of years ago, I probably would have blown my top and screamed. But this time, I was able to say: 'Gosh, not only were you chewing gum, which is kind of minor, but you lied to me twice. That's a real disappointment. What does that say about your character?' And she was just devastated." Stabrowski was worried that the girl, who often struggled with her behavior, might have a mini-meltdown--a "baby attack," in KIPP jargon--in the middle of the class, but in fact, the girl spit out her gum and sat through the rest of the class and then afterward came up to her teacher with tears in her eyes. "We had a long conversation," Stabrowski told me. "She said: 'I'm trying so hard to just grow up. But nothing ever changes!' And I said: 'Do you know what does change? You didn't have a baby attack in front of the other kids, and two weeks ago, you would have.' " To Tom Brunzell, who as the dean of students at KIPP Infinity oversaw the implementation of the character report card, what is going on in character conversations like that one isn't academic instruction at all, or even discipline; it's therapy. Specifically, it's a kind of cognitive behavioral therapy, the very practical, nuts-and-bolts psychological technique that provides the theoretical underpinning for the whole positive psychology field. Cognitive behavioral therapy, or C.B.T., involves using the conscious mind to understand and overcome unconscious fears and self-destructive habits, using techniques like "self-talk"--putting an immediate crisis in perspective by reminding yourself of the larger context. "The kids who succeed at KIPP are the ones who can C.B.T. themselves in the moment," Brunzell told me. Part of the point of the character initiative, as he saw it, was to give their students the tools to do that. "All kids this age are having mini-implosions every day," he said. "I mean, it's middle school, the worst years of their lives. But the kids who make it are the ones who can tell themselves: 'I can rise above this little situation. I'm O.K. Tomorrow is a new day.' " For Randolph, the experience that Brunzell was describing--the struggle to pull yourself through a crisis, to come to terms on a deep level with your own shortcomings and to labor to overcome them --is exactly what is missing for so many students at academically excellent schools like Riverdale. And perhaps surprisingly, it may turn out to be an area where the students at KIPP have a real advantage over Riverdale kids. On the professional development day in February when I visited Riverdale, Randolph had arranged a screening for his entire faculty of "Race to Nowhere," a movie about the stresses facing mostly privileged American high-school students that has become an underground hit in many wealthy suburbs, where one-time showings at schools, churches and community centers bring out hundreds of concerned parents. The movie paints a grim portrait of contemporary adolescence, rising in an emotional crescendo to the story of an overachieving teenage girl who committed suicide, apparently because of the ever-increasing pressure to succeed that she felt both at school and at home. At Riverdale, the film seemed to have a powerful effect on many of the staff; one teacher who came up to Randolph afterward had tears in her eyes. "Race to Nowhere" has helped to coalesce a growing movement of psychologists and educators who argue that the systems and methods now in place to raise and educate well-off kids in the United States are in fact devastating them. One central figure in the movie is Madeline Levine, a psychologist in Marin County who is the author of a best-selling book, "The Price of Privilege: How Parental Pressure and Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of Disconnected and Unhappy Kids." In her book, Levine cites studies and surveys to back up her contention that children of affluent parents now exhibit "unexpectedly high rates of emotional problems beginning in junior high school." This is no accident of demographics, Levine says, but instead is a direct result of the child-raising practices that prevail in well-off American homes; wealthy parents today, she argues, are more likely to be emotionally distant from their children, and at the same time to insist on high levels of achievement, a potentially toxic blend of influences that can create "intense feelings of shame and hopelessness" in affluent children. Cohen and Fierst told me that they also see many Riverdale parents who, while pushing their children to excel, also inadvertently shield them from exactly the kind of experience that can lead to character growth. As Fierst put it: "Our kids don't put up with a lot of suffering. They don't have a threshold for it. They're protected against it quite a bit. And when they do get uncomfortable, we hear from their parents. We try to talk to parents about having to sort of make it O.K. for there to be challenge, because that's where learning happens." Cohen said that in the middle school, "if a kid is a C student, and their parents think that they're all-A's, we do get a lot of pushback: 'What are you talking about? This is a great paper!' We have parents calling in and saying, for their kids, 'Can't you just give them two more days on this paper?' Overindulging kids, with the intention of giving them everything and being loving, but at the expense of their character--that's huge in our population. I think that's one of the biggest problems we have at Riverdale." This is a problem, of course, for all parents, not just affluent ones. It is a central paradox of contemporary parenting, in fact: we have an acute, almost biological impulse to provide for our children, to give them everything they want and need, to protect them from dangers and discomforts both large and small. And yet we all know--on some level, at least--that what kids need more than anything is a little hardship: some challenge, some deprivation that they can overcome, even if just to prove to themselves that they can. As a parent, you struggle with these thorny questions every day, and if you make the right call even half the time, you're lucky. But it's one thing to acknowledge this dilemma in the privacy of your own home; it's quite another to have it addressed in public, at a school where you send your kids at great expense. And it's that problem that Randolph is up against as he tries to push forward this new kind of conversation about character at Riverdale. When you work at a public school, whether it's a charter or a traditional public school, you're paid by the state, responsible, on some level, to your fellow citizens for the job you do preparing your students to join the adult world. When you work at a private school like Riverdale, though, even one with a long waiting list, you are always conscious that you're working for the parents who pay the tuition fees. Which makes a campaign like the one that Randolph is trying to embark on all the more complicated. If your premise is that your students are lacking in deep traits like grit and gratitude and self-control, you're implicitly criticizing the parenting they've received--which means you're implicitly criticizing your employers. When I asked Randolph to explain just what he thought Riverdale students were missing out on, he told me the story of his own scholastic career. He did well in boarding school and was admitted to Harvard, but when he got to college, he felt lost, out of step with the power-tie careerism of the Reagan '80s. After two years at Harvard, Randolph left for a year to work in a low-paying manual job, as a carpenter's helper, trying to find himself. After college, he moved for a couple of years to Italy, where he worked odd jobs and studied opera. It was an uncertain and unsettled time in his life, filled with plenty of failed experiments and setbacks and struggles. Looking back on his life, though, Randolph says that the character strengths that enabled him to achieve the success that he has were not built in his years at Harvard or at the boarding schools he attended; they came out of those years of trial and error, of taking chances and living without a safety net. And it is precisely those kinds of experiences that he worries that his students aren't having. "The idea of building grit and building self-control is that you get that through failure," Randolph explained. "And in most highly academic environments in the United States, no one fails anything." Most Riverdale students can see before them a clear path to a certain type of success. They'll go to college, they'll graduate, they'll get well-paying jobs--and if they fall along the way, their families will almost certainly catch them, often well into their 20s or even 30s, if necessary. But despite their many advantages, Randolph isn't yet convinced that the education they currently receive at Riverdale, or the support they receive at home, will provide them with the skills to negotiate the path toward the deeper success that Seligman and Peterson hold up as the ultimate product of good character: a happy, meaningful, productive life. Randolph wants his students to succeed, of course--it's just that he believes that in order to do so, they first need to learn how to fail. Paul Tough (inquiries at paultough.com), a contributing writer, is the author of "Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada's Quest to Change Harlem and America." His book "The Success Equation" will be published next year. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 18:55:37 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:55:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Dan wrote: > Also, my view of a libertarian community is just one where initiation of coercion is outlawed -- not where anything goes or whoever can take your wallet may do so without fear of retribution. Then who enforces that law? If no one, anything goes and whoever can take, etc. If a government - enforcing the law is not free. The police who enforce it must be paid, or it is in no one's financial self interest to be a cop when they could make others be cops. The money for that must come from somewhere - i.e., taxes. If some people were allowed to opt out of taxes, i.e. to opt out of paying for police protection, then for them the world goes back to "anything goes and whoever...". (And, indeed, the police have force - they would be perfectly within their moral rights to raid such people for everything they had, because such people, by refusing to pay taxes, would have forfeited any right they had to property or freedom they could not defend themselves.) In order to get around and enforce this law, the police would benefit from roads. Thus, the government has a legitimate reason to build and maintain public roads. As a side benefit, trade & commerce become easier, and everyone generally benefits - but the main justification is the police, and thus, tax-funded roads. (As I recall, this justification dates back to the Roman empire: sure, those roads were good for commerce, but they were first and foremost an instrument of the military, and were built to military specifications.) And so on. The existence of that base law means a justification for many other things that governments do, and for taxes to fund them. Not all, by any means, but almost everything you are arguing against is in fact justified. (For example, dumping pollutants in a river can be initiating force against those downstream - and, in ancient wars, often was: while sieging a city, poison or cut off its water supply.) > And the same goes for the home invaders you mention. People can invade one's home and take it now. If they are state sanctioned, well, get used to living somewhere else. But in a libertarian society, you'd have the right to retaliate. Which means nothing if you do not have the ability to retaliate. In practice, that means that whoever commands the biggest army has the right to do whatever they wish. If you disagree, there are several effectively libertarian societies in the third world right now. You could move there and establish a home, then have the right to retaliate when the next army comes through and seizes everything you built. If your survival instinct did not stop you from surrendering your right, your imminent death would do it for you. Not that I'm saying you should, just saying that that is the inevitable result of what you are arguing for here. There are literally thousands of years of history proving the inevitability of this, and that this is not the optimal society for its inhabitants. > Also, in libertarianism itself, there is no sanction against people cooperating or working together. There's no reason why, in this example, your neighbors might not held you to stop the invaders and you might not help them. In fact, there's a strong reason to believe in real world communities that this would be the case. And there's plenty of evidence that this would usually not. Again, I reference you to the examples where this has been tried (and is being tried, right now) - and fails, practically every time. At best, these real world communities tend not to be fortified enough to resist determined bandits, and have not practiced defensive teamwork even when they do pull together. They simply fall before those with guns and the training to use them. >>>? Now, regarding taxes, the funny thing, yes, most people pay with little >>>? griping. But the examples of non-payers have their property seized or >>>? being hauled off to jail seems fairly telling. Why not, if you believe >>>? most will pay anyhow, remove the the threat of this. >> >> Because most people wouldn't pay if it was known that non-compliers get off >> scot free. > > This was my point. Amon Zero seemed to be stating that people want to pay taxes. If you really want to know if they do, then one must remove the penalty for not paying. You have completely missed my point. I'll try to rephrase: It is not directly about guns, force, or anything like that It is about the perception of fairness. It is about, "Why should I pay to uphold the public commons when that other person does not have to pay?" Now, yes, force is applied when someone adamantly refuses to pay. But that is merely the government acting as a proxy for the majority of people who did pay - because one of the things that said majority paid the government to do in the first place, is to extract funds from anyone who refused to pay. Therefore, if you remove the penalty for not paying, you are removing one of the fundamental things the majority is intentionally, deliberately buying. They are not being compelled by this threat of force to buy it; rather, it is this very threat of force against those who refuse to pitch in, that is part of what they are purchasing. Is that clear? Now, there are those who refuse to purchase this - i.e., to not pay taxes. The majority is purchasing force to strip away this minority's "right" to not pay taxes. > The social contract is a myth created to justify statism. Real contracts involve actual consent -- i.e., voluntary "uncoerced"?agreement?freely entered into --?and are not binding on every last person. Contracts are binding on every last participant in the contract. As to social contracts being a myth - that's what emigration is for. Merely by living within the borders of the USA, you are taking advantage of its services and defense. You don't have to sign anything to be taking advantage of this: you automatically are, just by physically being here. Therefore, you are bound by the social contract, just by physically being here. Signatures and the like don't enter into it. You don't even have to say "yes". Heck, you can yell and scream "no" all you like. You consent by remaining here. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. All of the stuff you would leave behind? That's covered under the social contract too. And yes, moving costs money - but if you're really determined not to be bound by a contract to anyone else, then why should anyone else pay for your travel? Think you'd die during the trip? Well - again, if you're refusing outside commitments, why does anyone else care if you die? See, that's the thing. You have no fundamental right to life, or to means of living. The only thing that can credibly offer that to you these days is a government, and governments mean laws and taxes. Disagree? Go live somewhere where there is no effective government - just you and the Earth. See how much respect for your life the Earth has. (Hint: it has none.) > See above. I'm not defending billionaires or anyone here, but that someone must pay because others pay doesn't?follow -- any more than someone telling me he pays a tithe to a church should mean I should have to pay the same. "I have tithed guns to the church, that they may make freeloaders like you pay." Come to think of it, that exact situation probably happened at more than one point. >> In fact, I wonder if a party that promoted the social contract as its >> main issue, >> with "restoring fairness to America" being its main slogan, might do well.? It >> would likely take on anti-corruption as a strong secondary theme - and, well, >> cut fraud, waste, and corruption always sells well.? Granted, single issue >> parties tend to do poorly because they haven't thought through other things >> people care about, but I wonder if a sufficiently nuanced platform could be >> built from this as the main issue. > > Both major parties and many smaller ones in the US and many parties around the world, including most of the ones in power in the US and elsewhere now do make exactly this case: they are the fair ones, supporting some sort of social contract, cutting waste, fighting corruption. (And, of course, their opposition tells us, sincerely, that those in power are breaking the contract, unfair, corrupt, wasteful, and sometimes even illegimate.) Yes, but as a side issue. I'm proposing one that does this as its main thing, from which all other policy views are derived. From atymes at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 19:10:59 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:10:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317147690.95711.YahooMailNeo@web160616.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <201109271456.p8REughb010867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1317147690.95711.YahooMailNeo@web160616.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Dan wrote: > The problem with this view is that if taxation is used to support the "armies, police, courts," then the libertarian principle is violated: force has been initiated. Thus, to be consistent, one has to either accept the principle and not use taxes to support those functions -- any more than one would use taxes to support hospitals, schools, and roads -- or one must deny the principle -- allowing that force can be initiated just as long as the initiation is done for the right reasons. The former position is, in my view, the consistent libertarian one and ends in anarchism, which is, in my view, the correct view to take. If no one is allowed to initiate force - who, then, prevents anyone from initiating force? Common morality/people getting together to stand up to the bullies tends not to happen that often. If it did, there wouldn't be dictators, schoolyard bullies, and similar in all walks of life. But there are. If I pay people to protect me, but you are too poor to pay anyone to protect you, and no one is stopping me from initiating force, then I can have my goons rob you and no one will stop me. There are greedy types who do exactly that, the world over, and throughout history. From anders at aleph.se Tue Sep 27 22:51:53 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:51:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> <4E81B53A.9090601@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4E825389.4090207@aleph.se> Tomaz Kristan wrote: > The question is how big the revision must be. Depends on which is true: > > A - No revision needed, they made more or less stupid error of some > kind at the meassuring of nevtrinos speed. > > B - c is a little higher and photons are a bit slower than c. > Neutrinos travel with a velocity between those two. Minor revisions, > something like Anders seems to think. > > C - We must go back to the MM experiment and explain its outcome > differently than Einstein tried to. D - Relativity remains true, but causality goes out of the window and is replaced with consistency. E - Nick's simulation argument is right, and we are all living in a computer simulation (actually, a variant of C). Among neutrino physicists belief in A seems to be about as close to 100% as the neutrinos are to lightspeed - just a sliver of hope. B is probably not possible since the new definition of the meter and second fixes it exactly to 299 792 458 meters per second, and the measurement errors of lengths and timings have gone down (the relative uncertainty in the *1973* value of c due to Evanson was 3e-9) E is perhaps mostly a concern for us in the philosophy department, but if you are a transhumanist you should give it far higher credence than most people. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From jrd1415 at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 22:58:10 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:58:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? Message-ID: Have to make this fast. The wife and I are heading out for our winter home in Baja, and I have packing and other errands to do. I can't explain why it should have happened so suddenly, but I had one of those light bulbs go off, this time with a somewhat disconcerting result. The FTL thread has provoked comments on causality and time travel. The first was by Eugen, in response to Dennis May, to wit: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 08:40:14AM -0700, Dennis May wrote: > I would not be too concerned about any Earth shattering > consequences if it were found that neutrinos were found > to travel slightly faster than the speed of light - or other > means of signaling faster than light were discovered. Eugen: "I'd call retrograde signalling in time (which can be indefinite via a chain of routers) and causality violations pretty Earth-shattering. ..." The instant I saw "signaling in time" the light bulb went off. YOU CAN'T " signal in time". "Time", in the sense used here DOES NOT EXIST. Let me explain. The three spacial dimensions -- x,y, & z -- all have a "back thataway", a "here", and an "up ahead". There is the notion that time has something similar, in the form of "past. "present", and "future", but this is not the case. The past and the future are abstractions. Mental conveniences. They exist ONLY as ideas; ideas that arise because the internal narrative of subjective experience involves memories (ie abstractions) recorded and then ordered in a sequential context, which then "fattens" the concept of time with a bulk character that it does not in fact possess. We most certainly exist -- cogito ergo sum -- but this truth is exclusively immediate. The "now" is real, but the past and future are exclusively, entirely mental objects, ie abstractions. Consequently, you cannot "travel" backwards or forwards in time. No such realms as past or present exist. Having suddenly noticed this "problem" -- confusing the mental notion of "bulk" time with the "now-is-all-there-is" reality -- I looked at the new "reality" to see what I could identify in the way of reality-based features. ***********SHORT DIGRESSION*********** Lately, I find myself running into an odd, yet oddly friendly, sort of bemusement. Oddly friendly because it conforms almost precisely to the "point" of an old conceptual joke that I have repeated and chuckled at countless times over the years. Here's the short form: As the years pass, I learn more and more. As what I know increases, so does my awareness of the growing bulk of what I do NOT know. To all appearances, the unknown seems to grow substantially faster than the known. The outcome of this progression? "The more I know, the less I know, until at last, when I know everything, I know nothing." The universe has a bitchin' sense of humor. Life is good. Can't get enough. ***********OK. Back to it.**************** So I hauled out my mental model of spacetime, hooked up my peta-eta-yetta-scale probe, dived down mentally to the Plank level, and began my search for a new version of "time". My picture of ***3D space*** at the Plank level is a 3D collection of contiguous points. The universe as a bag of beads. Now, what happens to these points? Presumably, at any given "now", each point has its own set of ten (or eleven, or ?) parametric values for the corresponding ten "dimensions" of the Standard Model. Then, after what we refer to as the Plank "time interval", these parameters achieve their next value in the next iteration of the "now". Care -- better yet humility -- must of course be embraced when toying with such notions. Characteristics of matter and time at the macro/classical scale differ qualitatively from characteristics at the atomic(or sub-atomic) scale. (Well, duh!) I So the iterative progression from the current now to the next now becomes the basis for experiential flow in the macro experience. And what we call time is the illusion of duration created by memory's bulk sequential record of experience. It always embarrasses me to attempt this sort of conjecture because I feel so utterly out of my depth. (Ever closer, as implied by the **joke** above, to comprehensive cluelessness/humility in the face of existence.) Best, Jeff Davis "That's the whole problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder." --Calvin (& Hobbes) From dennislmay at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 00:06:55 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? References: Message-ID: <1317168415.8589.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Jeff Davis wrote: ? > My picture of ***3D space*** at the Plank level is a 3D collection of > contiguous points. The universe as a bag of beads. Now, what happens > to these points? Presumably, at any given "now", each point has its > own set of ten (or eleven, or ?) parametric values for the > corresponding ten "dimensions" of the Standard Model. Then, after > what we refer to as the Plank "time interval", these parameters > achieve their next value in the next iteration of the "now". ? The concept of Planck-Time has been observationally discredited: ? http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Astronomers_Deal_Another_Blow_To_Quantum_Theories_Of_Time__Space__Gravity.html ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Wed Sep 28 02:05:14 2011 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:05:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Understanding the dynamics of millionaires and billionaires is, I > think, quite relevant to the future, and here is why... In the future > ALL of us will have what billionaires have today, except in greater > quantity and variety. We will some day in the not too distant future, > be able to produce custom yachts for a single use, not even > billionaires do that today! We will be able to create our own custom > planets in virtual reality... with creatures even the super rich would > not be able to create today! > > So what is the psychology of the super rich? [...] > All of these people became more of what they were before. I had the > absolute joy of knowing Alan Ashton before he was super rich, as well > as after... He just became more of what he was before... just like the > rest of them. > > So the take home question for each of us is "what are we?" And when we > become more of what we are, will that be a good thing or a bad thing? Wow, I have just finished reading your mail and it was a pleasure. It made me thinking and even laughing at myself a bit. No, I'm not super rich. I just imagined myself as arrogant moron and after that, as super-rich super-arrogant super-moron, building me a spacious house of my own design, so that my numerous interests could find a place... finally. Hah! Next time, when HR-woman asks me how I imagine myself ten years from now, I will have something to say at last. BTW, Paris, if she got more money... 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 moulton at moulton.com Wed Sep 28 02:47:36 2011 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:47:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E828AC8.2080308@moulton.com> On 09/27/2011 11:55 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Then who enforces that law? If no one, anything goes and whoever can take, etc. > Yet one more time when I really wish the entire archive of the extropy email list was online so that a quick pointer could be provided since polycentric law and related topics were discussed very early on. If people are really interested in these questions then just google for "polycentric law" and also read the many essays on privately provided non-government protection services. Of course there will be many criticisms of these ideas and I am all for criticism of all ideas. What I would suggest is that those making the criticism also apply the same level and types of criticism to their own pet ideas. Fred From protokol2020 at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 06:46:15 2011 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:46:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E825389.4090207@aleph.se> References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> <4E81B53A.9090601@aleph.se> <4E825389.4090207@aleph.se> Message-ID: I am afraid so, yes, that the simulation might be the Thing. It gives so many answers. I hope and am quite convinced that it is a "natural" simulation of some kind. Something Fredkin had in mind. I estimate the simulation probability to about 1/3 and almost 100% that it is a "natural" in that case, without self aware creators. Still ... the fancy or not so fancy GPS error is my favorite. Among those two, the fancy relativistic GPS error is my likely bet. Gran Sasso can be 20 meters more to the SE. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 09:00:11 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:00:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> <4E81B53A.9090601@aleph.se> Message-ID: 2011/9/27 Tomaz Kristan : > B - c is a little higher and photons are a bit slower than c. Neutrinos > travel with a velocity between those two. Minor revisions, something like > Anders seems to think. I am confused here. Particles with a mass travelling faster than electromagnetic or gravitational waves? BTW, there is no going back to Newton, unless we can show that c adds to one's relative speed. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 09:07:48 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:07:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <201109271456.p8REughb010867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201109271456.p8REughb010867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 27 September 2011 16:56, David Lubkin wrote: > If Saddam is doing the same thing, which he did, there is a fair > question -- and subsequent divide among libertarians -- of what > to do about it. What about a hypothetical Saddam organising an attack on US territory in order to defend the people of Seattle, or local muslim from discrimination? I think we are on a dangerous slope here. It is difficult to imagine a literal and absolute application of the time-honoured principle of non-interference, but the opposite is definitely at odd with any meaningful concept of self-determination and independence. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 09:23:30 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:23:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] millionaires and billionaires In-Reply-To: References: <00b601cc74df$a571a800$f054f800$@att.net> <1316228045.3871.YahooMailNeo@web112107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1188085758-1316609993-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-627627230-@b12.c32.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: On 28 September 2011 04:05, Tomasz Rola wrote: > Wow, I have just finished reading your mail and it was a pleasure. > > It made me thinking and even laughing at myself a bit. No, I'm not super > rich. I just imagined myself as arrogant moron and after that, as > super-rich super-arrogant super-moron, building me a spacious house of my > own design, so that my numerous interests could find a place... finally. > > Hah! Next time, when HR-woman asks me how I imagine myself ten years from > now, I will have something to say at last. Yes, but "rich", especially from a sociological/psychological POV, is a purely relative concept. And there is no levelling towards a shared ceiling, since no matter how much the resources available may increase, we have not limitations in increasing in our desires. Which is a good thing, basically. At most, wealth is going to become increasingly more symbolic in nature, as it has already done for centuries now. -- Stefano Vaj From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 28 09:17:31 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:17:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Conversational rules (and metaconversational games) Message-ID: On 28 September 2011 03:47, F. C. Moulton wrote: > > ...I am all for criticism of all ideas. What > I would suggest is that those making the criticism also apply the same > level and types of criticism to their own pet ideas. > Well said! Now I'm curious as to whether there have ever been significant discussions of "meta" rules for conversation or investigation of ideas? Given that most (if not all) lists eventually develop perennial thematic "ruts", I wonder if any deep thought has been applied to how to handle such things? Fred's sentiment, above, is a good one I think. Of course we also have fairly typical moderator rules. Anything else spring to mind? Whenever I think of this kind of thing lately, Brent Allsop's canonizer.comproject is never far from my mind. It seems that it would be fascinating if there were a database (rather than static list archive) of typical Extropian points of view on different topics over time. Could be very useful, certainly very interesting I would think. If you *really* wanted to go out on a limb with this line of thought, you could turn conversation (which is arguably a sort of game already, with rules both implicit and explicit) into a metagame, where the rules of conversation are themselves topics of conversation. Think of the database as a kind of n-dimensional playing board. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Sep 28 09:45:20 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:45:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1316790902.48858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E80F524.9080707@mac.com> <20110927064455.GV25711@leitl.org> <4E818405.1010605@aleph.se> <4E81B53A.9090601@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4E82ECB0.2070609@aleph.se> Stefano Vaj wrote: > 2011/9/27 Tomaz Kristan : > >> B - c is a little higher and photons are a bit slower than c. Neutrinos >> travel with a velocity between those two. Minor revisions, something like >> Anders seems to think. >> > > I am confused here. Particles with a mass travelling faster than > electromagnetic or gravitational waves? > Actually, this ought to be observationally ruled out for all *charged* faster-than-photon particles, because of Cherenkov radiation. The Frank-Tamm formula produces a divergent result since in vaccum the speed will be greater than the speed of light for the medium for all velocities. So presumably you cannot accelerate a charged particle beyond photon speed because of energy losses. Cute. Neutrinos are fine, of course. A universe with a vacuum index of refraction slightly above 1 is not really problematic for SR, it would just look odd (there is an exercise in Rindler's "Essential Relativity" about this). However, if you could move particles with mass faster than gravity waves then you would presumably get an analogous divergence of gravitational Cherenkov radiation ("gravity shockwaves"). This likely precludes neutrinos from going faster than the speed of gravity waves, given that they have been observed to have mass. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Wed Sep 28 09:48:28 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:48:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <07ae01cc7d3c$582f0cd0$088d2670$@att.net> References: <07ae01cc7d3c$582f0cd0$088d2670$@att.net> Message-ID: <4E82ED6C.2070601@aleph.se> spike wrote: > > > Here?s the discovery. As far back as ten years ago, I was fooling with > MBrain orbit calculations and discovered that an MBrain can move an > entire star. This past weekend, I was using the same equations I > derived back then and discovered the original comment was an > understatement. Not only can an MBrain move a star, it must move a > star. Above a certain total area covered by MBrain MNeurons, if the > MBrain does not exhaust a certain percentage of the star?s light on > the first reflection, the swarm cannot reach thermal equilibrium and > maintain temperatures within the solid phase range of known materials. > Just absorbing and re-radiating the luminosity as blackbodies produces a nice equilibrium temperature as far as I can see - the star's envelope gets a tiny fraction hotter, but nothing else. I need some extra hint here: has this to do with the orbiting of the MNeurons? -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute James Martin 21st Century School Philosophy Faculty Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 10:41:25 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:41:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Conversational rules (and metaconversational games) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/9/28 Amon Zero wrote: > Now I'm curious as to whether there have ever been significant discussions > of "meta" rules for conversation or investigation of ideas? Given that most > (if not all) lists eventually develop perennial thematic "ruts", I wonder if > any deep thought has been applied to how to handle such things? > > It is annoying for experts in a subject that they have studied for years when the whole subject is casually dismissed. Simplistic arguments are assumed correct when the experts have read whole books discussing all the ramifications of similar arguments. The weakness here is that it means that 'ordinary' people can't discuss Relativity without at least a university course behind them, or discuss climate change without studying climatology for years, or discuss angels on the head of a pin without a theology degree. Theology - rubbish, FTL - Impossible, PSI - bullshit, Libertarianism - never work,..... See, I've solved all these arguments. That didn't take long, did it? ;) BillK From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 28 10:50:30 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:50:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Conversational rules (and metaconversational games) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28 September 2011 11:41, BillK wrote: > > It is annoying for experts in a subject that they have studied for > years when the whole subject is casually dismissed. Simplistic > arguments are assumed correct when the experts have read whole books > discussing all the ramifications of similar arguments. > Agreed. I've found myself on both sides of that fence a number of times. It seems to me that this is likely where a database of topics, positions, arguments & evidence would be very useful: Presumably it would cut down on casual speculation in thoroughly well-trodden areas. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 28 13:06:24 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:06:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <4E82ED6C.2070601@aleph.se> References: <07ae01cc7d3c$582f0cd0$088d2670$@att.net> <4E82ED6C.2070601@aleph.se> Message-ID: <20110928130624.GI25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:48:28AM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > spike wrote: >> >> >> Here?s the discovery. As far back as ten years ago, I was fooling with >> MBrain orbit calculations and discovered that an MBrain can move an >> entire star. This past weekend, I was using the same equations I >> derived back then and discovered the original comment was an >> understatement. Not only can an MBrain move a star, it must move a >> star. Above a certain total area covered by MBrain MNeurons, if the >> MBrain does not exhaust a certain percentage of the star?s light on >> the first reflection, the swarm cannot reach thermal equilibrium and >> maintain temperatures within the solid phase range of known materials. >> > Just absorbing and re-radiating the luminosity as blackbodies produces a > nice equilibrium temperature as far as I can see - the star's envelope > gets a tiny fraction hotter, but nothing else. I need some extra hint > here: has this to do with the orbiting of the MNeurons? You need to use photon momentum (no need to waste mass) for active node orbit control, as otherwise the node cloud orbits will degenerate and you'll get internode collisions, which can cause a runaway collision catastrophe by way of fragments and turn your node cloud into a dusty fragment cloud. On the average total, the control flares should result in an isotropic radiation pattern, though. Is it even possible to push the entire assembly by emitting radiation mostly in one direction, climbing up in a higher orbit half the time, and descending down the other half? It's probably analytically too hard, so somebody could model it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Wed Sep 28 14:08:10 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 07:08:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <4E82ED6C.2070601@aleph.se> References: <07ae01cc7d3c$582f0cd0$088d2670$@att.net> <4E82ED6C.2070601@aleph.se> Message-ID: <004e01cc7de8$0e3d12f0$2ab738d0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] mbrains again: request spike wrote: > > >> ... if the MBrain does not exhaust a certain percentage of the star's light on > the first reflection, the swarm cannot reach thermal equilibrium and > maintain temperatures .... >...Just absorbing and re-radiating the luminosity as blackbodies produces a nice equilibrium temperature as far as I can see - the star's envelope gets a tiny fraction hotter, but nothing else. I need some extra hint here: has this to do with the orbiting of the MNeurons? -- Anders Sandberg, Thanks Anders. It isn't the envelope temperature that was the problem. Rather it was the innermost MNeurons appeared to have insufficient view of cold space to remain at a temperature low enough to operate a microprocessor. However, what I am checking now is if that problem is a characteristic of the particular design I chose. So here's my next task: I need to create a model for the equilibrium temperature of each layer of MNeurons as a function of the physical characteristics of the MNeuron, such as thickness, diameter and so forth. If the outer envelope is big enough, the temperature out there is plenty cool. It might be as simple as the innermost MNeurons need to orbit at a sufficient radius and sufficient separation from the next layer to maintain a temperature within the acceptable range. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Sep 28 13:56:53 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:56:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Conversational rules (and metaconversational games) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004901cc7de6$7add1100$70973300$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amon Zero Subject: [ExI] Conversational rules (and metaconversational games) On 28 September 2011 03:47, F. C. Moulton wrote: ...I am all for criticism of all ideas. What I would suggest is that those making the criticism also apply the same level and types of criticism to their own pet ideas. >.Well said! >.Fred's sentiment, above, is a good one I think. Of course we also have fairly typical moderator rules. . - A On the contrary, ExI-chat is intentionally way more lightly moderated than any internet group I know. This is sometimes to our detriment, but is in keeping with the origins of this list. In my opinion, the benefits outweigh the costs of doing business that way. We do sometimes need to suffer fools (not you, Amon, but you may have read some here occasionally) in order to encourage open expression. Carry on, me lads! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 28 14:25:14 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:25:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317132126.86586.YahooMailNeo@web160607.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1317132126.86586.YahooMailNeo@web160607.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 27 September 2011 15:02, Dan wrote: > > The two answers I'm familiar with are that (A) no taxation is ok at all, > > army etc should also be private, and (B) army/police/courts are essential > > or can be privatized, whereas (e.g.) healthcare is not or cannot. > > See above. Of course, some people who call themselves libertarians do argue > for such essential functions, but, IMO, they're simply going against their > libertarian core principle here. I believe some are maybe misunderstanding > libertarianism, but others are probably afraid of embracing just where this > leads: anarchism. (There should be nothing wrong with this, but, sadly, most > people conflate anarchism with chaos and social disorder and many who fancy > themselves libertarians seem to make the same mistake. George H. Smith > recently posted an old paper on his here on this and related issues at > http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8257&view=findpost&p=90331 I > hope you'll at least skim it.) > I'll definitely read it. Thanks very much Dan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 28 14:34:01 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:34:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <004e01cc7de8$0e3d12f0$2ab738d0$@att.net> References: <07ae01cc7d3c$582f0cd0$088d2670$@att.net> <4E82ED6C.2070601@aleph.se> <004e01cc7de8$0e3d12f0$2ab738d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110928143401.GL25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 07:08:10AM -0700, spike wrote: > Thanks Anders. It isn't the envelope temperature that was the problem. > Rather it was the innermost MNeurons appeared to have insufficient view of > cold space to remain at a temperature low enough to operate a > microprocessor. However, what I am checking now is if that problem is a You'd use different technologies in lower layer. E.g. SiC works well enough at 800 K, which is hot enough to emit to power the next layer. Stuff outside could be superconductive/ballistic transport, so it has to be cold. > characteristic of the particular design I chose. So here's my next task: I > need to create a model for the equilibrium temperature of each layer of > MNeurons as a function of the physical characteristics of the MNeuron, such > as thickness, diameter and so forth. As a first approximation, you can model them as spherical blackbodies. On the other hand, photonic sail for orbit control would be best done as flat disks. > If the outer envelope is big enough, the temperature out there is plenty > cool. It might be as simple as the innermost MNeurons need to orbit at a Nodes. > sufficient radius and sufficient separation from the next layer to maintain > a temperature within the acceptable range. The node cloud is a spherical shell with empty space inside where it's too hot. This is a deviation from relativistic lag, which asks for a spherical assembly. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 28 14:34:45 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:34:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317147690.95711.YahooMailNeo@web160616.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <201109271456.p8REughb010867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1317147690.95711.YahooMailNeo@web160616.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 27 September 2011 19:21, Dan wrote: > Knowing many actual minarchists, I'm not so sure. Minarchists -- people who > believe in a libertarian state (an oxymoron by my reckoning) -- are often > the most vehements critics of anarchism in any form, including market > anarchism. Granted, some minarchists do, no doubt, become anarchists; > probably most market anarchists went through an evolution from minarchist to > anarchist. But that most market anarchists were once minarchists doesn't > mean most minarchists will become anarchists. > I found this interesting - Just for the record, it was the other way around for me. I started out as a teenage anarchist, with an educated understanding of anarchism, but a pretty half-baked understanding of AnCap. As time went by I decided there was need for some kind of State to handle certain functions I see as essential or even laudable for the government to handle, and so figured that made me a Minarchist. That would almost certainly be the point at which I was no longer a libertarian according to the non-coercion principle, but I don't remember anyone pointing this out to me at the time. That leaves me in what currently seems a strange no-man's-land, in which I personally advocate government with a strictly bounded jurisdiction, but it seems cannot accurately call myself a Minarchist, and even less so a libertarian. - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 28 14:14:34 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:14:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Conversational rules (and metaconversational games) In-Reply-To: <004901cc7de6$7add1100$70973300$@att.net> References: <004901cc7de6$7add1100$70973300$@att.net> Message-ID: 2011/9/28 spike > ** ** > > On the contrary, ExI-chat is intentionally way more lightly moderated than > any internet group I know. This is sometimes to our detriment, but is in > keeping with the origins of this list. In my opinion, the benefits outweigh > the costs of doing business that way. We do sometimes need to suffer fools > (not you, Amon, but you may have read some here occasionally) in order to > encourage open expression. > LOL - fair enough, and thanks for the clarification Spike; it's much appreciated! ;-) - A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Sep 28 14:45:30 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 07:45:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <20110928130624.GI25711@leitl.org> References: <07ae01cc7d3c$582f0cd0$088d2670$@att.net> <4E82ED6C.2070601@aleph.se> <20110928130624.GI25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <007801cc7ded$458cac70$d0a60550$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Subject: Re: [ExI] mbrains again: request On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:48:28AM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > spike wrote: >> >> >>> Here?s the discovery. As far back as ten years ago, I was fooling >>> with MBrain orbit calculations and discovered that an MBrain can move >>> an entire star. This past weekend, I was using the same equations I >>> derived back then and discovered the original comment was an >>> understatement. Not only can an MBrain move a star, it must... s >> ...Just absorbing and re-radiating the luminosity as blackbodies produces a nice equilibrium temperature as far as I can see - ...Anders >...You need to use photon momentum (no need to waste mass) for active node orbit control, as otherwise the node cloud orbits will degenerate and you'll get internode collisions, which can cause a runaway collision catastrophe by way of fragments and turn your node cloud into a dusty fragment cloud... Hmmm, the adjacent rings have very low relative velocity. I need to refresh my memory from a long time ago, but a typical design had a ring of MNeurons spaced at one meter with the next ring a meter larger in radius tilted at a microradian. The relative velocity of an MNeuron in adjacent rings was on the order of a few cm per second. Wait, I might be able to do that to a single digit in my head: a microradian at I AU is about 150 km and it has three months to get there is about 1.5e5 meters and has about 8e6 seconds to get there and since it is a sinusoid you multiply by pi so ja, I am getting about 6 cm/sec relative velocity without messing up an envelope. 6 cm/sec, ha! Childs play. I see no reason why we would ever risk a runaway collision catastrophe. >...Is it even possible to push the entire assembly by emitting radiation mostly in one direction, climbing up in a higher orbit half the time, and descending down the other half? Ja I don't see why not. >...It's probably analytically too hard, so somebody could model it... Eugen* Leitl I am already working on it against time pressure. The pitch is on 4 November, and I need to have the answers in time to get the paper to the printers. My spreadsheets for equilibrium temperatures are not as solidly grounded as my orbit mechanics. {8-[ spike From amon at doctrinezero.com Wed Sep 28 14:54:03 2011 From: amon at doctrinezero.com (Amon Zero) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:54:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/27 Dan > > I'd have little problem as a libertarian if people want to keep paying -- > save with them paying for activities that by their nature violate rights. > >Once there is an exit option, even if most people don't use it, this doesn't mean the option is invalid. And, yes, >some people might stay out of habit, but my guess is were it voluntary, given the level of taxation, people who >continued to pay would mostly be those who wanted to. You know, this idea intrigues me, for the simple reason that on the one hand, studies in the cognitive science of Judgment & Decision Making JDM strongly suggest that the vast majority of people would stick with the default option (which would be paying tax in an opt-out system). On the other hand, there would be a *huge* monetary incentive to opt-out! That doesn't mean people*would* opt-out; it just means that it'd be very interesting (psychologically speaking) if they didn't. I'll have a look around in the literature and see what kind of sums people will implicitly pay in order to stick with the default. Most studies I'm aware of are in the domain of pensions, so not quite on the scale of tax payments I guess, but if I find anything interesting I'll let you know. Amon said: > Anyway, none of this is directly relevant to my original question, which > was whether libertarians would just accept majority judgment if it turned > out that people *did* want to pay taxes. Dan said: > Do you just mean: if most people want to pay for these things absent > coercion, then they should be allowed to. Yes, I'd agree. And that would be > consistent with libertarianism as I understand -- with the exception of > paying for things that inherently or essentially violate rights. Or do you > mean: if most people want to pay for these things absent coercion, then > everyone else should pay for these things too? In that case, no. Even if the > majority wants to pay, this should no infringe on anyone else's freedom to > not pay and to not be coerced for not paying. > I meant the stronger - latter - case. The scenario I intended to convey was as follows: 1) Libertarians get into power and enact radical reforms 2) Public reacts badly and calls for repeal of all such reforms, effectively voting for coercion and making it unlikely that the libertarians will get their way any time soon 3) Libertarians tend to react... how, I wonder? I think the softer scenario (coercion isn't involved, but people can still choose to pay) is compatible with libertarianism, so it doesn't get at the potential tension between libertarianism and majority-decided-policy (i.e. democracy). The scenario described above might be wildly unlikely, I don't know, and it is probably a question none of us can answer with authority, but I *was* interested to see that one or two people essentially responded with "of course there's a tension between libertarianism and democracy", which suggests that the perception is 'out there', rather than simply some random musing on my part. I just have a fascination with situations where a stance can in fact imply its polar opposite, taoism-style, and wondered if this might be one such situation, with a desire for personal liberty leading some people down a road where they would deny the wishes of most others. I'm not saying that would be indefensible, per se - just that it would be very interesting, I think. Cheers, A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 28 15:03:48 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:03:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <007801cc7ded$458cac70$d0a60550$@att.net> References: <07ae01cc7d3c$582f0cd0$088d2670$@att.net> <4E82ED6C.2070601@aleph.se> <20110928130624.GI25711@leitl.org> <007801cc7ded$458cac70$d0a60550$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110928150348.GM25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 07:45:30AM -0700, spike wrote: > Hmmm, the adjacent rings have very low relative velocity. I need to refresh my > memory from a long time ago, but a typical design had a ring of MNeurons spaced > at one meter with the next ring a meter larger in radius tilted at a microradian. Where did the one meter spacing come from? There's an obvious advantage of using a closest packing of computational cells to minimize signalling distance and maximize performance, which is then only limited to maximum dissipable volumetric power density. As a hunch, that volume would be cubic meters, not cubic mm. Depending on the power, that would be km^2 of PV/sail/radiator surface, with according elbow room to spare for sail maneuvres, and such -- that would be some 1-10 km spacing at least. That much space is not a problem relativistically, as high-order processes would be slow anyway. At that size the speed delta would be enough to wreck the sail. Loss of orbit control would bring nodes from nonadjacent layers to collision. > The relative velocity of an MNeuron in adjacent rings was on the order of a It's a node, not a neuron. > few cm per second. Wait, I might be able to do that to a single digit in > my head: a microradian at I AU is about 150 km and it has three months to I see no reason to go to down to Mercury orbit for the inner layer, or shortly above. > get there is about 1.5e5 meters and has about 8e6 seconds to get there and > since it is a sinusoid you multiply by pi so ja, I am getting about 6 cm/sec > relative velocity without messing up an envelope. > > 6 cm/sec, ha! Childs play. I see no reason why we would ever risk a runaway collision catastrophe. > > >...Is it even possible to push the entire assembly by emitting radiation mostly in one direction, climbing up in a higher orbit half the time, and descending down the other half? > > Ja I don't see why not. I'm not sure random orbit corrections balance themselves out so that you can fire at will most of the time. The emergent behaviour strikes me as potentially extremely hirsute. > >...It's probably analytically too hard, so somebody could model it... Eugen* Leitl > > I am already working on it against time pressure. The pitch is on 4 November, and I need to have the answers in time to get the paper to the printers. My spreadsheets for equilibrium temperatures are not as solidly grounded as my orbit mechanics. {8-[ It would be interesting to model as a swarm, with each agent given behaviour constraints to conserve. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Wed Sep 28 15:52:58 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:52:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <20110928150348.GM25711@leitl.org> References: <07ae01cc7d3c$582f0cd0$088d2670$@att.net> <4E82ED6C.2070601@aleph.se> <20110928130624.GI25711@leitl.org> <007801cc7ded$458cac70$d0a60550$@att.net> <20110928150348.GM25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <008d01cc7df6$b2c5b530$18511f90$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Subject: Re: [ExI] mbrains again: request On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 07:45:30AM -0700, spike wrote: >>... Hmmm, the adjacent rings have very low relative velocity... >...Where did the one meter spacing come from?... It was just an example design. I had disk-shaped nodes of one gram and 100 cm^2, so it would had the thickness of household aluminum foil and be the diameter of a CD or DVD. >... There's an obvious advantage of using a closest packing of computational cells to minimize signalling distance and maximize performance, which is then only limited to maximum dissipable volumetric power density. As a hunch, that volume would be cubic meters, not cubic mm. Depending on the power, that would be km^2 of PV/sail/radiator surface, with according elbow room to spare for sail maneuvres, and such -- that would be some 1-10 km spacing at least. That much space is not a problem relativistically, as high-order processes would be slow anyway... This will be an interesting exercise to have several of us propose MBrain designs and try to calculate orbits and temperatures. >...At that size the speed delta would be enough to wreck the sail. Loss of orbit control would bring nodes from nonadjacent layers to collision... Agreed, which is why I went with a ring of nodes about 120 mm spaced at 1 meter. The next ring outboard would have an orbit radius of 1 meter greater and the next ring inboard a radius of 1 meter less. The innermost ring I arbitrarily chose as orbiting at one AU, the orbit we know so very well. This was chosen just to give us a little intuitive feel for how things go. If so, imagine yourself as a node, not the innermost ring, but somewhere inboard-ish. You would see stationary nodes to your east and west (assume the sunward direction I down and the other way is up.) Twice a year you would see a node coming toward you from either the south or the north at about 6 cm/sec (assuming I did the previous BOTEC right) in the ring inboard and the one outboard. It wouldn't be the same node each time, because the nodes in the outboard ring orbit slightly slower and the one inboard slightly faster. >> few cm per second. Wait, I might be able to do that to a single digit > in my head: a microradian at I AU is about 150 km and it has three > months to >...I see no reason to go to down to Mercury orbit for the inner layer, or shortly above. Not Mercury, I meant orbiting at 1 AU, your corresponding node in the adjacent ring would appear to pass you at 6 cm/sec, wander north 150 km and take three months to get there. Then it would turn around and come back and arrive three months after that, but that particular node would be a few meters west this time. A different node would pass by at 1 meter. Eugen, this verbal salad is surely confusing, apologies. I need to come up with some graphics. Do you guys have PowerPoint? I encourage a specific design with hard numbers. Then we can derive the general formulae. >...I'm not sure random orbit corrections balance themselves out so that you can fire at will most of the time. The emergent behaviour strikes me as potentially extremely hirsute. Cool, hirsute, I learn a new word this day. What has hairy to do with an MBrain please? {8-] > >... My spreadsheets for equilibrium temperatures are not as solidly grounded as my orbit mechanics. {8-[ >...It would be interesting to model as a swarm, with each agent given behaviour constraints to conserve. -- Eugen* Leitl Regarding difficulty in modeling, I do encourage you to pick numbers and imagine how stability and control can be achieved. My design has a mostly reflective surface with some PVs, 120 mm diameter discs with mass of one gram, three LCD patches spaced at 120 degrees of about 1 cm^2 area each. These three patches can be switched to either dark or reflective to create a three legged stool of sorts, to turn and maintain any orientation with respect to the sun. Once I get hard numbers on that, I will be willing to analyze other designs. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Sep 28 16:48:56 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <4E82ECB0.2070609@aleph.se> Message-ID: <1317228536.91932.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Wed, 9/28/11, Anders Sandberg wrote: ?"if you could move particles with mass faster than gravity waves then you would presumably get an analogous divergence of gravitational Cherenkov radiation ("gravity shockwaves")." Perhaps not if the mass in question is an imaginary mass. "? This likely precludes neutrinos from going faster than the speed of gravity waves, given that they have been observed to have mass." What was observed was that neutrinos oscillate between its electron muon and tau flavors; the reasoning was that if it had no mass it would be moving at the speed of light and at that speed time would come to a standstill from its point of view so there is no way it could change from one flavor to another. So it must have mass. But of course if the neutrino was traveling not at but faster than light then time would start moving again, backwards. There have been attempts to directly measure the mass of the neutrino, or rather due to the experimental setup, the mass-squared of the neutrino, and they got a negative number. At the time everybody, including the experimenters, thought these absurd results were a sign that the experiment was a failure, but we all know what you get when you square an imaginary number. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 17:35:02 2011 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:35:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/28 Amon Zero > I just have a fascination with situations where a stance can in fact imply > its polar opposite, taoism-style, and wondered if this might be one such > situation, with a desire for personal liberty leading some people down a > road where they would deny the wishes of most others. I'm not saying that > would be indefensible, per se - just that it would be very interesting, I > think. > So have I. In principle, I am temperamentally quite libertarian, but have a pretty different ideological background, which suggests that unless collective liberties and self-determination, such as that concerning the abilities of choosing one's constitutional and legal system, are taken into account, "freedom" risk to be limited to a sociological equivalent of Brownian gas molecular movements, molecules moving in all directions but basically not going anywhere. I suspect that an interesting, albeit tentative and limited, reconciliation of those two ideas might be what once went under the say "voting with your feet", and which in the "virtuality" age may take an altogether metaphorical sense. That is, especially once territory and control thereof becomes (again) less important in defining political communities than other forms of affiliations, one does not really see why, even from a libertarian POV, a group of people should be prevented from defining boundaries and internal rules the way it prefers, and Darwinian mechanisms should not be trusted in keeping such rules as "efficient" and "honest" as possible, be it in very diverse ways of functioning and competing. This is one additional reason, btw, to see globalisation, in its ability to enforce conformity with universal social norms, as a threat more than an opportunity for any kind of posthuman and post-"traditional politics" change. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 20:03:43 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:03:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317168415.8589.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317168415.8589.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: First, a correction. In my original post, at the end of the paragraph that begins, "Let me explain", I wrote: "No such realms as past or present exist." Should have been "...past or future." 2011/9/27 Dennis May : > The concept of Planck-Time has been observationally discredited: > > http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Astronomers_Deal_Another_Blow_To_Quantum_Theories_Of_Time__Space__Gravity.html This may be the case, or not, or it may not be relevant. Clearly the more detail ongoing research reveals about physics, the more uncertainty arises. The more we find out, the more questions we have and the more uncertainty we acknowledge regarding physics "truth". That said, I used the Plank scale notion because it has (or had) some currency. But my point doesn't need the Plank-scale notion. My point was/is -- and I state it as a proposition for consideration, not as an assertion -- time in bulk, time as history, is a mental convention. Past and future "exist" only as abstractions. The source of all our time-related notions comes from the iterative "reset" of the universe from the current "now" state to the next "now" state. This sequential reset somehow translates into the "rate of progression" which we call time. I'm only just starting to think along these lines. If anyone wants to jump in, have at it. Even if only to tell me not to give up my day job. Best, Jeff Davis "For almost a century, quantum mechanics was like a Kabbalistic secret that God revealed to Bohr, Bohr revealed to the physicists, and the physicists revealed (clearly) to no one. So long as the lasers and transistors worked, the rest of us shrugged at all the talk of complementarity and wave-particle duality, taking for granted that we'd never understand, or need to understand, what such things actually meant. But today - largely because of quantum computing - the Schrodinger's cat is out of the bag, and all of us are being forced to confront the exponential Beast that lurks inside our current picture of the world." -Scott Aaronson From dennislmay at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 20:30:47 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Billions of Interstellar Planets Message-ID: <1317241847.4267.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Was a Giant Planet Ejected From Our Solar System? ? http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/28/was-giant-planet-ejected-from-our-solar-system/?test=faces ? Billions of free floating planets and trillions of smaller ice bodies between every visible star. ? The next time some so called expert claims the stars are too far apart for interstellar travel to ever be practical - ignore that mindset.? It would be like saying the Midwest will never be settled because there are no?five star?hotels between New York City and San Francisco. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Sep 28 20:49:02 2011 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:49:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Risks In-Reply-To: References: <1317168415.8589.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110928164902.kujv9haz1ck40wsc@webmail.natasha.cc> Hi - I am having trouble locating who coined the phrase "existential risk".? I remember that Bostrom has written extensively on it, but I had thought that the phrase/term was used elsewhere prior to Nick's writings.? Also, I am referring to "extinction risk" in a paper, and I do not know who coined this?? Anyone know?. Thanks so much! Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 21:42:50 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? Message-ID: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Jeff Davis wrote: > My point was/is -- and I state it as a proposition for consideration, > not as an assertion -- time in bulk, time as history, is a mental > convention.? Past and future "exist" only as abstractions.? The source > of all our time-related notions comes from the iterative "reset" of > the universe from the current "now" state to the next "now" state. > This sequential reset somehow translates into the "rate of > progression" which we call time. ? The classical physics view is a continuum of states from the past to the future.? I don't see that you are saying anything different. Is?discrete change versus?continuous change what you are interested in? ? Scott Aaronson quote: "For almost a century, quantum mechanics was like a Kabbalistic secret that God revealed to Bohr, Bohr revealed to the physicists, and the physicists revealed (clearly) to no one. So long as the lasers and transistors worked, the rest of us shrugged at all the talk of complementarity and wave-particle duality, taking for granted that we'd never understand, or need to understand, what such things actually meant. But today - largely because of quantum computing - the Schrodinger's cat is out of the bag, and all of us are being forced to confront the exponential Beast that lurks inside our current picture of the world." ? I am no fan of Bohr to be certain.??I?do not believe a?correct understanding of QM involves the kind of indeterminism or involvement of mysterious processes Bohr wanted to believe. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 22:53:19 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:53:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request Message-ID: 2011/9/27 spike : > It has been almost seven months since Robert Bradbury suddenly passed away. > We miss him like he left us yesterday. Indeed we do. My wife Gail and I moved to the Sunshine Coast of BC from the Bay Area in 2000. We became snow birds, wintering over in Baja; camping at first, and then in 2005 building a house just north of Los Barriles (near Cabo). [If any of you find yourself down that way in wintertime, be sure to email me and drop by for a visit. Weather's fine, but geeky company is scarce.] This north/south migratory existence took us through Seattle twice a year, and I would stop at Robert B's for a cup of coffee and a "brain dump". Robert would occasionally pause, to apologize for monopolizing the "conversation", and I would smile benignly, thinking to myself, "Give the man more caffeine, lest the brain dump slow down." It was a very happy arrangement. Then he sold his house and moved to Cambridge. And now, he's gone. No cryonics. No chance. A trans-humanist tragedy. Damn! Anyway... This talk of M brains, has brought me back to the Solid Dyson Sphere. As list readers know the solid Dyson Sphere is held to be unworkable for two reasons (at least): first, gravity will not hold the captive star in the center of the sphere, so it could move toward the solid shell and disrupt the arrangement. Second, while the equatorial belt of the sphere can be maintained against gravity by the rotation of the sphere, the poles are not so supported, and the material strength needed to support the polar hemispheres does not appear to exist in the current list of available materials. Fine. Consider then, a different approach. Consider the solid, non-rotating shell as a pressure vessel. The sun is mostly hydrogen, 92 % H, and 7 % He. If you enclose it, slowing the rate of radiation release, the thermal profile, as a function of radius T(r), must change. All temps go up. The sun becomes a pressurized, red "not-giant", confined within the solid shell. The shell is supported by the pressure of the heated and expanded H/He. Any off-center drift by the star increases the temp and pressure on the nearer inside hemisphere, causing the system to passively restore itself to a centered-in-the-shell configuration (Actually, I would guess the steady-state condition to be an (apparent) oscillation of the star back and forth through the geometric center of the shell). There is an abundance of questions to be dealt with: radius of the shell, temp of confined gas in contact with the shell, internal pressure needed to support the shell, method os construction of the shell which presumably has to take place ***before*** the rise in temp. Enjoy. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 23:21:13 2011 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:21:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1317168415.8589.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > I'm only just starting to think along these lines. ?If anyone wants to > jump in, have at it. ?Even if only to tell me not to give up my day > job. I follow your visualization ( i think ) It seems obvious that in a 4d spacetime that there is no inherent reason for any dimension to be perceived any particular way. It's even simpler to imagine an arbitrary plane (2d) subsection of a 3d space. The flatlanders experience their "northward" direction at a right angle to the next adjacent cube-face's 'parallel world' version of a 'northward' direction. From our experience outside this 3d space, we can see these cube faces as separate lower-dimensional existences with some orientation or relationship to each other. The inhabitants of each plane, while being mathematical genius of simple geometry have barely scratched the surface (sorry) of topological thinking. Edwin Abbot Abbot's "Flatlanders" does this concept much more justice that I have space (and time!) to relate here (and now). I also imagine the HereNow moment you describe as the only reality is the center of the universe (or A universe). There is no reason there should be a "smooth" progression from one point to another. Our awareness of moment-to-moment might be recorded as a sequence of odd-numbered coordinates, prime-numbered coordinates, or some oscillation function with no discernible pattern at all. The perception of a history of moments may be contained in the HereNow moment itself and any observance of a next moment already contains some vector of the perception of history and future. I imagine the nodal point of a soundwave (for example) being instantaneously silent, but actually being a unique combination of potentially hundreds of individual waves that happen to be in-phase with each other. Maybe the next- moment has a signature of its being some consistency with a particular carrier [wave] we experienced in the previous- moment. If I had any artistic ability, I imagine a picture would convey this idea much better than the wrongness of words. I'd like to continue this visualization into an example of a spacetime foam, but I have to go to class. If this thread is still alive next time I check email, I'll continue. :) From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 00:35:04 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request References: Message-ID: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I should say upfront that I am a critic of the concept of mbrains and Dyson Spheres and have been since I first heard of either. ? My primary issue is the question of the stability and safety of centralized versus distributed systems. ? I have argued at length elsewhere the vulnerability of centralized systems to WoMD attacks.? Those critical of my view assured me that the resources available to mbrains makes them invulnerable. The problem is there are always more resources outside of the influence of an mbrain than there are within.? No matter how large and how fortified - if it can't run and it can't hide - it is a target. ? The example of the Maginot Line illustrates the issue in non-WoMD terms.? Static defenses can be worked around.? With WoMD you just hit them and hit them until they give way - no matter how fortified. ? The replacement concept I support is called Superstealth [Dan Ust's name] or as?I call it SND - Stealth-Nomadic-Dispersed. ? It is the idea that WoMD are rendered impotent when you take your civilization on the road - stealth means you can't be seen, nomadic means you're on the move, and dispersed means?your?resources aren't all in one basket. ? I am not convinced that magnificent computing power requires the kind of size or power implied in the mbrain concept.? As the size of the brain increases there is more and more?need for internal controls over resources and computational time expenditure.? At some point internal deliberations on how to proceed could?take on a form of internal competition.? The mbrain could well conclude that for its own safety it needs to disperse - thus a partially constructed mbrain?evolves into?a distributed SND brain system before it gets very far into the process. ? Parallel and competing smaller brain systems can still form a superbrain when and if they see advantage in doing so. ? It is my view that long term survival and ability to adapt and improve will depend upon developing in something like the SND system. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 00:41:20 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Jeff Davis wrote: ? > "Continuous change" is macroscopic and classical and that is certainly > not what I looking at here. I'm concerned with iterative progression > (ie change) at whatever is the finest-grained scale. As I said in a previous post the concept of a "finest-grained scale" for time has been observationally discredited.? I understand you want to support a discrete or discontinuous view of time but I see no reason why it should be given a claim to superiority when it is observationally not the case. Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 00:28:25 2011 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:28:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/28 Dennis May : > The classical physics view is a continuum of states from the past > to the future.? I don't see that you are saying anything different. > Is?discrete change versus?continuous change what you are interested in? "Continuous change" is macroscopic and classical and that is certainly not what I looking at here. I'm concerned with iterative progression (ie change) at whatever is the finest-grained scale. I take the conventional view that at that scale quantum principles dominate. I figure there is at that level, an "atom" of time. But it's probably not "time" as we know it in the macroscopic sense, but rather the basis for macroscopic time. At the quantum level, as with other quantum phenomena, it likely would have that quantum weirdness (so non-intuitive that classically-trained physicists don't grok it easily) which "makes us rather bear the [physics] we have than fly to others that we know not of". All of which something of a distraction -- but I'm not dissing you about that. My point is that what becomes time as we "know" it at the macroscopic level, starts out as the "atom of iteration", that continually (not continuously) moves the universe along through our macroscopic, subjective, mentally-constructed notion of time. Hope this helps. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 29 01:23:58 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:23:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <014d01cc7e46$76d1e760$6475b620$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dennis May Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:35 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request >. I am a critic of the concept of mbrains and Dyson Spheres and have been since I first heard of either. No matter how large and how fortified - if it can't run and it can't hide - it is a target. Dennis May Dennis, on the contrary sir. An MBrain would have a most effective defense against any incoming weapon, either a natural object or a projectile made by alien hands (tentacles?) with apparent intent to harm. The MBrain would have a number of orbiting telescopes orbiting outboard of the last layer of nodes, constantly scanning the cosmos for any incoming object. If any of the telescopes spot anything, another one or two scopes lock on and determine its distance and path via parallax. If the object is on a collision course with the MBrain, then all 10^26 nodes pivot to focus sunlight on the incoming weapon or icy body, with similar results in either case: vaporizing it while still weeks or months away. The MBrain is a target, in a sense, but certainly not a helpless target. This one has a built-in speed of light self-defense system. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 01:49:58 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <014d01cc7e46$76d1e760$6475b620$@att.net> References: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <014d01cc7e46$76d1e760$6475b620$@att.net> Message-ID: <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Spike wrote: ? > The MBrain is a target, in a sense, but certainly not a helpless target.? > This one has a built-in speed of light self-defense system. ? Been through all that kind of discussion before.? Whatever defenses you build the resources outside to overcome them can be as large as it takes.? Beams of diffuse anti-matter dust are my favorite. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 08:31:52 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:31:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/29 Dennis May wrote: > As I said in a previous post the concept of a "finest-grained scale" > for time has been observationally discredited. That claim is too strong. Your reference is one astronomical observation that a proposed effect has not been detected. But that does not necessarily abolish Planck time. The impression I get is that most researchers don't even agree on what time *is*. Some think that a fundamental 'time' doesn't even exist. See: for a good discussion with plenty of further reading references. Quote: Perhaps readers who are not familiar with the current impossibility of reconciling relativity and quantum theory, may be visiting this site expecting to find an answer to the question "what is Space-Time?". Alas, there is no answer, at least not for now, and maybe never. ------------------------ BillK From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 10:12:50 2011 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 03:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? >________________________________ >From: Dennis May >To: "extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org" >Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:41 PM >Subject: Re: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? > > >Jeff Davis wrote: >? >> "Continuous change" is macroscopic and classical and that is certainly >> not what I looking at here. I'm concerned with iterative progression >> (ie change) at whatever is the finest-grained scale. > >As I said in a previous post the concept of a "finest-grained scale" >for time has been observationally discredited.? I understand you >want to support a discrete or discontinuous view of time but I see >no reason why it should be given a claim to superiority when it >is observationally not the case. Actually I have done some calculations and there is indeed a "finest-grained scale" for vacuum.?A photon that has a frequency greater than or equal to 5.223 * 10^42 Hz has a wavelength less than?its own?schwarzchild radius. Therefore it will form a black hole causally separating itself from the universe. What you fail to? understand?about?space-time is that it is not necessarily quantized iself but the manner in which?it interacts with matter is quantitized because matter itself is quantitized. Think atoms and other particles.?Incidently the maximum frequency limit on photons also?limits the optical?symbol rate through vacuum to about 10^43 baud. Therefore John Clark's infinite thoughts in finite time scheme won't work unless the practitioner doesn't mind becoming a black hole. ? ? Stuart LaForge "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators." - P. J. O'Rourke From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 29 14:06:41 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:06:41 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110929140641.GQ25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 05:35:04PM -0700, Dennis May wrote: > My primary issue is the question of the stability and > safety of centralized versus distributed systems. The circumstellar node cloud is pretty much the definition of a distributed, decentralized system. ? > I have argued at length elsewhere the vulnerability > of centralized systems to WoMD attacks.? Those > critical of my view assured me that the resources > available to mbrains makes them invulnerable. > The problem is there are always more resources > outside of the influence of an mbrain than there are > within.? No matter how large and how fortified - if > it can't run and it can't hide - it is a target. A phased array with 4 MT/s power budget can do some funky things. ? > The example of the Maginot Line illustrates the issue > in non-WoMD terms.? Static defenses can be worked > around.? With WoMD you just hit them and hit them > until they give way - no matter how fortified. > ? > The replacement concept I support is called Superstealth > [Dan Ust's name] or as?I call it SND - > Stealth-Nomadic-Dispersed. > ? > It is the idea that WoMD are rendered impotent when > you take your civilization on the road - stealth means > you can't be seen, nomadic means you're on the move, > and dispersed means?your?resources aren't all in one > basket. This is why we never left Africa. Wait, we did. Something doesn't add up. ? > I am not convinced that magnificent computing power > requires the kind of size or power implied in the mbrain > concept.? As the size of the brain increases there is more I'm not convinced that bipedal primates need the resources of an entire planet. Oh wait, we do. Something doesn't add up. > and more?need for internal controls over resources and > computational time expenditure.? At some point internal You could call it just living. Not much control with that, right? > deliberations on how to proceed could?take on a form > of internal competition.? The mbrain could well conclude Of course there's competition. Nobody abolished Darwin. > that for its own safety it needs to disperse - thus a partially It's a postbiosphere. By dispersing it you destroy the utility as a computational substrate. It's like all the cells in your body suddenly decide to disperse while you take a swim. > constructed mbrain?evolves into?a distributed SND brain > system before it gets very far into the process. > ? > Parallel and competing smaller brain systems can > still form a superbrain when and if they see advantage > in doing so. > ? > It is my view that long term survival and ability to > adapt and improve will depend upon developing in > something like the SND system. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 13:56:25 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317304585.58632.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The Avantguardian wrote: ? > Actually I have done some calculations and there is > indeed a "finest-grained scale" for vacuum. A photon > that has a frequency greater than or equal to > 5.223 * 10^42 Hz has a wavelength less than its own > schwarzchild radius. Therefore it will form a black > hole causally separating itself from the universe. ? This calculation assumes the correctness of General Relativity which cannot predict the velocity profiles of spiral galaxies even after dark matter was added to fix it.? [see previous post on this]? It would seem General Relativity is not so general. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 14:01:58 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <014d01cc7e46$76d1e760$6475b620$@att.net> <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317304918.82306.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On?Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:49 PM?Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com?wrote: > Spike wrote: >> The MBrain is a target, in a sense, but certainly not a helpless target.? >> This one has a built-in speed of light self-defense system. >? > Been through all that kind of discussion before.? Whatever defenses > you build the resources outside to overcome them can be as large > as it takes.? Beams of diffuse anti-matter dust are my favorite. I don't see why MBrains can't engage in stealth and mobility as part of their defense. Also, I would presume were MBrains feasible and there were these kinds of deceptive, dispersed threats, there would likely to be repair mechanisms. One might, say, nuke part of an MBrain, but that might be the equivelent of taking out a few nodes of gigantic network. The only problem then would be preventing?a catastrophic failure?from either the sheer number or nodes or uberconnected nodes from being taken out. I'm sure, if they're feasible and likely, that this problem will be solved simply because "natural" disasters might have similar impact and thus the sort of defense and repair or immune system response will have to evolve in them. ? Regards, ? Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 14:02:53 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere In-Reply-To: <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <014d01cc7e46$76d1e760$6475b620$@att.net> <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317304973.8684.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message body On?Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:49 PM?Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com?wrote: > Spike wrote: >> The MBrain is a target, in a sense, but certainly not a helpless target.? >> This one has a built-in speed of light self-defense system. >? > Been through all that kind of discussion before.? Whatever defenses > you build the resources outside to overcome them can be as large > as it takes.? Beams of diffuse anti-matter dust are my favorite. I don't see why MBrains can't engage in stealth and mobility as part of their defense. Also, I would presume were MBrains feasible and there were these kinds of deceptive, dispersed threats, there would likely to be repair mechanisms. One might, say, nuke part of an MBrain, but that might be the equivelent of taking out a few nodes of gigantic network. The only problem then would be preventing?a catastrophic failure?from either the sheer number or nodes or uberconnected nodes from being taken out. I'm sure, if they're feasible and likely, that this problem will be solved simply because "natural" disasters might have similar impact and thus the sort of defense and repair or immune system response will have to evolve in them. ? Regards, ? Dan From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 29 14:16:29 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:16:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <014d01cc7e46$76d1e760$6475b620$@att.net> <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110929141629.GR25711@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 06:49:58PM -0700, Dennis May wrote: > Been through all that kind of discussion before.? Whatever defenses > you build the resources outside to overcome them can be as large > as it takes.? Beams of diffuse anti-matter dust are my favorite. I don't see much difference between aliens and local agents. There's no additional incentive to annex from outside than from the inside, brute-force external attacks are logistically greatly disadvantaged, and of course you'd rather pwn to own. From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 29 14:19:48 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:19:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01e001cc7eb2$d8f97f90$8aec7eb0$@att.net> ----- On Behalf Of The Avantguardian Subject: Re: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? ? >...Actually I have done some calculations and there is indeed a "finest-grained scale" for vacuum.?A photon that has a frequency greater than or equal to 5.223 * 10^42 Hz has a wavelength less than?its own?schwarzchild radius. ...Stuart LaForge Avant, you know I love ya like a brother pal, but I think this is seriously wrong. To get to that number, you need to work backwards from the photon's momentum to get an equivalent mass for a photon. It's a fun mind expanding experience granted. I did that calculation in college so tragically many years ago (which is why I recognized the number.) For a few heady hours, thought I had discovered how to unify gravity with QM. But it didn't work out for me. {8-] Gravity and QM are so difficult to unify, it is almost like they are intentionally fighting each other. spike From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 14:35:47 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <01ea01cc7eb4$71ea5f20$55bf1d60$@att.net> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1317304585.58632.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <01ea01cc7eb4$71ea5f20$55bf1d60$@att.net> Message-ID: <1317306947.19108.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Spike wrote: ?> Indeed sir? The velocity profiles of spirals do not rely in any way on > General Relativity, or even Special Relativity. Good old Isaac Newton > covers it all. Granted, the distributions of dark matter required to explain > those velocity profiles are a puzzling head scratcher. I will be damned if > I can figure out how matter could distribute itself that way. ? OK neither General Relativity nor Newtonian gravity provide a correct answer even with dark matter.? Again this means General Relativity is not a general theory. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 14:25:12 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <4E828AC8.2080308@moulton.com> References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4E828AC8.2080308@moulton.com> Message-ID: <1317306312.54054.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On?Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:47 PM F. C. Moulton moulton at moulton.com wrote: > On 09/27/2011 11:55 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> Then who enforces that law?? If no one, anything goes and whoever can take, etc. > > Yet one more time when I really wish the entire archive of the extropy > email list was online so that a quick pointer could be provided since > polycentric law and related topics were discussed very early on. And more recently, I've raised some of these issues here and on other lists. > If people are really interested in these questions then just google >?for "polycentric law" and also read the many essays on privately >?provided non-government protection services.? Of course there >?will be many criticisms of these ideas and I am all for criticism of >?all ideas.? The literature on this topic is vast and I don't think, contrary to some, that these ideas and issues are going to go away. Surely, there's a certain trendiness at this time to libertarianism, but libertariansim has a longer history and an even longer past than just an American election cycle or two ago. >?What I would suggest is that those making the criticism > also apply the same level and types of criticism to their own pet >?ideas. That's true. I always try to avoid double standards in this area. This is why I don't believe a libertarian society will or must be populated with saints and angels while a statist one must be populated with either real world folks or monsters and demons. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 29 14:31:14 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:31:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317304585.58632.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1317304585.58632.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01ea01cc7eb4$71ea5f20$55bf1d60$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dennis May Subject: Re: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? >> .Actually I have done some calculations and there is indeed a "finest-grained scale" for vacuum. Avantguardian >.This calculation assumes the correctness of General Relativity which cannot predict the velocity profiles of spiral galaxies even after dark matter was added to fix it. [see previous post on this] It would seem General Relativity is not so general.Dennis May Indeed sir? The velocity profiles of spirals do not rely in any way on General Relativity, or even Special Relativity. Good old Isaac Newton covers it all. Granted, the distributions of dark matter required to explain those velocity profiles are a puzzling head scratcher. I will be damned if I can figure out how matter could distribute itself that way. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 14:49:23 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:49:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317306947.19108.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1317304585.58632.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <01ea01cc7eb4$71ea5f20$55bf1d60$@att.net> <1317306947.19108.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/29 Dennis May wrote: > OK neither General Relativity nor Newtonian gravity provide a correct > answer even with dark matter.? Again this means General Relativity > is not a general theory. > > No, it means it is not a Theory of Everything. I don't think anybody has ever claimed that GR explains everything. That's why so many researchers are still working on it. But GR has worked very well so far to get us to where we are now. BillK From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 15:07:07 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1317304585.58632.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <01ea01cc7eb4$71ea5f20$55bf1d60$@att.net> <1317306947.19108.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317308827.78633.YahooMailNeo@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> BillK wrote: > No, it means it is not a Theory of Everything. ? General Relativity fails in its most basic task of being a?correct theory of gravity.? A good approximation on some scales but certainly not a correct theory in general. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 15:03:34 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <01e001cc7eb2$d8f97f90$8aec7eb0$@att.net> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <01e001cc7eb2$d8f97f90$8aec7eb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <1317308614.76269.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Spike wrote: ? > Gravity and QM are so difficult to unify, it is > almost like they are intentionally fighting each other. ? Most researchers are trying to unify General Relativity [deterministic theory] with the conventional view of quantum mechanics [indeterministic theory].? Never mind that General Relativity fails to correctly predict the velocity profiles of spiral galaxies.? Never mind that conventional quantum mechanics cannot explain the collapse of wave functions - they are fundamentally incompatible theories solely on the question of determinism versus indeterminism. ? I support the approach of replacing both General Relativity and conventional QM with new deterministic theories. The new theories are evolutions of old deterministic theories. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 15:36:23 2011 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:36:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317308827.78633.YahooMailNeo@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1317304585.58632.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <01ea01cc7eb4$71ea5f20$55bf1d60$@att.net> <1317306947.19108.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317308827.78633.YahooMailNeo@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2011/9/29 Dennis May wrote: > General Relativity fails in its most basic task > of being a?correct theory of gravity.? A good > approximation on some scales but certainly not > a correct theory in general. > > There is no complete correct theory of gravity at present. GR has been well tested for gravitational predictions. See: GR is known to be incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. That's why researchers are still flogging away trying to work out a TOE. See: If you are going to continue making wild claims that you know where Einstein went wrong, I suggest you need to get more research papers published. You could start by trying to rewrite Wikipedia and see if the referees there let you get away with it. BillK From dennislmay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 16:01:49 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1317304585.58632.YahooMailNeo@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <01ea01cc7eb4$71ea5f20$55bf1d60$@att.net> <1317306947.19108.YahooMailNeo@web112111.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317308827.78633.YahooMailNeo@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317312109.53483.YahooMailNeo@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> BillK wrote: ? > If you are going to continue making wild claims > that you know where Einstein went wrong,... ? What specific claims have I made that you consider to be "wild".? I would like to sort them as my personal views, what has been known for decades, or what is recent evidence by observation. ? I am a big fan of Wikipedia but they are by no means a complete source of information nor the last word on anything.? I seriously doubt Jimmy Wales would claim they are.? They are very conscious of?not including?many kinds of non mainstream ideas. ? Dennis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 16:09:29 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317312569.98708.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:54 AM Amon Zero amon at doctrinezero.com wrote: >> I'd have little problem as a libertarian if people want to keep paying -- >> save with them paying for activities that by their nature violate rights. >> Once there is an exit option, even if most people don't use it, this doesn't >> mean the option is invalid. And, yes, some people might stay out of habit, >> but my guess is were it voluntary, given the level of taxation, people who >> continued to pay would mostly be those who wanted to. > > You know, this idea intrigues me, for the simple reason that on the one hand, > studies in the cognitive science of Judgment & Decision Making JDM strongly > suggest that the vast majority of people would stick with the default option > (which would be paying tax in an opt-out system). ? I'm not sure if such studies should be used to trump individual choice here. I mean, if you were living in a?place where everyone was?forced to worship the idol and defecate on anything smacking of science, would you argue for keeping?that?force in place because, well, studies have shown most people will continue to?worship the idol and defecate on anything smacking of science? ? > On the other hand, there would be a *huge* monetary incentive to opt-out! That > doesn't mean people*would* opt-out; it just means that it'd be very interesting > (psychologically speaking) if they didn't. ? I would also point out that folks at the margins -- ones who would opt out if given the choice, but, since there is no choice generally don't complain -- will probably lead the way. In other words, they'll opt out, then others will recognize there's a choice and start to opt out too. At least, this is my guess as what would happen. ? > I'll have a look around in the literature and see what kind of sums people will > implicitly pay in order to stick with the default. Most studies I'm aware of > are in the domain of pensions, so not quite on the scale of tax payments I > guess, but if I find anything interesting I'll let you know. ? ? IIRC, in the US, income tax evasion was much higher before withholding became the law. With withholding income, the problem is people have to do something to get it back. Before that, people had to do something positive to pay the tax. I think that might be part of the psychology here. But again, why should what many people or even most people might do be the rule for everyone else? ? Amon said: >>> Anyway, none of this is directly relevant to my original question, which >>> was whether libertarians would just accept majority judgment if it turned >>> out that people *did* want to pay taxes. >> Dan said: >> Do you just mean: if most people want to pay for these things absent coercion, >> then they should be allowed to. Yes, I'd agree. And that would be consistent >> with libertarianism as I understand -- with the exception of paying for >> things that inherently or essentially violate rights. Or do you mean: if >> most people want to pay for these things absent coercion, then everyone >> else should pay for these things too? In that case, no. Even if the majority >> wants to pay, this should no[t] infringe on anyone else's freedom to not pay >> and to not be coerced for not paying. > > I meant the stronger - latter - case. The scenario I intended to convey was as follows: > > 1) Libertarians get into power and enact radical reforms ? ? I'll continue along with your scenario, but the problem I see here with phrasing. Libertarians -- well, true libertarians -- wouldn't want to get into power, but to get rid of power. :) This is like saying, "When anarchist take over the state..." or "When atheists control the church..." ? > 2) Public reacts badly and calls for repeal of all such reforms, effectively > voting for coercion and making it > unlikely that the libertarians will get their way any time soon > 3) Libertarians tend to react... how, I wonder? ? I don't know how they will react. This is just a guess on anyone's part. And what sort of response are you expecting? They'll crack heads? I'd expect, under the scenario you're outlining, the public?-- by which I believe you just mean a majority -- would undo the reforms... Or, since libertarians would basically dismantle and abolish the state, that the rest of the people would simply reconstitute the state and that would be that. In which case, what would libertarians, either as individuals or en masse, be able to do? Emigrate? ? > I think the softer scenario (coercion isn't involved, but people can still > choose to pay) is compatible with libertarianism, so it doesn't get at the > potential tension between libertarianism and majority-decided-policy (i.e. > democracy). ? ? Recall when you mentioned the tension, I agreed there already was an antagonism. Libertarianism is not democratic. That might be shocking to those who are wed to the notion that democracy is sacred and all that, but libertarianism as such is NOT democratic. It actually stands against majority rule -- just as it stands against minority rule (oligarchy) and one individual ruling others (autocracy). In fact, libertarianism as such is against anyone ruling anyone else. (Again, this is not antinomian, but merely the view that sovereignty resides in the individual -- not in some person or group.) ? >?The scenario described above might be wildly unlikely, I don't > know, and it is probably a question none of us can answer with authority, > but I *was* interested to see that one or two people essentially responded > with "of course there's a tension between libertarianism and democracy", > which suggests that the perception is 'out there', rather than simply some > random musing on my part. ? I wonder, since you claim to have been an anarchocapitalist (or market anarchist), why this is news to you. No offence, but this is like Libertarianism 101. I mean to say that people who first learn about libertarianism often ask just this question and any libertarian thinker worth her or his salt, such as Rothbard or even minarchists like Nozick, have already answered this. The core principle of libertarianism establish a boundary that others -- whether they call themselves the king, the majority, the people, the rulers, the state, the public interest, the nation, the government, the super race, the annointed of God --?cannot cross... Well, cannot cross and remain consistent with libertarianism. ? > I just have a fascination with situations where a stance can in fact imply > its polar opposite, taoism-style, and wondered if this might be one such > situation, with a desire for personal liberty leading some people down a > road where they would deny the wishes of most others. I'm not saying that > would be indefensible, per se - just that it would be very interesting, I think. ? ? It would depend on the wishes of others, whether they are most others, a few others, or one other. Mere numbers wouldn't and shouldn't matter here. If these others wish to violate rights -- that is, to coerce -- then, yes, libertarians should be against them and go against these others wishes. This is no different than the person who wants to force me to adhere to his religion or believe his theory. The mere fact that many others follow him or that his faction currently holds power should not suddenly change my mind. Should it change yours? If so, why?? ? Regards, ? Dan From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Sep 29 16:45:39 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317314739.6112.YahooMailClassic@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Thu, 9/29/11, The Avantguardian wrote: "Therefore John Clark's infinite thoughts in finite time scheme won't work unless the practitioner doesn't mind becoming a black hole." It wasn't my scheme it was Frank Tipler's and it involved the Big Crunch, but recent developments in cosmology render it moot. However an Infinite number of thoughts still might be possible, you would need infinite energy and infinite time but with Dark Energy the cosmos might allow for that; also the thinking process would continuously get objectively slower and slower, but that's OK because subjectively it wouldn't slow down, like the series 1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5.... the terms keep getting smaller but the sum adds up to infinity. If this FTL business turns out to be true (a very big if) it could have some significance on this issue too. ?John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 16:45:04 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:45:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317312569.98708.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317312569.98708.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Dan wrote: > I'll continue along with your scenario, but the problem I see here with phrasing. Libertarians -- well, true libertarians -- wouldn't want to get into power, but to get rid of power. :) This is like saying, "When anarchist take over the state..." or "When atheists control the church..." In order to dismantle it, it helps to be in control - however briefly. Otherwise, how are you dismantling it? > Or, since libertarians would basically dismantle and abolish the state, that the rest of the people would simply reconstitute the state and that would be that. In which case, what would libertarians, either as individuals or en masse, be able to do? Emigrate? That is Amon's question - except, instead of "be able to do", what *would* they do? It is of note that, arguably, this has in fact happened. Some libertarian-leaning folk got into Congress and started dismantling parts of government over the past few decades. (They couldn't undo everything all at once - but they didn't have enough power to do that. So they did what they could.) The eventual popular reaction was to re-mantle. So, with evidence that the majority of people (who win in a democracy) reject the complete removal of government, and you can't simply impose anarchy (libertarian or otherwise) despite the wishes of the majority...what *will* you do? > The core principle of libertarianism establish a boundary that others -- whether they call themselves the king, the majority, the people, the rulers, the state, the public interest, the nation, the government, the super race, the annointed of God --?cannot cross... Well, cannot cross and remain consistent with libertarianism. The core problem is those who do not care about remaining consistent with libertarianism, or any other philosophy. They do what they want, and if that means busting other peoples' heads, they'll do it. As I posted earlier, it is impossible to effectively deal with these people without abrogating libertarianism. Either you constrain force response to when they are immediately present - in which case, they hit-and-run, knowing that you are bound to give up the moment they are out of sight and can claim they weren't there - or you allow for eventual response - in which case, you very quickly run into situations where you don't know who initiated force against you, but none of them wish to cooperate with you, so your use of force (necessary to discover the perpetrator) will likely initiate force against people who had nothing to do with the offense you're retaliating for. From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 29 17:39:14 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:39:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317312569.98708.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006c01cc7ece$b4ffaf80$1eff0e80$@att.net> >> .... Libertarians -- well, true libertarians -- wouldn't want to get into power, but to get rid of power. :) This is like saying, "When anarchist take over the state..." or "When atheists control the church..." Dan >...In order to dismantle it, it helps to be in control - however briefly. Otherwise, how are you dismantling it? Adrian No need to be in power. The world's biggest governments are in the process of dismantling themselves. In the US, the government has forced its citizens into an an unfunded pension program, then borrowed the money out of it and spent it with no reasonable way to pay it back. Europe: You Germans need to work harder, so we Greeks can continue to sit on our alpha sigma sigma epsilon sigmas and take longer vacations. China: citizen work hard, collect piles of paper currency from Europe and America, plenty safe investment. Governments will get smaller because their own policies will force them to. spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 18:32:02 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317312569.98708.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317321122.91704.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:45 PM Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Dan wrote: >> I'll continue along with your scenario, but the problem I see here >> with phrasing. Libertarians -- well, true libertarians -- wouldn't >> want to get into power, but to get rid of power. :) This is like >> saying, "When anarchist take over the state..." or "When atheists >> control the church..." > > In order to dismantle it, it helps to be in control - however briefly. > Otherwise, how are you dismantling it? By no longer obeying its edicts. In fact, my view is not to elect anyone to office, but just to get people to stop obeying the state and overall seeing the state as legitimate. This will likely take a long time, which is bad news for those who want the state to disappear by the end of this year or election cycle. But this problem, to me, is not one of dismantling or abolishing the state must proceed in a gradual fashion or is really hard to do. I don't think it is. Instead, what's hard is to persuade people that the state is illegitimate and unnecessary. That will take a long time, I guessing -- at least to persuade a significant minority. (That even most people who fancy themselves libertarians don't see the state as such as illegitimate and unnecessary reveals the scope of this problem.) ? >> Or, since libertarians would basically dismantle and abolish the >> state, that the rest of the people would simply reconstitute the >> state and that would be that. In which case, what would >> libertarians, either as individuals or en masse, be able to do? >> Emigrate? > > That is Amon's question - except, instead of "be able to do", what > *would* they do? >? > It is of note that, arguably, this has in fact happened.? Some > libertarian-leaning folk got into Congress and started > dismantling parts of government over the past few decades. ? I must have missed this. What parts of the state were dismantled "over the past few decades"? I can think of one that happened back in the 1933: the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed. I'm sure that's not what you meant. Where was part of the state dismantled? And who were these "libertarian-leaning folk"? ? > (They couldn't undo everything all at once - but they didn't have > enough power to do that.? So they did what they could.)? The > eventual popular reaction was to re-mantle. ? Again, what was dimantled, even in part? I think the growth of government has been pretty consistent over the last several decades, at least in the US. (One might point to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire as an example of government shrinking.) I don't want to make it seem like there have been no brights spots for those who champion freedom, but I'm just having a hard time seeing where government or part of it was dismantled and then "re-mantled" in the US. (Or did you mean elsewhere?) ? Wait! I can think of the partial deregulation in the airline, trucking, and energy industries (started under the Carter Administration, IIRC; do you mean Carter had many libertarians in his cabinet or amongst his advisors?)?and the abolition of many of the Nixon Era price controls (I believe this started under Ford Administraton and continued under the Carter one), but there has been little re-mantling there, no? So, these can really fit your model, no? ? What about, in the US again, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrinue? This was not done by the Congress and doesn't seem to have yet been "re-mantled." Did you mean that? ? (Granted, in all these areas, while the government hasn't reimposed these policies, there have definitely been calls to do so.) ? > So, with evidence that the majority of people (who win in a democracy) > reject the complete removal of government, and you can't simply > impose anarchy (libertarian or otherwise) despite the wishes of > the majority...what *will* you do? See above. But let's say persuasion never works. There are other options, including seceding or migrating else. ? >> The core principle of libertarianism establish a boundary that >> others -- whether they call themselves the king, the majority, >> the people, the rulers, the state, the public interest, the nation, >> the government, the super race, the annointed of God -- cannot >> cross... Well, cannot cross and remain consistent with libertarianism. > > The core problem is those who do not care about remaining consistent with > libertarianism, or any other philosophy.? ? Amon and I were discussing, however, libertarianism -- in particular, whether it clashes with democracy (IMO, it does). Amon also raised the issue of going against the wishes of the majority. And my answer was this doesn't matter from a libertarian perspective. In other word, as a libertarian, one wouldn't ask, "Do the majority want to burn alive all Black people? Oh, they do, then I must be for that and I'm consistently libertarian." In fact, in this example, yeah, sure, if the majority wants to do this and wants to do this strongly, libertarians are in a real pickle in terms of stopping it from happening. But any of them that state this is libertarian or that one can remain a libertarian whilst going along with this majority ruling is just plain wrong. ? >?They do what they want, and > if that means busting other peoples' heads, they'll do it.? As I > posted earlier, it is impossible to effectively deal with these > people without abrogating libertarianism. ? And I thought Fred pointed out why this was wrong. Libertarianism can deal with retaliation. The rule is no initiation of force. This doesn't mean others won't initiate force. It's merely a view of when force is allowed. Once someone else initiates, libertarianism does not counsel nothing be done. ? >?Either you constrain force > response to when they are immediately present - in which case, > they hit-and-run, knowing that you are bound to give up the moment > they are out of sight and can claim they weren't there - or you > allow for eventual response - in which case, you very quickly run > into situations where you don't know who initiated force against > you, but none of them wish to cooperate with you, so your use of force > (necessary to discover the perpetrator) will likely initiate force > against people who had nothing to do with the offense you're > retaliating for. ? I don't where this is coming from. You might want to read up the market anarchists on how to deal with law enforcement or in general with how to deal with those who initiate force in society. For instance, George H. Smith's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market" (PDF at http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_4.pdf?). Many of the ideas on how this would done without initiating are similar to Common Law notions of what people can and cannot do when trying to defend themselves, recover stolen property, or bring to justice people who have injured them or others. Your view seems akin to: You won't initiate force, so unless you're in a heated gun battle with those who don't care about initiating force, you're stuck to doing nothing. That's definitely not the libertarian view or even the anarchist libertarian view. ? Regards, ? Dan From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 19:00:06 2011 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:00:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] David Weber signs a film deal for his Honorverse series Message-ID: The "Honorverse" science fiction series by David Weber, is going to have a big budget Hollywood film adaptation. Cross your fingers that they do a good job... http://forums.davidweber.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2255&start=20 If you know nothing about the books... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Harrington John : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Sep 29 19:48:00 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <01ea01cc7eb4$71ea5f20$55bf1d60$@att.net> Message-ID: <1317325680.15674.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Thu, 9/29/11, spike wrote: ?"The velocity profiles of spirals do not rely in any way on General Relativity, or even Special Relativity.? Good old Isaac Newton covers it all.? Granted, the distributions of dark matter required to explain those velocity profiles are a puzzling head scratcher.? I will be damned if I can figure out how matter could distribute itself that way."Yeah but just yesterday in Nature it was announced that the way light is red-shifted due to gravity from the center of galactic clusters to their edge exactly corresponds to what General Relativity predicts; light at the center of clusters had to climb out of a deeper gravity well than from the edge of the galactic cluster thus more red-shift. This is the first time its been observed to operate over such a huge scale. Einstein's not dead yet. ?http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/einstein-bounces-back-as-doubt-cast-another-fundamental-theory-confirmed-20110929-1ky3o.html ? John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 21:10:42 2011 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:10:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317321122.91704.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317312569.98708.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317321122.91704.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Dan wrote: > But this problem, to me, is not one of dismantling or abolishing the state must proceed in a gradual fashion or is really hard to do. I don't think it is. Instead, what's hard is to persuade people that the state is illegitimate and unnecessary. That will take a long time, I guessing -- at least to persuade a significant minority. Try "impossible". The state has a much larger propaganda machine to tell people it is legitimate and necessary. This can and will completely counter any major gains you realize, in short order. Or did you think this was a 1 player game? You can not defeat a much larger and more powerful opponent by assuming it will not competently react to any threats that become significant. >> It is of note that, arguably, this has in fact happened.? Some >> libertarian-leaning folk got into Congress and started >> dismantling parts of government over the past few decades. > > I must have missed this. What parts of the state were dismantled "over the past few decades"? Financial deregulation, for one. Certain Republicans are all for letting banks do as they please. If they could get away with it, they'd quickly draft and sign legislation saying that no one may initiate force against banks, for any reason. They have at least lowered this - lower capital gains tax rates, less things that could be cited as legal reasons to initiate force (via police & court proxies) against them, and so on. Yes, it's not absolutely freeing them from force - but there is a major difference between what they have to deal with, and what the average citizen has to deal with. Progress that is not perfect and complete is progress nonetheless. Sometimes, it is the only way: people might never accept a sudden transition, but will accept a slow transition comprised of many small changes over time, even if both lead to the same end. Granted, banks haven't been put all the way back where they were yet. But for example, the TARP funds were given to bail out banks - and then handed to executives as large bonuses. This practice was then restricted, with quite a bit of these bonuses taken back (by force), until the banks paid the funds back. > See above. But let's say persuasion never works. There are other options, including seceding or migrating else. People have tried to secede. That tends to get responded to with force, before the seceders can gather anywhere near enough force to stop this. Indeed, the mere gathering of force by non-government entities tends to get cracked down upon, specifically to prevent anyone from being able to resist government force. That leaves migration. Unless you have a way to counter the government's persuasion, which acts on a similar scale and with similar objectives as the aforementioned physical force? If you don't, and those are your only options, and you're seriously dedicated to living by your principles, then you owe it to yourself to leave ASAP. >>?They do what they want, and >> if that means busting other peoples' heads, they'll do it.? As I >> posted earlier, it is impossible to effectively deal with these >> people without abrogating libertarianism. > > And I thought Fred pointed out why this was wrong. Libertarianism can deal with retaliation. The rule is no initiation of force. This doesn't mean others won't initiate force. It's merely a view of when force is allowed. Once someone else initiates, libertarianism does not counsel nothing be done. Right, but how about when you don't know where the force came from, and thus who to retaliate upon? Let's say someone in a mask takes your wallet and runs away. You later catch up to the person - and there are 5 similar people, any one of whom could have done the deed. They all have guns, and all of them have committed to retaliating to any initiation of force in their presence with deadly force. You claim that one of them initiated force against you - but they ignore any and all evidence you have, up to and including your wallet being on the ground near them. (They claim it's their wallet, and they were discussing which of them should hold it.) Only one of them actually initiated force against you. Attack, and you have a 4 in 5 chance of being wrong - and a 5 in 5 chance that they will all retaliate against you. Bring in a bunch of friends, and - well, they're not giving up that wallet unless you initiate force against them. Again, 4 in 5 chance of getting the wrong person. If it is legitimate to attack the thief's allies just because they refuse to admit to the deed and have vowed to defend one another - well, the allies haven't actually initiated any force themselves, have they? You are initiating force against them, no matter how you try to justify it. This is just one of the many, many tricks people have developed over millennia to get around this kind of philosophical binding. > You might want to read up the market anarchists on how to deal with law enforcement or in general with how to deal with those who initiate force in society. For instance, George H. Smith's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market" (PDF at http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_4.pdf?). Many of the ideas on how this would done without initiating are similar to Common Law notions of what people can and cannot do when trying to defend themselves, recover stolen property, or bring to justice people who have injured them or others. Your view seems akin to: You won't initiate force, so unless you're in a heated gun battle with those who don't care about initiating force, you're stuck to doing nothing. That's definitely not the libertarian view or even the anarchist libertarian view. Actually, that is what it reduces to, because anything aside from that - recovering stolen property, bringing people to justice, anything aside from immediate self-defense - requires that you commit an action that someone can claim is you initiating force, at some point. The government uses this reasoning too. For example, if you seriously start to gather enough military power that you have a credible chance of seceeding - the only reason some non-government entity could want to collect that power within a country's borders is with the intent of using it against said country. Therefore, the mere gathering of that much power is itself initiation of force, just as much as picking up a gun and pointing it at someone is*, and the government replies accordingly. * Because, at this point, the person hasn't actually done anything that causes actual harm - but the intent is obvious, and the means are present, so defensive measures are authorized. From anders at aleph.se Thu Sep 29 22:32:20 2011 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:32:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <014d01cc7e46$76d1e760$6475b620$@att.net> <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E84F1F4.3040404@aleph.se> Dennis May wrote: > Spike wrote: > > > The MBrain is a target, in a sense, but certainly not a helpless > target. > > This one has a built-in speed of light self-defense system. > > Been through all that kind of discussion before. Whatever defenses > you build the resources outside to overcome them can be as large > as it takes. Beams of diffuse anti-matter dust are my favorite. It is trivial to overcome any defenses by simply postulating even bigger attack resources. But cost-effectiveness will get you. In order to damage a 1 AU shell composed of 1 m^2 diamond hard objects each object need to be hit with (say) the explosive force of 0.1 kg TNT, or around 2e-9 kg of antimatter. A circular beam with a diameter 2 AU with one such pellet per square meter (which would of course only seriously damage part of the sphere) would need 1.4e14 kg of antimatter. That is a biggish mountain of antimatter you need to make. And for an entire surface attack you need 4 times as much. I can see a Dyson shell brew up that much antimatter in a few weeks, but anything lesser would find it tough. And if you already have a Dyson, the opportunity costs of spending your energy on antimatter to mess with the neighbors (aeons in the future, from the subjective timescale of the fast processes online) will be very high. You better have a very good reason, especially since it is pretty obvious who is responsible. Mbrains will no doubt look quaint as we get ever better ideas of how to arrange matter to do useful things, but so far they represent one of the more well analysed development directions. If you find them silly, why don't you propose a better approach and show us your engineering? -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 29 22:45:09 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:45:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <4E84F1F4.3040404@aleph.se> References: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <014d01cc7e46$76d1e760$6475b620$@att.net> <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E84F1F4.3040404@aleph.se> Message-ID: <001801cc7ef9$71921fa0$54b65ee0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request > Spike wrote: > > >> The MBrain is a target, in a sense, but certainly not a helpless target. > >> This one has a built-in speed of light self-defense system. spike > >> ...Been through all that kind of discussion before. Whatever defenses >> you build the resources outside to overcome them can be as large as it >> takes. Beams of diffuse anti-matter dust are my favorite. Dennis >...Mbrains will no doubt look quaint as we get ever better ideas of how to arrange matter to do useful things, but so far they represent one of the more well analysed development directions. If you find them silly, why don't you propose a better approach and show us your engineering? -- Anders Sandberg, Well said Anders. I can imagine an MBrain would master nanotechnology, and thus would be capable of self modification as it discovered better and better ways to reconfigure itself. spike From moulton at moulton.com Fri Sep 30 01:06:59 2011 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:06:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317312569.98708.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317321122.91704.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E851633.6010105@moulton.com> On 09/29/2011 02:10 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Dan wrote: >> >> I must have missed this. What parts of the state were dismantled >> "over the past few decades"? > > Financial deregulation, for one. Certain Republicans are all for > letting banks do as they please. If they could get away with it, > they'd quickly draft and sign legislation saying that no one may > initiate force against banks, for any reason. They have at least > lowered this - lower capital gains tax rates, less things that > could be cited as legal reasons to initiate force (via police & > court proxies) against them, and so on. I have no great affection for either the Republicans or the Democrats however I think might be just a bit unfair to make critical statements about just the Republicans. The fingerprints of both parties are all over the current mess along with a bunch of bankers, politicians, regulators, etc. Concerning the terms "regulation" and 'deregulation"; those terms have been so abused and misused that they have almost lost any usefulness. Just to say that something is better because it is either "regulated" or "deregulated" missed the crucial point that the details and context are vitally important. Fred From moulton at moulton.com Fri Sep 30 01:28:11 2011 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:28:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension? In-Reply-To: <1317312569.98708.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1317045564.66819.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317122548.28251.YahooMailNeo@web160618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317136675.62409.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317312569.98708.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E851B2B.7020806@moulton.com> I would like to emphasise the point that Dan makes. Much of the recent discussion has been on topics which directly or at least partially have been covered decades ago in works like Anarchy, State and Utopia by Nozick; and while I and a lot of others do not agree with it totally we recognise the value of the work. For people really interested in the topic becoming at least familiar with the basics is a good place to start. Fred On 09/29/2011 09:09 AM, Dan wrote: > I wonder, since you claim to have been an anarchocapitalist (or market > anarchist), why this is news to you. No offence, but this is like > Libertarianism 101. I mean to say that people who first learn about > libertarianism often ask just this question and any libertarian > thinker worth her or his salt, such as Rothbard or even minarchists > like Nozick, have already answered this. The core principle of > libertarianism establish a boundary that others -- whether they call > themselves the king, the majority, the people, the rulers, the state, > the public interest, the nation, the government, the super race, the > annointed of God -- cannot cross... Well, cannot cross and remain > consistent with libertarianism. > From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 01:34:51 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request Message-ID: <1317346491.2135.YahooMailNeo@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Anders Sandberg wrote: ? > Mbrains will no doubt look quaint as we get > ever better ideas of how to? arrange matter to > do useful things, ... ? I understand the attraction of central planning and vast civilization constructs.? I'm just not sure Mbrains are the way to use resources effectively or wisely.? As the value of the Mbrain rises so does the cost of insuring its safety - eating more and more resources protecting it from threats without or within. The cost of protecting it will be high because the?investment is concentrated.? I do not believe it can be hidden [stealth] or move about [nomadic] so it must exist in?fortress mode. Fortresses can be stable for long periods of time - until technology renders them vulnerable.??It would seem a?future driven view would anticipate that technology will move faster and faster rendering a large?fortress vulnerable before it can even be constructed. ? That is part of why I took the Superstealth SND approach instead many years ago.? Stealth, Nomadic, Dispersed.? Our present means of industrialization depends largely upon processes that are centralized in a manner vulnerable to any number of problems.? Long term survival "big-picture questions for human civilization" should look at long term stability as a primary criteria.? I believe the Superstealth SND approach is fundamental to the survival of any technological civilization. It encompasses survival techniques learned in nature and in modern military technology. ? I am not interested in trashing the mbrain concept - I'm sure many interesting ideas have come out of it.? I have been interested in the alternative Superstealth SND approach for a very long time and am more interested in talking about what it has to offer. ? I had not heard of the institute you work for until now - interesting.? It reminds me of the Perimeter Institute in some ways.? I am glad you are willing to talk in a forum like this. Many in academia are not so willing. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 01:42:52 2011 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317321957.90975.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <01e001cc7eb2$d8f97f90$8aec7eb0$@att.net> <1317321957.90975.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317346972.7688.YahooMailNeo@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: The Avantguardian > To: spike > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:45 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: spike >> To: 'The Avantguardian' ; > 'ExI chat list' >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:19 AM >> Subject: RE: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? >> >> >> >> ----- On Behalf Of The Avantguardian >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? >> >> ? >>> ...Actually I have done some calculations and there is indeed a >> "finest-grained scale" for vacuum.?A photon that has a frequency >> greater >> than or equal to 5.223 * 10^42 Hz has a wavelength less than?its >> own?schwarzchild radius. ...Stuart LaForge >> >> >> Avant, you know I love ya like a brother pal, but I think this is seriously >> wrong.? To get to?that number, you need to work backwards from the > photon's >> momentum to get an equivalent mass for a photon.? It's a fun mind > expanding >> experience granted.? I did that calculation in college so tragically many >> years ago (which is why I recognized the number.)? For a few heady hours, >> thought I had discovered how to unify gravity with QM.? But it didn't > work >> out for me.? {8-]?? I am sorry it didn't work out for you. Please elaborate. I make no claim? that the number unifies anything. I merely state that it is a number that is the? ?maximum photon frequency possible in this universe. It is a constant built of? constants: fmax=SquareRoot(c^5/(2*G*h)) where c is the speed of light, G is the? gravitational constant,?and h is the?Planck constant. Conversely the minimum? frequency possible in the universe is?simply H or the Hubble parameter.?That is? all. ? Stuart LaForge ? ? "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things? bought? and sold are legislators." - P. J. O'Rourke From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 30 04:05:38 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:05:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Problem with time travel WAS Faster than light?? In-Reply-To: <1317346972.7688.YahooMailNeo@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1317246170.21898.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317256880.93665.YahooMailNeo@web112105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317291170.77518.YahooMailNeo@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <01e001cc7eb2$d8f97f90$8aec7eb0$@att.net> <1317321957.90975.YahooMailNeo@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1317346972.7688.YahooMailNeo@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002001cc7f26$3748bb60$a5da3220$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian >> ? >>> ...Actually I have done some calculations and there is indeed a >> "finest-grained scale" for vacuum.?A photon that has a frequency >> greater than or equal to 5.223 * 10^42 Hz has a wavelength less than? >>...For a few heady hours, thought I had discovered how to unify gravity with QM.? >> But it didn't work out for me.? {8-] >...I am sorry it didn't work out for you. Please elaborate... Stuart LaForge There is an alternate path to that number, but in retrospect I think it is exactly equivalent to the way I did it. The 5e42 Hz is the frequency domain equivalent of the time it takes for light to traverse one Planck length. That number might in fact have some significance in nature, but my own understanding of QM failed at that point and I had to leave it to the experts. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 09:47:35 2011 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:47:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <1317346491.2135.YahooMailNeo@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317346491.2135.YahooMailNeo@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dennis May wrote: The cost of protecting it will be high because the investment is concentrated. I do not believe it can be hidden [stealth] or move about [nomadic] so it must exist in fortress mode. Fortresses can be stable for long periods of time - until technology renders them vulnerable. It would seem a future driven view would anticipate that technology will move faster and faster rendering a large fortress vulnerable before it can even be constructed. >>> Why could an Mbrain not continually engage in technological progress to improve it's defenses and keep pace with potential enemies? I see the advantages of SND, but it seems to me there are also disadvantages, such as being so dispersed much of the time that it does not have the constant huge computational power & mass advantage of the Mbrain! Why not a combination of the two concepts, where you have an Mbrain that in a time of crisis can disperse into much smaller units, activate stealth mode for all of them, and then flee/fight if necessary to various points, until it is safe to reassemble and regain the benefits of Mbrain computational power. Yes, I coined the term "SND Mbrain!" ; ) I gotta get this trademarked... lol I sure miss Robert. He was my Extropian Godfather, and a good friend. John On 9/29/11, Dennis May wrote: > Anders Sandberg wrote: > >> Mbrains will no doubt look quaint as we get >> ever better ideas of how to? arrange matter to >> do useful things, ... > > I understand the attraction of central planning > and vast civilization constructs.? I'm just not > sure Mbrains are the way to use resources > effectively or wisely.? As the value of the > Mbrain rises so does the cost of insuring its > safety - eating more and more resources > protecting it from threats without or within. > The cost of protecting it will be high because > the?investment is concentrated.? I do not believe > it can be hidden [stealth] or move about > [nomadic] so it must exist in?fortress mode. > Fortresses can be stable for long periods of > time - until technology renders them > vulnerable.??It would seem a?future driven view > would anticipate that technology will move > faster and faster rendering a large?fortress > vulnerable before it can even be constructed. > > That is part of why I took the Superstealth SND > approach instead many years ago.? Stealth, > Nomadic, Dispersed.? Our present means > of industrialization depends largely upon > processes that are centralized in a manner > vulnerable to any number of problems.? Long > term survival "big-picture questions for human > civilization" should look at long term stability > as a primary criteria.? I believe the Superstealth > SND approach is fundamental to the > survival of any technological civilization. > It encompasses survival techniques learned > in nature and in modern military technology. > > I am not interested in trashing the mbrain > concept - I'm sure many interesting ideas > have come out of it.? I have been interested > in the alternative Superstealth SND approach > for a very long time and am more interested > in talking about what it has to offer. > > I had not heard of the institute you work for > until now - interesting.? It reminds me of the > Perimeter Institute in some ways.? I am glad > you are willing to talk in a forum like this. > Many in academia are not so willing. > > Dennis May From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 30 11:02:00 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:02:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <1317346491.2135.YahooMailNeo@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317346491.2135.YahooMailNeo@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20110930110200.GL25711@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:34:51PM -0700, Dennis May wrote: > I understand the attraction of central planning > and vast civilization constructs.? I'm just not The Earth ecosystem has no central planning. It's pretty large, though. Postbiology is about extending the ecosystem beyond planetary surfaces and beyond a narrow substrate range. It's emergence is engineered, but not its existance much beyond the diversity bottleneck. That's it. > sure Mbrains are the way to use resources > effectively or wisely.? As the value of the The Sun dumping 4 MT/s flux into the cosmic microwave background heat sink without further sense and purpose is not particularly effective or wise. > Mbrain rises so does the cost of insuring its > safety - eating more and more resources Stuff and nonsense. Of course more postbiomass means more potential diversity, which means more stability. But nobody is planning for it. > protecting it from threats without or within. How do you protect your brain from the Cult of Scientology? Just because the infrastructure is not exploitable, it doesn't mean the higher-order processes aren't. > The cost of protecting it will be high because > the?investment is concentrated.? I do not believe What is the investment in a square mile of Amazonas rainforest? Where is it concentrated? Who is attacking it? > it can be hidden [stealth] or move about You cannot hide absence of VIS stars very well. > [nomadic] so it must exist in?fortress mode. Where are the walls in a square mile of Amazonas rainforest? I don't mean it's safe. It isn't. But it has no fortresses. > Fortresses can be stable for long periods of > time - until technology renders them > vulnerable.??It would seem a?future driven view The law of the universe define the optimal physics of computation. Everything else is co-evolution's work. > would anticipate that technology will move > faster and faster rendering a large?fortress > vulnerable before it can even be constructed. There's obviously a provably optimal computational substrate, and it's not far away in design space once you have machine-phase nanotechnology. ? > That is part of why I took the Superstealth SND You can't hide unless you're not there. > approach instead many years ago.? Stealth, > Nomadic, Dispersed.? Our present means > of industrialization depends largely upon > processes that are centralized in a manner > vulnerable to any number of problems.? Long The ecosystem isn't centralized. > term survival "big-picture questions for human > civilization" should look at long term stability > as a primary criteria.? I believe the Superstealth > SND approach is fundamental to the > survival of any technological civilization. I believe that superstealth and advanced cultures are mutually exclusive. You can't hide your metabolism. Unless you're not there. > It encompasses survival techniques learned > in nature and in modern military technology. I think you will find a square mile of Amazon rainforest eminently observable, especially considered the control group. ? > I am not interested in trashing the mbrain > concept - I'm sure many interesting ideas > have come out of it.? I have been interested > in the alternative Superstealth SND approach > for a very long time and am more interested > in talking about what it has to offer. > ? > I had not heard of the institute you work for > until now - interesting.? It reminds me of the > Perimeter Institute in some ways.? I am glad > you are willing to talk in a forum like this. > Many in academia are not so willing. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 30 11:14:22 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:14:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <001801cc7ef9$71921fa0$54b65ee0$@att.net> References: <1317256504.89851.YahooMailNeo@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <014d01cc7e46$76d1e760$6475b620$@att.net> <1317260998.69399.YahooMailNeo@web112101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E84F1F4.3040404@aleph.se> <001801cc7ef9$71921fa0$54b65ee0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20110930111422.GM25711@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 03:45:09PM -0700, spike wrote: > Well said Anders. I can imagine an MBrain would master nanotechnology, and Computronium is nanotechnology. You have to speak machine-phase in order to be able to make the real thing. Self-assembly is *at least* an order of magnitude less efficient in terms of volumetric circuitry concentration and thermal stability/ability to dissipate heat from the bulk. The difference is far more than between virus crystal versus paulingite. > thus would be capable of self modification as it discovered better and > better ways to reconfigure itself. There is only one way to configure yourself optimally if you want to maximize computation. However, co-evolution can and does produce nonlinearities which will be surprising. Apart from sexual selection there's the issue of the fitness function being mostly other individuals. I don't see how you can abstract that from the physical layer, so things will get weird there. If there's one sure thing we can predict about the future it's that it's going to surprise us. From lubkin at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 30 14:11:01 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:11:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Billions of Interstellar Planets In-Reply-To: <1317241847.4267.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317241847.4267.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201109301411.p8UEBXiD028032@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Dennis wrote: >The next time some so called expert claims the stars >are too far apart for interstellar travel to ever be >practical - ignore that mindset. It would be like >saying the Midwest will never be settled because >there are no five star hotels between New York City >and San Francisco. Since I learned about the Oort cloud as a kid in the Sixties, I have thought it quite possible that the outer perimeter of ours is close enough to the outer perimeter of the Centauri triple system that we could just expand our way rock-by-rock. It would be very cool if we found out that the rest of the galaxy was similar. That is, that there is little or no interstellar space. (I count a solar system as extending to its Oort cloud.) -- David. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 30 14:31:42 2011 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:31:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Billions of Interstellar Planets In-Reply-To: <201109301411.p8UEBXiD028032@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1317241847.4267.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <201109301411.p8UEBXiD028032@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20110930143142.GU25711@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:11:01AM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > Since I learned about the Oort cloud as a kid in the Sixties, I have > thought it quite possible that the outer perimeter of ours is close > enough to the outer perimeter of the Centauri triple system that we > could just expand our way rock-by-rock. If you're solid state, self-healing, fully static and relativistic, time and space is of no essence. In fact longer hops will be better for the cruise duty cycle, and will assert you're keeping ahead of the joneses. > It would be very cool if we found out that the rest of the galaxy was > similar. That is, that there is little or no interstellar space. (I count > a solar system as extending to its Oort cloud.) In order to go to deep space you either need radiant power from the inner system beamed your way or your metabolism based on high-EROEI-fusion. From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 15:22:33 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] More on Neutrinos Message-ID: <1317396153.84455.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47283 ? I found Comment 18 an interesting take: ? 18. Jarek DudaSep 24, 2011 3:00 AMCracow, Poland Here is very interesting article about possible error sources: >arstechnica.com?ts-of-time-space.ars >Good argument that neutrinos travels at speed of light is that while supernova they are observed simultaneously with photons ... however, there for example remain possibility that neutrinos can be accelerated to larger velocities, but EM field quickly decelerates them to speed of EM field propagation (through kind of Cherenkov radiation?). >? >Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 15:49:11 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Billions of Interstellar Planets In-Reply-To: <201109301411.p8UEBXiD028032@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1317241847.4267.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <201109301411.p8UEBXiD028032@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1317397751.75405.YahooMailNeo@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> David Lubkin wrote: ? > It would be very cool if we found out that > the rest of the galaxy was similar. That is, > that there is little or no interstellar space. > (I count a solar system as extending to its > Oort cloud.) ? Since planets get ejected during the formation of solar systems you can be sure there is a great deal of mixing of lesser bodies between solar systems as well.? The density may drop between stars but there will still be large numbers of small bodies even in the thinnest density regions. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 30 16:13:54 2011 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:13:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Billions of Interstellar Planets In-Reply-To: <20110930143142.GU25711@leitl.org> References: <1317241847.4267.YahooMailNeo@web112118.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <201109301411.p8UEBXiD028032@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20110930143142.GU25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <201109301614.p8UGEP82014815@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I wrote: > Since I learned about the Oort cloud as a kid in the Sixties, I have > thought it quite possible that the outer perimeter of ours is close > enough to the outer perimeter of the Centauri triple system that we > could just expand our way rock-by-rock. Eugen replied: >If you're solid state, self-healing, fully static and relativistic, >time and space is of no essence. In fact longer hops will be better >for the cruise duty cycle, and will assert you're keeping ahead of >the joneses. I am not at present solid state, etc. Given what we know, I am more confident of my personal prospects for an indefinitely long lifespan from repairing and augmenting my current form than from migration to a different substrate. Repair in situ is essentially a modest improvement on nature. Solid state sentient life is conjecture, as is migration from meat to chips, as is a CELSS sufficient for an interstellar journey. As a cautious man, I like having the option of getting to another star system with (more or less) my current body, long-established propulsion and vehicle, and never being more than a short hop from an outpost of civilization. -- David. From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 16:22:08 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:22:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <20110930110200.GL25711@leitl.org> References: <1317346491.2135.YahooMailNeo@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110930110200.GL25711@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1317399728.49961.YahooMailNeo@web112116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I wrote: ? > term survival "big-picture questions for human > civilization" should look at long term stability > as a primary criteria. I believe the Superstealth > SND approach is fundamental to the > survival of any technological civilization. ? Eugen Leitl wrote: > I believe that superstealth and advanced cultures > are mutually exclusive. You can't hide your > metabolism.? Unless you're not there. In nature as in military technology there is always a cost involved in hiding which also creates a cost for anyone searching.? Balancing the cost/benefit ratio is the question.? Do you hide every E&M signal or just those an advanced SETI program might see.? Do you hide every heat signature or do you make your heat signature look natural? ? It might be difficult for us to imagine hiding advanced cultures but does advanced culture necessarily mean huge centralized processing plants and huge cities?? The growth of the information age seems to poke some holes in that idea.? Satellite TV in rural Nebraska in 1979 when New York City cable still had 9 channels?years later.? An Intranet on the Cable TV system in Omaha in 1982-83 when a Commodore 64?or an Atari 5200 was the ticket and PC's were unheard of. ? The information age allows a great many things to be done in a dispersed civilization.? The advantages of proximity and size?in an mbrain are not necessarily the last word in capabilities. ? Dennis May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 30 16:30:01 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:30:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] More on Neutrinos In-Reply-To: <1317396153.84455.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317396153.84455.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002401cc7f8e$34a601c0$9df20540$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dennis May Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:23 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [ExI] More on Neutrinos http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47283 I found Comment 18 an interesting take: 18. Jarek DudaSep 24, 2011 3:00 AMCracow, Poland Here is very interesting article about possible error sources: arstechnica.com?ts-of-time-space.ars Good argument that neutrinos travels at speed of light is that while supernova they are observed simultaneously with photons ... however, there for example remain possibility that neutrinos can be accelerated to larger velocities, but EM field quickly decelerates them to speed of EM field propagation (through kind of Cherenkov radiation?). Dennis May They would need an electric charge for Cherenkov radiation to apply, unless they were somehow causing a charge to appear in the diffuse interstellar matter and an acceleration. So the Cherenkov radiation explanation isn?t compelling, but the core message might have merit: that some unknown interaction over vast time and distance somehow slows a superluminal neutrino to c. We should at least keep it on the list of crazy ideas to try to explain the CERN results, even if we find the whole notion insulting to our sensibilities. Recognizing my tendency to be physically conservative, I struggling against being such a physics church lady. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 30 16:31:39 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] More on Neutrinos In-Reply-To: <1317396153.84455.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317400299.7686.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "Good argument that neutrinos travels at speed of light is that while supernova they are observed simultaneously with photons." ? With the exception of photons particles travel at various speeds depending on conditions, I don't know of any reason why all neutrinos should move at the exact same speed all the time, but hell I don't even know why neutrinos move at all, nor at this point do I think anybody else does either. Physicists will just have to continue their experiments and see what happens and wait for a theoretician to have a bright idea. If the bright idea turns out that the experiment is just wrong I confess I will be a little disappointed. " remain possibility that neutrinos can be accelerated to larger velocities, but EM field quickly decelerates them to speed of EM field propagation (through kind of Cherenkov radiation?)" Cherenkov radiation contains energy, so unless the conservation of energy is the next thing to go the neutrino the radiates it will contain less energy, but if it has less energy it should be moving faster not slower. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 16:32:21 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:32:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Dennis May wrote: snip >> Been through all that kind of discussion before. ?Whatever defenses >> you build the resources outside to overcome them can be as large >> as it takes. ?Beams of diffuse anti-matter dust are my favorite. > > It is trivial to overcome any defenses by simply postulating even bigger > attack resources. But cost-effectiveness will get you. snip > anything lesser would find it tough. And if you already have a Dyson, > the opportunity costs of spending your energy on antimatter to mess with > the neighbors (aeons in the future, from the subjective timescale of the > fast processes online) will be very high. You better have a very good > reason, especially since it is pretty obvious who is responsible. > > > Mbrains will no doubt look quaint as we get ever better ideas of how to > arrange matter to do useful things, but so far they represent one of the > more well analysed development directions. If you find them silly, why > don't you propose a better approach and show us your engineering? My objection to mbrain is the same I had to jupiter brains, speed of light delays. The bigger you get, the slower it thinks. To get a message to and from a distant part of an 1 Au takes around a third of an hour. At 8000+ hrs/year, that's 1/25,000 of a year. Postulating a million to one speedup, that 40 subjective years to hear back from a corespondent. Already we can see our culture spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new fiber optic cables to shave a few ms off the speed of light delays between financial centers. I think hyperfast trading is a parasitic drain on the economy, but if that is the future, then we might expect the physical implementation of virtual human civilization to shrink to the minimum size (a few hundred meters?) consistent with getting the waste heat from computation out. Perhaps sunk under a couple of miles of ocean water to keep it cool. Unless, of course, we come up with a way to get around the speed of light. Keith From dennislmay at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 16:47:28 2011 From: dennislmay at yahoo.com (Dennis May) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request In-Reply-To: <1317400932.7443.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1317346491.2135.YahooMailNeo@web112115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317400932.7443.YahooMailNeo@web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317401248.30001.YahooMailNeo@web112114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John Grigg wrote: ? > Why could an Mbrain not continually engage in > technological progress to improve it's defenses > and keep pace with potential enemies?? ? The cost of WoMD is much less than the cost of defenses against them. ? John Grigg wrote: > Why not a combination of the two concepts, > where you have an Mbrain that in a time of > crisis can disperse into much smaller units, > activate stealth mode for all of them, and then > flee/fight if necessary to various points, until > it is safe to reassemble and regain > the benefits of Mbrain computational power. ? If you have time to disperse and go stealth is the question.? A speed of light attack with no warning would negate any such planning.? Only existing in SND mode all the time can limit such attacks. ? Even?under SND huge computational power will be available.? I am not certain we can project advantages more than a few magnitudes beyond what the human brain and currently technology can do.? Does a cluster of?scattered?AI say 10**4 beyond human really have a disadvantage over a centralized AI of say 10**6? beyond human. At what point does adding more and more capability produce diminishing returns?? Is there something a 10**20 brain can do that that many lesser brains cannot? ? I know that at our scale better and bigger brains do prove themselves.? We also see that many of our best brains have mental health issues. How does mental health in AI scale with size and capability?? It is really a question of stability during scaling.? If you put everything into a single Mbrain and it is mentally unstable is that a foolish investment? ? Dennis?May -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 17:43:38 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] More on Neutrinos In-Reply-To: <1317400299.7686.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1317396153.84455.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317400299.7686.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317404618.34646.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On?Friday, September 30, 2011 12:31 PM?john clark jonkc at bellsouth.net wrote: > "Good argument that neutrinos travels at speed of light is that while supernova > they are observed simultaneously with photons." > >?With the exception of photons?particles travel at various speeds depending on >?conditions, I don't know of any reason why all neutrinos should move at the exact >?same speed all the time, but hell I don't even know why neutrinos move at all, nor >?at this point do I think anybody else does either. Physicists will just have to >?continue their experiments and see what happens and wait for a theoretician to >?have a bright idea. If the bright idea turns out that the experiment is just wrong I >?confess I will be a little disappointed. > > " remain possibility that neutrinos can be accelerated to larger velocities, but >?EM field quickly decelerates them to speed of EM field propagation (through >?kind of Cherenkov radiation?)" > > Cherenkov radiation contains energy, so unless the conservation of energy is >?the next thing to go the neutrino the radiates it will contain less energy, but if it >?has less energy it should be moving faster not slower. A little context here for the ignorant: how well measured have these quantities been for supernovae in general? How many data points are there? Just want to see how likely this one might be an outlier or observational error -- or even just something mundane missing from the model of surpernovae events. ? Regards, ? Dan From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 18:28:55 2011 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:28:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] More on Neutrinos In-Reply-To: <1317404618.34646.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1317396153.84455.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317400299.7686.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1317404618.34646.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Dan wrote: > On Friday, September 30, 2011 12:31 PM john clark jonkc at bellsouth.netwrote: > > "Good argument that neutrinos travels at speed of light is that while > supernova > > they are observed simultaneously with photons." > > > > With the exception of photons particles travel at various speeds > depending on > > conditions, I don't know of any reason why all neutrinos should move at > the exact > > same speed all the time, but hell I don't even know why neutrinos move at > all, nor > > at this point do I think anybody else does either. Physicists will just > have to > > continue their experiments and see what happens and wait for a > theoretician to > > have a bright idea. If the bright idea turns out that the experiment is > just wrong I > > confess I will be a little disappointed. > > > > " remain possibility that neutrinos can be accelerated to larger > velocities, but > > EM field quickly decelerates them to speed of EM field propagation > (through > > kind of Cherenkov radiation?)" > > > > Cherenkov radiation contains energy, so unless the conservation of energy > is > > the next thing to go the neutrino the radiates it will contain less > energy, but if it > > has less energy it should be moving faster not slower. > > A little context here for the ignorant: how well measured have these > quantities been for supernovae in general? How many data points are there? > Just want to see how likely this one might be an outlier or observational > error -- or even just something mundane missing from the model of > surpernovae events. > Just one event, the 1987A supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, about 170,000 light years away. A total of ~20 neutrinos were detected a few hours before the event was seen in visible light, in neutrino detectors that were built to observe the Sun. The detection was unexpected and, since it was a rather large flux, the physicists involved took a while to convince themselves that the data was correct, and learnt about the supernova only some days later. Copious (enormous, in fact) neutrino production was expected by supernova simulations, and the delay between the neutrino burst and the observation of the supernova was attributed to the travel time of the bow shock inside the star's body, which indeed should take a few hours according to models of the star interior. At the time, no one theorized that the neutrinos were superluminal, and three hours over 170,000 years is a rather small error bar. Alfio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 30 19:38:14 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] More on Neutrinos In-Reply-To: <1317404618.34646.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317411494.52227.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 9/30/11, Dan wrote: "A little context here for the ignorant: how well measured have these quantities been for supernovae in general? How many data points are there? Just want to see how likely this one might be an outlier or observational error -- or even just something mundane missing from the model of surpernovae events." In 1987 3 detectors saw a neutrino burst just 3 hours before the light and gamma rays from the supernova could be seen, and that small 3 hour delay can be explained, possibly, by the dynamics of the star. The OPERA neutrinos supposedly move 20 parts per million faster than light and supernova SN-1987A was about 170,000 light years away (the exact distance is a bit uncertain), so if the supernova neutrinos moved as fast as the OPERA neutrinos they would have arrived on Earth 3 maybe 4 years before the light or gamma rays did, but that didn't happen. Or did it? If a neutrino burst happened much before 1987 would anybody have noticed? I'm not sure. Three detectors saw the supernova neutrinos in 1987, the Kamioka Observatory saw the most but it didn't become operational until April 1983, the IMB Neutrino Observatory went online in 1982 and the USSR's Baksan Neutrino Observatory in 1977; however none of them was in continuous operation in the years before 1987, they went on and off line, mostly off. Also, OPERA used Muon neutrinos not Electron neutrinos, I know they oscillate but maybe the 450 mile 3 millisecond trip is not long enough for much oscillations to happen and Muon neutrinos travel at a much different speed than the Electron or Tau neutrino. There is no reason to think that all neutrinos move at the same speed; all electrons and protons don't move at the same speed so why should neutrinos? But having said all that I must admit that the most likely explanation is that somebody just made a mistake. On the other hand this isn't cold fusion or psi, it there's an error it must be a very subtle one, Nobel Laureate Sam Ting called it "a extremely beautiful experiment very carefully done". So the bottom line is I don't know what the hell to think, but we should know for sure in a couple of years, maybe less; and if it's true it's the biggest discovery in physics in 90 years. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 30 19:55:23 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Battle of the Nobel Laureates over FLT In-Reply-To: <002401cc7f8e$34a601c0$9df20540$@att.net> Message-ID: <1317412523.23858.YahooMailClassic@web82901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Nobel Laureate Sam Ting thinks the faster than light experiment is probably right, but Nobel Laureate George Smoot thinks it's probably wrong and Smoot has more than just a Nobel to his credit, he won a million dollars on the TV quiz show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?". ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 20:17:18 2011 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] More on Neutrinos In-Reply-To: References: <1317396153.84455.YahooMailNeo@web112113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1317400299.7686.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1317404618.34646.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1317413838.59725.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Friday, September 30, 2011 2:28 PM Alfio Puglisi alfio.puglisi at gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Dan wrote: >> A little context here for the ignorant: how well measured have these >> quantities been for supernovae in general? How many data points are >> there? Just want to see how likely this one might be an outlier or >> observational error -- or even just something mundane missing from >> the model of surpernovae events. > > Just one event, the 1987A supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, about > 170,000 light years away. A total of ~20 neutrinos were detected a few > hours before the event was seen in visible light, in neutrino detectors > that were built to observe the Sun. The detection was unexpected and, > since it was a rather large flux, the physicists involved took a while > to convince themselves that the data was correct, and learnt about the > supernova only some days later. So, sample size two. That makes me a bit skeptical of this being a strong challenge to the theory. ? > Copious (enormous, in fact) neutrino production was expected by supernova > simulations, and the delay between the neutrino burst and the observation > of the supernova was attributed to the travel time of the bow shock inside > the star's body, which indeed should take a few hours according to models > of the star interior. At the time, no one theorized that the neutrinos > were superluminal, and three hours over 170,000 years is a rather small > error bar. This was something else I was thinking of. The neutrinos, from my readings, tend to escape first before a lot of stuff gets up -- during the compression phase. So, differences in modeling this might lead to different predictions and these might lead someone to believe there's a strong theoretical challege to STR when it's actually just the model for star collapse that's wrong. (My understanding here is only qualitative. I haven't done any of the math for this -- much less done things like even attempt to build a mathematical model and then plug data into it. Aside from maybe lacking talents in this area, that'd be real work.:) ? Regards, ? Dan From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 30 20:18:18 2011 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1317413898.34412.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri, 9/30/11, Keith Henson wrote: "My objection to mbrain is the same I had to jupiter brains, speed of light delays.? The bigger you get, the slower it thinks." The fastest signals in the human brain move at a couple of hundred meters a second, many are far slower, light moves at 300 million meters per second. So if you insist that the 2 most distant parts of a Jupiter brain communicate as fast as they do in a human brain (and it is not immediately obvious why you should insist on such a thing) then parts could be one million times as distant. The volume of such a brain would be a million trillion times larger than a human brain, and the components would be considerably smaller too. And of course if the speed of light is not the limit we once thought it to be...., but it's probably too early to get into that. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 30 20:33:45 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:33:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] More on Neutrinos In-Reply-To: <1317411494.52227.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1317404618.34646.YahooMailNeo@web160612.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1317411494.52227.YahooMailClassic@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007b01cc7fb0$4114de00$c33e9a00$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of john clark Subject: Re: [ExI] More on Neutrinos >.There is no reason to think that all neutrinos move at the same speed; all electrons and protons don't move at the same speed so why should neutrinos? John K Clark To compare neutrinos to electrons and protons assumes they have mass. If they do not have mass, then they must be going exactly at c. If they do have mass, they must be going slower. Otherwise, our understanding of physics is all wrong. Oh this is exciting. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 30 22:07:25 2011 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:07:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robotic controllers Message-ID: <009801cc7fbd$5635e1a0$02a1a4e0$@att.net> Oh man, I am so not hip, oy. I went by Fry's Electronics, saw some kids playing with a video game using a thing they call the Kinect 3D. I started asking questions. It occurred to me that something like that would be just the ticket for a robot controller: it is cheap enough and has an instruction set that can be used directly by developers. Coool! This is just the thing controls engineers like. I don't know how long these things have been around and I failed to notice. The salesman said they were around last Christmas when he was selling jillions of them. It all got me to thinking: we have car racing, which helped develop a lot of interesting automotive technologies, but it hasn't for a long time. The cars are far too specialized now, and they are all the same. They don't appear to have changed much in recent memory. But we can imagine a cool new sport: robot racing on a standard road circuit. Since the engineering is all controls stuff, we wouldn't even really need high performance cars: ordinary Detroits will do just fine, older ones even, cheap, readily available. Then we use a Kinect 3D sensor, video game Wii accelerometers for feedback, run the software on an ordinary laptop computer, three sets of actuator/resolvers for the steering wheel, gas and brake and that's all we need to get started, ja? Then all the real engineering magic is in software, and hell even I would pay money to see a bunch of robots race. In ten years this sport might replace NASCAR in popularity. Even more of a hoot would be robot motorcycle racing. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ryanobjc at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 22:32:27 2011 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:32:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robotic controllers In-Reply-To: <009801cc7fbd$5635e1a0$02a1a4e0$@att.net> References: <009801cc7fbd$5635e1a0$02a1a4e0$@att.net> Message-ID: noisebridge has a kinect and has been messing around with it for a while. It delivers multiple video streams including 'depth' streams, pretty nifty junk. 2011/9/30 spike : > Oh man, I am so not hip, oy.? I went by Fry?s Electronics, saw some kids > playing with a video game using a thing they call the Kinect 3D.? I started > asking questions.? It occurred to me that something like that would be just > the ticket for a robot controller: it is cheap enough and has an instruction > set that can be used directly by developers.? Coool!? This is just the thing > controls engineers like.? I don?t know how long these things have been > around and I failed to notice.? The salesman said they were around last > Christmas when he was selling jillions of them. > > > > It all got me to thinking: we have car racing, which helped develop a lot of > interesting automotive technologies, but it hasn?t for a long time. ?The > cars are far too specialized now, and they are all the same.? They don?t > appear to have changed much in recent memory.? But we can imagine a cool new > sport: robot racing on a standard road circuit.? Since the engineering is > all controls stuff, we wouldn?t even really need high performance cars: > ordinary Detroits will do just fine, older ones even, cheap, readily > available.? Then we use a Kinect 3D sensor, video game Wii accelerometers > for feedback, run the software on an ordinary laptop computer, three sets of > actuator/resolvers for the steering wheel, gas and brake and that?s all we > need to get started, ja?? Then all the real engineering magic is in > software, and hell even I would pay money to see a bunch of robots race. > > > > In ten years this sport might replace NASCAR in popularity. > > > > Even more of a hoot would be robot motorcycle racing. > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 23:04:18 2011 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:04:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Slow thinking Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:47 PM, john clark wrote: > Subject: Re: [ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains > ? ? ? ?again. > > On Fri, 9/30/11, Keith Henson wrote: > "My objection to mbrain is the same I had to jupiter brains, speed of > light delays.? The bigger you get, the slower it thinks." > The fastest signals in the human brain move at a couple of hundred meters a second, many are far slower, light moves at 300 million meters per second. So if you insist that the 2 most distant parts of a Jupiter brain communicate as fast as they do in a human brain (and it is not immediately obvious why you should insist on such a thing) then parts could be one million times as distant. The volume of such a brain would be a million trillion times larger than a human brain, and the components would be considerably smaller too. And the point of this 10^15 larger brain that thinks no faster than a human would be? Keith