From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 1 02:30:10 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:30:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> Message-ID: <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> -----Original Message----From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] >...Answer to the problem: make the caravanning feature work only on interstate highways...spike Hey cool, I gave me a great idea. We now have software that can drive cars and we have potential to make cars much more efficient if we tolerate the danger of low profile, less visible, lower speed cars. As these cars show up, there will be a transition period where human drivers get accustomed to seeing them, a process which could take perhaps five to ten years. Suggestion: we create a special class of self-driving vehicles specifically designed for delivery purposes. It wouldn't haul people, only groceries, would not go on the freeways or any road that has speed limits over about 40 mph. It could have a top speed of about 30 mph. They would be very low profile, lower than any passenger self-driver. It would be an ultra-light, less than a typical motorcycle, so it would be unlikely to seriously damage a Detroit, should it collide with one. What this would do is allow us to gain lots of data for safety purposes, perhaps improve algorithms, get the neighborhood dogs accustomed to seeing these things humming around and so forth, establish the legal groundwork for what happens when anyone attempts to steal one for instance. I can imagine it being small enough that three husky lads could physically hoist it into the back of a pickup truck. I can imagine it being driven by a single cylinder 250cc gasoline motor. With that arrangement, we could find out if drunken yahoos in raised pickups will run them over, and if so, you just have only lost a couple thousand dollar vehicle and smashed the arugula, as opposed to crushing some honeymooning couple doing their thing in the robo-car. That stage might need to predate human-carriers. Wouldn't that work? spike From sjv2006 at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 03:07:45 2012 From: sjv2006 at gmail.com (Stephen Van Sickle) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 20:07:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:30 PM, spike wrote: > -----Original Message----From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] > > Suggestion: we create a special class of self-driving vehicles specifically > designed for delivery purposes. > Brad Templeton talks about this pretty extensively here: http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/deliverbots.html In fact, I don't think there is *any *facet of robocars he hasn't thought of and discussed on his site. --s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 1 05:30:13 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:30:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <015101cd3fb7$9f2b9110$dd82b330$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Sickle Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:08 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:30 PM, spike wrote: -----Original Message----From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] Suggestion: we create a special class of self-driving vehicles specifically designed for delivery purposes. Brad Templeton talks about this pretty extensively here: http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/deliverbots.html In fact, I don't think there is any facet of robocars he hasn't thought of and discussed on his site. --s Oy. I realized some Gaian could pack a robo-car with explosives and give GPS coordinates for the local ROTC recruitment center or GM headquarters. Theoretically it gives anyone a way to try to kill someone from a couple hundred miles away, delaying any arbitrary amount of time, creating a more sophisticated mail bomb with lower risk of getting caught. Thanks for the link, Steve. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 1 09:13:30 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:13:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers Message-ID: <4FC887BA.7010007@aleph.se> Just a quick question to the list, since I suspect there are wise beings here who might have good insights: What are the physical limits to launching long-range relativistic payloads with electromagnetic launchers? Let us ignore the energy and material access constraints, we have a Dyson sphere and fairly mature nanotechnology. Obviously there is going to be some limit on acceleration tolerance of the payload, so based on that one can make longer launch tubes for slower acceleration. It seems to me that the main limit is how strongly the electromagnetic field can couple to the launched package, and the heating effects. Anybody has any thoughts on this? (And don't worry, it is not intended as a relativistic kill weapon. It is for science! And maybe spamming the universe) -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 14:31:19 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:31:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] spacex signs contract for falcon heavy In-Reply-To: <1338438841.47879.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <010201cd3e9e$c839d2c0$58ad7840$@att.net> <013c01cd3eae$709afed0$51d0fc70$@att.net> <1338438841.47879.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 31 May 2012 06:34, Dan wrote: > Currently publicly known in existence. > Currently known to be apparently in existence. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 14:51:51 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:51:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31 May 2012 09:28, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Stefano Vaj > wrote: > > On 30 May 2012 01:18, Kelly Anderson wrote: > >> > >> Let's not get into the quantum processors, that will just make my > >> brain hurt. Of course, it's the case because quantum computers exist > >> only in theory. > > > > Seth Lloyd would argue that the universe would be a quantum computer... > > Last I checked, we weren't building universes... > No, sure. But what I mean is that if they exist (Penrose suspects, IMHO without much ground, that organic brains would be ones), it shows that they can exist, ie, they are feasible. So, all in all, either quantum computers cannot be made, but they are not really required for AGI, or they do, but the Principle of Computational Equivalence is only modestly affected (OK, one needs a quantum co-processor not to wait until past the termic death of the universe for the processing to complete). It's a pretty big deal in practice of course. If you ran a perfect > brain simulation on a very slow computer (compared to native brain > running speeds), I wonder if it really would experience consciousness > due to the time lags... It's an interesting thing to ponder. You > certainly couldn't feed sensory information into it at real time > speeds. > Mmhhh. Take a Turing test where the other party might be a civilisation one billion light years away, or a sluggish AGI in the other room. Both would exhibit the same latency. > So, you are telling me that if a group of Gigantopithecus comes into > the hunting area of two competing groups of Homo Erectus, that the > Homo Erectus groups would not temporarily put aside their differences > to eliminate the Gigantopithecus group? Come on, you can't really > believe that. It's the competition for the niche that is the key here. > I'm assuming that Gigantopithecus and Erectus would use more or less > the same resources (food, water, etc.) and thus would be a competitor > for the niche. > I expect their behaviour to be described by theory of games (ie, what is the behaviour statistically rewarding the bearer of the genes that incline to it?). In fact, however, while cooperation is a fundamental option for survival strategy, it is not unheard of that members of different species end up working together against similar heterogeneous groups. This is why mythologies about the "rise of the machines" are as little persuasive as the "war of races" or the "war of genders" which has been predicted so many times. Heck, in our history, humans, machines, gods, and animals have always been found fighting together against competing groups of a similar composition. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 14:49:58 2012 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:49:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > What are the physical limits to launching long-range relativistic > payloads with electromagnetic launchers? > > Let us ignore the energy and material access constraints, we have a > Dyson sphere and fairly mature nanotechnology. Obviously there is going > to be some limit on acceleration tolerance of the payload, so based on > that one can make longer launch tubes for slower acceleration. v = at. for v =1/10th c, 30,000,000m/s for a =~10g, 100 m/s^2, t =300,000 seconds or about 3.5 days of acceleration. s =1/2, at^2, 4,500,000,000 km, 15,000 light-seconds, 250 light minutes or 30 times the distance from the sun to the earth. Keeping it straight is going to be an interesting problem. if the tube mass was a t/m, the mass would be 4.5 x 10^15 kg. The asteroid 1986 DA is 2?10^13 kg so it would take ~225 of them. And you don't even want to think about the power this takes for constant acceleration near the end. If you need to get physical objects between stars, light sails and using the stars to power propulsion lasers seems to be a better idea. (Forward's idea.) Keith From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 15:06:44 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:06:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 31 May 2012 09:45, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Maybe so. But I don't know of any plants that I would describe as > conscious either. Sorry. > No problem, but this essentially tells us something on the limits of your ability to hallucinate your internal states on other entities, not on the nature of the entities themselves. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 15:11:30 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] spacex signs contract for falcon heavy In-Reply-To: References: <010201cd3e9e$c839d2c0$58ad7840$@att.net> <013c01cd3eae$709afed0$51d0fc70$@att.net> <1338438841.47879.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1338563490.84234.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Friday, June 1, 2012 10:31 AM Stefano Vaj > On 31 May 2012 06:34, Dan wrote: >> Currently publicly known in existence. > > Currently known to be apparently in existence. :-) Ah, right. Falcon Heavy hasn't yet been built. Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 15:12:28 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Recovered Dragon Capsule In-Reply-To: <1338563040.89096.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1338563040.89096.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1338563548.15226.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2266.html I wonder what the huge gash in it was caused by. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jun 1 15:29:17 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:29:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120601152917.GB17120@leitl.org> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:06:44PM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 31 May 2012 09:45, Kelly Anderson wrote: > > > Maybe so. But I don't know of any plants that I would describe as > > conscious either. Sorry. > > > > No problem, but this essentially tells us something on the limits of your > ability to hallucinate your internal states on other entities, not on the > nature of the entities themselves. :-) I know some plants which will take care of that. From seculartranshumanist at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 15:36:18 2012 From: seculartranshumanist at gmail.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:36:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Recovered Dragon Capsule In-Reply-To: <1338563548.15226.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1338563040.89096.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1338563548.15226.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Dan wrote: > http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2266.html > > I wonder what the huge gash in it was caused by. Apparently that's a track for the parachute lines. Joe From ddraig at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 15:39:20 2012 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 01:39:20 +1000 Subject: [ExI] rat spine repaired, rat walks again Message-ID: surprised this news has not made it to these lists already, but this is really astounding http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2012/06/01/new-therapy-motivates-paralysed-rats-to-walk http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18257077 http://www.neuroreha.uzh.ch/expneuroreha/people/GC.html http://www.neuroreha.uzh.ch/expneuroreha/research/Musienko2011.html Dwayne -- ? ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna ? ? ? ?? ...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 spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 1 17:36:14 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:36:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Recovered Dragon Capsule In-Reply-To: References: <1338563040.89096.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1338563548.15226.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01f901cd401d$0b311e10$21935a30$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch Subject: Re: [ExI] Recovered Dragon Capsule On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Dan wrote: >> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2266.html > >> I wonder what the huge gash in it was caused by. >...Apparently that's a track for the parachute lines. Joe _______________________________________________ That's what I concluded as well. The parachute must be inside the capsule for the maximum reentry deceleration to move the CG as close to the shield as possible, then the lines need to attach up top. Way to go SpaceX! spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 18:26:42 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Recovered Dragon Capsule In-Reply-To: <01f901cd401d$0b311e10$21935a30$@att.net> References: <1338563040.89096.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1338563548.15226.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <01f901cd401d$0b311e10$21935a30$@att.net> Message-ID: <1338575202.65317.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On? Friday, June 1, 2012 1:36 PM spike wrote: >>... On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Dan wrote: >>> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2266.html >>> >>> I wonder what the huge gash in it was caused by. >> >>...Apparently that's a track for the parachute lines. > > That's what I concluded as well.? The parachute must be inside the capsule > for the maximum reentry deceleration to move the CG as close to the shield > as possible, then the lines need to attach up top. Or maybe it's a line for the float? (Would the parachute mass enough to have much of an impact on CG, especially when the craft is carrying cargo back?) Regards, Dan From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 1 18:34:29 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:34:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold In-Reply-To: <1338438980.14305.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net> <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org> <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net> <00bc01cd37a3$c90c0ee0$5b242ca0$@att.net> <001f01cd3e1c$95183350$bf4899f0$@att.net> <001501cd3ee0$2fe18e40$8fa4aac0$@att.net> <1338438980.14305.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <020301cd4025$2efd4410$8cf7cc30$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Dan Subject: Re: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold >>... Good luck and evolutionspeed SpaceX. spike >...And what rate is that? :) Geez, some might interpret that as you wishing them to moving at a slower than glacial pace. :/ Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ Hey, at least at evolution speed, change does happen, eventually. Oy vey. For those of us in the space biz, it does seem like the pace of change is glacial at best. But if SpaceX is successful, I can imagine a new line of space business: a network of low-flying satellites that shave a few milliseconds off of the latency for currency trading and computer stock exchanges. Note that there are big pounds being spent to drop a shorter fiber optic cable between London and Tokyo, 1.5 billion dollars to cut latency by 60 milliseconds. Look at the path of this cable: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122989-1-5-billion-the-cost-of-cutting-lo ndon-toyko-latency-by-60ms If we had a series of satellites at about 800 km altitude and figured out a control system of sufficient accuracy to reflect a signal directly, as opposed to receive and retransmit, we might be able to shave off anther few dozen milliseconds. If so, another trader could beat this new cable, and if so, it would start a new race to create a still faster satellite network. And of course it would be the satellite control system engineers' playground, for it would be one hell of an interesting challenge. As the latency approaches a theoretical minimum and the algorithms that decide on currency trading approach optimum, the net effect is to erode the profit of the economic parasite of the currency trading industry, which profits greatly while producing nothing. This frees up funds and talent for the investment industry, which profits greatly while producing a great deal: it funds and enables the world's most viable businesses. A nice side benefit might be a phone system with lower latency. This represents the real gold in orbit, and perhaps the most important future space development. spike From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Jun 1 18:52:28 2012 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:52:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <4FC887BA.7010007@aleph.se> References: <4FC887BA.7010007@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Anders Sandberg wrote: [...] > Anybody has any thoughts on this? > > (And don't worry, it is not intended as a relativistic kill weapon. It is for > science! And maybe spamming the universe) If you plan for hurtling dumb matter at high speeds and it happens to trash any alien installation - from diplomatic standpoint, I guess this is asking for retalliation. Especially if some alien lovers put a plaquette with Sun location, basics of our chemistry etc. Yes, it may hurt aliens milion years from now, but how can one be sure they don't know time travelling? Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 1 18:54:47 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:54:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Recovered Dragon Capsule In-Reply-To: <1338575202.65317.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1338563040.89096.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1338563548.15226.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <01f901cd401d$0b311e10$21935a30$@att.net> <1338575202.65317.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <020a01cd4028$04916780$0db43680$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Dan ... >>> >>> I wonder what the huge gash in it was caused by. >> >>...Apparently that's a track for the parachute lines. > > That's what I concluded as well.? The parachute must be inside the > capsule for the maximum reentry deceleration to move the CG as close > to the shield as possible, then the lines need to attach up top. >...Or maybe it's a line for the float? (Would the parachute mass enough to have much of an impact on CG, especially when the craft is carrying cargo back?) Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ Hmmm, hard to say. I don't have access to any of the design details, but ja, the parachutes are heavy and you want those as far forward as you can get. Clearly they need to go aft of the return payload, of outboard if you get tricky with them somehow. In this case, recall you turn the reference system around for reentry, so the pointy end is aft. This would be an interesting exercise. If we have an external view of the shield, we can estimate the center of pressure. The shape and size of everything aft of the shield does not matter in the CP calculation if you are supersonic: the forces are dominated by the sonic shock waves. From that we can work backwards and estimate where the CG would need to go. From the weight of the recovery capsule, we can estimate the weight of the parachutes. Another approach would be to look up the weight of the recovery chutes for Apollo. We cannot take the weight of sky-divers chutes and scale them: these must carry a heavy load. This is left for an exercise for the interested student, right now I gotta run. spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 19:39:00 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Recovered Dragon Capsule In-Reply-To: <020a01cd4028$04916780$0db43680$@att.net> References: <1338563040.89096.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1338563548.15226.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <01f901cd401d$0b311e10$21935a30$@att.net> <1338575202.65317.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <020a01cd4028$04916780$0db43680$@att.net> Message-ID: <1338579540.22240.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> >From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbHj4P81voA&feature=plcp it looks like the parachute might be attached to the where the gash was, in part. It might be a harness of some sort. But from this vid, it's hard to tell if the parachute was store nearer to the heat shield. My guess is no and that it's merely a harness stored under some covering that goes when the parachute is deployed or later during recovery. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 1 20:04:34 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:04:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FC92052.7030301@aleph.se> On 01/06/2012 15:49, Keith Henson wrote: > v = at. for v =1/10th c, 30,000,000m/s for a =~10g, 100 m/s^2, t > =300,000 seconds or about 3.5 days of acceleration. I think we can run the probes at much higher accelerations. If we go up to 1000g - definitely something solid state can handle - then we need just 3,000 seconds, or 45 million km. Still a long rifle, but not measured in astronomical units. I suspect things get really tricky for ultrarelativistic launches. At this point the issue might be delivering the sizeable energy to the launcher (and handling dissipation losses): it is going to be a few times the mass-energy of the projectile. > And you don't even want to think about the power this takes for > constant acceleration near the end. Yes, I do :-) Remember that I have a Dyson sphere to power the whole thing: the problem is not to have enough energy, but to avoid vaporising parts of the system by too high energy densities. > If you need to get physical objects between stars, light sails and > using the stars to power propulsion lasers seems to be a better idea. > (Forward's idea.) Yes, but in this case it is intergalactic colonisation. The lasers do not have enough range (both due to diffraction limits and the redshift). -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From ddraig at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 20:42:40 2012 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:42:40 +1000 Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old In-Reply-To: References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net> Message-ID: Hi weird synchronicity, I started reading this book yesterday: http://www.amazon.com/New-Model-Army-Adam-Roberts/dp/0575083638/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338583285&sr=1-1 "A giant has brought war to the fields and towns of England's heartland. When the British army brings in air support and deploys heavy weapons he simply melts away, only to form again somewhere else and deliver another devastating blow. He is called Pantegrel, and he is a New Model Army?a giant whose thoughts flow through countless wireless connections, whose intelligence comes from the internet and real-time camera updates, whose mind is made up of thousands of minds, each deciding what he will choose to do. He has chosen the joy of the fight, and his fury is truly democratic?he is me and you. This is a terrifying vision of a near future war as new technologies allow the world's first truly democratic army to wrest control from the powers that be. Taking advances in modern communication and the new eagerness for power from the bottom upwards, Adam Roberts has produced at once an exciting war novel and a philosophical examination of war and democracy. It shows an exciting and innovative literary voices working at the height of his powers and investing SF with the literary significance that is its due." Dwayne -- ? ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna ? ? ? ?? ...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 spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 2 05:52:38 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:52:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of spike Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars >...Hey cool, I gave me a great idea...As these cars show up, there will be a transition period where human drivers get accustomed to seeing them, a process which could take perhaps five to ten years... spike At the local high school graduation this evening I was given a whole new insight which bears directly on the self-driving cars scenario. I talked to a group of 18 yr olds and discovered they have an entirely different attitude towards cars than my associates had so tragically many years ago. Back in those days of yore, driving was the hip thing. Everyone got drivers licenses at 16. Anyone who didn't have one at 18 was a freak of nature or some undescribable oddball. I learned that plenty of these high school grads either didn't have licenses or had only learners permits, and several were in no desperate hurry to remedy that situation. Naturally my next question was about self-driving cars. I learned that these freshly minted adults would welcome the development, and wouldn't bother ever learning to drive if given the option to skip that. Several of them seemed a lot more interested in texting their friends than in guiding the car. I already knew that the senior crowd will need self-drivers. All six parents (in-laws and steps) need self-drivers now, for various medical conditions, most related to slow reflexes and/or degrading eyes. But if the young will embrace the technology as well as the old, I predict the market penetration for self-drivers will be relatively fast. The slowest to accept self-drivers may be those of us in the middle, we who have had cars all our adult lives. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 08:19:45 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:19:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] EDU: Over 6000 documentary videos Message-ID: This web site has thousands (6301 to be precise) full-length documentary programmes available for free. They are grouped by subject, and fully searchable. For example, the Science grouping has the 'Through the Wormhole' series, which I found pretty watchable. Plus lots more........ At the top they have a Documentary List option if you want to browse a more condensed list of all the documentaries. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jun 2 11:36:40 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 13:36:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> Message-ID: <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:52:38PM -0700, spike wrote: > I already knew that the senior crowd will need self-drivers. All six > parents (in-laws and steps) need self-drivers now, for various medical > conditions, most related to slow reflexes and/or degrading eyes. But if the Seniors here are now responsible for more accidents than young drivers. > young will embrace the technology as well as the old, I predict the market > penetration for self-drivers will be relatively fast. The slowest to accept > self-drivers may be those of us in the middle, we who have had cars all our > adult lives. I always hated driving. In fact, I dislike most machines or human structures, as they're almost always so ugly. The less intrusive the technology, the better. Ideal technology is completely invisible. Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 14:39:41 2012 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:39:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:00 AM, wrote: > > On 01/06/2012 15:49, Keith Henson wrote: >> v = at. ?for v =1/10th c, 30,000,000m/s for a =~10g, 100 m/s^2, t >> =300,000 seconds or about 3.5 days of acceleration. > > I think we can run the probes at much higher accelerations. If we go up > to 1000g - definitely something solid state can handle - then we need > just 3,000 seconds, or 45 million km. Still a long rifle, but not > measured in astronomical units. > > I suspect things get really tricky for ultrarelativistic launches. I have seen arguments that more than a small fraction of c gets into abrasion problems. Out between galaxies this may be less of a problem > At > this point the issue might be delivering the sizeable energy to the > launcher (and handling dissipation losses): it is going to be a few > times the mass-energy of the projectile. > >> And you don't even want to think about the power this takes for >> constant acceleration near the end. > > Yes, I do :-) Remember that I have a Dyson sphere to power the whole > thing: the problem is not to have enough energy, but to avoid vaporising > parts of the system by too high energy densities. If you do want to consider power, then I need the mass of the probe objects. Small enough, bacteria size, electrostatic works better than magnetic acceleration. >> If you need to get physical objects between stars, light sails and >> using the stars to power propulsion lasers seems to be a better idea. >> (Forward's idea.) > > Yes, but in this case it is intergalactic colonisation. The lasers do > not have enough range (both due to diffraction limits and the redshift). If I recall correctly, lasers are good out to a light year, and since they can levitate objects on earth, they can accelerate at 1 g or better. I think that's 0.1 c. The problem is slowing down at the target. Of course there is Drexler's method for that but it does take foresight. A nice fresh G type star can make it from one galaxy to the next using a hemisphere of light sails to convert the star into a fusion-photon drive. But you have to be really patient. Keith From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 2 15:58:20 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:58:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <001401cd40d8$88d70940$9a851bc0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Sickle . >>.Suggestion: we create a special class of self-driving vehicles specifically designed for delivery purposes. >.Brad Templeton talks about this pretty extensively here: >.http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/deliverbots.html >.In fact, I don't think there is any facet of robocars he hasn't thought of and discussed on his site. --s Steve thanks man, Brad really has been doing some deep thinking about this. I need to meet him, since I think he is a local. I am pretty sure he and I have crossed paths, but I don't recall the exact circumstances or when it was. The technophile crowd tends to hang out at the same happenings. Here's an idea I didn't see on any of Brad's posts in his blog. Robo-cars enable super-efficient Diesel powered series hybrid drive. We don't have that in human guided vehicles, because the acceleration is too slow which is frustrating to meat-based guidance and control systems. The software wouldn't care if the acceleration is about the same as the yellow school bus, or possibly a little slower than that. If we go that route, we keep the small Diesel motor spinning full throttle, full load, optimum speed, maximum efficiency most of the time. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 18:53:25 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:53:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:00 AM, ? wrote: >> >> On 01/06/2012 15:49, Keith Henson wrote: >>> v = at. ?for v =1/10th c, 30,000,000m/s for a =~10g, 100 m/s^2, t >>> =300,000 seconds or about 3.5 days of acceleration. If we take a lesson from the particle accelerator folks, can we run them around a big circle speeding them up for a bit before going to the long straight cannon? What point do you have to be at for the sideways G forces to be too much? -Kelly From anders at aleph.se Sat Jun 2 20:46:44 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:46:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FCA7BB4.7090800@aleph.se> On 02/06/2012 15:39, Keith Henson wrote: > I have seen arguments that more than a small fraction of c gets into > abrasion problems. Out between galaxies this may be less of a problem Would love to get some proper numbers on this. I have heard the arguments, but not seen any proper calculations. I suspect a series of Whipple-shields in front of the vehicle can fix a lot of the abrasion problem. > If you do want to consider power, then I need the mass of the probe > objects. Small enough, bacteria size, electrostatic works better than > magnetic acceleration. In our case the standard probe payload mass is about 30 grams, if I remember right. We also have an extreme case of 500 tons, but that is not something we take very seriously. > If I recall correctly, lasers are good out to a light year, and since > they can levitate objects on earth, they can accelerate at 1 g or > better. I think that's 0.1 c. Yes, a lot of laser propulsion systems could be done in this scenario. A Dyson shell is pretty good phased array. > The problem is slowing down at the target. Of course there is > Drexler's method for that but it does take foresight. Which one was that? Eric suggested a moving railgun that fired the payload backwards, possibly even repeating in order to seed along its line of travel. In our model we assume the payload to be a small rocket (fission, fusion or preferably antimatter), although for intergalactic colonisation over long distances the expansion of the universe can be used to shed velocity! > A nice fresh G type star can make it from one galaxy to the next using > a hemisphere of light sails to convert the star into a fusion-photon > drive. But you have to be really patient. It is nice when you have plenty of luggage. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Sat Jun 2 21:11:34 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:11:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> On 02/06/2012 19:53, Kelly Anderson wrote: > If we take a lesson from the particle accelerator folks, can we run > them around a big circle speeding them up for a bit before going to > the long straight cannon? What point do you have to be at for the > sideways G forces to be too much? Particle accelerators use charged particles held in place with a magnetic field and accelerated using oscillating electical fields. So the problem becomes whether one can charge up the payload enough to make it couple well with the field, and how big the accelerator has to be. Looking at the formula for the gyroradius of a particle, r=gamma*(v/c)*m*c/qB where gamma is the relativistic factor, m the mass, q the charge and B the magnetic field one can see that it scales linearly with mass. So accelerating a 30 gram mass like the LHC would, would require an accelerator ca 1.6e23 times wider. We are talking lightyears here. It can be shrunk by increasing the field strength, but probably not many orders of magnitude. We can certainly increase the charge (one electron charge per 30 gram is puny). I'm not sure what the limit is: obviously beyond a certain point the surface atoms will start sputtering away. Megavolt potentials are however entirely doable (especially in vaccum), and assuming ~cm sized spherical payloads and using Coulumbs law, I get q=6e12. That would give an accelerator just 2.5e10 times bigger than the LHC. Still too big for the solar system (about 1600 AU), but maybe if we are lucky there are materials that can handle a few order of magnitude more charge. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 2 21:35:19 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:35:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> Message-ID: <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers On 02/06/2012 19:53, Kelly Anderson wrote: > If we take a lesson from the particle accelerator folks, can we run > them around a big circle speeding them up for a bit before going to > the long straight cannon? What point do you have to be at for the > sideways G forces to be too much? >...Particle accelerators use charged particles held in place with a magnetic field and accelerated using oscillating electical fields. So the problem becomes whether one can charge up the payload enough to make it couple well with the field, and how big the accelerator has to be...-- Anders Sandberg Ja, and when you do the calculation of a circular accelerator, keep in mind that any particle in a curved path is accelerated toward the center at r*omega. Since the payload is charged and is being accelerated, it emits Bremsstrahlung radiation, and by conservation of momentum all that energy being radiated away must go into the input side. If the payload is anything other than a proton or electron stream, we might imagine the radiated power to be enormous. The proof is the coolest thing I ever saw: it brings in Maxwell's equations and the Dirac equation to predict the radiated power. A long time ago I thought of using a synchrotron to make a proton beam, perhaps as a means of knocking out incoming nuclear weapons. Of course it has been a long time since I played with those equations. WOW you guys are making me think hard. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 21:52:23 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:52:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Precautionary Principles and X-Risks Message-ID: I was looking at a blog into the business of evaluating possible philanthropic donations, and expressing in a more formalised way - and perhaps in a better English :-) - my own more extrinsic objections against the dominant narratives at the Singularity Institute at http://lesswrong.com/lw/cbs/thoughts_on_the_singularity_institute_si/ and I found some stuff which could be put at use in any discussion of x-risks, not to mention Max's ongoing work on the deconstruction of the Precautionary Principle: http://blog.givewell.org/2011/08/18/why-we-cant-take-expected-value-estimates-literally-even-when-theyre-unbiased/ Food for thought... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 22:36:22 2012 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:36:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> Message-ID: Anders, Spike, Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you misinterpreted Kelly's question. In referencing the particle acceleration method, it seemed to me he was talking about the circular track configuration, not the charged particle method of acceleration. So could you try again, dispensing with the electric charge business and just going with maglev or something similar. I'm visualizing a big ring in the tradition of "Ringworld", spinning just fast enough to stabilize against its own gravity, and sans any central star. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM, spike wrote: > >>... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers > > On 02/06/2012 19:53, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> If we take a lesson from the particle accelerator folks, can we run >> them around a big circle speeding them up for a bit before going to >> the long straight cannon? What point do you have to be at for the >> sideways G forces to be too much? > >>...Particle accelerators use charged particles held in place with a > magnetic field and accelerated using oscillating electical fields. So the > problem becomes whether one can charge up the payload enough to make it > couple well with the field, and how big the accelerator has to be...-- > Anders Sandberg > > > Ja, and when you do the calculation of a circular accelerator, keep in mind > that any particle in a curved path is accelerated toward the center at > r*omega. ?Since the payload is charged and is being accelerated, it emits > Bremsstrahlung radiation, and by conservation of momentum all that energy > being radiated away must go into the input side. ?If the payload is anything > other than a proton or electron stream, we might imagine the radiated power > to be enormous. > > The proof is the coolest thing I ever saw: it brings in Maxwell's equations > and the Dirac equation to predict the radiated power. > > A long time ago I thought of using a synchrotron to make a proton beam, > perhaps as a means of knocking out incoming nuclear weapons. ?Of course it > has been a long time since I played with those equations. ?WOW you guys are > making me think hard. > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 08:01:00 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 02:01:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 02/06/2012 19:53, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> >> If we take a lesson from the particle accelerator folks, can we run them >> around a big circle speeding them up for a bit before going to the long >> straight cannon? What point do you have to be at for the sideways G forces >> to be too much? > > > Particle accelerators use charged particles held in place with a magnetic > field and accelerated using oscillating electical fields. So the problem > becomes whether one can charge up the payload enough to make it couple well > with the field, and how big the accelerator has to be. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting the same mechanism, merely the same geometry. > Looking at the formula for the gyroradius of a particle, > r=gamma*(v/c)*m*c/qB where gamma is the relativistic factor, m the mass, q > the charge and B the magnetic field one can see that it scales linearly with > mass. So accelerating a 30 gram mass like the LHC would, would require an > accelerator ca 1.6e23 times wider. We are talking lightyears here. It can be > shrunk by increasing the field strength, but probably not many orders of > magnitude. > > We can certainly increase the charge (one electron charge per 30 gram is > puny). I'm not sure what the limit is: obviously beyond a certain point the > surface atoms will start sputtering away. Megavolt potentials are however > entirely doable (especially in vaccum), and assuming ~cm sized spherical > payloads and using Coulumbs law, I get q=6e12. That would give an > accelerator just 2.5e10 times bigger than the LHC. Still too big for the > solar system (about 1600 AU), but maybe if we are lucky there are materials > that can handle a few order of magnitude more charge. Regardless of where the breaking point is reached, it seems that starting with a circle and breaking out to a straight line after a certain speed is reached seems like a logical way to shorten the required length of the gun. It's just a question of how much shorter it would make it, I suppose. -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 08:02:34 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 02:02:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Anders, Spike, > > Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you misinterpreted Kelly's question. ?In > referencing the particle acceleration method, it seemed to me he was > talking about the circular track configuration, not the charged > particle method of acceleration. > > So could you try again, dispensing with the electric charge business > and just going with maglev or something similar. ?I'm visualizing a > big ring in the tradition of "Ringworld", spinning just fast enough to > stabilize against its own gravity, and sans any central star. Right, you got it Jeff. Sorry that I wasn't clearer. -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 08:13:52 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 02:13:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Max More, Philosopher Message-ID: Max, (or anyone else) I've read that you are a philosopher, and I believe it. And I have a pretty good idea of what you propose. But I don't see a book on Amazon... what is the best place to read your philosophical writings? maxmore.com? http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm ? I'm just trying to find the best relatively short introduction. Thanks! -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 10:12:12 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 04:12:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Recovered Dragon Capsule In-Reply-To: <1338579540.22240.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1338563040.89096.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1338563548.15226.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <01f901cd401d$0b311e10$21935a30$@att.net> <1338575202.65317.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <020a01cd4028$04916780$0db43680$@att.net> <1338579540.22240.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Dan wrote: > From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbHj4P81voA&feature=plcp it looks like > the parachute might be attached to the where the gash was, in part. It might > be a harness of some sort. But from this vid, it's hard to tell if the > parachute was store nearer to the heat shield. My guess is no and that it's > merely a harness stored under some covering that goes when the parachute is > deployed or later during recovery. Cool video... is the bit with the small parachutes followed by the larger parachutes kind of standard? I was somewhat surprised when the second set shot out. Of course I was thinking it was coming down pretty fast prior to that... LOL -Kelly From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 10:22:00 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 11:22:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't suggesting the same mechanism, merely the same geometry. > > Regardless of where the breaking point is reached, it seems that > starting with a circle and breaking out to a straight line after a > certain speed is reached seems like a logical way to shorten the > required length of the gun. It's just a question of how much shorter > it would make it, I suppose. > > Fc = mv2/r, where Fc = centrifugal force, m = mass, v = speed, and r = radius. An object traveling in a circle behaves as if it is experiencing an outward force. You can plug numbers into this calculator - Force of 1g = 9.81 m/s^2 = 32.2 ft/s^2 How much g force can your projectile stand? How big can your circle be? How much velocity can you reach? BillK From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 11:20:21 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 05:20:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:22 AM, BillK wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> Sorry, I wasn't suggesting the same mechanism, merely the same geometry. >> >> Regardless of where the breaking point is reached, it seems that >> starting with a circle and breaking out to a straight line after a >> certain speed is reached seems like a logical way to shorten the >> required length of the gun. It's just a question of how much shorter >> it would make it, I suppose. >> >> > > Fc = mv2/r, where Fc = centrifugal force, m = mass, v = speed, and r = radius. > > An object traveling in a circle behaves as if it is experiencing an > outward force. > > You can plug numbers into this calculator - > > > Force of 1g = 9.81 m/s^2 = 32.2 ft/s^2 > > How much g force can your projectile stand? > How big can your circle be? > How much velocity can you reach? Sorry for being stupid, it seems that you don't get very much speed before the G-Forces would squish ya. -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 11:28:47 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 05:28:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > Kelly, I just think if you're willing to go as far as sea stars having > *some* consciousness then I don't think it's so hard to give plants, say, a > millionth of that. Sea stars interact with each other, they fight, live, love (or at least reproduce), and move. One could even call it dancing after a form. No, I would not give a plant a millionth of that. Would you give a rock a consciousness that was one millionth that of a plant? Where does it stop? How much consciousness does a hydrogen atom have then? Or a Quark? Is every subatomic particle in the universe conscious? If so, then the word loses all meaning. You might as well use the word "matter" as "consciousness"... > If a brain is just the epitome of the entity-like > organizational center, could not plants' simpler informational organization > give them consciousness? Not by any definition I can think of as being useful. > Yes indeed the argument seems unwinnable for now. ?And I will admit I have > been blowing off nervous systems so far--they are definitely the centers of > the most consciousness I have observed around be. ?I only ask that, perhaps, > in the life of a tree, a forest, of the genetic evolution of all plant life, > or in the cyclical transcription needed to send to right signals to open and > close the flower, the stoma...that perhaps somewhere in this great chorus, > on some time scale, there is a brief blinking iotum of "perception." Plants have no sense organs (maybe venus fly traps?) for the most part... without sensory organs, without a nervous system, how would you get perception? What is doing the perceiving? All chemicals work with information, but informational processing doesn't equal consciousness. Most people don't consider computers conscious (yet) but they process way more information than a plant. -Kelly From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 12:56:15 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:56:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3 June 2012 13:28, Kelly Anderson wrote: > All chemicals work > with information, but informational processing doesn't equal > consciousness. Most people don't consider computers conscious (yet) > but they process way more information than a plant. > I am not sure, and certainly they process much less information than, say, real stars (see Wolfram again about that). As to what you call "consciousness", I would hard pressed to define it unless as a set of behaviours, which may induce us to indulge in some degree of self-identification. But for many people in history this has always been relatively easy with natural phenomena, or with their cars, and I suspect that most dedicated gardeners actually believe to participate to the suffering or joy of thee objects of their attentions... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 12:56:43 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:56:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3 June 2012 14:56, Stefano Vaj wrote: > As to what you call "consciousness", I would hard pressed to define it > unless as a set of behaviours, which may induce us to indulge in some > degree of self-identification. > I meant "identification", of course. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 13:38:39 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:38:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Seniors here are now responsible for more accidents than young drivers. > Because an aging population produces more seniors? You have to watch these accident stats. They tend to count seniors as all over age 65. Which could be a 30 year spread. Young drivers tend to get analysed in much smaller spreads. e.g. up age 20, 20-25, 25-35. > > I always hated driving. In fact, I dislike most machines or human > structures, as they're almost always so ugly. The less intrusive > the technology, the better. Ideal technology is completely invisible. > > Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads. > I think we'll need roads for quite a while yet. It will probably be 2020 before a decent iPad / iPhone arrives. Say 2025 for a bit better medical system. Probably 2030 for widespread driverless cars. After 2040 for tech being customarily built into human bodies for enhanced capabilities and enhanced lifespans. (Here we start asking 'Where's that Singularity that was promised?'). BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 13:43:20 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:43:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Max More, Philosopher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 3 June 2012 10:13, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Max, (or anyone else) I've read that you are a philosopher, and I > believe it. And I have a pretty good idea of what you propose. But I > don't see a book on Amazon... what is the best place to read your > philosophical writings? maxmore.com? > http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm ? > Come on, many of us would love to see Max more philosophically productive inasmuch as as this may be compatible with his current corporate engagements, but his work is indeed seminal for modern transhumanism and is widely accessible by simply googleing his name... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 3 14:07:01 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 07:07:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <003c01cd4192$26793240$736b96c0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >>... Seniors here are now responsible for more accidents than young drivers. >...Because an aging population produces more seniors?...Probably 2030 for widespread driverless cars... BillK _______________________________________________ I suspect the market penetration of software-driven cars will be remarkably fast if we do it right. Brad Templeton had it exactly right: we must do all robo-cars in such a way that they require no infrastructure change. Reason: anything that requires government decision-making or any actual change of anything currently in place will move a glacier pace compared to what individuals with money can do themselves. We have two states with legislatures that allow robo-cars (Nevada and California) and an enormous market with pent-up demand for these things. We have plenty of people who have money to put down, to solve problems that currently have no good solution, such as the need for an occasional drive to shopping for the elderly. We have large populations who can legally drive, but are dangerous to themselves and other drivers because of ageing eyes and reflexes, and in some cases impaired my medications such as powerful painkillers. These do not want to resort to assisted living: the cost of that for four months will buy a decent new car. They do not want someone to bring them the goods: they want to go see them firsthand. We get that. They want some interaction with the world. They do not want public transit: that has been urged on us for decades: we don't like it, for so many practical reasons. I contend there is a huge existing potential market with both investors and consumers holding PLENTY of money and plenty of demand, a public and private safety benefit, no infrastructure modification required, very little legal infrastructure modification required, and a demonstrated technology. This market will grow quickly, next five to ten years-ish. Attention all investors who didn't drop your money into that absurd Facebook farce: get ready to invest your brains out. There will be fortunes made in the next five years, investing in both add-on modifications to existing ape-haulers and in manufacturing them as self-drivers from the ground up. spike From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 3 14:15:31 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:15:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> OK, let's say I want to send off my payload using a circular launcher. Then it needs to hold against a centipetal force of mv^2/r (what is the relativistic version of this formula, BTW?) For v on the order of 0.1c and m=0.03 kg, the force will be 2.7e13/r. So assuming materials can handle a few hundred gigapascals (what we get in diamond anvils) and that the payload is nice and flat with an area of 0.01 m^2 (it is not actully pressed against the accelerator, but the EM fields will transfer the force) I get a max acceptable force of 10^9 N, which corresponds to r > 27 km. Thats actully not bad at all. I suspect the real problem is coupling the accelerating fields with the payload without losing too much in Bremsstrahlung. It scales with the square of the acceleration for both circular paths and linear ones, but in the linear case there is also a sixth power dependency on gamma, while the circular one is just to the fourht power. [ OK, think I found a derivation of the relativistic formula: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=187041 So the force would be mv^2/R(1-v^2/c^2) - for a 90% c payload the relativistic correction makes the force about 5 times larger, and in this case the radius need to be about 11,000 km. Still small. I think this approach has merit. ] On 02/06/2012 23:36, Jeff Davis wrote: > So could you try again, dispensing with the electric charge business > and just going with maglev or something similar. But maglev is electric charge, when you start looking at it relativistically! A pure magnetic field will look like it has electrical components when you move through it fast enough. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 3 15:24:41 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:24:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: <003c01cd4192$26793240$736b96c0$@att.net> References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> <003c01cd4192$26793240$736b96c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <004f01cd419d$000215e0$000641a0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of spike... _______________________________________________ >...I suspect the market penetration of software-driven cars will be remarkably fast if we do it right. Brad Templeton had it exactly right: we must do all robo-cars in such a way that they require no infrastructure change. Reason: anything that requires government decision-making or any actual change of anything currently in place will move a glacier pace compared to what individuals with money can do themselves... spike This post is actually about self-driving cars, but allow me a preface. Some internet groups forbid replying to one's own posts. But I have not been able to convince myself that there is any harm in it, in spite of lengthy auto-negotiations and even some heated arguments with myself. So unless I manage to make inroads into changing my mind, I see no reason for forbidding me from replying to myself. As the semi-autocratic temporary assistant deputy vice-moderator, I extend to you permission and even a warm invitation to reply to your own posts as well, if you come up with a further thought on a topic. I declare all self-replies fair game. If I convince me otherwise, I will tell myself, then pass along what I told me. Of course, then self-replies would be forbidden, so I wouldn't be able to post it in reply to this post, so I might end up being the only one who knows it has been forbidden. The mind boggles. In the early days of Extropians, we spent much time discussing individual efforts in affecting change, as opposed to relying on governments which have imbedded architecture specifically designed to impede change (see US Senate.) With regard to self-driving cars, the market penetration of self-driving cars is something that can be done entirely by single-investor effort: if you come up with a pile of money right now, Professor Thune and the lads at Stanford will build you a self-driver. The state of California allows you to operate it, so long as you sit behind the wheel. Unlike the early days of the personal computer, the internet and the cell phone revolutions, we don't need to wait for anything. In all three of those major changes, the early days were unsatisfying, expensive and suffered from a severe lack of support infrastructure. Robo-cars have everything they need already in place. They are expensive, not having benefitted from the economies of scale, but I expect it to happen quickly. The design costs have been paid. Step back and watch the money flow. The market penetration of robo-cars will be a poster child example for what the money-empowered individual can do. The 1% will lead the way. There will be plenty of wildly-cheering followers, with both hands free to shake the pom-poms as we roll down the freeway. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 3 15:47:43 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:47:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> Message-ID: <005301cd41a0$373c1670$a5b44350$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... >.But maglev is electric charge, when you start looking at it relativistically! A pure magnetic field will look like it has electrical components when you move through it fast enough. -- Anders Sandberg Understatement, Dr. Sandberg. Any mothion at any speed through a magnetic field will induce an electric field, in accordance with Faraday's notion of del cross E is the negative of partial derivative the magnetic field with respect to time: Moving through a magnetic field is the same as a changing magnetic field from the point of view of the moving particle, which means maglev and any electromagnetic propulsion will result in heating. For a really interesting example of that, there is at Disneyland a roller coaster (California Screamin') that is initially launched by maglev. I stood watching that for a while. Immediately after each launch a number of nozzles spray water on the track, which creates steam. Kewallll. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 736 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 16:03:57 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:03:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > OK, let's say I want to send off my payload using a circular launcher. Then > it needs to hold against a centripetal force of mv^2/r (what is the > relativistic version of this formula, BTW?) > > For v on the order of 0.1c and m=0.03 kg, the force will be 2.7e13/r. So > assuming materials can handle a few hundred gigapascals (what we get in > diamond anvils) and that the payload is nice and flat with an area of 0.01 > m^2 (it is not actually pressed against the accelerator, but the EM fields > will transfer the force) I get a max acceptable force of 10^9 N, which > corresponds to r > 27 km. Thats actually not bad at all. > > I suspect the real problem is coupling the accelerating fields with the > payload without losing too much in Bremsstrahlung. ?It scales with the > square of the acceleration for both circular paths and linear ones, but in > the linear case there is also a sixth power dependency on gamma, while the > circular one is just to the fourth power. > > [ OK, think I found a derivation of the relativistic formula: > http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=187041 > > So the force would be mv^2/R(1-v^2/c^2) - for a 90% c payload the > relativistic correction makes the force about 5 times larger, and in this > case the radius need to be about 11,000 km. Still small. I think this > approach has merit. ] > Maybe it is just me, but I find all these different units confusing. :) You've got pascals in there (pressure) and newtons (force). The conversion depends on your payload design. You started with velocity 0.1 c, then talked about a 90% c payload. Do you really think you can get up to 90% c velocity? It must be a solid state payload you are thinking about with such high forces? How about rephrasing it in g forces that people are familiar with? 30 gm is a very tiny payload. A can of beans is 464 gm. (in UK) So how about some examples using real numbers? gm, velocity 0.1 c, km radius, resulting force in no. of g. (force of Earth's gravity on a human being with a mass of 70 kg is approx 686 N). You probably need to add time in there as well, as you can accelerate at a reduced force for longer. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 3 15:59:20 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:59:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: <004f01cd419d$000215e0$000641a0$@att.net> References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> <003c01cd4192$26793240$736b96c0$@att.net> <004f01cd419d$000215e0$000641a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <005c01cd41a1$d6de5ed0$849b1c70$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of spike Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars >>... On Behalf Of spike... _______________________________________________ >>... Some internet groups forbid replying to one's own posts. But I have not been able to convince myself that there is any harm in it... spike The singularity happens when computing devices spontaneously become self-aware. If the singularity begins in a self-driving car, would the car suddenly realize its situation and say to itself "I am driving a car?" Or would it say to itself "I am driving myself?" spike From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 16:14:04 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:14:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM, BillK wrote: > > You probably need to add time in there as well, as you can accelerate > at a reduced force for longer. > Now I'm confusing the acceleration force with the centripetal force! It is the velocity that governs the centripetal force. Once you hit max velocity for the radius, you have to exit the circle. BillK From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 20:44:03 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:44:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:38 AM, BillK wrote: > It will probably be 2020 before a decent iPad / iPhone arrives. What's wrong with today's models? > Probably 2030 for widespread driverless cars. I think that's a bit pessimistic. According to the car manufacturers they believe it will be optional equipment on all models by 2020. Yes, it will take time for the last of the driven cars to go away, but I think they will be widespread by 2020. -Kelly From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 20:48:30 2012 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:48:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <005301cd41a0$373c1670$a5b44350$@att.net> References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> <005301cd41a0$373c1670$a5b44350$@att.net> Message-ID: Friends, I ran some numbers through the calculator. Used one Kg in order to get a unit centripetal force -- ie force per Kg,... used 0.1c for the velocity, and 100,000,000 miles for the ring radius (rounded up the 93,000,000 mile earth orbit radius) and got 57 times the force of 1kg at one gee. For launching solid stuff, this a manageable problem right?. Humans, using a temporary liquid breathing medium (fluorocarbons) and immersed in liquid might be able to tolerate this gee load. If you make the radius 100 times larger, then the gee force goes down to 2.5. Now I know a ring 100 AU in radius is big, but traveling to the stars is a big project, no? Regarding the Bremstrahlung/maglev heating problem, I can't comment, I'm only very slightly acquainted with that physics. Best, Jeff Davis On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM, spike wrote: > ** ** > > >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > ...**** > > ** ** > > >?But maglev is electric charge, when you start looking at it > relativistically! A pure magnetic field will look like it has electrical > components when you move through it fast enough. -- Anders Sandberg**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Understatement, Dr. Sandberg. Any mothion at any speed through a magnetic > field will induce an electric field, in accordance with Faraday?s notion of > del cross E is the negative of partial derivative the magnetic field with > respect to time:**** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > Moving through a magnetic field is the same as a changing magnetic field > from the point of view of the moving particle, which means maglev and any > electromagnetic propulsion will result in heating.**** > > ** ** > > For a really interesting example of that, there is at Disneyland a roller > coaster (California Screamin?) that is initially launched by maglev. I > stood watching that for a while. Immediately after each launch a number of > nozzles spray water on the track, which creates steam. Kewallll?**** > > ** ** > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 736 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 21:25:39 2012 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:25:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: <003c01cd4192$26793240$736b96c0$@att.net> References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> <003c01cd4192$26793240$736b96c0$@att.net> Message-ID: Friends, I've mentioned it before, but will mention it again: The smart phone revolution will in short order include a cooperative transportation club app. (Write the app, and become a very wealthy person.) Everyone who joins the club will be able to catch a ride with another club member currently, or scheduled to be, on the road and going in your direction. Just enter desired arrival time, and where you're going, and then stand out at the curb. With the advent of self-driving cars, one will divert and pick you up automatically. Until then, human drivers will be given directions to the pick-up point. Jeff From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 3 23:50:37 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:50:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> <005301cd41a0$373c1670$a5b44350$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FCBF84D.7030402@aleph.se> On 03/06/2012 21:48, Jeff Davis wrote: > Friends, > > I ran some numbers through the calculator. Used one Kg in order to > get a unit centripetal force -- ie force per Kg,... used 0.1c for the > velocity, and 100,000,000 miles for the ring radius (rounded up the > 93,000,000 mile earth orbit radius) and got 57 times the force of 1kg > at one gee. > > For launching solid stuff, this a manageable problem right?. Humans, > using a temporary liquid breathing medium (fluorocarbons) and immersed > in liquid might be able to tolerate this gee load. Well, humans tend to get squashed around this acceleration. The world record of survival was 46 Gs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#Typical_examples_of_g-force But in my problem I am looking at specially designed high acceleration tolerant solid payloads - think bricks of diamond and nanomachines. Basically I am trying to estimate the limits of how quickly a single Dysoned star could spam the universe with colony probes. Most of the analysis has been done already, but I would like to be certain that the launch systems are feasible. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnh at vt11.net Mon Jun 4 01:22:21 2012 From: jnh at vt11.net (Jordan) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:22:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Recovered Dragon Capsule In-Reply-To: References: <1338563040.89096.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1338563548.15226.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <01f901cd401d$0b311e10$21935a30$@att.net> <1338575202.65317.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <020a01cd4028$04916780$0db43680$@att.net> <1338579540.22240.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120604012221.GB10478@vt11.net> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 04:12:12AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Dan wrote: > > From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbHj4P81voA&feature=plcp it > > looks like the parachute might be attached to the where the > > gash was, in part. It might be a harness of some sort. But from > > this vid, it's hard to tell if the parachute was store nearer > > to the heat shield. My guess is no and that it's merely a > > harness stored under some covering that goes when the parachute > > is deployed or later during recovery. This might be more an issue of not having room for a chute compartment up front. Dragon has a torus-shaped unpressurized section in back, just behind its heatshield, where the conical pressure vessel tapers inward to form more of a cylinder shape. This surrounding ring houses the the fuel tanks, thrusters, avionics, rendezvous and navigation sensors, and a lot of other hardware that would have gone in the "service module" (or orbital module) on previous vehicles like Apollo and Soyuz and been discarded before reentry. Although the solar panels do get jettisoned, keeping everything else in the capsule proper is a step forward for reusability. The forward part of Dragon is all pressurized volume, all the way up to its docking/berthing hatch (and the "Common Berthing Mechanism" used on this cargo variant is much wider than the docking rings used on any previous capsule, leaving little room for a parachutes container or deployment opening at that end). This spec sheet from SpaceX contains more detail on the compartment layout than I've seen elsewhere, along with other interesting details: http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf > Cool video... is the bit with the small parachutes followed by the > larger parachutes kind of standard? Yes. Look up "drogue parachute" for the reasons behind it. -- Jordan. From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 06:46:48 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:46:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > I think that's a bit pessimistic. According to the car manufacturers > they believe it will be optional equipment on all models by 2020. Yes, > it will take time for the last of the driven cars to go away, but I > think they will be widespread by 2020. > > Hofstadter's law, invented by the cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter. "Any task you're planning to complete will always take longer than expected - even when Hofstadter's law is taken into account". Hofstadter's Law was a part of Douglas Hofstadter's 1979 book G?del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jun 4 07:00:33 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:00:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <4FCBF84D.7030402@aleph.se> References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> <005301cd41a0$373c1670$a5b44350$@att.net> <4FCBF84D.7030402@aleph.se> Message-ID: <20120604070033.GB17120@leitl.org> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 12:50:37AM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Basically I am trying to estimate the limits of how quickly a single > Dysoned star could spam the universe with colony probes. Most of the > analysis has been done already, but I would like to be certain that the > launch systems are feasible. Launch is easy, braking is hard. From anders at aleph.se Mon Jun 4 08:36:22 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:36:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <20120604070033.GB17120@leitl.org> References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> <005301cd41a0$373c1670$a5b44350$@att.net> <4FCBF84D.7030402@aleph.se> <20120604070033.GB17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4FCC7386.5040501@aleph.se> On 04/06/2012 08:00, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 12:50:37AM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > >> Basically I am trying to estimate the limits of how quickly a single >> Dysoned star could spam the universe with colony probes. Most of the >> analysis has been done already, but I would like to be certain that the >> launch systems are feasible. > Launch is easy, braking is hard. > Indeed. We spend far more of the paper looking at that. (which is why I sent the question to the list - I suddenly got worried that I had glossed over some really important aspects). Basically, we are supposing a retro-rocket to slow things down. Being launched backwards from a mass driver also works, but is equivalent to a slightly unusual retro-rocket where the reaction mass is on the outside. In any case the rocket equation bites hard. Using the expansion of the universe to slow is *neat*, but only feasible for very long-range probes. Generally, I wonder about scaling down rockets. While Freitas has shown that one can power nanosmall systems using radioactive decay, I seem to recall that fission and fusion reactors do not scale down well (once you get below the mean free path of particles containment becomes hopeless). So it would be interesting to consider the smallest possible rocket. I imagine it would be a pencil-sized Orion rocket using antimatter pellets - antimatter at least scales perfectly, at least when it comes to exploding. But the shield still needs to be dense and thick enough to catch the kinetic energy of the photons, pions and muons. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jun 4 09:49:23 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:49:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Solar Insights: why solar will win the energy wars Message-ID: <20120604094923.GI17120@leitl.org> (do check out dem purty graphs) http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-insights-why-solar-will-win-the-energy-wars-80365 Solar Insights: why solar will win the energy wars By Giles Parkinson on 4 June 2012 If you want to get a glimpse of how the energy profiles of many major economies will evolve in coming years, then the energy production data from Germany for the month of May is not a bad place to start. Below are a series of graphics that will be presented at the Australian-German solar forum in Berlin this week by Dr Martin Green, the solar cell pioneer and head of the school of photovoltaics at the UNSW, and Dr Bruno Burger from the Fraunhofer Institute for ?lar Energy Systems in Frieburg. The first is the most dramatic. It illustrates the growing impact of renewables on the German electricity grid in the month of May just past. It is based on actual production data supplied by the local market. Although much was made by the record 20GW of capacity from solar PV on Friday, May 26, and the 22GW set the next day, the graph makes clear that solar was a major contributor for the entire month. Germany, of course, has more PV (27GW) installed than the rest of the world combined. Dr Green, however, thinks that this graph will soon be repeated in many other energy markets as solar PV continues its rapid cost decline and its rapid deployment. Australia has just 1.5GW of solar PV installed, and the technology is barely discernible on the National Electricity Market. But based on the forecasts released by the Australian Energy Market Operator last week, for up to 18GW of rooftop PV by 2031 (not including utility-scale solar PV or solar thermal), then that graph could look even more dramatic on Australia?s national Electricity Market ? particularly considering the size of Australia?s grid, and the fact that our country enjoys twice as good solar resources as Germany. And as AEMO pointed out, that amount of rooftop solar will not be deployed because of huge government subsidies, or even any at all. It will be deployed because solar PV is emerging as a cheaper source of energy at the socket than grid-based power, and will continue to do so as solar PV prices fall, grid-prices increase, and new financing methods are introduced to make solar PV more widely available. This next graph (below) shows the last week of May in a bit more detail. Those peaks now occupied by solar are what the gas-fired generators would normally expect to occupy. Not only is solar muscling these generators out of the system, they are also causing a significant reduction in wholesale prices ? the merit order effect. According to energy analysts Platts, wholesale energy prices in Germany started falling dramatically on Friday as the amount of solar PV peaked at over 22GW. And on the weekend, when solar accounted for a massive 40 per cent of the nation?s electricity production at noon, wholesale prices were ?4 (or nearly 15 per cent) below the previous weekend?s price, despite more energy being consumed. On the last Saturday and Sunday of the month, the gas plants hardly got a guernsey. But while this is seen by the solar industry as a sign of progress, it poses a major problem for the government and energy authorities. Gas is needed as the most flexible fuel to respond to the ebb and flow of renewables, but it is being priced out of the market by nuclear and coal on one side, and by solar and wind on the other. The major energy utilities are closing some older gas plants and refusing to build others, forcing the German government to consider the introduction of capacity payments ? essentially a subsidy to keep the gas plants open so they can respond as required. It also needs gas to replace the red line (nuclear) that will be removed by 2022, and fill in the gaps left by offshore wind and solar. A similar scenario is expected to be played out in Australia. Indeed, to understand why Origin Energy is trying to dilute the renewable energy target, you only have to look at their generation portfolio. The company has invested heavily in gas ? both combined cycle (baseload) and open cycle (peaking), but their economics are being squeezed because the brown coal generators are barely grazed by the carbon price, and lower overall demand and the impact of renewables will reduce the amount of energy it can produce in high-margin peak times. It raises the prospect that not only will brown coal generators receive compensation for the carbon price, some will receive payments for closure, and gas plants may well in the future receive similar capacity payments to ensure they remain available as the merit order bites further into their revenue and margins. There must be some irony in the fact that subsidies to fossil fuel plants will need to continue long after the subsidies for renewables generation are wound down. This graph below illustrates what happened with production on Friday, May 25, when solar PV production peaked at 22.4GW. In the heat of the day, when conventional power would normally count on increased production (and prices), they are effectively pushed aside by wind and solar which delivers electricity at a marginal cost of production of close to zero. (The merit order effect). And here is an interesting graph (below) showing how wind and solar are working together. Indeed, according to these graphs, which show their combined production over the first four months of the year, including from the depths of winter, production is fairly constant. This is important, because when these two technologies are deployed on an even great scale, that balance could be crucial ? some of the gaps will be bridged by storage, others by flexible production from gas plants. It also fits in with some of the work on 100 per cent renewable road maps done by UNSW and the solar thermal developer David Mills. Here is another graph (below) that highlights the changing face of energy grids worldwide, and highlights the new capacity that has been installed across the world in the last seven years. Wind and solar dominate, and their deployment is expected to accelerate dramatically in coming years. The next graph underlines exactly where we are headed ? noting that solar PV is already competitive with gas prices and is heading towards wholesale coal prices ? which it will better by the end of the decade. This is consistent with predictions from governments in the US, China and India. Although this prediction was made by Professor Emanuel Sachs of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2009, Green says it may actually be a conservative forecast. That?s because Sachs predicted around 150GW of PV installed around the globe by 2015. But the European Photovoltaic Industry Association recently predicted that the world was now headed for between 169GW and 266GW by 2015. ?EPIA has been notoriously conservative in the past, so Sachs? estimate of 1,000 GW by 2020 and 7 per cent is very reasonable on this basis,? says Green. ?I think many countries grid profile will look like Germany?s by this time.? Yingli?s hockey stick forecasts It is generally agreed that global solar PV manufacturers are facing a tough time as they deal with the problems of overcapacity and wait for the industry to adjust to a world of declining tariffs. But what happens next? An interesting perspective was provided in the results of Yingli Solar, one of the biggest Chinese solar module manufacturers, which said that solar PV had reached a ?turning point? around the world and predicted that its growth would surge, particularly in areas with excellent solar resources. For Yingli, this meant parts of the US, but also Latin American countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Peru ? in both the utility-scale and the rooftop marketplaces. Robert Petrina, Yingli?s head in the Americas, predicted ?hockey stick? growth once the ?proverbial grid parity? is reached. ?You go to conferences in these different regions and nobody talks about incentives or feed in tariffs,? he told analysts on a conference call. ?They talk about policy frameworks that can enable the development of solar in a way that?s efficient, with no significant cost. They are small projects, but there are some very substantial ones in the queue as well.? From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 15:15:45 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:15:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Solar Insights: why solar will win the energy wars In-Reply-To: <20120604094923.GI17120@leitl.org> References: <20120604094923.GI17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > (do check out dem purty graphs) > > http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-insights-why-solar-will-win-the-energy-wars-80365 Eugen, Interesting stuff. I'm assuming that there is more energy used in the day time than at night... but what happens on the days the peak doesn't get so high? Does the electricity come from other countries over the grid? I would kind of assume that from day to day the demand would be rather similar, so I'm just wondering how they do it. I would have thought some of the other power sources would go down as solar went up, especially hydroelectric, but I don't see too much of that. I'm just really curious how it all works out. Is some electricity wasted, or are there users that just pick up whatever is "out there"? -Kelly From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jun 4 16:32:31 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:32:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Solar Insights: why solar will win the energy wars In-Reply-To: References: <20120604094923.GI17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20120604163231.GR17120@leitl.org> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:15:45AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > (do check out dem purty graphs) > > > > http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-insights-why-solar-will-win-the-energy-wars-80365 > > Eugen, Interesting stuff. I'm assuming that there is more energy used > in the day time than at night... but what happens on the days the peak Uh, night baseline is 1/2 to 1/3rd of daytime peak (notice that we've had almost 50% of peak from photovoltaics for two day a couple weeks ago -- this means >100% of peak just from PV is pretty soon). As it's largely due to thermal inertia, and cheap daytime peak has slashed producer's earning night power is a lot more expensive now, so it will probably sink further. We need realtime energy markets in which the small producers/consumers can participate. > doesn't get so high? Does the electricity come from other countries Well weather being rather reliable these days you fire up peak plants well before the peak hits. This can be gas turbines or swarm power (micro co-gen). In future, also storage. > over the grid? I would kind of assume that from day to day the demand > would be rather similar, so I'm just wondering how they do it. Intermittent doesn't mean unpredictable. > I would have thought some of the other power sources would go down as > solar went up, especially hydroelectric, but I don't see too much of Well, at total contribution of ~4% annually (and this is just electricity, not energy) this is still a drop in the bucket. > that. I'm just really curious how it all works out. Is some > electricity wasted, or are there users that just pick up whatever is > "out there"? If the grid can't absorb it, the wind is being separated from the grid, and, yes, in absence of build-out there will be solar overload. There are some peaks occasionally. This is why anticipating daytime peak of 100% or 200% or 1000% is important. We need to load-level that over space and time, including seasons. Right now the lowest-hanging fruit appears to be water electrolysis, and using the natural gas infrastructure for hydrogen blending. From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 17:47:40 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:47:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> <003c01cd4192$26793240$736b96c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Write the app, and become a very wealthy person. Pff. Several have already been written. They're languishing in obscurity, so you would never (yet) have heard of them. Avego, for example. *Successfully market* the app, and then you may get riches. But this takes overcoming the down side of the network effect (such things are of little use, and therefore have a hard time keeping active users, while they have few active users). For these sorts of things, you can generally assume the app has been written, but the circle of users is not yet wide enough that you would have heard of it. Some creative googling will usually find those who are developing it - once you have the idea and can thus come up with search terms for it. There are exceptions, but googling (if you try at least 5 different terms for the idea) will rarely return a false negative here. This, of course, presents the problem of how to relate to awesome things that you haven't even thought of, and thus can't search to find. But once you have thought of it, you can then see if anyone's doing it. -Adrian From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 21:00:09 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:00:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old In-Reply-To: References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: >> > You may not like my diagnosis, but to be frank, you never mentioned you >> > only wanted to read optimistic ones. >> > First things first - congrats for using on this noble list such words as > "ass" and "pussy". Welcome to the club, let's this tradition continue in > the name of calling things by their real name, while we fearlessly drink > vodka and eat sausages. LOL. I'm not afraid of any word that conveys the proper tone and idea. >> ? Steven Pinker (have the book, but not that far into it yet) has >> documented recently the march away from violence civilization has >> taken. He sees it as a good thing. I think I do too, for the most >> part. > > I don't hear much about Mr Pinker. I have just completed reading an > article "War really is going out of style", here (probably a copy of the > one from nytimes, which is behind a register-wall): > > http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/12/war_really_is_going_out_of_sty.html > > and a page from wiki (which I guess talks about the book): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature > > and a critique of the book, quite interesting one: > > http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/john-gray-steven-pinker-violence-review/ I read through this article, and the biggest complaint that he seems to have is that Pinker didn't refer to all of the "great thinkers" and left out those that promoted violence. OK, that's a fair complaint, I suppose. On the other hand, nowhere in that article did he dispute Pinker's actual numbers. So I suppose that he's making a case for the idea that violence will return. But he doesn't even really make that case. So if the point of the article was to say Pinker is wrong, he didn't make a very convincing case of it. > To sum it all in short, I don't buy the idea that we, as a species, are to > be less and less violent. I think it has more to do with memes than genes. > Especially if thanks to democracy and wealth, > because I somehow fail to see how they can make me more benign. Have you been to an elementary school lately? Have you seen the anti-bullying campaigns they are shoving into the heads of our kids? That kind of brain washing is what turns boys into pansies. And I think it works. > In a meantime, wars are going on like they did, in parts of the world less > covered by the news - because it sometimes happens, I hear, that a > journalist is given an easy to decide proposition, either stay and be > killed or STFU and go away. But wars in out of the way places are fought with less scary weapons, in areas with somewhat more sparse populations, and the total number of deaths per capita, globally, goes down. > I must add, there is a group of people - and I think it is easier to find > them in the so called middle class - that very easily gets entrapped into > all kind of hiperoptimistic bullshit. Last time I noticed this, it was the > idea of human/life/intelligence friendly Universe. Holy frak. If > supernovas, neutron stars sending gravitation waves and magnetic pulses, > black holes and their death-ray jets, gamma ray bursts and, oh, huge > asteroids - we exist only thanks to being not close enough to all those > attractions, so far, because each of them could cook us good bye - if this > is friendly, I wonder what unfriendly is. Maybe some Universe-wide > snuff-movie-like orgy orchestrated by Satan and Minions, Ltd. BTW, never > forget about "friendly" entropy, making our efforts to not decay too fast > all the more interesting. I could agree Universe is very dangerous place > to live, and this made me eager to tread lightly and learn dilligently. > But friendly? There are days when I seriously consider starting smoking > pot, like a kilogram at a time. You can worry about all of that stuff, OR you can say, it's been a very long time (if ever for some risks) since we've faced that, so statistically, we are reasonably safe. And go on living. It's called optimism. It isn't hyperoptimism for me to live in the kill zone radius of the Yellowstone volcano. If it goes off most of you will die slowly, while I will have a merciful quickish death. > So, this idea that one day we will become those angelic creatures, good > and nice... No, I don't think so. Rather, I think we humans are beasts and > in best case, we can become self-controlling beasts. Or, eventually, they'll implant something in our heads to make us controlled beasts. They'll take away our ability to react violently. We may even sign up for it in exchange for something we can't imagine at this point. > Now, a problem. Self-control seems to be unfashionable. How so???? It's all the rage! > The idea of having > a gun and not killing everybody who we see out of the window seems to > gradually fall out of favour. Quite the opposite, we can easily remember > news when some wanker shoots passerbys but I don't remember any news or > documentary about someone who leads normal life while having magnum or > remington stuffed under a bed. Isn't it interesting? Having a gun is not usually about inflicting violence, but a hope that we can prevent violence from being inflicted upon us. Being a fan of statistics, however, I don't have a gun because the chances it will be used on me or one of my kids, intentionally or accidentally, is greater than the chance I'll need it against a bad guy. > I have, however, heard other stories, counterweighting those grim options > mentioned. Like of Mr Gichin Funakoshi, who started learning Karate at the > age of 13 to improve his poor health, later became master himself but > fought his first real life fight age 72 (AFAIR - I have read it megayears > ago and cannot find anything on the net) when he helped a woman attacked > by a thug. Now that's the man. He did not go on killing journey, just > practiced the art for his whole life. And as far as I know, self defense with the martial arts is a rarity, statistically speaking. I'm not against the martial arts for self control, for inner peace, for physical fitness. But to protect yourself, it isn't the greatest bargain in the world in terms of money or time. > This story I have found, in a strange turn of fate. Well worth a time: > > http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2011/12/16/katsujinken-applied-in-real-life/ Ha, funny story, with a good lesson. Could use a little editing, kinda longish. > I can also see a problem with idea that some external body would do better > in controlling our impulses than we ourselves could. It sounds very close > to what religions like us to believe. And there is plenty of evidence, > they can easily fail. The fallacy of many people is that when this > external entity changes, they expect the outcome changes too. However, the > controlling of impulses was never the goal of external entities, > especially when we consider they would become obsolete once impulses > finally came under control. The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes explains a lot of the decrease in violence. Before the dispassionate third party, in the form of the all powerful state would dish out just rewards, there were cycles of vengeance and revenge. The Leviathan stopped those cycles, and brought with it a more peaceful way to deal with conflict. > If you still don't get it, do you watch Animal Planet? I sometimes do. It > was surprising to see how predators, despite all their claws and teeth, > fail to have a dinner so often. Now, imagine there was some animal > parliament, manned (or rather, animated) by lions, gnus etc. And now this > parliament starts sending messages, like "dear gnus, you can now saw off > your horns, we are entering period of unprecedented peace". Yes, like hell > we are, with no way a gnu can oppose their opponents, a peace would be > round the corner. Something along a deadly calm. > > So, maybe one day I will go after this book but I doubt I will run after > it. I hope to finish reading it in a few months... it takes a while when you read ten books at a time... >> But being a pussy with regards to resorting to violence isn't >> precisely the same thing as taking it in the ass. There are many ways >> to punish and/or change behaviors that do not use violence. > > I think there is huge misunderstanding about violence. As I tried to show > above. The only alternatives presented to the public are, either be mad > killer or submissive pussnik (which is preferred, because we don't want > be mad and bad, do we). > > There is no mention of other possibilities. Not good, because there are > quite some to choose from. > > Perhaps it has something to do with a hypothesis, that pussniks, > instinctively feeling they have no value as people, compulsively try to > acquire it. Thus they make great programmable shopping bots. We'll make great pets. Once they put a leash on us. >> ? Most of the complaints I have heard over the last ten years is that >> America is still too violent, in sending young men to war >> "needlessly". And then you come along and say we aren't violent >> enough. So which is it? :-) > > Oh, no. I would never say that. I don't like the violence. I just want to > have it in my pocket, like a trump card to be played if needed. Can't disagree that it is a potent card. >> ?Now, for a scary thought from the diseased brain of Kelly... Imagine, >> if you will, a few hundred of these little autonomous quadcopters each >> carrying a half ounce of C4 explosive shape charges and a couple of >> pieces of shrapnel going after a high value target. Imagine his >> security detail trying to protect said HVT from hundreds of these >> speedy little fellows, each programmed to avoid being swatted 600 >> times a second. Each trying desperately and cooperatively to land on >> said HVT's head (or heads of said security detail as a secondary goal) >> and explode. It's a nightmare for a security detail to even think >> about. How would you devise a defense against that other than stay >> inside ALL the time? Eventually, even staying inside won't be enough >> because you'll have autonomous robots that can knock down doors. I >> doubt a security detail would carry enough bullets to shoot them all >> even if they could hit one with each bullet. This is the kind of thing >> like 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination that would work very well once, >> and then maybe not quite so well after that. > > Well, there is no reason (other than being shy) that could prevent future > Kennedy from making his own robots. Like, anti aircraft artillery robots. > With his 9mm taped to a sensor and few electric motors. Ammo is cheap. > Stones are even cheaper. Even lasers are (or will be) cheap. That's why it would only work the first time. 9/11 won't work again either. Hell, that strategy didn't work until the end of the morning of Sept 11! -Kelly From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 23:34:38 2012 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kelly Anderson > To: ExI chat list > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 4:28 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter > Plants have no sense organs (maybe venus fly traps?) for the most > part... without sensory organs, without a nervous system, how would > you get perception? What is doing the perceiving? ? I think you are underestimating plants, Kelly. Sunflowers are are called that because they twist to follow the sun. The phenomenon is called heliotropism and cannot occur unless the sunflower senses the sun somehow.?Phototropism, geotropism,?and of course venus flytraps catching prey all require senses.?On a cellular level plants do almost everything animals do just at a slower pace, since they don't have?the quick access to large amounts of energy that?eating?thy neighbor affords. Here's a link. There's a?journal article at the bottom of the page for video non-watchers.?? ? http://www.whataplantknows.com/home/plant-senses >?All chemicals work > with information, but informational processing doesn't equal > consciousness. Most people don't consider computers conscious (yet) > but they process way more information than a plant. Last I heard human brains process information electrochemically with chemical neurotransmitters. Plants are a network of living cells. Nervous systems are a network of living cells. The key difference could simply be connectivity. Neurons are each connected to more other neurons than?plant cells which are simply connected to the neighboring cells they touch. ? One possible way to define?a "unit" of consciousness is through an environmental?sensory-behaviorial feedback loop. For example a simple thermostat might be considered conscious in a?rudimentary way: It senses the temperature?of?it's environment?and then?turns on or off the HVAC system accordingly.?Computers sense and respond to their users unless one gives them?senses other than a keyboard, then they can be programmed to respond to other stimuli.?So I guess what I am?asking is that if consiousness is *not* information processing then what else might it be?? Stuart LaForge "Man is a strange animal, he doesn't like to read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it."? -Adlai Stevenson From max at maxmore.com Tue Jun 5 01:14:52 2012 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:14:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Max More, Philosopher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://maxmore.com/writing.htm --Max On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 3 June 2012 10:13, Kelly Anderson wrote: > >> Max, (or anyone else) I've read that you are a philosopher, and I >> believe it. And I have a pretty good idea of what you propose. But I >> don't see a book on Amazon... what is the best place to read your >> philosophical writings? maxmore.com? >> http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm ? >> > > Come on, many of us would love to see Max more philosophically productive > inasmuch as as this may be compatible with his current corporate > engagements, but his work is indeed seminal for modern transhumanism and is > widely accessible by simply googleing his name... > > -- > Stefano Vaj > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- Max More, PhD 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 01:03:02 2012 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 21:03:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: <4FCC7386.5040501@aleph.se> References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> <005301cd41a0$373c1670$a5b44350$@att.net> <4FCBF84D.7030402@aleph.se> <20120604070033.GB17120@leitl.org> <4FCC7386.5040501@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > Generally, I wonder about scaling down rockets. While Freitas has shown that > one can power nanosmall systems using radioactive decay, I seem to recall > that fission and fusion reactors do not scale down well (once you get below > the mean free path of particles containment becomes hopeless). So it would > be interesting to consider the smallest possible rocket. I imagine it would > be a pencil-sized Orion rocket using antimatter pellets - antimatter at > least scales perfectly, at least when it comes to exploding. But the shield > still needs to be dense and thick enough to catch the kinetic energy of the > photons, pions and muons. ### What about a lightsail probe that eats its huge sail, with a mass orders of magnitude larger than the payload, to build a fusion-powered ion drive that uses >99.9 of the initially launched mass to brake at target location? If you are using a large laser array, the initial mass of the spacecraft is not strongly constrained, at least much less than the mass of something that needs to fit into an accelerator. An alternative would be to accelerator-launch a stream of lighter spacecraft at high frequency, at slightly varied launch speeds that would cause them to aggregate a few months or years worth of travel time before target location, again producing a large craft consisting of >99.9 reaction mass for an ion drive. The second approach would not be limited by the physical characteristics of laser propulsion but achieving large masses at target would lengthen the total launch duration, from the first to the last sub-spacecraft. And of course, having a good supply of antimatter would presumably let you keep the total reaction mass requirement down. An interesting option would be to have multiple swarms of probes converging in space and time to allow staged deceleration. At first let's say 1000 probes would each eat 10 reaction mass pellets, and slow down while consuming 9/10 of their reaction mass, then 9 of each group of 10 send their remaining reaction mass to 1, producing 100 fully-fueled but much slower probes, which repeat the cycle, producing 10 even slower ones, which finally produce the final fully fueled probe capable of braking to the target stellar orbit velocity. I have a feeling this would improve the payload/reaction mass ratio over what is doable with a single-stage deceleration, ceteris paribus, but I don't have the math to prove it. But definitely it would improve mission reliability (assuming the swarm would successfully stay together and coalesce efficiently), since the success of the final payload would be achieved from multiple independently braking objects, rather than a single huge one. Rafal From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 19:14:01 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Dragon spotted in POLA! Message-ID: <1338923641.73347.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/120605port/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 01:18:46 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 21:18:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:34 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > One possible way to define?a "unit" of consciousness is through an environmental?sensory-behaviorial feedback loop. For example a simple thermostat might be considered conscious in a?rudimentary way: It senses the temperature?of?it's environment?and then?turns on or off the HVAC system accordingly.?Computers sense and respond to their users unless one gives them?senses other than a keyboard, then they can be programmed to respond to other stimuli.?So I guess what I am?asking is that if consiousness is *not* information processing then what else might it be? It's a wrinkle in the carpet that sometimes your toys get stuck and other times they don't and you can't quite explain why it is. From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 06:30:07 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:30:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Kelly Anderson >> To: ExI chat list >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 4:28 AM >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter > >> Plants have no sense organs (maybe venus fly traps?) for the most >> part... without sensory organs, without a nervous system, how would >> you get perception? What is doing the perceiving? > > I think you are underestimating plants, Kelly. Sunflowers are are called that because they twist to follow the sun. The phenomenon is called heliotropism and cannot occur unless the sunflower senses the sun somehow.?Phototropism, geotropism,?and of course venus flytraps catching prey all require senses.?On a cellular level plants do almost everything animals do just at a slower pace, since they don't have?the quick access to large amounts of energy that?eating?thy neighbor affords. Here's a link. There's a?journal article at the bottom of the page for video non-watchers. > > http://www.whataplantknows.com/home/plant-senses This is a compelling argument. I particularly liked the kid's science project. Nice one. I think I did underestimate plants. Still, consciousness? >>?All chemicals work >> with information, but informational processing doesn't equal >> consciousness. Most people don't consider computers conscious (yet) >> but they process way more information than a plant. > > Last I heard human brains process information electrochemically with chemical neurotransmitters. Plants are a network of living cells. Nervous systems are a network of living cells. The key difference could simply be connectivity. Neurons are each connected to more other neurons than?plant cells which are simply connected to the neighboring cells they touch. > And speed. Speed is always part of the measure of intelligence. > One possible way to define?a "unit" of consciousness is through an environmental?sensory-behaviorial feedback loop. For example a simple thermostat might be considered conscious in a?rudimentary way: It senses the temperature?of?it's environment?and then?turns on or off the HVAC system accordingly.?Computers sense and respond to their users unless one gives them?senses other than a keyboard, then they can be programmed to respond to other stimuli.?So I guess what I am?asking is that if consiousness is *not* information processing then what else might it be? OK... maybe I'm defining consciousness more in terms of "self awareness"... I don't know how self awareness is related to consciousness, but when I think of consciousness, that's sort of the kind of thing that pops into my head. And no, I do not think that a switch is self aware. Plants? I dunno. -Kelly From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 11:38:17 2012 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 04:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1338982697.44035.YahooMailNeo@web164505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ?----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike Dougherty > To: The Avantguardian ; ExI chat list > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 6:18 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:34 PM, The Avantguardian > wrote: >> One possible way to define?a "unit" of consciousness is through > an environmental?sensory-behaviorial feedback loop. For example a simple > thermostat might be considered conscious in a?rudimentary way: It senses the > temperature?of?it's environment?and then?turns on or off the HVAC system > accordingly.?Computers sense and respond to their users unless one gives > them?senses other than a keyboard, then they can be programmed to respond to > other stimuli.?So I guess what I am?asking is that if consiousness is *not* > information processing then what else might it be? --------------------------------------- > It's a wrinkle in the carpet that sometimes your toys get stuck and > other times they don't and you can't quite explain why it is. ------------------------------------------------------? Human brains glitch too for equally mysterious reasons. Why do people with OCD wash their hands every 10 minutes? But those glitches?does not keep them from?being functionally conscious or, in the case of Howard Hughes, successful.?That being said, human consciousness has had a million years or so of natural selection to optimize the process, so don't lose your patience just yet. Stuart LaForge "Man is a strange animal, he doesn't like to read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it."? -Adlai Stevenson From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 12:15:11 2012 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1338984911.36761.YahooMailNeo@web164503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kelly Anderson > To: The Avantguardian ; ExI chat list > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 11:30 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, The Avantguardian > wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Kelly Anderson >>> To: ExI chat list >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 4:28 AM >>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter >>> ?All chemicals work >>> with information, but informational processing doesn't equal >>> consciousness. Most people don't consider computers conscious (yet) >>> but they process way more information than a plant. >> >> Last I heard human brains process information electrochemically with > chemical neurotransmitters. Plants are a network of living cells. Nervous > systems are a network of living cells. The key difference could simply be > connectivity. Neurons are each connected to more other neurons than?plant cells > which are simply connected to the neighboring cells they touch. >> > > And speed. Speed is always part of the measure of intelligence. Granted. And I would agree that nervous systems should be faster and more intelligent than plants. But at least we seem to agree that plant intelligence and animal intelligence might lie along the same continuum. >> One possible way to define?a "unit" of consciousness is through > an environmental?sensory-behaviorial feedback loop. For example a simple > thermostat might be considered conscious in a?rudimentary way: It senses the > temperature?of?it's environment?and then?turns on or off the HVAC system > accordingly.?Computers sense and respond to their users unless one gives > them?senses other than a keyboard, then they can be programmed to respond to > other stimuli.?So I guess what I am?asking is that if consiousness is *not* > information processing then what else might it be? > > OK... maybe I'm defining consciousness more in terms of "self > awareness"... I don't know how self awareness is related to > consciousness, but when I think of consciousness, that's sort of the > kind of thing that pops into my head. And no, I do not think that a > switch is self aware. Plants? I dunno. Ahh. Ok, now I understand that your definition of consciousness includes self-awareness, we might get somewhere interesting. Yes, I agree that a single?sensory behaviorial feedback loop?is most likely?not self-aware. It is, however,?aware of?the single environmental parameter that it "senses".?In the case of a thermostat that would be temperature. Now imagine a?very large ensemble?of?individual S-B feedback loops that each measure and regulate different?but very specific environmental parameters: luminousity, specific wavelengths of light, temperature, pressure, saltiness, pH,?glucose concentration, concentration of nucleotides, and so on. Let us agree to call the generalization of these?individual feedback loops "homeostats" since the word thermostat specifically refers to temperatures. Now increase the number of?parameters that?have?S-B feedback loops?that measure and respond to those parameters until they number in the thousands.?Then the multivariate homeostat?has emerged into something?akin to a living cell in complexity and?intelligence. As?those feedback loops become still more numerous?and syncretic, the thermostat becomes aware of higher-order environmental parameters that emerge out of the complexity of sensory inputs:?movement, color,?sounds, smells, flavors, textures,?hunger, pain, pleasure, moistness, etc. Now the multivariate homeostat?is on par with an animal like a mouse or something. Now increase the number and complexity of?S-B feedback loops still further until?the multivariate homeostat actually?assesses and responds to?complex behavior of other more or less similar homeostats. Now you have?a?complex?homeostat?that amounts to?a social animal like a primate or something. ? The big question?is how and where the?phenomenon of self-awareness emerges.?Perhaps when?all possible environmental parameters are?exhaustively accounted for, the self is all that remains unaccounted for.?Perhaps self-awareness is defined by its own?incomprehensibility. Like?a blind-spot in our model of the world that by the simple process of elimination?*must* be ourselves. Perhaps?consciousness is defined by what it is not: ? NOT("you"?OR "environment")?= "me"?? Stuart LaForge "Man is a strange animal, he doesn't like to read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it."? -Adlai Stevenson From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 12:19:15 2012 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:19:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Reality TV on Mars Message-ID: <1338985155.5152.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Came across this site. This sounds?better than?"The Hunger Games" only its not fiction (at least I hope not): http://mars-one.com/ Stuart LaForge "Man is a strange animal, he doesn't like to read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it."? -Adlai Stevenson From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 12:45:30 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Reality TV on Mars In-Reply-To: <1338985155.5152.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1338985155.5152.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1338986730.33365.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 8:19 AM The Avantguardian wrote: > Came across this site. This sounds?better than?"The Hunger Games" > only its not fiction (at least I hope not): > > http://mars-one.com/ If they're serious, that's a rather optimistic timeline, don't you think? > "Man is a strange animal, he doesn't like to read the handwriting on the wall until his back > is up against it."? -Adlai Stevenson This seems the case for other animals too, so it's not strange at all. Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 12:51:01 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1338987061.39537.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 2:30 AM Kelly Anderson wrote: > This is a compelling argument. I particularly liked the kid's science > project. Nice one. I think I did underestimate plants. Still, > consciousness? I think one might consider a slightly different approach. Rather than work backward from beings we know (or believe we know) are conscious to see what makes them so, work from things or systems and try to figure out if we would ever predict consciousness from their components or arrangements of components. For instance, whatever in observing neurons firing or molecules moving about in neurons would ever give one the inclination to posit more than neurons firing or molecules moving about was going on? Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 17:30:03 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:30:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Reality TV on Mars In-Reply-To: <1338986730.33365.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1338985155.5152.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338986730.33365.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Dan wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 8:19 AM The Avantguardian wrote: >> Came across this site. This sounds?better than?"The Hunger Games" >> only its not fiction (at least I hope not): >> >> http://mars-one.com/ > > If they're serious, that's a rather optimistic timeline, don't you think? They ignore the little matter of how to get it funded - and why people would want to fund it. General enthusiasm for all things space only goes so far; at some point, there needs to be an economic return if the colony is to become self-sufficient (and if that's not the plan, it's a non-starter - as a colony, as opposed to something like the ISS). Further, astronaut selection in 2013 - over a decade ahead of when the astronauts will actually be needed - is likely to be their downfall. At that point, it becomes about These Chosen Few, and public support crashes. Though perhaps that's a deliberate decision, intended to test that failure mode. (Bad idea: if almost everything else was in place and then they chose their crew, not as much further support would be needed to actually place the astronauts on Mars.) From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 17:16:17 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:16:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > OK... maybe I'm defining consciousness more in terms of "self > awareness"... I don't know how self awareness is related to > consciousness, but when I think of consciousness, that's sort of the > kind of thing that pops into my head. And no, I do not think that a > switch is self aware. Plants? I dunno. > > By happy synchronicity..... Quote: Do Plants Think? Scientist Daniel Chamovitz unveils the surprising world of plants that see, feel, smell?and remember By Gareth Cook | June 5, 2012 How aware are plants? This is the central question behind a fascinating new book, ?What a Plant Knows,? by Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University. A plant, he argues, can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory. ----------- BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Jun 6 19:28:56 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:28:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Renting Room Near Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario So. Calif Message-ID: <20120606152856.miv4pwjngg0cwcc0@webmail.natasha.cc> Hi everyone -- I will be in Southern California working out of 20th Century Medicine for 3 weeks this late summer.? Does anyone know of a room I could rent during mid/late Aug. through early Sept? Thank you and if you have any ideas for me, please email me off list! Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jun 6 20:06:59 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 22:06:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Renting Room Near Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario So. Calif In-Reply-To: <20120606152856.miv4pwjngg0cwcc0@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <20120606152856.miv4pwjngg0cwcc0@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <20120606200659.GT17120@leitl.org> Is renting with housemates an acceptable option? Will 21st help you with that, perhaps? I would stay away from San Bernardino, there should be rooms to rent in Rancho itself. Ours was even close enough to walk to work, even though it took some 45 min. Closest airport is Ontario. No need to drive in all the way from LAX. It was an option that worked for me, way back ;) Fun times, I hope I didn't come over as too big a weirdo at the time when visiting you in Del Rey. On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:28:56PM -0400, natasha at natasha.cc wrote: > > > Hi everyone -- > > I will be in Southern California working out of 20th Century Medicine > for 3 weeks this late summer.? Does anyone know of a room I could rent > during mid/late Aug. through early Sept? > > Thank you and if you have any ideas for me, please email me off list! > > Best, > > Natasha > > Natasha Vita-More > > _______________________________________________ > 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 natasha at natasha.cc Wed Jun 6 20:07:32 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:07:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Renting Room Near Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario So. Calif In-Reply-To: <20120606152856.miv4pwjngg0cwcc0@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <20120606152856.miv4pwjngg0cwcc0@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <20120606160732.ydqdzd6vwg0k48ko@webmail.natasha.cc> Sorry, 21st Cent. Med. ! Quoting natasha at natasha.cc: > > > Hi everyone -- > > I will be in Southern California working out of 20th Century > Medicine for 3 weeks this late summer.? Does anyone know of a room I > could rent during mid/late Aug. through early Sept? > > Thank you and if you have any ideas for me, please email me off list! > > Best, > > Natasha > > Natasha Vita-More From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Jun 6 20:20:36 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:20:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Renting Room Near Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario So. Calif In-Reply-To: <20120606200659.GT17120@leitl.org> References: <20120606152856.miv4pwjngg0cwcc0@webmail.natasha.cc> <20120606200659.GT17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20120606162036.53os9qy1w4kwcocc@webmail.natasha.cc> This is for the list to see so that n oon ewill think 'gene was a weirdo! In fact he was lots of fun. (I remember our drive to Malibu and the book reading .. . and I remember hanging out at Nadia's at the Art Complex in Santa Monica. GREAT TIMES!) Natasha Quoting Eugen Leitl : > > Is renting with housemates an acceptable option? Will 21st help you with > that, perhaps? I would stay away from San Bernardino, there should be > rooms to rent in Rancho itself. Ours was even close enough to walk to > work, even though it took some 45 min. Closest airport is Ontario. > No need to drive in all the way from LAX. > > It was an option that worked for me, way back ;) > > Fun times, I hope I didn't come over as too big a weirdo at the time > when visiting you in Del Rey. > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:28:56PM -0400, natasha at natasha.cc wrote: >> >> >> Hi everyone -- >> >> I will be in Southern California working out of 20th Century Medicine >> for 3 weeks this late summer.? Does anyone know of a room I could rent >> during mid/late Aug. through early Sept? >> >> Thank you and if you have any ideas for me, please email me off list! >> >> Best, >> >> Natasha >> >> Natasha Vita-More >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 6 21:39:37 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:39:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Renting Room Near Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario So. Calif In-Reply-To: <20120606162036.53os9qy1w4kwcocc@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <20120606152856.miv4pwjngg0cwcc0@webmail.natasha.cc> <20120606200659.GT17120@leitl.org> <20120606162036.53os9qy1w4kwcocc@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <001301cd442c$df81d4d0$9e857e70$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of natasha at natasha.cc Subject: Re: [ExI] Renting Room Near Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario So. Calif >...This is for the list to see so that n oon ewill think 'gene was a weirdo!... Natasha But we are big admirers of weird! We all know where normal gets us. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Jun 6 22:29:03 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:29:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Renting Room Near Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario So. Calif In-Reply-To: <001301cd442c$df81d4d0$9e857e70$@att.net> References: <20120606152856.miv4pwjngg0cwcc0@webmail.natasha.cc> <20120606200659.GT17120@leitl.org> <20120606162036.53os9qy1w4kwcocc@webmail.natasha.cc> <001301cd442c$df81d4d0$9e857e70$@att.net> Message-ID: <20120606182903.yebnq8kwoc4cokk4@webmail.natasha.cc> Quoting spike : > ... On Behalf Of natasha at natasha.cc > Subject: Re: [ExI] Renting Room Near Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario So. Calif >> ...This is for the list to see so that n oon ewill think 'gene was >> a?weirdo!...? Natasha > But we are big admirers of weird!? We all know where normal gets us. Heh!??Hell, I'm still stuck here in Austin - have been for the past 8+ years and you know what they say ... keep Austin weird. But I'm not so sure it is the same weird we like to think of as out of the "normal" -- out of the universal normalcy.? But I get your point :-) N -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 22:39:40 2012 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:39:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> <005301cd41a0$373c1670$a5b44350$@att.net> <4FCBF84D.7030402@aleph.se> <20120604070033.GB17120@leitl.org> <4FCC7386.5040501@aleph.se> Message-ID: Regarding deceleration to land the probe.. The goal is to seed the destination with a replicator, yes? And the replicator is composed of a universal constructor and its data, yes? Then there is one circumstance where braking is unnecessary. If the probe is inbound to a technologically advanced star system, then one can avoid braking entirely by transmitting a "virus" that hijacks a bit of the local manufacturing capacity. It should be possible to determine ahead of time -- perhaps even prior to launch -- if the destination system has the needed tech. Then the probe listens and evaluates en route, and configures the virus accordingly. Some thought might be given as to whether this is excessively "unfriendly". Clearly, a special case. Best, Jeff Davis From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 6 23:05:04 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:05:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Renting Room Near Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario So. Calif In-Reply-To: <20120606182903.yebnq8kwoc4cokk4@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <20120606152856.miv4pwjngg0cwcc0@webmail.natasha.cc> <20120606200659.GT17120@leitl.org> <20120606162036.53os9qy1w4kwcocc@webmail.natasha.cc> <001301cd442c$df81d4d0$9e857e70$@att.net> <20120606182903.yebnq8kwoc4cokk4@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <001201cd4438$d02315b0$70694110$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of natasha at natasha.cc . >> ...This is for the list to see so that n oon ewill think 'gene was a weirdo!... Natasha >.Heh! ... keep Austin weird. But I'm not so sure it is the same weird we like to think of as out of the "normal" -- out of the universal normalcy. But I get your point J N What if. a weird person is female? Is she still a weirdO? Or is there a feminized version of the word? And once we get that, perhaps it will shed light on a related question: if a bathing suit made for racing is for women, is it still called a speedO? The world may never know. {8^D (.he said, tickling the tail of the mighty Extropy pun dragon.) spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 01:38:11 2012 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:38:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Get Free books online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:43 PM, BillK wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Max More wrote: > > For those pages, Chrome warms me: "This link has insecure content". > > That is a known problem with Chrome. Apparently it is driving site > owners mad as they are losing traffic. > I think it just means the page loads content through an http:// URL, not an https:// URL. If you replace the https in the links with http, it loads without warning. E.g.: http://www.techsupportalert.com/free-books-science-fiction-fantasy -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 02:27:50 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 22:27:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <1338982697.44035.YahooMailNeo@web164505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338982697.44035.YahooMailNeo@web164505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:38 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > Human brains glitch too for equally mysterious reasons. Why do people with OCD wash their hands every 10 minutes? But those glitches?does not keep them from?being functionally conscious or, in the case of Howard Hughes, successful.?That being said, human consciousness has had a million years or so of natural selection to optimize the process, so don't lose your patience just yet. I read the wikipedia article on Pistol Shrimp as a distraction link from other research. I imagine shrimp to be ocean bugs, but this 3-5cm bug is capable of producing a cavitation bubble that generates a 80 kPa (about 11psi) shockwave to literally stun/kill prey. Not only is this weapon a pretty cool exploit of shrimp underwater "technology" but these guys form symbiotic relationship with goby fish (2,3). In that case the shrimp evolved an effective attack and the Goby evolved better eyesight; they work together as a team and improve survival odds. If we consider the entirety of the local ecosystem as single entity, there might be a case for each of these creatures as modules in a complex system. The relevant point of interest in this story is that the ocean environment has had a few million more years of evolution to specialize the creatures into especially-suited (fittest) for that [arguably hostile] environment. It may be that the first sea creature to crawl onto land was simply looking to get out of harm's way. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_shrimp#Snapping_effect 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_shrimp#Ecology 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goby#Symbiosis From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 06:16:33 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:16:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alzheimer's vaccine trial a success Message-ID: [NEWS 6 June] A study led by Karolinska Institutet reports for the first time the positive effects of an active vaccine against Alzheimer's disease. The new vaccine, CAD106, can prove a breakthrough in the search for a cure for this seriously debilitating dementia disease. The study is published in the distinguished scientific journal Lancet Neurology. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jun 8 08:05:36 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:05:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? Message-ID: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apocalypse-soon-has-civilization-passed-the-environmental-point-of-no-return&print=true Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? Although there is an urban legend that the world will end this year based on a misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar, some researchers think a 40-year-old computer program that predicts a collapse of socioeconomic order and massive drop in human population in this century may be on target By Madhusree Mukerjee | Wednesday, May 23, 2012 | 92 Forest fires ravaging near Novovoronezh Nuclear Power Plant Image: flickr/Alexey Kudenko Remember how Wile E. Coyote, in his obsessive pursuit of the Road Runner, would fall off a cliff? The hapless predator ran straight out off the edge, stopped in midair as only an animated character could, looked beneath him in an eye-popping moment of truth, and plummeted straight down into a puff of dust. Splat! Four decades ago, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer model called World3 warned of such a possible course for human civilization in the 21st century. In Limits to Growth, a bitterly disputed 1972 book that explicated these findings, researchers argued that the global industrial system has so much inertia that it cannot readily correct course in response to signals of planetary stress. But unless economic growth skidded to a halt before reaching the edge, they warned, society was headed for overshoot?and a splat that could kill billions. Don't look now but we are running in midair, a new book asserts. In 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (Chelsea Green Publishing), Jorgen Randers of the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, and one of the original World3 modelers, argues that the second half of the 21st century will bring us near apocalypse in the form of severe global warming. Dennis Meadows, professor emeritus of systems policy at the University of New Hampshire who headed the original M.I.T. team and revisited World3 in 1994 and 2004, has an even darker view. The 1970s program had yielded a variety of scenarios, in some of which humanity manages to control production and population to live within planetary limits (described as Limits to Growth). Meadows contends that the model's sustainable pathways are no longer within reach because humanity has failed to act accordingly. Instead, the latest global data are tracking one of the most alarming scenarios, in which these variables increase steadily to reach a peak and then suddenly drop in a process called collapse. In fact, "I see collapse happening already," he says. "Food per capita is going down, energy is becoming more scarce, groundwater is being depleted." Most worrisome, Randers notes, greenhouse gases are being emitted twice as fast as oceans and forests can absorb them. Whereas in 1972 humans were using 85 percent of the regenerative capacity of the biosphere to support economic activities such as growing food, producing goods and assimilating pollutants, the figure is now at 150 percent?and growing. Randers's ideas most closely resemble a World3 scenario in which energy efficiency and renewable energy stave off the worst effects of climate change until after 2050. For the coming few decades, Randers predicts, life on Earth will carry on more or less as before. Wealthy economies will continue to grow, albeit more slowly as investment will need to be diverted to deal with resource constraints and environmental problems, which thereby will leave less capital for creating goods for consumption. Food production will improve: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause plants to grow faster, and warming will open up new areas such as Siberia to cultivation. Population will increase, albeit slowly, to a maximum of about eight billion near 2040. Eventually, however, floods and desertification will start reducing farmland and therefore the availability of grain. Despite humanity's efforts to ameliorate climate change, Randers predicts that its effects will become devastating sometime after mid-century, when global warming will reinforce itself by, for instance, igniting fires that turn forests into net emitters rather than absorbers of carbon. "Very likely, we will have war long before we get there," Randers adds grimly. He expects that mass migration from lands rendered unlivable will lead to localized armed conflicts. Graham Turner of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization fears that collapse could come even earlier, but due to peak oil rather than climate change. After comparing the various scenarios generated by World3 against recent data on population, industrial output and other variables, Turner and, separately, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, conclude that the global system is closely following a business-as-usual output curve. In this model run the economy continues to grow as expected until about 2015, but then falters because nonrenewable resources such as oil become ever more expensive to extract. "Not that we're running out of any of these resources," Turner explains. "It's that as you try to get to unconventional sources such as under deep oceans, it takes a lot more energy to extract each unit of energy." To keep up oil supply, the model predicts that society will divert investment from agriculture, causing a drop in food production. In this scenario, population peaks around 2030 at between seven and eight billion and then decreases sharply, evening out at about four billion in 2100. mayan calendar, apocalypse, destruction, global warming, 2012, occupy wall street, arab spring, end of the world Figure courtesy of PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Meadows holds that collapse is now all but inevitable, but that its actual form will be too complex for any model to predict. "Collapse will not be driven by a single, identifiable cause simultaneously acting in all countries," he observes. "It will come through a self-reinforcing complex of issues"?including climate change, resource constraints and socioeconomic inequality. When economies slow down, Meadows explains, fewer products are created relative to demand, and "when the rich can't get more by producing real wealth they start to use their power to take from lower segments." As scarcities mount and inequality increases, revolutions and socioeconomic movements like the Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street will become more widespread?as will their repression. Many observers protest that such apocalyptic scenarios discount human ingenuity. Technology and markets will solve problems as they show up, they argue. But for that to happen, contends economist Partha Dasgupta of the University of Cambridge in the U.K., policymakers must guide technology with the right incentives. As long as natural resources are underpriced compared with their true environmental and social cost?as long as, for instance, automobile consumers do not pay for lives lost from extreme climatic conditions caused by warming from their vehicles' carbon emissions?technology will continue to produce resource-intensive goods and worsen the burden on the ecosystem, Dasgupta argues. "You can't expect markets to solve the problem," he says. Randers goes further, asserting that the short-term focus of capitalism and of extant democratic systems makes it impossible not only for markets but also for most governments to deal effectively with long-term problems such as climate change. "We're in for a period of sustained chaos whose magnitude we are unable to foresee," Meadows warns. He no longer spends time trying to persuade humanity of the limits to growth. Instead, he says, "I'm trying to understand how communities and cities can buffer themselves" against the inevitable hard landing. From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 10:16:23 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:16:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apocalypse-soon-has-civilization-passed-the-environmental-point-of-no-return&print=true > > Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No > Return? > > Although there is an urban legend that the world will end this year based on > a misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar, some researchers think a > 40-year-old computer program that predicts a collapse of socioeconomic order > and massive drop in human population in this century may be on target > So, on the one hand we have approaching environment collapse, (and he hardly mentions the approaching financial / political collapse either) and on the other hand we have glorious tales of the approaching singularity, the end of scarcity and a life of abundance for everyone. How to decide? Perhaps it is timing. If the collapse arrives first, then the singularity could be postponed for a lifetime at least. Perhaps much longer, as the recovery will have to progress without the easily obtained natural resources that humanity will have used up by then. Is it possible that all civs only have one chance at the singularity and it is so difficult that they all fail and go into barely surviving mode? BillK From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 14:06:34 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1339164394.7731.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Don't you think fear is used to manipulate people? Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 15:13:27 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:13:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1338852878.99615.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 6 June 2012 08:30, Kelly Anderson wrote: > OK... maybe I'm defining consciousness more in terms of "self > awareness"... I don't know how self awareness is related to > consciousness, but when I think of consciousness, that's sort of the > kind of thing that pops into my head. And no, I do not think that a > switch is self aware. Plants? I dunno. > I submit that in fact one *never* knows in any rigorous sense. AFAIK, the world might be populated by philosophical zombies. Human zombies, animal zombies, plant zombies. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jun 8 17:03:44 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:03:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: <1339164394.7731.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> <1339164394.7731.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120608170330.GU17120@leitl.org> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:06:34AM -0700, Dan wrote: > Don't you think fear is used to manipulate people? I definitely wish that people would be afraid of abstract threats that are not immediate. Me? Don't care, I'm at stage 5 of the K?bler-Ross model. From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 17:20:29 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:20:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Meadows holds that collapse is now all but inevitable, but that its actual > form will be too complex for any model to predict. Unverifiable hypothesis, check. Ability to move the goalposts when civilization stubbornly refuses to collapse worldwide, check. Really, why is this even noteworthy? > Many observers protest that such apocalyptic scenarios discount human > ingenuity. Technology and markets will solve problems as they show up, they > argue. But for that to happen, contends economist Partha Dasgupta of the > University of Cambridge in the U.K., policymakers must guide technology with > the right incentives. Right enough. They don't need to be perfect. Of course, one could argue that we need a $1M/gallon gasoline tax and even that wouldn't be enough. Or one could accept that said incentives are already being placed out there - and that if we continue on the current general track, even with occasional setbacks, we can solve it. But no, that doesn't have the emotional release of, "we're all doomed unless everyone does exactly what I say (which can't happen if my demands are impossible to fully satisfy)". > as long as, for instance, > automobile consumers do not pay for lives lost from extreme climatic > conditions caused by warming from their vehicles' carbon emissions Perfect example. How, exactly, does one pay for lives lost? If in money, who decides the amount? What happens when - not if - people disagree whether sufficient payment has been made? > technology > will continue to produce resource-intensive goods and worsen the burden on > the ecosystem, Dasgupta argues. Like solar panels and wind farms. One can argue they're as bad or worse than the dirtiest petroleum-fueled plants. One would be utterly wrong, but the argument can be made. No, seriously, why even post this drivel? We've all seen it too many times already. From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 8 17:34:45 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:34:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <011601cd459c$ffdd99a0$ff98cce0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >...But no, that doesn't have the emotional release of, "we're all doomed unless everyone does exactly what I say (which can't happen if my demands are impossible to fully satisfy)"... Adrian Ja, and the way it often comes across is that we are doomed even if we do exactly as the person says, because they were telling us we were at the point of no return some time ago. So, OK then, no return it is. Forward we go. Let us look at the changes coming and deal with them. We can deal with them, even if we cannot maintain the current climate indefinitely. Climate change will not kill everyone nor every beast and every change will not necessarily be a bad thing. spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 19:49:13 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:49:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: <011601cd459c$ffdd99a0$ff98cce0$@att.net> References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> <011601cd459c$ffdd99a0$ff98cce0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:34 PM, spike wrote: > Ja, and the way it often comes across is that we are doomed even if we do > exactly as the person says, because they were telling us we were at the > point of no return some time ago. ?So, OK then, no return it is. ?Forward we > go. ?Let us look at the changes coming and deal with them. ?We can deal with > them, even if we cannot maintain the current climate indefinitely. ?Climate > change will not kill everyone nor every beast and every change will not > necessarily be a bad thing. > > I don't think these scientists are complaining just about climate change. They seem to be worried that humanity is having an overwhelming effect on the planet. Species are dying out at an incredible rate. We are in the middle of one of the great die-off periods in the history of the planet. Fresh water shortages are approaching, quite separate from the droughts and floods related to climate change. Other resource shortages are likely to be a problem for the next generation. There is another report here from Stanford University, published in Nature magazine. We are not talking about a quick fix for one town (New Orleans still isn't fixed). This is a worldwide problem. The fear is that the damage will accumulate into a landslide of problems that becomes overwhelming and causes a large die-off in humanity as well. These reports are not just 'doom and gloom'. They are pointing out that funny noise in the engine that needs attention before the car stops completely. BillK From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 8 21:09:25 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:09:25 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4FD26A05.7000509@aleph.se> I was not too impressed by the paper, but it does have a point: theseresearchers have for a while developed a theory for detecting when noisy complex adaptive systems jump to other equilibria, and they are making the case that this might be applicable to the global ecosystem. The problem is that their argument in Nature is mainly based on one set of models where they see things happen when a kind of percolation limit is passed: this can be turned into a prediction for when bad things will happen, but the uncertainties involved are big enough to give plenty of wiggle room - or nasty surprises. Their *good* argument, about slowing of fluctuations near bifurcations, is not really used. This actually gives a way of checking whether we are entering the danger zone, and is where I would have been gathering data series to bolster the first argument if I had been writing the paper. One interesting issue that might be worth following up is to check their percolation argument and see if it applied to economies as they integrate or globalize. Ought to be a good way of checking it. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From mrjones2020 at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 01:44:22 2012 From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (J.R. Jones) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 21:44:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> <011601cd459c$ffdd99a0$ff98cce0$@att.net> Message-ID: > I don't think these scientists are complaining just about climate change. > It's a perfect storm. Energy, food, government, finance, social, educational, climate, ocean acidification, bio diversity down the hole, and on. I'm sorry, but optimists just aren't paying attention. That, or their goals are inverse mine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 14:01:53 2012 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 07:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1339250513.85731.YahooMailClassic@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: >AFAIK, the world might be populated by philosophical zombies. Human >zombies, animal zombies, plant zombies. Well, not quite. An idea can exist, but that doesn't mean that the thing it represents must be able to exist, or even make any sense (look at religion for abundant examples of that!). As the phrase 'philosophical zombie' effectively means 'something which isn't what it is', or looked at another way, something which can't, even in principle, be distinguished from an identical thing that isn't one, I think it's safe to say that there are not, and never will be, such things as philosophical zombies. Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 14:13:33 2012 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 07:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1339251213.75227.YahooMailClassic@web114402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> BillK asked: > Is it possible that all civs only have one chance at the singularity > and it is so difficult that they all fail and go into barely surviving > mode? Of course it is. Eminently possible. Which just makes me think: "Hey, let's be the first ones to break the mould!" There's a good, practical reason for refusing to be pessimistic. If we assume the premise is true, we will expect to fail. If we assume that it's not, at least if we do fail, it won't be because we've limited our beliefs about what's possible. And who knows, maybe we /will/ be the first ones to manage it (wouldn't that be cool?!). Or maybe there are loads of post-singularity civilisations, and we're just not bright enough yet to figure out the actual solution to the Fermi Paradox. The best approach is the same as with life-extension: Singularity or die trying! Ben Zaiboc From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 13:24:46 2012 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 06:24:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mining asteroids Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Dan wrote: > Subject: Re: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the > ? ? ? ?Environmental Point of No Return? > > Don't you think fear is used to manipulate people? It's a really poor motivator when you have no way to escape. I am working on three articles in this regard. There is a JBIS article on a 500,000 ton per year to GEO Skylon/laser concept, one on power satellite design and this one on mining asteroids. The last one reached draft for review first and I hung a wikified draft of it here: http://www.htyp.org/Mining_Asteroids Keith From dan_ust at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 14:19:39 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 07:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Kepler false positive rate might be 35% for close-in giant candidates Message-ID: <1339251579.27827.YahooMailNeo@web160606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0601 I imagine this will be debated and that the rate will move up and down as the techniques are fine tuned. Comments? Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 14:25:11 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 07:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> <011601cd459c$ffdd99a0$ff98cce0$@att.net> Message-ID: <1339251911.11238.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Friday, June 8, 2012 9:44 PM J.R. Jones wrote: >> I don't think these scientists are complaining just about climate change. > > It's a perfect storm. Energy, food, government, finance, social, educational, > climate, ocean acidification, bio diversity down the hole, and on. > I'm sorry, but optimists just aren't paying attention. That, or their goals are > inverse mine. What are your goals here? What are theirs? Don't you think, though, that humans have a pessimistic bias? At any time in history, just about, I think, most people will presume things are getting ever worse -- even when their own lives are getting better. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter#Pessimistic_bias Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 14:58:35 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 07:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure Message-ID: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder if any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced under extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds (and, heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some amino acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few days and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 15:31:27 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:31:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <1339250513.85731.YahooMailClassic@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1339250513.85731.YahooMailClassic@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > An idea can exist, but that doesn't mean that the thing it represents must be able > to exist, or even make any sense (look at religion for abundant examples of that!). > ?As the phrase 'philosophical zombie' effectively means 'something which isn't what > it is', or looked at another way, something which can't, even in principle, be distinguished > from an identical thing that isn't one, I think it's safe to say that there are not, and > never will be, such things as philosophical zombies. > > I have to say that all the zombies I've met don't seem to be very philosophical. You can't have very deep discussions while they are trying to eat your brains. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 15:47:04 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:47:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dan wrote: > Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder if > any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced under > extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds (and, > heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low > pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some amino > acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few days > and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm > wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. > > Lots of life in the deep ocean at up to 1000 atm pressure. See: also BillK From wincat at swbell.net Sat Jun 9 15:47:00 2012 From: wincat at swbell.net (Norman Jacobs) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 10:47:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001cd4657$1cae5aa0$560b0fe0$@net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 9:59 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder if any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced under extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds (and, heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some amino acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few days and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 9 16:10:57 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 09:10:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: References: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net> <013901cd3f9e$77c9d0f0$675d72d0$@att.net> <004101cd4083$eb6aa260$c23fe720$@att.net> <20120602113640.GB17120@leitl.org> <003c01cd4192$26793240$736b96c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <024301cd465a$74c06820$5e413860$@att.net> BMW and Volvo are working on self-driving cars too, with emphasis added to "working on." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg {8^D s From anders at aleph.se Sat Jun 9 15:41:04 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:41:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <1339250513.85731.YahooMailClassic@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4FD36E90.9000004@aleph.se> On 2012-06-09 17:31, BillK wrote: > I have to say that all the zombies I've met don't seem to be very philosophical. > > You can't have very deep discussions while they are trying to eat your brains. Philosophical zombies also eat your brains, but they do it *using* deep discussions. I suspect they are particularly common among philosophers of mind: I always come away from those discussions with a headache and a feeling I am missing a part of my brain. (Ethicists are much nicer, they just steal your wallet.) -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Sat Jun 9 16:12:47 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 18:12:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Physical limits of electromagnetic launchers In-Reply-To: References: <4FCA8186.2020000@aleph.se> <000301cd4107$9c04f700$d40ee500$@att.net> <4FCB7183.4060907@aleph.se> <005301cd41a0$373c1670$a5b44350$@att.net> <4FCBF84D.7030402@aleph.se> <20120604070033.GB17120@leitl.org> <4FCC7386.5040501@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4FD375FF.8000506@aleph.se> On 2012-06-07 00:39, Jeff Davis wrote: > If the probe is inbound to a technologically advanced star system, > then one can avoid braking entirely by transmitting a "virus" that > hijacks a bit of the local manufacturing capacity. It should be > possible to determine ahead of time -- perhaps even prior to launch -- > if the destination system has the needed tech. Then the probe listens > and evaluates en route, and configures the virus accordingly. Some > thought might be given as to whether this is excessively "unfriendly". Yes, this works if you just want to go where there are already an installed infrastructure. It is not useful if you happen to be the first civilization to expand or if you want to colonize *everything*. It is useful if you care mainly about existing civs - either as competitors or as friends. We have been thinking about wild approaches to arriving at destinations like shining lasers at it to induce the formation of a crude replicator that builds a better one with a receiver and then remote-directed construction, but I have not seen any compelling arguments that this is feasible (and diffraction limits suggest it is not possible - you can't get enough resolution over the distance unless you have an absurdly large transmitter and very short wavelengths). In fact, it would be a very interesting research project to delineate just how much fine manipulation is possible over distance using different energy levels, wavelengths etc. My conjecture is that unless the substrate is designed for it (i.e. an empty computer waiting for a command) nearly all forms of complex manipulation have to be local. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jun 9 17:15:46 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 12:15:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <4FD36E90.9000004@aleph.se> References: <1339250513.85731.YahooMailClassic@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4FD36E90.9000004@aleph.se> Message-ID: <00c101cd4663$828bf790$87a3e6b0$@cc> LOL! Natasha Vita-More Chairman, Humanity+ CCO, esDesign PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK Editor, The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and ContemporaryEssays on the Science, Technology and Philosophy of the Human Future "The things one feels absolutely certain about are never true. Oscar Wilde (But is this true then?) -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 10:41 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter On 2012-06-09 17:31, BillK wrote: > I have to say that all the zombies I've met don't seem to be very philosophical. > > You can't have very deep discussions while they are trying to eat your brains. Philosophical zombies also eat your brains, but they do it *using* deep discussions. I suspect they are particularly common among philosophers of mind: I always come away from those discussions with a headache and a feeling I am missing a part of my brain. (Ethicists are much nicer, they just steal your wallet.) -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dan_ust at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 20:22:57 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1339273377.87992.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Saturday, June 9, 2012 11:47 AM BillK wrote On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dan wrote: >> Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder if >> any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced under >> extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds (and, >> heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low >> pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some amino >> acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few days >> and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm >> wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. > > Lots of life in the deep ocean at up to 1000 atm pressure. > See: > > also > I'm not sure how my point could be misunderstood, but I was talking about the origin of life NOT whether life currently exists under these conditions. Yes, there is life there now -- just like therr's life in the dirt outside my window and, heck, on the my window -- but I was wondering whether anyone has done any sort of abiogenesis* experiments (or even serious theorizing) under extreme pressures to see if that's a factor in the origin of life. (This research can be pursued on either end of the spectrum too: very high pressures or very low ones. Maybe, as chemical reactions are impacted, this might lead to some progress, such as, perhaps, finding that high pressure lead to the formation of more complicated precursors or to life itself.) (And, regarding hydrothermal vents as places for life to originate, I've not read or heard anything about anyone paying particular attention to the high pressures themselves being a factor -- just as the source of energy and chemicals and gradients. I was specifically focusing on extremes of pressure maybe having a decisive impact on the origin of life.) Regards, Dan * That is, how biological life might arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. From gsantostasi at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 21:18:59 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:18:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: <1339273377.87992.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1339273377.87992.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Here an interesting TED lectures on actual attempts of abiogenesis in the lab. http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life.html Giovanni On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Dan wrote: > On Saturday, June 9, 2012 11:47 AM BillK wrote > On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dan wrote: > >> Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder > if > >> any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced > under > >> extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds > (and, > >> heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low > >> pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some > amino > >> acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few > days > >> and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm > >> wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. > > > > Lots of life in the deep ocean at up to 1000 atm pressure. > > See: > > > > also > > > > > I'm not sure how my point could be misunderstood, but I was talking about > the origin of life NOT whether life currently exists under these > conditions. Yes, there is life there now -- just like therr's life in the > dirt outside my window and, heck, on the my window -- but I was wondering > whether anyone has done any sort of abiogenesis* experiments (or even > serious theorizing) under extreme pressures to see if that's a factor in > the origin of life. (This research can be pursued on either end of the > spectrum too: very high pressures or very low ones. Maybe, as chemical > reactions are impacted, this might lead to some progress, such as, perhaps, > finding that high pressure lead to the formation of more complicated > precursors or to life itself.) > > (And, regarding hydrothermal vents as places for life to originate, I've > not read or heard anything about anyone paying particular attention to the > high pressures themselves being a factor -- just as the source of energy > and chemicals and gradients. I was specifically focusing on extremes of > pressure maybe having a decisive impact on the origin of life.) > > > Regards, > > Dan > > * That is, how biological life might arise from inorganic matter through > natural processes. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jun 9 22:33:51 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:33:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter Message-ID: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter On 2012-06-09 17:31, BillK wrote: > >>... You can't have very deep discussions while they are trying to eat your brains. >...Philosophical zombies also eat your brains... -- Anders Sandberg Has anyone here ever actually devoured brains? I have not, but I have half a mind to do it, just to know what it is like. It is available at the local butcher. I already have a technique for devouring strange new foods: go half rations and zero fat for about three days, then you can eat anything. I don't recall anyone saying it is necessarily good food. Is there any special way it needs to be prepared? Are there any risks involved such as mad cow disease? Does that apply to swine brains? spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 10 05:20:21 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 22:20:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> References: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <02e901cd46c8$bc5d0a30$35171e90$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of spike >>...Philosophical zombies also eat your brains... -- Anders Sandberg >...Has anyone here ever actually devoured brains? ... spike _______________________________________________ Eeesh, have you ever been at a party and made some comment that doesn't go over well and it suddenly gets quiet? Do you ever wonder what it was that you said? That happens to me. This feels like that right now. We had this interesting discussion, then I innocently ask if anyone here had eaten brains, and suddenly it's this big apparent fox pass. What's so scandalous? The swine is dead anyways. So I am curious about how brains taste, what's the harm in that? Question retracted, oy. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 10 05:40:00 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 22:40:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> <011601cd459c$ffdd99a0$ff98cce0$@att.net> Message-ID: <02ed01cd46cb$7a840430$6f8c0c90$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:34 PM, spike wrote: > >... ?Climate change will not kill everyone nor every beast and every change will not necessarily be a bad thing... spike >...I don't think these scientists are complaining just about climate change. They seem to be worried that humanity is having an overwhelming effect on the planet. Species are dying out at an incredible rate...These reports are not just 'doom and gloom'. They are pointing out that funny noise in the engine that needs attention before the car stops completely... BillK _______________________________________________ Hi BillK, I have been watching the debate go back and forth both online and in society over climate change and impending collapse and so forth. It occurred to me that the reason I tend to have a different outlook than the mainstream is that I have a different vision of the endgame. For instance, a common vision of the long term, or endgame of humanity from an Asimov POV is planet with about a billion humans collected in about a thousand population centers, with most of the rest of the planet more or less wilderness, a billion well-fed well-educated comfortable smart people that eventually colonizes the solar system and form a nice steady state sustainable peaceful existence that extends indefinitely into the future. I think this is a common vision of the future, but it is not one that I share. I envision and endgame in which we figure out how to upload, then we gradually manage to get most or all of the metals in the solar system into some kind of computronium, so that there isn't really much dead matter anywhere. Everything that isn't hydrogen or a noble gas is somehow involved in contributing to pure thought in my vision of an endgame. With that vision, it is natural to assume that some species now on this planet will go extinct. Reasoning: there is so much less habitat available as humans continue to radiate outward from Africa. That we should be inadvertently terraforming the planet to be more comfortable for an African beast doesn't surprise me at all. If we had a planet in which humans are the largest predator and all animal life is carefully controlled, that to me isn't hard to imagine. If that is an intermediate stage to the endgame previously mentioned, well that seems reasonable to me. I can envision a planet in which we collect and store all the sun's energy that makes it to the surface, we maintain about 30 to 50 billion proles, every square meter of land is used for something, there are no more wild predators, the largest non-human animal that manages to survive are our pet dogs and cats, and below them, mammals at the level of mice. I can imagine this state of nature as a stage in the development towards an endgame of disassembling planets to convert the metals to computronium. That being said, I agree that species are going extinct, and that I do not see how to save them all. I don't accept the notion that if many species go extinct that it will cause humanity to go extinct. spike From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 07:18:17 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 01:18:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: <02ed01cd46cb$7a840430$6f8c0c90$@att.net> References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> <011601cd459c$ffdd99a0$ff98cce0$@att.net> <02ed01cd46cb$7a840430$6f8c0c90$@att.net> Message-ID: It should come as no surprise that I lean strongly towards the optimists. One reason is because the pessimists have been playing their game for hundreds if not thousands of years, and they have never been right except temporarily. I do worry about bumps in the road. I do not worry about where the road is headed, if we avoid existential threats. I do worry about one aspect of the Diamandis Abundance model... he claims that the world economy will be much improved as the bottom billions begin to contribute economically using the now ubiquitous cell phones. And that is a noble thought, as well as a noble goal. I love business ideas that help the very poorest among us. Got to work better than aid. So the problem is, if there is a depopulation event, such as a big flu outbreak, or mass starvation because of something akin to the Irish potato famine hitting corn, rice or wheat, and we lose a billion people, then will the magic fall apart? And if so, for how long? I look at the recent flooding of hard drive plants in Thailand as an example of a bump in the road. How has it affected Kryder's Law? I can't find good numbers yet... but I suspect it hasn't affected it at all. It has made hard drives more expensive for a while... but we even seem to be coming out of that a bit now. I'd bet in 5 years you will see a wiggle in the price per bit graph, but overall, the curve will still be followed, despite the flood. I also don't think the pessimists give technology the credit it deserves for solving the insoluble problems of the past. And given technology's penchant for pulling our asses out of the fire in the past, where is the expectation that it won't also do this in the future generated? People have been creating solutions from rocks for Odin's sake for 3 million years! The article talked about the coming water shortage. Diamandis talks about water abundance through the application of relatively simple and relatively cheap technology. We will know soon who is right on this particular matter. I'm betting on water abundance. Dirty water isn't that rare. Salt water isn't that rare. Clean water can be manufactured from either of these given the right technology, which has already been developed (though perhaps not yet adapted for use in the 3rd world), and an energy source. The real answer to the question probably lies in the future of energy. I find it curious that Eugen, who promotes the German approach to solar as being a great solution, is among the energy pessimists when it comes to oil. For heaven's sake Eugen... look at the history of Germany... during WWII and the preceding decade, you brilliant Germans turned coal into gasoline to run your economy and your war machine. Or is teaching that part of history forbidden because the Nazi's could not possibly have done ANYTHING correctly? -Kelly From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jun 10 12:10:03 2012 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:10:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <02e901cd46c8$bc5d0a30$35171e90$@att.net> References: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> <02e901cd46c8$bc5d0a30$35171e90$@att.net> Message-ID: Geez, spike. That's not a bad question. I've been busy or I could have answered sooner, and I figured someone else would. Yes, I've eaten brains, they came in a can in the canned meat aisle of the grocery. They were bland and pale colored. They were to be served with eggs and grits. That was *many* years ago. Not nearly as tasty as sweetbreads and not as much body to them. Maybe it was the preparation, I've never had fresh brains. Regards, MB From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 10 14:11:06 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:11:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> <02e901cd46c8$bc5d0a30$35171e90$@att.net> Message-ID: <002301cd4712$e1055960$a3100c20$@att.net> >...Yes, I've eaten brains, they came in a can in the canned meat aisle of the grocery... Regards, MB Cool thanks, I didn't even think of looking for it in a can. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jun 10 16:07:22 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:07:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Too Much Futurism or Not Enough? Message-ID: <006101cd4723$1ef17320$5cd45960$@cc> I remember 20-30 years ago when we talked about the future, it was exciting and the ideas of living longer and building new bodies was fun. The only "future" folks making projections about the future were Al Toffler, FM Esfandiary and John Naisbitt. Then there was Faith Popcorn and a few others, but no one reached the level of Toffler in his vision and insights, scope and reason. Today, it is everywhere. It is advertized like Coca-ColaR and some of the hyperbole is like loud noise. I'm wondering, is the future part of science or is it entertainment? On the one had we need to understand the future and participate in the discussion, know the terminology and the references. On the other hand, futurism - this new branding of the field of futurology has taken a neofuturist turn and I am not sure it is helping or not. What has occurred is this (imho): Futurism got married to entrepreneurism (the Silicon Valley virus that started many years ago, but was hyped by TED, and has infiltrated some strong segments of design (product design and industrial design) in academics, and now more recently the Singularity University). This is good on many fronts and not so good on others. The not so good has to do with the depth of knowledge and understanding about the future, its historical links to the past, the deeper issues and need for discussion rather than running after rainbows. A friend of mine posted this video clip on his blog: http://www.gf2045.com/ It caused me to gag (probably because of the voice over). The term neohuman is just another way of saying transhuman . But this looks like a fun project and I see some people I truly love who are involved. Anyway, back to the topic: Is there something here that is missing? Something that the scope of all the talk about the future is missing? Everywhere one turns, it is about the future and rushing to get it done, make money off it of, produce conferences, create celebrities of people who think about the future . It seems that there is something missing. I don't know what and perhaps it is just a "gut" feeling. But I trust my instincts and I sense this quite strongly. Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Jun 10 17:16:09 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:16:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> <02e901cd46c8$bc5d0a30$35171e90$@att.net> Message-ID: <20120610171609.GO17120@leitl.org> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 08:10:03AM -0400, MB wrote: > Not nearly as tasty as sweetbreads and not as much body to > them. Maybe it was the preparation, I've never had fresh > brains. Best brains are vitrified brains. And then minced, sliced and diced ten times to Sunday, at ~nm resolution. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jun 10 17:26:40 2012 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:26:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <20120610171609.GO17120@leitl.org> References: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> <02e901cd46c8$bc5d0a30$35171e90$@att.net> <20120610171609.GO17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <9aeca9087a5a02b3b554fd32294f88a3.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > Best brains are vitrified brains. And then minced, sliced > and diced ten times to Sunday, at ~nm resolution. > :))) Regards, MB From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Jun 10 17:25:55 2012 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (john clark) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The singularity ruined by lawyers In-Reply-To: <20120610171609.GO17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1339349155.37381.YahooMailClassic@web82905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E&feature=relmfu ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 10 17:28:05 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 20:28:05 +0300 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> References: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FD4D925.1030501@aleph.se> On 10/06/2012 01:33, spike wrote: > Has anyone here ever actually devoured brains? Never had the chance to try. I'm half curious, half afraid. Lots of ways of doing it: http://matadornetwork.com/life/five-recipes-that-require-brains/ http://moroccanfood.about.com/od/maindishes/r/mokh_with_preserved_lemons.htm http://www.celtnet.org.uk/recipes/roman/fetch-recipe.php?rid=roman-iscia-de-cerebellis I suspect that I would be a lousy brain cook, since I would be busy trying to identify the different parts. I also wonder if the cerebellum tastes different from the basal ganglia or the cortex? -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 20:19:14 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:19:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> <02e901cd46c8$bc5d0a30$35171e90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM, MB wrote: > Not nearly as tasty as sweetbreads and not as much body to > them. Maybe it was the preparation, I've never had fresh > brains. not much body to brains? haha From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 01:02:51 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:02:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] conformal cyclic cosmology Message-ID: http://t.co/3h0px63O Are layman analogies acceptable models for discussion on a topic like this? I imagine rain on an already wind-swept and tumultuous lake surface to be hardly noticeable while the first drop of rain on an ideally undisturbed lake would produce ripples that travel noticeably for a long distance. I think the analogy may work well enough. I'm not sure if it extends to explain how the first drop of rain coalesced outside the surface of the lake. I assume many here are actually able to discuss cosmology using math - but can you paint me a picture with a more colorful brush so I might recognize the scene? From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 11 05:20:39 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:20:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [tt] Too Much Futurism or Not Enough? In-Reply-To: <006101cd4723$1ef17320$5cd45960$@cc> References: <006101cd4723$1ef17320$5cd45960$@cc> Message-ID: <006601cd4791$f0a46cb0$d1ed4610$@att.net> From: tt-bounces at postbiota.org [mailto:tt-bounces at postbiota.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Subject: [tt] [ExI] Too Much Futurism or Not Enough? I remember 20-30 years ago when we talked about the future. Natasha Good questions all. Sometimes I think we tended to get a little too caught up in the flying cars and space cities notions to notice the wonder of what we ended up with instead. Look at it this way. What if the future turned out the way the 50s sci-fi crowd envisioned. We would have or be building enormous space stations, on which perhaps 500 humans could live, which is one in ten million, and wouldn't that be cool? Well, not really, not for the other 9,999,999 of every ten million. What if we had ended up with flying cars, wouldn't that be cool? Not for most everybody, who couldn't afford one. In fact if you have enough money, we have flying cars, ones that don't go very well on the road. So no, that wasn't really all that cool a vision. So what if we greatly extend life? We did, some, and likely will, and this is cool. Everyone can play if they want. We can get a few body enhancements, not as many as I had hoped for by now, if you have a lot of money. But keep a focus on what we did get: the internet and cell phones, and pretty soon, self-driving cars. These are in reach of ordinary people with ordinary means. I am one such person, so I would say better we have technical advances that we can actually have, rather than a bunch of really cool stuff that only a few can afford. Note who is writing all this, this is ME, the poster child hardcore capitalist here. The future turned out cool, even without the other stuff, considering what stuff we did get. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Jun 11 06:55:15 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:55:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] conformal cyclic cosmology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FD59653.9030705@aleph.se> On 2012-06-11 03:02, Mike Dougherty wrote: > http://t.co/3h0px63O > > Are layman analogies acceptable models for discussion on a topic like this? The problem is that 1) we can not avoid using them if we want to have a popular discussion, and 2) they tend to be fundamentally flawed analogies. Think of the spacetime as rubber deformed by weights analogy: it is fairly good for getting the gist of relativity, except that it makes you think spacetime has a basically 2D plane topology, that space is absolute, and that it is subjected by some kind of external gravity: wormholes and large-scale curvature does not make sense if your intuitions are shaped by the analogy. So we better be careful. > I assume many here are actually able to discuss cosmology using math - > but can you paint me a picture with a more colorful brush so I might > recognize the scene? What about this picture: you look at the history of the universe while zooming out to ever bigger scales. First you have a fairly homogeneous big bang, then various structures emerge and quickly dissipate. You zoom out, and the state again looks just like the big bang state. So you assume they are the same. The big problem IMHO with Penrose's model is that it seems to be dominated by Boltzman brains. Most of the minds and observations in it would be due to random formation due to vacuum fluctuations. So why do we see a big and consistent universe rather than a small and random one, despite the later being a far more common "observation" among the BBs than the first? -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Mon Jun 11 07:13:57 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:13:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Too Much Futurism or Not Enough? In-Reply-To: <006101cd4723$1ef17320$5cd45960$@cc> References: <006101cd4723$1ef17320$5cd45960$@cc> Message-ID: <4FD59AB5.4050304@aleph.se> On 2012-06-10 18:07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > It seems that there is something missing. I don?t know what and perhaps > it is just a ?gut? feeling. But I trust my instincts and I sense this > quite strongly. There is the future as entertainment and as something that is coming real. I think we have ended up with far more thinking about it as entertainment, and it is drenching out the attempts of actually building it. There is an instant gratification element in thinking about the future. Imagine, and you are there! And in our networked, global and transparent society we can get great future imagination instantly: just click your mouse to go to TED, extropy-chat or Arxiv. At the same time making the future is about as tough as it has ever been. It require persistence, focus and hard work. But we - the future oriented people - are educating ourselves with instant gratification. I suspect that we have become less able to focus on the big projects. This is a statistical thing rather than individual: some people are clearly unaffected, but a lot of potential future-makers who would otherwise have made something are now happy with the entertainment or light projects. And quite plausibly many of us are easily distracted. There is also the paradoxical effect of the networked world on one hand allowing you to reach out to big networks of like-minded people, on the other hand apparently making it harder to reliably coordinate large-scale action. It is easy to create focused responses on particular issues, but hard to create wide consensus to do something (due to echo chamber effects, the inhibiting effects of having done simple symbolic actions, the splintering of the social space into subnetworks etc). So while we can crowdsource amazing things, we cannot actually build consensus to go in particular directions: any futures that are dependent on that are near impossible to reach. So maybe our success in some technosocial dimensions have undermined progress in other, wider directions. Or maybe this is just evidence that I am turning a grumpy old man (I am almost as old as Alcor! :-) -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 07:34:04 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:34:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Too Much Futurism or Not Enough? In-Reply-To: <4FD59AB5.4050304@aleph.se> References: <006101cd4723$1ef17320$5cd45960$@cc> <4FD59AB5.4050304@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > There is the future as entertainment and as something that is coming real. I > think we have ended up with far more thinking about it as entertainment, and > it is drenching out the attempts of actually building it. > > The latest proposal to send people to Mars involves funding it as a 'Big Brother' house project that advertisers will support because millions of viewers will watch. So the Mars explorers will have to be young nubile people will plenty of quirks, pop culture, sexual activity but with little knowledge of science or the outside world in general. As one comedian remarked. 'Why do we need to actually go to the Moon or Mars now that we have developed Photoshop?' BillK From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 07:17:50 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:17:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] conformal cyclic cosmology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > http://t.co/3h0px63O > > Are layman analogies acceptable models for discussion on a topic like this? > > This article is recycled from a two year old Discovery magazine article. I remember it being debunked at the time. A search produces: Quote: No Evidence of Time before Big Bang Latest research deflates the idea that the Universe cycles for eternity. December 10, 2010 By Edwin Cartlidge Our view of the early Universe may be full of mysterious circles -- and even triangles -- but that doesn't mean we're seeing evidence of events that took place before the Big Bang. So says a trio of papers taking aim at a recent claim that concentric rings of uniform temperature within the cosmic microwave background--the radiation left over from the Big Bang--might, in fact, be the signatures of black holes colliding in a previous cosmic 'aeon' that existed before our Universe. ------------------ Analogies are all well and good, but make sure the picture is correct first. A simple analogy of a mistaken conclusion just piles error on top of error. BillK From giulio at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 07:39:04 2012 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:39:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Too Much Futurism or Not Enough? In-Reply-To: <4FD59AB5.4050304@aleph.se> References: <006101cd4723$1ef17320$5cd45960$@cc> <4FD59AB5.4050304@aleph.se> Message-ID: Anders, you have always been a grumpy old man, because you speak with the voice of wisdom. On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2012-06-10 18:07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> >> It seems that there is something missing. I don?t know what and perhaps >> it is just a ?gut? feeling. But I trust my instincts and I sense this >> quite strongly. > > > There is the future as entertainment and as something that is coming real. I > think we have ended up with far more thinking about it as entertainment, and > it is drenching out the attempts of actually building it. > > There is an instant gratification element in thinking about the future. > Imagine, and you are there! And in our networked, global and transparent > society we can get great future imagination instantly: just click your mouse > to go to TED, extropy-chat or Arxiv. > > At the same time making the future is about as tough as it has ever been. It > require persistence, focus and hard work. But we - the future oriented > people - are educating ourselves with instant gratification. I suspect that > we have become less able to focus on the big projects. This is a statistical > thing rather than individual: some people are clearly unaffected, but a lot > of potential future-makers who would otherwise have made something are now > happy with the entertainment or light projects. And quite plausibly many of > us are easily distracted. > > There is also the paradoxical effect of the networked world on one hand > allowing you to reach out to big networks of like-minded people, on the > other hand apparently making it harder to reliably coordinate large-scale > action. It is easy to create focused responses on particular issues, but > hard to create wide consensus to do something (due to echo chamber effects, > the inhibiting effects of having done simple symbolic actions, the > splintering of the social space into subnetworks etc). So while we can > crowdsource amazing things, we cannot actually build consensus to go in > particular directions: any futures that are dependent on that are near > impossible to reach. > > So maybe our success in some technosocial dimensions have undermined > progress in other, wider directions. > > Or maybe this is just evidence that I am turning a grumpy old man (I am > almost as old as Alcor! :-) > > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford University > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 07:44:26 2012 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:44:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Too Much Futurism or Not Enough? In-Reply-To: References: <006101cd4723$1ef17320$5cd45960$@cc> <4FD59AB5.4050304@aleph.se> Message-ID: The "young nubile people will plenty of quirks, pop culture, sexual activity" will be there to attract the cash, and they will be the passengers of the Mars One ship. But Mars One will also need captain, officers, and crew. These will be scientists, engineers and technicians. I love the Mars One concept. It is deliciously irreverent, and a true child of the 21st century. I suspect that their real business plan is to cash out after the first reality shows (the public will select the astronauts) and forget about Mars, but I hope I am wrong and I wish them well. On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM, BillK wrote: > The latest proposal to send people to Mars involves funding it as a > 'Big Brother' house project that advertisers will support because > millions of viewers will watch. > > So the Mars explorers will have to be young nubile people will plenty > of quirks, pop culture, sexual activity but with little knowledge of > science or the outside world in general. From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 11 12:57:48 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 05:57:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Too Much Futurism or Not Enough? In-Reply-To: <4FD59AB5.4050304@aleph.se> References: <006101cd4723$1ef17320$5cd45960$@cc> <4FD59AB5.4050304@aleph.se> Message-ID: <008301cd47d1$ce3d1920$6ab74b60$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Too Much Futurism or Not Enough? On 2012-06-10 18:07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > It seems that there is something missing. I don't know what and > perhaps it is just a "gut" feeling. But I trust my instincts and I > sense this quite strongly. >...There is the future as entertainment and as something that is coming real. I think we have ended up with far more thinking about it as entertainment, and it is drenching out the attempts of actually building it.--Anders Sandberg Ja. One way to look at it is that the future as entertainment is what pays the bills. Something needs to pay for development, and entertainment is as good as anything else I can imagine. Governments will pay only for defense-related futurism. spike From gsantostasi at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 14:16:36 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:16:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Economics of Cryonics Message-ID: It is a pity the transhumanist community is not more active to reply to articles like this: http://io9.com/5889638/the-economic-problems-with-cryogenically-freezing-your-body?popular=true And to create information that is depicting cryonics in more realistic and positive light. Giovanni -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 21:53:54 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:53:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] conformal cyclic cosmology In-Reply-To: <4FD59653.9030705@aleph.se> References: <4FD59653.9030705@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > What about this picture: you look at the history of the universe while > zooming out to ever bigger scales. First you have a fairly homogeneous big > bang, then various structures emerge and quickly dissipate. You zoom out, > and the state again looks just like the big bang state. So you assume they > are the same. I see what you mean. (that statement implies visualization, etc.) Another experience with this is a fractal zoomer of Mandelbrot set. Most of the time people are zooming IN rather than out. Depending on the renderer there are some interesting/surprising images at extremely wide views too. I'm not saying the Universe is fractal (not saying it isn't either) but the alternation of order/chaos at various scales is pretty cool. > The big problem IMHO with Penrose's model is that it seems to be dominated > by Boltzman brains. Most of the minds and observations in it would be due to > random formation due to vacuum fluctuations. So why do we see a big and > consistent universe rather than a small and random one, despite the later > being a far more common "observation" among the BBs than the first? Perspective? From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 13:37:09 2012 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:37:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Economics of Cryonics Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > It is a pity the transhumanist community is not more active to reply to > articles like this: > > http://io9.com/5889638/the-economic-problems-with-cryogenically-freezing-your-body?popular=true > > And to create information that is depicting cryonics in more realistic and > positive light. As articles go, this one is relatively accurate. I don't know how much overlap there is between cryonics and transhumanism. I get the impression it's more than 10 percent but considerably less than 50%. Anyone have an actual figure? Max? Keith From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 14:54:50 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:54:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1339273377.87992.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Why don't those people write their things down? :-) On 9 June 2012 23:18, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Here an interesting TED lectures on actual attempts of abiogenesis in the > lab. > http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life.html > > Giovanni > > > On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Dan wrote: > >> On Saturday, June 9, 2012 11:47 AM BillK wrote >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dan wrote: >> >> Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder >> if >> >> any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced >> under >> >> extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds >> (and, >> >> heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low >> >> pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some >> amino >> >> acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few >> days >> >> and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm >> >> wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. >> > >> > Lots of life in the deep ocean at up to 1000 atm pressure. >> > See: >> > >> > also >> > >> >> >> I'm not sure how my point could be misunderstood, but I was talking about >> the origin of life NOT whether life currently exists under these >> conditions. Yes, there is life there now -- just like therr's life in the >> dirt outside my window and, heck, on the my window -- but I was wondering >> whether anyone has done any sort of abiogenesis* experiments (or even >> serious theorizing) under extreme pressures to see if that's a factor in >> the origin of life. (This research can be pursued on either end of the >> spectrum too: very high pressures or very low ones. Maybe, as chemical >> reactions are impacted, this might lead to some progress, such as, perhaps, >> finding that high pressure lead to the formation of more complicated >> precursors or to life itself.) >> >> (And, regarding hydrothermal vents as places for life to originate, I've >> not read or heard anything about anyone paying particular attention to the >> high pressures themselves being a factor -- just as the source of energy >> and chemicals and gradients. I was specifically focusing on extremes of >> pressure maybe having a decisive impact on the origin of life.) >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> * That is, how biological life might arise from inorganic matter through >> natural processes. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 14:52:16 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:52:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <1339250513.85731.YahooMailClassic@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1339250513.85731.YahooMailClassic@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9 June 2012 16:01, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > An idea can exist, but that doesn't mean that the thing it represents must > be able to exist, or even make any sense (look at religion for abundant > examples of that!). As the phrase 'philosophical zombie' effectively means > 'something which isn't what it is', or looked at another way, something > which can't, even in principle, be distinguished from an identical thing > that isn't one, I think it's safe to say that there are not, and never will > be, such things as philosophical zombies. > This is however exactly... my point. To wonder upon whether something is "conscious" in any other terms than by checking whether it exhibits a given set of behavious that are relevant to the issue at hand (and/or which may help me to hallucinate on it my internal statuses) does not really make sense. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Tue Jun 12 15:23:18 2012 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:23:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: <02ed01cd46cb$7a840430$6f8c0c90$@att.net> References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> <011601cd459c$ffdd99a0$ff98cce0$@att.net> <02ed01cd46cb$7a840430$6f8c0c90$@att.net> Message-ID: <201206121633.q5CGXvqj003306@andromeda.ziaspace.com> As was noted when the original Limits to Growth study came out, the core fallacy is that they assume we're a closed system. Ironic for a book that's come out just after the Planetary Resources announcement. We don't need to live within "planetary limits" any more than a lifeboat in a freshwater lake has to ration food and water. There's all you need once you get past thinking the boat is all there is to the world. Meadows and Randers remind me of those apocalyptans who keep revising the date on their sign for when the Earth will end when it doesn't on schedule. The part I find most depressing is how often earnest, trumpeting prognosticators (in whatever sphere) who were wrong before are listened to as if their past failures hadn't occurred. (It doesn't seem to matter what the topic they were wrong about is. If X is elected, it will be the last election the country will know. It is impossible to build reliable software of more than Y lines of code. The country will have no fresh water after year Z.) -- David. From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jun 12 16:50:54 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:50:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? In-Reply-To: <201206121633.q5CGXvqj003306@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20120608080536.GJ17120@leitl.org> <011601cd459c$ffdd99a0$ff98cce0$@att.net> <02ed01cd46cb$7a840430$6f8c0c90$@att.net> <201206121633.q5CGXvqj003306@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20120612165054.GW17120@leitl.org> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:23:18AM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > As was noted when the original Limits to Growth study came out, > the core fallacy is that they assume we're a closed system. > Ironic for a book that's come out just after the Planetary Resources > announcement. Well, announcements are cheap. And of course Earth is a finite system, and transport away from here is really hard and produces a very large, negative impact for each unit of mass transported. Transport to down here is (that is, would be) cleaner, but you're still operating with a damaged, crashing ecosystem and a human host population reacting to added resources just as ideal gas. Nevermind that we can't produce metric jack squat outside of this gravity well yet -- and we don't have a lot of time to learn how. So, if you want us to become a space-faring species, the window of opportunity is closing fast. Denial would seem to prevent whatever adaptive strategy change we could muster. > We don't need to live within "planetary limits" any more than a > lifeboat in a freshwater lake has to ration food and water. There's Well, space is empty. The next island is 1.3 lightseconds away. You will need these resources to bootstrap anything. It's a long long way from there to here. > all you need once you get past thinking the boat is all there is to > the world. > > Meadows and Randers remind me of those apocalyptans who > keep revising the date on their sign for when the Earth will end > when it doesn't on schedule. How about these apocalyptants currently dwelling at the Horn of Africa? I'm thinking, their nightmares are awfully close to the truth. What about Nigeria? What could happen there next could make Rwanda in 1994 look like infinitesimal beer. > The part I find most depressing is how often earnest, trumpeting > prognosticators (in whatever sphere) who were wrong before > are listened to as if their past failures hadn't occurred. If you have trouble with their methodology, it should be pretty easy to publish your objections in a peer-reviewed journal. E.g. look at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/pdf/nature11018.pdf Think they're full of shit? Write a letter to the editor. > (It doesn't seem to matter what the topic they were wrong about > is. If X is elected, it will be the last election the country will know. > It is impossible to build reliable software of more than Y lines of > code. The country will have no fresh water after year Z.) From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jun 12 17:20:14 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:20:14 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [New_Cryonet] Re: Economics of Cryonics Message-ID: <20120612172014.GY17120@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from holyspiritdenier ----- From: holyspiritdenier Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:00:06 -0700 To: New_Cryonet at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [New_Cryonet] Re: [ExI] Economics of Cryonics Reply-To: New_Cryonet at yahoogroups.com Cryonics costs money and involves things you can do in the here-and-now, whereas transhumanism costs nothing and involves make-believe about things in "the future." I suspect these facts create a barrier which many transhumanists refuse to cross. Transhumanists also have more and more trouble maintaining their illusions about "technological acceleration" when their own celebrities like Peter Thiel (a speaker at several transhumanism-themed conferences) argue that most forms of engineering & technology have stagnated over the past 40 years. I have to admit that I saw this differently as an unsophisticated youth from Oklahoma. Robert Ettinger makes an explicit connection between the goals of the cryonics movement as he saw them and a transhumanist outlook in his book *Man Into Superman,* a book I read as a teenager in 1974 and which got me interested in cryonics. Ettinger even predicts accelerating change in that book, back when the idea seemed plausible given the introduction of new technologies after the Second World War. With a longer baseline behind us, however, we can see that except in computing, we've wound up depending on many technologies which haven't changed that much since the 1970's. Given the disconnection between the transhumanist conceit and the observable reality, I would like to see the cryonics movement decouple from transhumanism so that we can pursue our own practical goals apart from the geek fads of the month. On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > ** > > > ----- Forwarded message from Keith Henson ----- > > From: Keith Henson > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:37:09 -0700 > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Economics of Cryonics > Reply-To: ExI chat list > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Giovanni Santostasi > wrote: > > > It is a pity the transhumanist community is not more active to reply to > > articles like this: > > > > > http://io9.com/5889638/the-economic-problems-with-cryogenically-freezing-your-body?popular=true > > > > And to create information that is depicting cryonics in more realistic > and > > positive light. > > As articles go, this one is relatively accurate. > > I don't know how much overlap there is between cryonics and > transhumanism. I get the impression it's more than 10 percent but > considerably less than 50%. > > Anyone have an actual figure? Max? > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > -- > 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 > > > -- Mark Plus "If wishing doesn't work, try working." (Robert Ettinger) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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 mrjones2020 at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 23:52:06 2012 From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (J.R. Jones) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:52:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1339273377.87992.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 12, 2012 11:03 AM, "Stefano Vaj" wrote: > > Why don't those people write their things down? :-) I think you can get a transcript ;-) > > > On 9 June 2012 23:18, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: >> >> Here an interesting TED lectures on actual attempts of abiogenesis in the lab. http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life.html >> Giovanni >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Dan wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, June 9, 2012 11:47 AM BillK wrote >>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dan wrote: >>> >> Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder if >>> >> any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced under >>> >> extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds (and, >>> >> heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low >>> >> pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some amino >>> >> acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few days >>> >> and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm >>> >> wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. >>> > >>> > Lots of life in the deep ocean at up to 1000 atm pressure. >>> > See: >>> > >>> > also >>> > >>> >>> >>> I'm not sure how my point could be misunderstood, but I was talking about the origin of life NOT whether life currently exists under these conditions. Yes, there is life there now -- just like therr's life in the dirt outside my window and, heck, on the my window -- but I was wondering whether anyone has done any sort of abiogenesis* experiments (or even serious theorizing) under extreme pressures to see if that's a factor in the origin of life. (This research can be pursued on either end of the spectrum too: very high pressures or very low ones. Maybe, as chemical reactions are impacted, this might lead to some progress, such as, perhaps, finding that high pressure lead to the formation of more complicated precursors or to life itself.) >>> >>> (And, regarding hydrothermal vents as places for life to originate, I've not read or heard anything about anyone paying particular attention to the high pressures themselves being a factor -- just as the source of energy and chemicals and gradients. I was specifically focusing on extremes of pressure maybe having a decisive impact on the origin of life.) >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> * That is, how biological life might arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > 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 stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 14:31:03 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:31:03 +0200 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> References: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 10 June 2012 00:33, spike wrote: > Has anyone here ever actually devoured brains? I have not, but I have half > a mind to do it, just to know what it is like. It is available at the > local > butcher. I already have a technique for devouring strange new foods: go > half rations and zero fat for about three days, then you can eat anything. > I don't recall anyone saying it is necessarily good food. > > Is there any special way it needs to be prepared? Are there any risks > involved such as mad cow disease? Does that apply to swine brains? > (Veal) brains are a typical, albeit not very frequently served these days, specialty of Milanese cuisine. You can cook them very lightly in a vapour oven and serve them with salt and lemon, or make kind of Milanese cotolettas with thin slices thereof (panfried after passing them in eggs and then in grated bread). I suspect that things contributing to brains being relatively outfashioned (much easier to find them served at home than in a restaurant) are: - the progressive and stupid reduction of popular cuts (everybody seems to like only tenderloin and t-bone steaks nowadays); - the 60s and 70s campaign against colesterol; - the 90s terror campaign about the mad cow syndrom. I would not have that for breakfast everyday, but it is excellent for a change. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 14:34:35 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:34:35 +0200 Subject: [ExI] devouring brains, was: RE: Bringing new life to dead matter In-Reply-To: References: <02ab01cd468f$f25e5af0$d71b10d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 13 June 2012 16:31, Stefano Vaj wrote: > (Veal) brains are a typical, albeit not very frequently served these days, > specialty of Milanese cuisine. > Hey, now that I think of it, I had a couple of times mutton brains served in Morocco. A stronger taste, usually cooked with tomato and spices in earthenware... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 14:53:58 2012 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:53:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Universal eclectic fecundity was Horizontal Genetic Transfer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another list I read had a view-with-alarm post on horizontal genetic transfer. I saw an opportunity to post something appropriate from one of my favorite authors. Figured I would share it here as well. >From _The Eyes of the Overworld_ by Jack Vance Chapter 4, the Pilgrims, section 4: about page 142 The Silver Desert and the Songan Sea [Cugel has tricked a group of pilgrims into making a trip across inhospitable wasteland. ?Here they are acquiring pack beasts.] "And the price?" inquired Casmyre. "This depends upon your choice; each beast commands a different value." Garstang, who had been surveying the compound, shook his head ruefully. "I confess to puzzlement. Each beast is of a different sort, and none seem to fit any well-defined categories." The keeper admitted that such was the case. "If you care to listen, I can explain all. The tale is of a continuing fascination, and will assist you in the management of your beasts." "We will doubly profit to hear you, then," said Garstang gracefully, though Cugel was making motions of impatience. The keeper went to a shelf and took forth a leather-bound folio. "In a past eon Mad King Kutt ordained a menagerie like none before, for his private amazement and the stupefaction of the world. His wizard, Follinense, therefore produced a group of beasts and teratoids unique, combining the wildest variety of plasms; to the result that you see." "The menagerie has persisted so long?" asked Garstang in wonder." "Indeed not. Nothing of Mad King Kutt is extant save the legend, and a case book of the wizard Follinense" ?--here he tapped the leather folio--'"which describes his bizarre systemology. For instance--" He opened the folio. "Well . . . hmmm. Here is a statement, somewhat less explicit than others, in which he analyzes the half-men, little more than a brief set of notes: Gid: hybrid of man, gargoyle, whorl, leaping insect. Deodand: wolverine, basilisk, man. Erb: bear, man, lank-lizard, demon, Grue: man, ocular bat, the unusual hoon. Leucomorph: unknown Bazil: felinodore, man, (wasp?).'" Casmyra clapped his hands hi astonishment. "Did Follinense then create these creatures, to the subsequent disadvantage of humanity?" "Surely not," said Garstang. "It seems more an exercise in idle musing. Twice he admits to wonder." "Such is my opinion, in this present case," stated the keeper, "though elsewhere he is less dubious." "How are the creatures before us then connected with the menagerie?" inquired Casmyre. The keeper shrugged. "Another of the Mad King's jocularities. He loosed the entire assemblage upon the countryside, to the general disturbance. The creatures, endowed with an eclectic fecundity, became more than less bizarre, and now they roam the Plain of Oparona and Blanwalt Forest in great numbers." ^^^^^^^^ We live in an era of universal eclectic fecundity. ?Hybrids of elephants and orchids, oh my. Keith From anders at aleph.se Thu Jun 14 22:16:36 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:16:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever Message-ID: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> Here is a small tech report I did with a colleague http://www.aleph.se/papers/Survival2.pdf (it will move to a proper home on the FHI server shortly) The result is likely not new at all, but it is pretty cute: if you gradually (at a logarithmic rate) make more and more backup copies you can keep your survival probability finite to the end of time. This works even for time-varying risks and some correlated risks. I just wonder if one can come up with a more secure defence against systemic risks than the hierarchical one we sketch near the end. Could one do something clever based on the Byzantine general problem? -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 03:20:31 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:20:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Dan wrote: > Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder if > any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced under > extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds (and, > heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low > pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some amino > acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few days > and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm > wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. Dan, I think you would find the work of Robert M. Hazen very interesting. His book "Genesis" talks exactly about abiogenesis under high pressure. He has an entire chapter entitled "Under Pressure". He started life as a geologist, so this was pretty natural for him to think about. If you prefer video instead, you can look for his TLC class on the subject which is very interesting, but takes some time to work through. Contact me off list if you can't find it. -Kelly From gsantostasi at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 05:13:30 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:13:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Kelly just post the link for everybody. It is an interesting topic. Giovanni On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Dan wrote: > > Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder if > > any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced under > > extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds > (and, > > heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low > > pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some > amino > > acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few > days > > and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm > > wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. > > Dan, > > I think you would find the work of Robert M. Hazen very interesting. > His book "Genesis" talks exactly about abiogenesis under high > pressure. He has an entire chapter entitled "Under Pressure". He > started life as a geologist, so this was pretty natural for him to > think about. > > If you prefer video instead, you can look for his TLC class on the > subject which is very interesting, but takes some time to work > through. Contact me off list if you can't find it. > > -Kelly > _______________________________________________ > 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 05:03:28 2012 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:33:28 +0930 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net> References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 16 May 2012 14:41, spike wrote: > Google and Stanford have shown that controls technology is now sufficient > to make a car drive itself in traffic at normal speeds. Here?s your chance > to work your mind, think deeply and be a techno-prophet by really thinking > through the question of how this will change how we drive and how we live. > **** > > ** > My 2 cents: 1c - Emancipation: People who can't drive now will be able to drive. Elderly. Handicapped. And children. Kids in cars on their own will be really interesting. If you as a parent can trust the car to get them from A to B, and can even track where it is at any time, then why not? So suddenly, kids can get around. When you empower a group like that, then they start wanting more. Where will the emancipation end? 2c - New Rock & Roll lifestyle If the car drives itself, then why do you need a responsible adult in charge of the vehicle? When you think about it, there's nothing morally wrong with being drunk in charge of a vehicle if you can't actually cause any problems. How long will the driving-under-the-influence rules survive? And that is the kind of thing which causes large scale social change. The pendulum of morality in the anglosphere has swung waaaay to the right over my lifetime. Self driving cars, and the freedom from responsibility that they bring, might just push the pendulum back the other way. We could have the new 60s on our hands. > ** > > I would say the three technologies have had the biggest impact on our > lives are computers, internet and cell phones. I expect self-driving cars > will be the fourth biggie, and perhaps displacing cell phones for third > place in the list of huge changes.**** > > ** ** > > Impacts: it allows cars to have vastly lower overall performance if the > human is out of the loop. If a car is programmed to go no faster than the > speed limit ever, then there is no need to have the capability of going > faster than that. All else being equal, the weight of a car scales as the > square of the top speed, so cars become dramatically lighter, and more fuel > efficient.**** > > ** ** > > We could have bathrooms in our cars. That would be cool.**** > > ** ** > > Roads would need to be smoother, since the robo-car would not be as likely > to avoid road irregularities. They will not swerve to miss holes.**** > > ** ** > > Once market penetration takes hold and there are more robo-cars than human > operated cars on the road, the humans might be tempted to drive very > aggressively. Reasoning: the robo-cars would unquestioningly yield to > them. The human in the robo-car would scarcely notice that his is > constantly being cut off by aggressive assholes, since he might be in back > in the bathroom reading his tablet. Driving aggressively doesn?t > accomplish much, since most of the cars on the road would be going right at > the speed limit.**** > > ** ** > > Eventually: way fewer accidents. Robo-cars do not get distracted, they > don?t text, they don?t get drunk or stoned, they don?t get pissed off and > aggressive. They just drive, faultlessly. It isn?t that hard to do really. > **** > > ** ** > > Although trips generally will take a little longer, they become more > predictable. So if you need to leave two sigma ahead of average, the > standard deviation for any given trip goes down.**** > > ** ** > > What else? This is your chance to peer into the future and record your > musings for future generations to ridicule or marvel at your wisdom.**** > > ** ** > > spike**** > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- Emlyn http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog https://plus.google.com/u/0/100281903174934656260 - Google+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 06:40:56 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:40:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Here is a small tech report I did with a colleague > http://www.aleph.se/papers/Survival2.pdf > (it will move to a proper home on the FHI server shortly) > > The result is likely not new at all, but it is pretty cute: if you gradually > (at a logarithmic rate) make more and more backup copies you can keep your > survival probability finite to the end of time. This works even for > time-varying risks and some correlated risks. > > I just wonder if one can come up with a more secure defence against systemic > risks than the hierarchical one we sketch near the end. Could one do > something clever based on the Byzantine general problem? > I think I would query this comment. "Wait long enough and your head will spontaneously quantum-tunnel away from your body. Or your body will spontaneously implode into a black hole". I know it is a common assumption that if you wait long enough, then *anything* might happen. But 'long enough' is probably longer than the life of our universe, so we can ignore the risk. So for the sake of the theory you might be setting your risk limit higher than is necessary in practice. "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." -- YogiBerra BillK From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 08:37:36 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:37:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development Message-ID: Two years ago the Rockefeller Foundation produced a report about future development that presented four possible scenarios for the future. It is different to most of the future speculations that we consider because it is not so much concerned about particular 'gee-whiz' technologies but rather about how society and governments might cope with future changes. It was widely reviewed at the time (in 2010) with much criticism from the web mainly aimed at one scenario (the Big Brother controlling government scenario). But they presented *four* scenarios. I thought it might be interesting to review them after two years have elapsed, to see how the world has changed in the meantime. The full pdf report can be downloaded here: One of the more calmer reviews is here: The four scenarios sketched out in 2010 were: LOCK STEP: ?A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.? In this world, working in the human rights arena will become more difficult. Technology innovation is driven by government and national security concerns, and surveillance technology is increasingly used to monitor citizens, leading to the ?fracture? of the World Wide Web as we know it and to decreased entrepreneurship. This, however, leads to citizens? uprising. CLEVER TOGETHER: ?A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues?. This scenario unfolds an increase in international collaborations and a dwindling of the power of nation states. Transparency and accountability increases as data becomes more available and as the use of technology becomes more important to the work of philanthropists. Technology innovations in energy and water also take prominence. HACK ATTACK: ?An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge.? Coined the doom decade (2010-2020), this scenario points to how financial and overall resource scarcity, as well as trade disputes, result in a breaking of partnerships, sparking wars and conflicts, which are played out through the use of technology. Confidence in the use of technology decreases as hacking increases and criminals become more versed in the use of counterfeits. This world, which is filled with IP address thefts, scamming, and viruses affects technology innovation. SMART SCRAMBLE: ?An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems.? Within such a scenario, the gap between rural and urban areas increases because non-urban areas have difficulty gaining access to ICT due to a lack of investment in ICT infrastructure. As technology development resources diminish and economic and political instability increases in the developed world, highly skilled migrants return home, spreading knowledge to their native countries and ?do-it-yourself innovation? develops. And other problems in the technology innovation ecosystem, such as unreliable Internet and difficulty in accessing capital and markets, persist. ========== BillK From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 15 08:45:13 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:45:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> On 15/06/2012 07:40, BillK wrote: > I know it is a common assumption that if you wait long enough, then > *anything* might happen. But 'long enough' is probably longer than the > life of our universe, so we can ignore the risk. Well, the universe is open, so "long enough" looks like it is going to happen. Freeman Dyson calculated the black hole implosion time for human-sized objects in http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt to 10^10^26 years, assuming quantum black holes. Using the Gamow formula in section F for the head teleportation case, we can assume the mass = 1 kg, d = 0.01 m, U=0.1 J (lifting a head one cm) and we get the action sqrt(8MUd^2/hbar^2) = 8.48e31, and hence the characteristic timescale will be around 10^(3.6*10^31) [This is in the big range where it doesn't matter much whether we measure time in Planck time or years, hence T_0 also disappears]. So, we should be more worried about imploding than decapitation. > So for the sake of the theory you might be setting your risk limit > higher than is necessary in practice. It is still applicable if you are dealing with high risks, like storing your files. Assuming you want to have a decent chance of them all surviving, you should make an increasing number of separate copies. Sure, you can make loads of them right now - spam the cloud! But that is expensive. So instead you make a reasonable number. Next year you add an extra backup. You wait two years, then add another. Wait four years, add another. This is not too cumbersome. The big problem is common mode faults: end of civilisation, EMP erasing everything, you going nuts and wrecking the system, and so on. Once the risk of all backups breaking is lower than this set of risks there is not much point in expanding. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 15 08:46:58 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:46:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] File survival and the transparency of the future Message-ID: <4FDAF682.3000603@aleph.se> The backup issue brings up another thing that has been in my mind recently: what is the average lifespan distribution of data files that you don't care about? Obviously most files are fairly recent - both because they stem from the latest computer installation, because the space is growing and hence more files are created now than in the past, but also because files tend to disappear due to bit rot, software obsolescence, accidental and deliberate deletion and so on. However, really old files survive by being backed up - they are close to things you care about or think you care about. And as storage space grows they have a decent chance of hanging on. Empirically (i.e. looking at the slashdot discussion about the topic) most normal people (on slashdot) have files going back about ten years. Some oldtimers boast about their 80's files, but most of them have been deliberately preserved. And we all know the sad story about the Apollo tapes: software and media obsolescence bite hard. This issue is interesting because I have been thinking about long-term storage of data that acts as surveillance data on the present. All those logs, geotags, emails and whatnot that we produce can with the right technology be used to infer things about the present. Future tech will make this data more inferentially promiscous: we will be able to figure out things that are entirely nonobvious today from apparently innocent files. I doubt this is useful for the reconstructive upload scenario, but it is in any case relevant for analysing just how transparent we are to the future. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 09:25:24 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:25:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Well, the universe is open, so "long enough" looks like it is going to > happen. > > Freeman Dyson calculated the black hole implosion time for human-sized > objects in > http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt > to 10^10^26 years, assuming quantum black holes. > > But he is only speculating, not defining. That report is full of alternatives and assumptions about the future course of the universe. > > It is still applicable if you are dealing with high risks, like storing your > files. Assuming you want to have a decent chance of them all surviving, you > should make an increasing number of separate copies. > > The big problem is common mode faults: end of civilisation, EMP erasing > everything, you going nuts and wrecking the system, and so on. Once the risk > ?of all backups breaking is lower than this set of risks there is not much > point in expanding. > > I have no problem with making backups. Good idea! :) All I was saying was that you shouldn't mention impossible risks. The end of civilisation, EMP attack / nuclear wars, etc. are quite sufficient to be going on with. And there is also the probability that by covering yourself for the normal expected risks you will indirectly also be covering yourself for the unexpected risks. Every particular risk doesn't need it's own particular solution. For a simple case, if you make a backup copy to protect against a hard disk failure you also protect against a horde of other less likely risks which cause the destruction of the hard disk. e.g. Fire, lightning strike, bomb, theft, etc. BillK From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 15 11:14:27 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:14:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] File survival and the transparency of the future In-Reply-To: <4FDAF682.3000603@aleph.se> References: <4FDAF682.3000603@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4FDB1913.4090002@aleph.se> I just investigated the user area of my laptop, looking at my oldest files. The median and mean dates of the files were 2007, around the time I got the laptop. The oldest file claimed to be from 1980, which is unlikely since it is a truetype file. However, I do have a bunch of truetype files with dates in the early 90s that I know I used way back. From 1995 there is a stellar catalog I laboriously copied by hand and now exist in a few different locations. From 1998 and onward there are not just old font files but also ancient DLLs and a few of my own pictures. Moving on I find more picture files from various sources and by 2000 a few old mp3s. Assuming this is typical, it seems that what really tends to hang around are system files or things aligned with them, followed by collections of static files that either has some small value in themselves or easily slot into collections. I also found a few files from 2048. One was a text about risks of blackouts in complex power networks, one was a cabalistic-combinatoric diagram by Athanasisus Kircher from the 17th century, and one was a Chinese character. Make of that what you will. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 11:30:17 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:30:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] File survival and the transparency of the future In-Reply-To: <4FDB1913.4090002@aleph.se> References: <4FDAF682.3000603@aleph.se> <4FDB1913.4090002@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > I just investigated the user area of my laptop, looking at my oldest files. > > The median and mean dates of the files were 2007, around the time I got the > laptop. ?The oldest file claimed to be from 1980, which is unlikely since it > is a truetype file. However, I do have a bunch of truetype files with dates > in the early 90s that I know I used way back. From 1995 there is a stellar > catalog I laboriously copied by hand and now exist in a few different > locations. From 1998 and onward there are not just old font files but also > ancient DLLs and a few of my own pictures. Moving on I find more picture > files from various sources and by 2000 a few old mp3s. Ah, the old 1980 date problem! This happens when your CMOS battery runs down and needs replacing. This is a fairly rare event that most people will never encounter. As I play with old computers and laptops, I see it quite a lot. The computer defaults to a date in 1980, because without a CMOS battery it doesn't know which end is up. If you save a file while it is in this condition, you get a 1980 date put on it. I wouldn't trust the dates on computer files. You can change the date too easily. It definitely wouldn't stand up in court. ;) BillK From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 15 11:19:54 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:19:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4FDB1A5A.4040709@aleph.se> On 15/06/2012 10:25, BillK wrote: > All I was saying was that you shouldn't mention impossible risks. > The end of civilisation, EMP attack / nuclear wars, etc. are quite > sufficient to be going on with. But these are not *impossible* risks! Impossible risks are by definition no problem. Our paper is not some engineering paper, but a mathematical analysis. And there extreme low probability events turn out to be a major factor since there is no way they can be avoided. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jun 15 11:50:19 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:50:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] recommendation for an open source inventory/asset management package Message-ID: <20120615115019.GZ17120@leitl.org> I need to put plenty of sticky ID tags on a number of physical objects, along with pictures and text descriptions, plus fields like purchase date, expiration date, and so on. Any suggestions for a decent open source system (perhaps even a Debian package?) for this? Web-interface and ability to survive open exposure to hostile internets without daily patching a must. From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 11:51:22 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:51:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: <4FDB1A5A.4040709@aleph.se> References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> <4FDB1A5A.4040709@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 15/06/2012 10:25, BillK wrote: >> >> All I was saying was that you shouldn't mention impossible risks. >> The end of civilisation, EMP ?attack / nuclear wars, etc. are quite >> sufficient to be going on with. > > > But these are not *impossible* risks! Impossible risks are by definition no > problem. Our paper is not some engineering paper, but a mathematical > analysis. And there extreme low probability events turn out to be a major > factor since there is no way they can be avoided. > Sorry, misunderstanding. I totally agree that these are not impossible risks and should be considered. It was the 'me unexpectedly turning into a black hole' bit that I was complaining about. 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!' BillK From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 12:22:58 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:22:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] recommendation for an open source inventory/asset management package In-Reply-To: <20120615115019.GZ17120@leitl.org> References: <20120615115019.GZ17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: xTuple? It is not free. But they have a free business accounting package that includes an inventory module. BillK On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I need to put plenty of sticky ID tags on a number of physical objects, > along with pictures and text descriptions, plus fields like > purchase date, expiration date, and so on. > > Any suggestions for a decent open source system (perhaps even > a Debian package?) for this? Web-interface and ability to > survive open exposure to hostile internets without daily > patching a must. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 15 13:13:57 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:13:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <003a01cd4af8$b918d690$2b4a83b0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:03 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars On 16 May 2012 14:41, spike wrote: >>.Google and Stanford have shown that controls technology is now sufficient to make a car drive itself in traffic at normal speeds. Here's your chance to work your mind, think deeply and be a techno-prophet by really thinking through the question of how this will change how we drive and how we live. >. And that is the kind of thing which causes large scale social change. The pendulum of morality in the anglosphere has swung waaaay to the right over my lifetime. Self driving cars, and the freedom from responsibility that they bring, might just push the pendulum back the other way. We could have the new 60s on our hands. Wooohooo! Bring it ON! I might even still have a tie dye shirt stuffed back somewhere. >.2c - New Rock & Roll lifestyle >.If the car drives itself, then why do you need a responsible adult in charge of the vehicle? Emlyn This is exactly what I thought too Emlyn. Think of the safety angle on it. Think of it when you see a Detroit filled with teens bopping down the road blasting the radio, experiencing the transcendent joy of being a carefree teenager, singing, laughing, groping, living fully those few fleeting years in which responsibilities are few and opportunities are many, doing everything other than paying attention to whatever it is they are about to run over, generally acting pretty much the way you and I did when we were 16. I would rather have software, even if developed by Microsoft, operate that Detroit than any of questionable biology-based control systems in that Detroit. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 15 13:22:27 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:22:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> Message-ID: <003f01cd4af9$e969f580$bc3de080$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] How to survive forever On 15/06/2012 07:40, BillK wrote: >>... I know it is a common assumption that if you wait long enough, then > *anything* might happen. But 'long enough' is probably longer than the > life of our universe, so we can ignore the risk. >...Well, the universe is open, so "long enough" looks like it is going to happen. Anders Sandberg I see the evidence that the universe is open, and I cannot refute it no matter how hard I try. It is just that it is so sad. I had so hoped the physicists could somehow pull off a miracle and close the universe, find some particle that would account for the mass, so that at some future time it could all come back, and we could do it all again and again. But no, instead it will all be lost forever, within a mere few hundred billion years. Sigh. So sad is the life of the modern astrophysicist, and the ultimate fate of our visible universe, that awful big rip, so sad. spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 13:52:58 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:52:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: <003f01cd4af9$e969f580$bc3de080$@att.net> References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> <003f01cd4af9$e969f580$bc3de080$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM, spike wrote: > >> ... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg >> Subject: Re: [ExI] How to survive forever >> ...Well, the universe is open, so "long enough" looks like it is going to >> happen. ?Anders Sandberg > > I see the evidence that the universe is open, and I cannot refute it no > matter how hard I try. ?It is just that it is so sad. ?I had so hoped the > physicists could somehow pull off a miracle and close the universe, find > some particle that would account for the mass, so that at some future time > it could all come back, and we could do it all again and again. ?But no, > instead it will all be lost forever, within a mere few hundred billion > years. ?Sigh. ?So sad is the life of the modern astrophysicist, and the > ultimate fate of our visible universe, that awful big rip, so sad. > > One of the implications of the increasing rate of the expansion of the universe is that the size of the observable universe is continually shrinking; the distance to the edge of the observable universe which is moving away at the speed of light from any point moves ever closer to us. This means that there will be less content within our observable universe. Doesn't this imply that less will be happening? These very unexpected events will have less and less chance of happening. Time is not the only variable. You need content as well. And the time is not infinite. 22 billion years? BillK From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 15 16:30:56 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:30:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> <003f01cd4af9$e969f580$bc3de080$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FDB6340.20409@aleph.se> Well, the separation of gravitationally bound systems might be sad, but it is better than the w<-1 dark energy powered rip where eventually even protons get ripped apart. Fortunately the latter is likely not going to happen, but we will eventually be stranded in the galactic superclusters we are living in. Now, a supercluster is somewhat limited, but it is still plenty of room for love, thinking and backups. The main problem is likely that temperature never gets below T_min=10^-19 K due to horizon radiation, and that forces a finite amount of possible computation. Still, that is M_cluster/(kT_min ln(2)) irreversible computations (including error corrections) - plus a large number of reversible computations. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 15 16:37:08 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:37:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] new 60s, was: RE: self driving cars Message-ID: <007c01cd4b15$1b756fd0$52604f70$@att.net> >. We could have the new 60s on our hands. Emlyn >.Wooohooo! Bring it ON! I might even still have a tie dye shirt stuffed back somewhere. spike Emlyn, I sometimes feel kinda cheated: I mostly missed out on the 60s, even though I was technically there, born in that decade. The town where I grew up, we never really had the 60s, never had hipsters, never had hair in that backward southern town. We had the 50s thrice, did it well the second time and poorly the third. We kinda went directly from the 50s to the 80s, so I missed out. Long after the fact, I read Kerouac's On The Road, but now whenever I talk to a hipster, I realize how not hip I am still. I don't get it: isn't Kerouac the definition of hipster? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 16:48:53 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1339778933.8334.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:20 PM Kelly Anderson writeth: > On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Dan wrote: >> Only a very casual observer of the origins of life field, but I wonder if >> any work is being carried out to see if biologicals can be produced under >> extremely high or low pressures. Proteins and other organic compounds (and, >> heck, lots of things) behave differently under very high or very low >> pressure. I'm not saying this will be the magic bullet -- squeeze some amino >> acids, lipids, and other goodies under a hundred atmospheres for a few days >> and out will crawl something we'll all recognize as alive -- but I'm >> wondering if anyone is pursuing this approach. > > ? I think you would find the work of Robert M. Hazen very interesting. Thanks! I hadn't read of his work -- or, if I have, I've forgotten it. > His book "Genesis" talks exactly about abiogenesis under high > pressure. He has an entire chapter entitled "Under Pressure". He > started life as a geologist, so this was pretty natural for him to > think about. Yes, it would seem to be. However, I recall that book being poorly reviewed for being basically a hodge podge. Still, if folks in the field are already exploring high pressure regimes, then my supposed original thought is not all that original and no need to shout it from the house tops. :) ? > ? If you prefer video instead, you can look for his TLC class on the > subject which is very interesting, but takes some time to work > through. Contact me off list if you can't find it. Actually, I almost always prefer text to all else. But thanks just the same. Regards, Dan From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 15 17:13:36 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:13:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] humans as much bonobo as chimp Message-ID: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> Cool! Bonobos are as human as chimps. This is good: I would far rather be a bonobo's cousin than a chimp's cousin. The researchers say bonobos are much nicer people than either chimps or people. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06/bonobo-genome-sequenced.html?r ef=hp spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jun 15 22:47:20 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:47:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> Message-ID: <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Appologizes for posting this?icky link that?someone forwarded to me: I don't have it in me to read?it or respond to it,?but some of you might.? Links: ------ [1] http://www.wfs.org/blogs/dale-carrico/how-write-your-transhumanist-article-helpful-guide-for-more-profitable-prophesyin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Fri Jun 15 23:47:15 2012 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:47:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: He loves the attention. He's a nasty-minded individual who will never concede anything. I recommend against wasting your time by responding to him. --Max On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:47 PM, wrote: > Appologizes for posting this icky link that someone forwarded to me: > > < > http://www.wfs.org/blogs/dale-carrico/how-write-your-transhumanist-article-helpful-guide-for-more-profitable-prophesyin > > > > I don't have it in me to read it or respond to it, but some of you might. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- Max More, PhD 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 giulio at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 05:17:28 2012 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:17:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: When he is forced into a corner, he does concede the argument, but insults his opponent(s) on everything else. Take a look at the exchange here: http://amormundi.blogspot.hu/2012/06/i-dont-think-that-phrase-straw-man.html in reply to my critique here: http://turingchurch.com/2012/06/04/the-unbearable-stasis-of-dale-carricos-critique-of-fictional-straw-man-transhumanists/ Publicly beating him in a debate is fun, but as Max says, is also a waste of time. I think (hope) we all have better things to do. On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Max More wrote: > He loves the attention. He's a nasty-minded individual who will never > concede anything. I recommend against wasting your time by responding to > him. > > --Max > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:47 PM, wrote: >> >> Appologizes for posting this?icky link that?someone forwarded to me: >> >> >> >> >> I don't have it in me to read?it or respond to it,?but some of you might. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > -- > Max More, PhD > 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 > From anders at aleph.se Sat Jun 16 11:05:04 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:05:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: <4FDB6340.20409@aleph.se> References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> <003f01cd4af9$e969f580$bc3de080$@att.net> <4FDB6340.20409@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4FDC6860.2080505@aleph.se> On 15/06/2012 17:30, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > The main problem is likely that temperature never gets below > T_min=10^-19 K due to horizon radiation, and that forces a finite > amount of possible computation. Still, that is M_cluster/(kT_min > ln(2)) irreversible computations (including error corrections) - plus > a large number of reversible computations. > Ah, forgot a factor of c^2. The right number is c^2 M_cluster/(kT_min ln(2)). Using the Virgo cluster and asusming we use the dark matter too, we get 10^15 solar masses, or about 10^45 kg. That will allow around 10^104 computations. A lot, although far less than Seth Lloyds estimate that the universe so far has performed 10^120 operations ( http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141) - but his operations seem to include reversible ones, which are not covered by the above estimate which is based on the Brillouin inequality. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jun 16 15:02:40 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:02:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <00d101cd4bd1$135fb5a0$3a1f20e0$@cc> I don't have the stamina or the meanness to get into his head. I read something about me personally he posted this week. A cockroach indeed. Natasha Vita-More Chairman, Humanity+ CCO, esDesign PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK Editor, The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and ContemporaryEssays on the Science, Technology and Philosophy of the Human Future "The things one feels absolutely certain about are never true. Oscar Wilde (But is this true then?) -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:17 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting When he is forced into a corner, he does concede the argument, but insults his opponent(s) on everything else. Take a look at the exchange here: http://amormundi.blogspot.hu/2012/06/i-dont-think-that-phrase-straw-man.html in reply to my critique here: http://turingchurch.com/2012/06/04/the-unbearable-stasis-of-dale-carricos-cr itique-of-fictional-straw-man-transhumanists/ Publicly beating him in a debate is fun, but as Max says, is also a waste of time. I think (hope) we all have better things to do. On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Max More wrote: > He loves the attention. He's a nasty-minded individual who will never > concede anything. I recommend against wasting your time by responding > to him. > > --Max > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:47 PM, wrote: >> >> Appologizes for posting this?icky link that?someone forwarded to me: >> >> >> > rticle-helpful-guide-for-more-profitable-prophesyin> >> >> I don't have it in me to read?it or respond to it,?but some of you might. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > -- > Max More, PhD > 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 > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 16:58:04 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:58:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Intelligence inside a black hole Message-ID: I recently learned that if the rotational energy of a black hole is large enough, that the center of the black hole isn't a point, but rather a doughnut shaped spinning mass of extremely densely packed neutrons (and I suppose other matter). I wonder if it is theoretically possible to configure such matter into computronium of some sort. The advantage of such an environment would be that since the speed of light limits computational speed in normal matter, with the smaller spaces between elements inside a black hole, the computation could theoretically be billions of times faster. The disadvantage of course is that there would be no way (under current theory) of communicating back out of the black hole. Time inside a black hole is weird, so would that cancel or enhance the advantages of such a configuration? And would the time warp really matter since the size of the observable universe would shrink to the space within the event horizon? Or would it? Maybe you can see out of a black hole, but not in?? Final question, would there remain usable energy inside the black hole longer than in the rest of the universe? Could this be the last escape pod for intelligent life? -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 17:19:16 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:19:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: > Appologizes for posting this?icky link that?someone forwarded to me: > > > > I don't have it in me to read?it or respond to it,?but some of you might. I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. :-) -Kelly From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jun 16 17:50:51 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:50:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <00e901cd4be8$924d5590$b6e800b0$@cc> I do not think Max, Giulio, myself, or others, have a tainted view of this rhetoric. But I suppose one would need an understanding of psychology, and even academic scholarship, to see this. The humor, in all honesty, it is not delightfully funny, but mean-spirited and undermining. And it cannot be interpreted as postmodernist academe because a postmodernist would dig away at more complex issues and toss in a few French philosophers, at the very least. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:19 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: > Appologizes for posting this?icky link that?someone forwarded to me: > > ticle-helpful-guide-for-more-profitable-prophesyin> > > I don't have it in me to read?it or respond to it,?but some of you might. I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. :-) -Kelly _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jun 16 18:09:46 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:09:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: <4FDC6860.2080505@aleph.se> References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> <003f01cd4af9$e969f580$bc3de080$@att.net> <4FDB6340.20409@aleph.se> <4FDC6860.2080505@aleph.se> Message-ID: <00f301cd4beb$36aa7170$a3ff5450$@cc> Lloyd's "[m]erely by existing, all physical systems register information" links to Lynn Margulis understanding of living matter and also to cybernetics. Re information theory: does the physical capacity of the universe reduce/shrink the more we know about it? -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 6:05 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] How to survive forever On 15/06/2012 17:30, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > The main problem is likely that temperature never gets below > T_min=10^-19 K due to horizon radiation, and that forces a finite > amount of possible computation. Still, that is M_cluster/(kT_min > ln(2)) irreversible computations (including error corrections) - plus > a large number of reversible computations. > Ah, forgot a factor of c^2. The right number is c^2 M_cluster/(kT_min ln(2)). Using the Virgo cluster and asusming we use the dark matter too, we get 10^15 solar masses, or about 10^45 kg. That will allow around 10^104 computations. A lot, although far less than Seth Lloyds estimate that the universe so far has performed 10^120 operations ( http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141) - but his operations seem to include reversible ones, which are not covered by the above estimate which is based on the Brillouin inequality. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 17:30:07 2012 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:30:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions. On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, ? wrote: >> Appologizes for posting this?icky link that?someone forwarded to me: >> >> >> >> I don't have it in me to read?it or respond to it,?but some of you might. > > I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is > admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him > that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... > Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. > :-) > > -Kelly > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 18:53:00 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:53:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Intelligence inside a black hole In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > I recently learned that if the rotational energy of a black hole is > large enough, that the center of the black hole isn't a point, but > rather a doughnut shaped spinning mass of extremely densely packed > neutrons (and I suppose other matter). I wonder if it is theoretically > possible to configure such matter into computronium of some sort. The > advantage of such an environment would be that since the speed of > light limits computational speed in normal matter, with the smaller > spaces between elements inside a black hole, the computation could > theoretically be billions of times faster. The disadvantage of course > is that there would be no way (under current theory) of communicating > back out of the black hole. > > Time inside a black hole is weird, so would that cancel or enhance the > advantages of such a configuration? And would the time warp really > matter since the size of the observable universe would shrink to the > space within the event horizon? Or would it? Maybe you can see out of > a black hole, but not in?? > > Final question, would there remain usable energy inside the black hole > longer than in the rest of the universe? Could this be the last escape > pod for intelligent life? > > Nothing can escape from a black hole once it gets past the event horizon. This means that we can never know what goes on inside a black hole. All our speculations / predictions are untestable. Whether the singularity at the centre is a point or a ring, it still has zero volume and infinite density. I doubt if this is something we can work with. :) This article is followed by a list of questions and answers about black holes. (And you can ask more questions if your questions isn't in the list). BillK From rtomek at ceti.pl Sat Jun 16 20:09:33 2012 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:09:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old In-Reply-To: References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > On Mon, 28 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote: > >> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > >> > You may not like my diagnosis, but to be frank, you never mentioned you > >> > only wanted to read optimistic ones. > >> > > First things first - congrats for using on this noble list such words as > > "ass" and "pussy". Welcome to the club, let's this tradition continue in > > the name of calling things by their real name, while we fearlessly drink > > vodka and eat sausages. > > LOL. I'm not afraid of any word that conveys the proper tone and idea. Ho ho. > > To sum it all in short, I don't buy the idea that we, as a species, are to > > be less and less violent. > > I think it has more to do with memes than genes. Memes, really. We should already know ourselves better than hoping for good memes. We are prone to fabricate and believe all kind of memes whenever there is promise of any material gain in them. The truth or facts are expendable in such cases, of course. > > Especially if thanks to democracy and wealth, > > because I somehow fail to see how they can make me more benign. > > Have you been to an elementary school lately? Have you seen the > anti-bullying campaigns they are shoving into the heads of our kids? > That kind of brain washing is what turns boys into pansies. And I > think it works. Well, how can you be sure it works? You don't attend elementary school, do you? I would rather suspect some forms of bullying went underground. "Experts" cannot spot it now, so they can tout about success and receive a paycheck, perhaps? > > In a meantime, wars are going on like they did, in parts of the world less > > covered by the news - because it sometimes happens, I hear, that a > > journalist is given an easy to decide proposition, either stay and be > > killed or STFU and go away. > > But wars in out of the way places are fought with less scary weapons, > in areas with somewhat more sparse populations, and the total number > of deaths per capita, globally, goes down. Maybe it goes, but I would like to see a statistics saying so. Even if there is one that can't be questionned, all it is saying is something like "for now, in current conditions/economy violence per capita goes down". But statistics cannot identify reason for this, or predict the trend is persistent. The "end of violence" BS is touted from time to time. Guess what happens next. BTW, unless you have some kind of revolutionary data, "deaths per capita" is exactly 1.0 and this did not change AFAIK. :-) > > I must add, there is a group of people - and I think it is easier to find > > them in the so called middle class - that very easily gets entrapped into > > all kind of hiperoptimistic bullshit. Last time I noticed this, it was the > > idea of human/life/intelligence friendly Universe. Holy frak. If > > supernovas, neutron stars sending gravitation waves and magnetic pulses, > > black holes and their death-ray jets, gamma ray bursts and, oh, huge > > asteroids - we exist only thanks to being not close enough to all those > > (... blah blah blah ... :-) ) > > You can worry about all of that stuff, OR you can say, it's been a > very long time (if ever for some risks) since we've faced that, so > statistically, we are reasonably safe. Statistically, we are not safe. We just happen to not know enough. I can learn, but I don't worry because it is useless. > And go on living. It's called optimism. It isn't hyperoptimism for me to > live in the kill zone radius of the Yellowstone volcano. If it goes off > most of you will die slowly, while I will have a merciful quickish > death. Uh, this is optimism? It looks more like a realism to me. Optimists are - to me only, I guess - a bit like mental cases. Something like, "property prices in Yellowstone went down 100-fold for no apparent reason, let's buy a house there, it's a bargain". > > So, this idea that one day we will become those angelic creatures, good > > and nice... No, I don't think so. Rather, I think we humans are beasts and > > in best case, we can become self-controlling beasts. > > Or, eventually, they'll implant something in our heads to make us > controlled beasts. They'll take away our ability to react violently. > We may even sign up for it in exchange for something we can't imagine > at this point. This I can believe. But doing this kind of control will frak us out of history in not very long time. Few hundred years at best. > > Now, a problem. Self-control seems to be unfashionable. > > How so???? It's all the rage! I fail to see this "rage". Or we understand this differently. For me, self-control requires lots of work performed over oneself. Gallons of sweat, maybe spiced with tears. I am not granted this by watching TV and having Facebook page. BTW, I am not there yet. > > I have, however, heard other stories, counterweighting those grim options > > mentioned. Like of Mr Gichin Funakoshi, who started learning Karate at the > > age of 13 to improve his poor health, later became master himself but > > fought his first real life fight age 72 (AFAIR - I have read it megayears > > ago and cannot find anything on the net) when he helped a woman attacked > > by a thug. Now that's the man. He did not go on killing journey, just > > practiced the art for his whole life. > > And as far as I know, self defense with the martial arts is a rarity, > statistically speaking. I'm not against the martial arts for self > control, for inner peace, for physical fitness. But to protect > yourself, it isn't the greatest bargain in the world in terms of money > or time. Maybe because learning MA makes one avoid "stressful situations" more and behaving better in those that cannot be avoided. But, for a successful defence, one needs to be in better shape and have more mental control of surroundings than attacker(s). MAs can deliver here. It can't guarantee anything, however :-). > > I can also see a problem with idea that some external body would do better > > in controlling our impulses than we ourselves could. It sounds very close > > to what religions like us to believe. And there is plenty of evidence, > > they can easily fail. The fallacy of many people is that when this > > external entity changes, they expect the outcome changes too. However, the > > controlling of impulses was never the goal of external entities, > > especially when we consider they would become obsolete once impulses > > finally came under control. > > The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes explains a lot of the decrease in > violence. Before the dispassionate third party, in the form of the all > powerful state would dish out just rewards, there were cycles of > vengeance and revenge. The Leviathan stopped those cycles, and brought > with it a more peaceful way to deal with conflict. There were cases of all-powerful dispassionate states, which after all turned out to be something totally else. I don't think I will believe such state is possible, as long as it is constructed from selfish members, each trying to prolong their own genes at expense of everything else. If members cannot face what they are and what is their purpose, this doesn't make them better, only more ignorant and dangerous. Were there any cases of such states which did as they promised? > > So, maybe one day I will go after this book but I doubt I will run after > > it. > > I hope to finish reading it in a few months... it takes a while when > you read ten books at a time... Well, if you read it and find something convincing, I will gladly read about it here. Especially if you can prove this is not some kind of shady propaganda aimed at monetary gains of some yet-to-be-seen group. 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 gsantostasi at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 22:29:18 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:29:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: Posted following comment on his page, for what is worth: Imagine we were in the middle ages. There is no real democracy. There is wide spread poverty, people die young. Disease, wars, ignorance are dominant. You get the picture. Imagine that I'm a visionary and I see how it is possible to go from where we are in the middle ages to where we could be let's say in a modern western country circa 2012. Of course this would be amazing and such a futurist would have an incredible visionary outlook, but not utterly impossible right (and I'm using this as an extreme to make a point). Then I start to write pamphlets about the future and what is the path for mankind. I introduce the concept of democracy, of the scientific method, how we should get rid of the power of kings and church, how we should give free education to the children, women included, that science will help us to produce more food, that people would not work in the field all their lives, that we can defeat disease, bring water to the houses, have machine to transport to places, communicate with people over enormous distance, we could travel to the moon. Continue this list and add anything you are so familiar with and take for granted from your experience. Think how a middle ages man, even a very clever and open minded one, would react to such fantasies about the future: "These car-cultish people are ridiculous, extend life to 80 years for the majority of people when most humans die before reaching 30? Give rights to women, what is next allow sodomites to have sex without being harshly punished? Or maybe going to bed every day with a full stomach? Such foolish, elitist thing to say, these airplane-cultist they think they can fly, like witches do. It is ridiculous and full of hubris". I can go for ever and if this seems stupid, it is because it is stupid. No imagination man, it is a medieval sin in particular for a so called artist. Giovanni On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting > (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions. > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Kelly Anderson > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: > >> Appologizes for posting this icky link that someone forwarded to me: > >> > >> < > http://www.wfs.org/blogs/dale-carrico/how-write-your-transhumanist-article-helpful-guide-for-more-profitable-prophesyin > > > >> > >> I don't have it in me to read it or respond to it, but some of you > might. > > > > I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is > > admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him > > that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... > > Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. > > :-) > > > > -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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 22:44:38 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:44:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: And what is with this Athena Andreadis, why she is making a big deal about Giulio's views on women? Where do he says anything disparaging against women in the reference she gives? Is she a friend or ally? She publishes on IEET. What is her problem? Giovanni * * On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting > (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions. > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Kelly Anderson > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: > >> Appologizes for posting this icky link that someone forwarded to me: > >> > >> < > http://www.wfs.org/blogs/dale-carrico/how-write-your-transhumanist-article-helpful-guide-for-more-profitable-prophesyin > > > >> > >> I don't have it in me to read it or respond to it, but some of you > might. > > > > I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is > > admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him > > that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... > > Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. > > :-) > > > > -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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jun 16 23:05:46 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:05:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> She is another negative, but at least somewhat civil voice. A couple of years ago she claimed transhumanists don't dance, like our bodies, enjoy senses, etc. Here is my response to her claims: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/vitamore20090610/ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Santostasi Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:45 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting And what is with this Athena Andreadis, why she is making a big deal about Giulio's views on women? Where do he says anything disparaging against women in the reference she gives? Is she a friend or ally? She publishes on IEET. What is her problem? Giovanni On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions. On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: >> Appologizes for posting this icky link that someone forwarded to me: >> >> >> >> I don't have it in me to read it or respond to it, but some of you might. > > I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is > admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him > that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... > Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. > :-) > > -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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 23:44:59 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:44:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> Message-ID: Beautiful article, Natasha. But to be honest I really have nostalgia for the times when I was an unicellular organism. Life was so simple and symmetric at that time. I was almost perfectly round, and I didn't know left from right, with all the political and existential tension that these terms can bring. My beautiful and elegant body was without sensory or motor organs but the currents in the water were carrying me around in an exciting, ever changing unforeseeable swirling existence. A real dance of life. I was bumping into food and that was such a blessing, and even if went hungry at times, I didn't really care because I had not a nervous system to experience such negative sensation. Now, I have to actually, not really hunt my food, but at a minimum lift my butt from the chair to go to a refrigerator and do the effort to open it and look for eatable stuff in it (not always simple). I never understood these multi-cellular cultist that wanted to do the next "step" in evolution. Such beautiful life the life of a bacterium. Giovanni On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > She is another negative, but at least somewhat civil voice. A couple of > years ago she claimed transhumanists don?t dance, like our bodies, enjoy > senses, etc. Here is my response to her claims: > http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/vitamore20090610/**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto: > extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *Giovanni Santostasi > *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:45 PM > > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting**** > > ** ** > > And what is with this Athena Andreadis, > why she is making a big deal about Giulio's views on women? Where do he > says anything disparaging against women in the reference she gives? Is she > a friend or ally? She publishes on IEET. **** > > What is her problem?**** > > Giovanni**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote:* > *** > > I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting > (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions.**** > > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Kelly Anderson > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: > >> Appologizes for posting this icky link that someone forwarded to me: > >> > >> < > http://www.wfs.org/blogs/dale-carrico/how-write-your-transhumanist-article-helpful-guide-for-more-profitable-prophesyin > > > >> > >> I don't have it in me to read it or respond to it, but some of you > might. > > > > I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is > > admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him > > that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... > > Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. > > :-) > > > > -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**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > 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 gsantostasi at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 00:12:17 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:12:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> Message-ID: Next project is to write a transhumanist version of Italo Calvino Cosmic-Comics. The critics should not be the only ones that can laugh at our expenses we should laugh about ourselves too. Giovanni On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Beautiful article, Natasha. > > But to be honest I really have nostalgia for the times when I was an > unicellular organism. Life was so simple and symmetric at that time. I was > almost perfectly round, and I didn't know left from right, with all the > political and existential tension that these terms can bring. > > My beautiful and elegant body was without sensory or motor organs but the > currents in the water were carrying me around in an exciting, ever > changing unforeseeable swirling existence. A real dance of life. > > I was bumping into food and that was such a blessing, and even if went > hungry at times, I didn't really care because I had not a nervous system to > experience such negative sensation. > > Now, I have to actually, not really hunt my food, but at a minimum lift my > butt from the chair to go to a refrigerator and do the effort to open it > and look for eatable stuff in it (not always simple). > > I never understood these multi-cellular cultist that wanted to do the next > "step" in evolution. > > Such beautiful life the life of a bacterium. > > Giovanni > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >> She is another negative, but at least somewhat civil voice. A couple of >> years ago she claimed transhumanists don?t dance, like our bodies, enjoy >> senses, etc. Here is my response to her claims: >> http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/vitamore20090610/**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto: >> extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *Giovanni >> Santostasi >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:45 PM >> >> *To:* ExI chat list >> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting**** >> >> ** ** >> >> And what is with this Athena Andreadis, >> why she is making a big deal about Giulio's views on women? Where do he >> says anything disparaging against women in the reference she gives? Is she >> a friend or ally? She publishes on IEET. **** >> >> What is her problem?**** >> >> Giovanni**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> **** >> >> I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting >> (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions.**** >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Kelly Anderson >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: >> >> Appologizes for posting this icky link that someone forwarded to me: >> >> >> >> < >> http://www.wfs.org/blogs/dale-carrico/how-write-your-transhumanist-article-helpful-guide-for-more-profitable-prophesyin >> > >> >> >> >> I don't have it in me to read it or respond to it, but some of you >> might. >> > >> > I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is >> > admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him >> > that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... >> > Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. >> > :-) >> > >> > -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**** >> >> ** ** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Jun 17 00:08:25 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:08:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> Message-ID: <00bc01cd4c1d$51a7b3c0$f4f71b40$@att.net> Giovanni, this is brilliant. Thanks man. spike From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Santostasi Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:45 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting Beautiful article, Natasha. But to be honest I really have nostalgia for the times when I was an unicellular organism. Life was so simple and symmetric at that time. I was almost perfectly round, and I didn't know left from right, with all the political and existential tension that these terms can bring. My beautiful and elegant body was without sensory or motor organs but the currents in the water were carrying me around in an exciting, ever changing unforeseeable swirling existence. A real dance of life. I was bumping into food and that was such a blessing, and even if went hungry at times, I didn't really care because I had not a nervous system to experience such negative sensation. Now, I have to actually, not really hunt my food, but at a minimum lift my butt from the chair to go to a refrigerator and do the effort to open it and look for eatable stuff in it (not always simple). I never understood these multi-cellular cultist that wanted to do the next "step" in evolution. Such beautiful life the life of a bacterium. Giovanni On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: She is another negative, but at least somewhat civil voice. A couple of years ago she claimed transhumanists don't dance, like our bodies, enjoy senses, etc. Here is my response to her claims: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/vitamore20090610/ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Santostasi Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:45 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting And what is with this Athena Andreadis, why she is making a big deal about Giulio's views on women? Where do he says anything disparaging against women in the reference she gives? Is she a friend or ally? She publishes on IEET. What is her problem? Giovanni On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions. On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: >> Appologizes for posting this icky link that someone forwarded to me: >> >> >> >> I don't have it in me to read it or respond to it, but some of you might. > > I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is > admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him > that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... > Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. > :-) > > -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 _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Jun 17 00:37:46 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 01:37:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Intelligence inside a black hole In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FDD26DA.1090109@aleph.se> On 16/06/2012 17:58, Kelly Anderson wrote: > I recently learned that if the rotational energy of a black hole is > large enough, that the center of the black hole isn't a point, but > rather a doughnut shaped spinning mass of extremely densely packed > neutrons (and I suppose other matter). I wonder if it is theoretically > possible to configure such matter into computronium of some sort. You are thinking of the extremal Kerr solution to the GR equations. It doesn't describe a doughnut of matter, but a naked singularity. Nearby matter would still be sucked in and flung around, eventually sucked up by the singularity. However, there is no event horizon, so if there were some super-dense stable matter state it might actually resist collapse. Unfortunately there is nothing I know of in the standard model that could do this, and there are issues of the stability of the singularity too. > The > advantage of such an environment would be that since the speed of > light limits computational speed in normal matter, with the smaller > spaces between elements inside a black hole, the computation could > theoretically be billions of times faster. There is gravitational time dilation. Even fast operations are going to produce slow messages to the outside. The real thing to try if you have a Kerr hole like this is to use closed timelike curves to send information to the past, and hence use acausal computation. That will likely beat most forms of computronium, since you can do hypercomputation. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 17 00:29:09 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:29:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> Message-ID: <00c701cd4c20$36a8f7c0$a3fae740$@att.net> >. Behalf Of Giovanni Santostasi Subject: Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting >.Next project is to write a transhumanist version of Italo Calvino Cosmic-Comics. The critics should not be the only ones that can laugh at our expenses we should laugh about ourselves too. Giovanni Giovanni, I had to look up your reference to Italo Calvino, and saw he is a comedian of some sort. I have been thinking of comedy as a vehicle for ideas. Your reference reminded me of a brilliant comic strip character we had here in the early 90s, Calvin and Hobbes. The strip ended 17 years ago, but I still see people reading the complied books to this day. Watterson introduced plenty of thought-provoking ideas through those characters. Cartooning seems like such a terrific way of aiding meme penetration. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 17 00:47:14 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 01:47:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever In-Reply-To: <00f301cd4beb$36aa7170$a3ff5450$@cc> References: <4FDA62C4.5010002@aleph.se> <4FDAF619.20005@aleph.se> <003f01cd4af9$e969f580$bc3de080$@att.net> <4FDB6340.20409@aleph.se> <4FDC6860.2080505@aleph.se> <00f301cd4beb$36aa7170$a3ff5450$@cc> Message-ID: <4FDD2912.3060303@aleph.se> On 16/06/2012 19:09, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Lloyd's "[m]erely by existing, all physical systems register information" > links to Lynn Margulis understanding of living matter and also to > cybernetics. It is part of the big stream of ideas in 20th-21st science based on seeing information as fundamental. > Re information theory: does the physical capacity of the > universe reduce/shrink the more we know about it? > No, not that I know. Knowing about a system is a kind of physical power: one can demonstrate that knowing information about the state of a system allows you to temporarily break the laws of thermodynamics for it: each bit is like a ticket for one small operation that can reverse entropy - but the price is that you spend your bits. Understanding in the sense of knowing physical laws doesn't have this effect, but it allows us to coax the world into unusual states that are useful to us. In a sense our knowledge adds new options to the universe: thanks to it there are now Bose-Einstein condensates, brainbow mice and computers. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From gsantostasi at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 00:49:19 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:49:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: <00c701cd4c20$36a8f7c0$a3fae740$@att.net> References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> <00c701cd4c20$36a8f7c0$a3fae740$@att.net> Message-ID: Not sure if you have ever read these stories, but even if not exactly transhumanist in theme, they talk about how existence can embody different forms and places, in the vast cosmic play. I think somebody should write similar stories to describe how consciousness would be embodied in higher forms of being as the universal saga continues from existing all crowded in One Point at the Big Bang times to the time we will play with galaxies like if they were chips on the cosmic casino: here the complete Italo Calvino 's Cosmicomics: http://irenebrination.typepad.com/files/calvino-italo-cosmicomics.pdf On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:29 PM, spike wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *>? Behalf Of *Giovanni Santostasi > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting**** > > ** ** > > >?Next project is to write a transhumanist version of Italo Calvino > Cosmic-Comics.**** > > The critics should not be the only ones that can laugh at our expenses we > should laugh about ourselves too. Giovanni**** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > Giovanni, I had to look up your reference to Italo Calvino, and saw he is > a comedian of some sort. I have been thinking of comedy as a vehicle for > ideas. Your reference reminded me of a brilliant comic strip character we > had here in the early 90s, Calvin and Hobbes. The strip ended 17 years > ago, but I still see people reading the complied books to this day. > Watterson introduced plenty of thought-provoking ideas through those > characters. Cartooning seems like such a terrific way of aiding meme > penetration.**** > > 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 natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jun 17 00:54:59 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:54:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> Message-ID: <002701cd4c23$d24e5e10$76eb1a30$@cc> Thank you. . And, on another note, I too long for my earliest life, as so illustrated by Lynn Margulis in What is Life? A stunning story of how humans are the result of a conglomeration of bacterium. Natasha Vita-More Chairman, Humanity+ CCO, esDesign PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK Editor, The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and ContemporaryEssays on the Science, Technology and Philosophy of the Human Future "The things one feels absolutely certain about are never true. Oscar Wilde (But is this true then?) From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Santostasi Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 6:45 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting Beautiful article, Natasha. But to be honest I really have nostalgia for the times when I was an unicellular organism. Life was so simple and symmetric at that time. I was almost perfectly round, and I didn't know left from right, with all the political and existential tension that these terms can bring. My beautiful and elegant body was without sensory or motor organs but the currents in the water were carrying me around in an exciting, ever changing unforeseeable swirling existence. A real dance of life. I was bumping into food and that was such a blessing, and even if went hungry at times, I didn't really care because I had not a nervous system to experience such negative sensation. Now, I have to actually, not really hunt my food, but at a minimum lift my butt from the chair to go to a refrigerator and do the effort to open it and look for eatable stuff in it (not always simple). I never understood these multi-cellular cultist that wanted to do the next "step" in evolution. Such beautiful life the life of a bacterium. Giovanni On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: She is another negative, but at least somewhat civil voice. A couple of years ago she claimed transhumanists don't dance, like our bodies, enjoy senses, etc. Here is my response to her claims: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/vitamore20090610/ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Santostasi Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:45 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting And what is with this Athena Andreadis, why she is making a big deal about Giulio's views on women? Where do he says anything disparaging against women in the reference she gives? Is she a friend or ally? She publishes on IEET. What is her problem? Giovanni On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions. On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: >> Appologizes for posting this icky link that someone forwarded to me: >> >> >> >> I don't have it in me to read it or respond to it, but some of you might. > > I dunno... I found it mildly humorous, although his logic is > admittedly pretty weak. I guess the rest of you have history with him > that taints how you see what he writes in this particular instance... > Must be a pretty lame guy for all of you great people to dislike him. > :-) > > -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 _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 17 01:01:44 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:01:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> <00c701cd4c20$36a8f7c0$a3fae740$@att.net> Message-ID: <00de01cd4c24$c418b6a0$4c4a23e0$@att.net> >.Giovanni Santostasi Subject: Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting >>.Giovanni, I had to look up your reference to Italo Calvino, and saw he is a comedian of some sort. I have been thinking of comedy as a vehicle for ideas. Your reference reminded me of a brilliant comic strip character we had here in the early 90s, Calvin and Hobbes. spike >.Not sure if you have ever read these stories, but even if not exactly transhumanist in theme, they talk about how existence can embody different forms and places, in the vast cosmic play. .Cosmicomics: http://irenebrination.typepad.com/files/calvino-italo-cosmicomics.pdf Giovanni Santostasi OK cool, question please intellectual property hipsters. Imagine I create a comic strip or a transhumanist presentation in Microsloth Powerpoint. Does Bill Gates own that? I did a presentation about MBrains last fall to an engineering group using that format. I am not an artist, but I have gotten competent in creating some really interesting looking art in Powerpoint. I never really thought much about the intellectual property angle, the fact that I was using PP is equivalent to writing in someone else's book in a sense. Is it? Is there a better public domain or Open Office equivalent to PP with all the same art tools? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 01:05:03 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:05:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> <002601cd4c14$905e04b0$b11a0e10$@cc> <00c701cd4c20$36a8f7c0$a3fae740$@att.net> Message-ID: In particular read "Shall we bet ? " among the Cosmicomics stories: "This situation began to change when, in the protogalaxies, the protostars started condensing, and I quickly realized where it would all end, with that temperature rising all the time, and so I said: "Now they're going to catch fire." "Nuts!" the Dean said. "Want to bet?" I said. "Anything you like," he said, and wham, the darkness was shattered by all these incandescent balls that began to swell out. "Oh, but that isn't what catching fire means. . ." (k)yK began, quibbling about words in his usual way. By that time I had developed a system of my own, to shut him up: "Oh, no? And what does it mean then, in your opinion?" He kept quiet: lacking imagination as he did, when a word began to have one meaning, he couldn't conceive of its having any other. Dean (k)yK, if you had to spend much time with him, was a fairly boring sort, without any resources, he never had anything to tell. Not that I, on the other hand, could have told much, since events worth telling about had never happened, or at least so it appeared to us. The only thing was to frame hypotheses, or rather: hypothesize on the possibility of framing hypotheses. Now, when it came to framing hypotheses of hypotheses, I had much more imagination than the Dean, and this was both an advantage and a disadvantage, because it led me to make riskier bets, so that you might say our probabilities of winning were even. As a rule, I bet on the possibility of a certain event's taking place, whereas the Dean almost always bet against it. He had a static sense of reality, old (k)yK, if I may express myself in these terms, since between static and dynamic at that time there wasn't the difference there is nowadays, or in any case you had to be very careful in grasping it, that difference." Old Dean (k)yK, fairly boring sort, without any resources and imagination reminds of somebody, same for you? Giovanni On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Not sure if you have ever read these stories, but even if not exactly > transhumanist in theme, they talk about how existence can embody different > forms and places, in the vast cosmic play. I think somebody should write > similar stories to describe how consciousness would be embodied in higher > forms of being as the universal saga continues from existing all crowded in > One Point at the Big Bang times to the time we will play with galaxies like > if they were chips on the cosmic casino: here the complete Italo Calvino 's > Cosmicomics: > http://irenebrination.typepad.com/files/calvino-italo-cosmicomics.pdf > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:29 PM, spike wrote: > >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *>? Behalf Of *Giovanni Santostasi >> >> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >?Next project is to write a transhumanist version of Italo Calvino >> Cosmic-Comics.**** >> >> The critics should not be the only ones that can laugh at our expenses we >> should laugh about ourselves too. Giovanni**** >> >> ** ** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Giovanni, I had to look up your reference to Italo Calvino, and saw he is >> a comedian of some sort. I have been thinking of comedy as a vehicle for >> ideas. Your reference reminded me of a brilliant comic strip character we >> had here in the early 90s, Calvin and Hobbes. The strip ended 17 years >> ago, but I still see people reading the complied books to this day. >> Watterson introduced plenty of thought-provoking ideas through those >> characters. Cartooning seems like such a terrific way of aiding meme >> penetration.**** >> >> 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 Sun Jun 17 01:05:55 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:05:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] intellectual property question, was: RE: He's Back Message-ID: <00f201cd4c25$5a3de880$0eb9b980$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike >.Imagine I create a comic strip or a transhumanist presentation in Microsloth Powerpoint. Does Bill Gates own that? . spike Note subject line change on this topic if you continue or reply to this thread please. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 17 03:35:15 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:35:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] tim minchin, comic, was: RE: He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting Message-ID: <011401cd4c3a$369dd560$a3d98020$@att.net> A friend from ExI posted me offlist a reference to a comic of whom I had never heard, Tim Minchin. I agree he is funny and one who would perhaps be at home on Exi: On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 5:29 PM, spike wrote: I have been thinking of comedy as a vehicle for ideas. Anonymized offlister: Try Tim Minchin and in particular his masterpiece Storm: http://youtu.be/HhGuXCuDb1U So I googled and found this other routine on evolution which is good too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMAezEgYFeE &feature=related {8^D spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 17 14:18:32 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 07:18:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] how mosquitoes fly in the rain Message-ID: <017701cd4c94$13bd3450$3b379cf0$@att.net> Is this cool or what? Many years ago I was up at Mount Rainier in late September when there was a freak early snowfall. I stood around outside the lodge and noticed there was a mosquito hovering about as the flakes gently fell, but she wasn't getting caught by them. I watched for long enough to marvel that she managed to dodge every flake. I assumed that eventually one would clobber her and haul her down to the ground where presumably she would perish, which is good actually for I detest the wretched beasts. But I had to feel a certain disdainful admiration for her ability to hover about and apparently dodge snowflakes. I hadn't realized until I saw this that mosquitoes can survive direct hits from raindrops: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2012/06/how-do-mosquitoes-fly-in-the -rain/?utm_source=smithsoniantopic &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120617-Weekender Fortunately they still have not evolved the ability to evade my paw. Dodge THIS, Needlenose! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 19:00:48 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:00:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] humans as much bonobo as chimp In-Reply-To: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> Message-ID: In fact, I quite like both. They may be more polarised than we are, however. On 15 June 2012 19:13, spike wrote: > Cool! Bonobos are as human as chimps. This is good: I would far rather > be a bonobo?s cousin than a chimp?s cousin. The researchers say bonobos > are much nicer people than either chimps or people.**** > > ** ** > > > http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06/bonobo-genome-sequenced.html?ref=hp > **** > > ** ** > > spike**** > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 18:44:51 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:44:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: On 16 June 2012 19:30, Giulio Prisco wrote: > I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting > (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions. > Personally, I would like to have more of his kind. He is obsessing with anti-transhumanism, and this is in principle a good thing, because the worse thing that can happen to H+ is to slip into irrelevance. Controversy, on the contrary, is what put it into the limelight. Moreover, the deformed and caricatural image he gives of it may help some of us to to beware of a few temptations (eschatologism or its evil twin, millenarism, for example) which after all are not so remote... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 18:51:51 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:51:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15 June 2012 10:37, BillK wrote: > Two years ago the Rockefeller Foundation produced a report about > future development that presented four possible scenarios for the > future. > One wonders about the kind of society where people exist who are paid to produce such things rather than working... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 10:28:47 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:28:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit Message-ID: Long, and somewhat moralistic, piece that OTOH to a large extent expresses in a more eloquent and documented way what I have been repeating for a while... http://www.thebaffler.com/past/of_flying_cars Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit David Graeber from The Baffler No. 19 A secret question hovers over us, a sense of disappointment, a broken promise we were given as children about what our adult world was supposed to be like. I am referring not to the standard false promises that children are always given (about how the world is fair, or how those who work hard shall be rewarded), but to a particular generational promise-given to those who were children in the fifties, sixties, seventies, or eighties-one that was never quite articulated as a promise but rather as a set of assumptions about what our adult world would be like. And since it was never quite promised, now that it has failed to come true, we're left confused: indignant, but at the same time, embarrassed at our own indignation, ashamed we were ever so silly to believe our elders to begin with. Where, in short, are the flying cars? Where are the force fields, tractor beams, teleportation pods, antigravity sleds, tricorders, immortality drugs, colonies on Mars, and all the other technological wonders any child growing up in the mid-to-late twentieth century assumed would exist by now? Even those inventions that seemed ready to emerge-like cloning or cryogenics-ended up betraying their lofty promises. What happened to them? We are well informed of the wonders of computers, as if this is some sort of unanticipated compensation, but, in fact, we haven't moved even computing to the point of progress that people in the fifties expected we'd have reached by now. We don't have computers we can have an interesting conversation with, or robots that can walk our dogs or take our clothes to the Laundromat. As someone who was eight years old at the time of the Apollo moon landing, I remember calculating that I would be thirty-nine in the magic year 2000 and wondering what the world would be like. Did I expect I would be living in such a world of wonders? Of course. Everyone did. Do I feel cheated now? It seemed unlikely that I'd live to see all the things I was reading about in science fiction, but it never occurred to me that I wouldn't see any of them. At the turn of the millennium, I was expecting an outpouring of reflections on why we had gotten the future of technology so wrong. Instead, just about all the authoritative voices-both Left and Right-began their reflections from the assumption that we do live in an unprecedented new technological utopia of one sort or another. The common way of dealing with the uneasy sense that this might not be so is to brush it aside, to insist all the progress that could have happened has happened and to treat anything more as silly. "Oh, you mean all that Jetsons stuff?" I'm asked-as if to say, but that was just for children! Surely, as grown-ups, we understand The Jetsons offered as accurate a view of the future as The Flintstones offered of the Stone Age. Even in the seventies and eighties, in fact, sober sources such as National Geographic and the Smithsonian were informing children of imminent space stations and expeditions to Mars. Creators of science fiction movies used to come up with concrete dates, often no more than a generation in the future, in which to place their futuristic fantasies. In 1968, Stanley Kubrick felt that a moviegoing audience would find it perfectly natural to assume that only thirty-three years later, in 2001, we would have commercial moon flights, city-like space stations, and computers with human personalities maintaining astronauts in suspended animation while traveling to Jupiter. Video telephony is just about the only new technology from that particular movie that has appeared-and it was technically possible when the movie was showing. 2001 can be seen as a curio, but what about Star Trek? The Star Trek mythos was set in the sixties, too, but the show kept getting revived, leaving audiences for Star Trek Voyager in, say, 2005, to try to figure out what to make of the fact that according to the logic of the program, the world was supposed to be recovering from fighting off the rule of genetically engineered supermen in the Eugenics Wars of the nineties. By 1989, when the creators of Back to the Future II were dutifully placing flying cars and anti-gravity hoverboards in the hands of ordinary teenagers in the year 2015, it wasn't clear if this was meant as a prediction or a joke. The usual move in science fiction is to remain vague about the dates, so as to render "the future" a zone of pure fantasy, no different than Middle Earth or Narnia, or like Star Wars, "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." As a result, our science fiction future is, most often, not a future at all, but more like an alternative dimension, a dream-time, a technological Elsewhere, existing in days to come in the same sense that elves and dragon-slayers existed in the past-another screen for the displacement of moral dramas and mythic fantasies into the dead ends of consumer pleasure. Might the cultural sensibility that came to be referred to as postmodernism best be seen as a prolonged meditation on all the technological changes that never happened? The question struck me as I watched one of the recent Star Wars movies. The movie was terrible, but I couldn't help but feel impressed by the quality of the special effects. Recalling the clumsy special effects typical of fifties sci-fi films, I kept thinking how impressed a fifties audience would have been if they'd known what we could do by now-only to realize, "Actually, no. They wouldn't be impressed at all, would they? They thought we'd be doing this kind of thing by now. Not just figuring out more sophisticated ways to simulate it." That last word-simulate-is key. The technologies that have advanced since the seventies are mainly either medical technologies or information technologies-largely, technologies of simulation. They are technologies of what Jean Baudrillard and Umberto Eco called the "hyper-real," the ability to make imitations that are more realistic than originals. The postmodern sensibility, the feeling that we had somehow broken into an unprecedented new historical period in which we understood that there is nothing new; that grand historical narratives of progress and liberation were meaningless; that everything now was simulation, ironic repetition, fragmentation, and pastiche-all this makes sense in a technological environment in which the only breakthroughs were those that made it easier to create, transfer, and rearrange virtual projections of things that either already existed, or, we came to realize, never would. Surely, if we were vacationing in geodesic domes on Mars or toting about pocket-size nuclear fusion plants or telekinetic mind-reading devices no one would ever have been talking like this. The postmodern moment was a desperate way to take what could otherwise only be felt as a bitter disappointment and to dress it up as something epochal, exciting, and new. In the earliest formulations, which largely came out of the Marxist tradition, a lot of this technological background was acknowledged. Fredric Jameson's "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" proposed the term "postmodernism" to refer to the cultural logic appropriate to a new, technological phase of capitalism, one that had been heralded by Marxist economist Ernest Mandel as early as 1972. Mandel had argued that humanity stood at the verge of a "third technological revolution," as profound as the Agricultural or Industrial Revolution, in which computers, robots, new energy sources, and new information technologies would replace industrial labor-the "end of work" as it soon came to be called-reducing us all to designers and computer technicians coming up with crazy visions that cybernetic factories would produce. End of work arguments were popular in the late seventies and early eighties as social thinkers pondered what would happen to the traditional working-class-led popular struggle once the working class no longer existed. (The answer: it would turn into identity politics.) Jameson thought of himself as exploring the forms of consciousness and historical sensibilities likely to emerge from this new age. What happened, instead, is that the spread of information technologies and new ways of organizing transport-the containerization of shipping, for example-allowed those same industrial jobs to be outsourced to East Asia, Latin America, and other countries where the availability of cheap labor allowed manufacturers to employ much less technologically sophisticated production-line techniques than they would have been obliged to employ at home. >From the perspective of those living in Europe, North America, and Japan, the results did seem to be much as predicted. Smokestack industries did disappear; jobs came to be divided between a lower stratum of service workers and an upper stratum sitting in antiseptic bubbles playing with computers. But below it all lay an uneasy awareness that the postwork civilization was a giant fraud. Our carefully engineered high-tech sneakers were not being produced by intelligent cyborgs or self-replicating molecular nanotechnology; they were being made on the equivalent of old-fashioned Singer sewing machines, by the daughters of Mexican and Indonesian farmers who, as the result of WTO or NAFTA-sponsored trade deals, had been ousted from their ancestral lands. It was a guilty awareness that lay beneath the postmodern sensibility and its celebration of the endless play of images and surfaces. Why did the projected explosion of technological growth everyone was expecting-the moon bases, the robot factories-fail to happen? There are two possibilities. Either our expectations about the pace of technological change were unrealistic (in which case, we need to know why so many intelligent people believed they were not) or our expectations were not unrealistic (in which case, we need to know what happened to derail so many credible ideas and prospects). Most social analysts choose the first explanation and trace the problem to the Cold War space race. Why, these analysts wonder, did both the United States and the Soviet Union become so obsessed with the idea of manned space travel? It was never an efficient way to engage in scientific research. And it encouraged unrealistic ideas of what the human future would be like. Could the answer be that both the United States and the Soviet Union had been, in the century before, societies of pioneers, one expanding across the Western frontier, the other across Siberia? Didn't they share a commitment to the myth of a limitless, expansive future, of human colonization of vast empty spaces, that helped convince the leaders of both superpowers they had entered into a "space age" in which they were battling over control of the future itself? All sorts of myths were at play here, no doubt, but that proves nothing about the feasibility of the project. Some of those science fiction fantasies (at this point we can't know which ones) could have been brought into being. For earlier generations, many science fiction fantasies had been brought into being. Those who grew up at the turn of the century reading Jules Verne or H.G. Wells imagined the world of, say, 1960 with flying machines, rocket ships, submarines, radio, and television-and that was pretty much what they got. If it wasn't unrealistic in 1900 to dream of men traveling to the moon, then why was it unrealistic in the sixties to dream of jet-packs and robot laundry-maids? In fact, even as those dreams were being outlined, the material base for their achievement was beginning to be whittled away. There is reason to believe that even by the fifties and sixties, the pace of technological innovation was slowing down from the heady pace of the first half of the century. There was a last spate in the fifties when microwave ovens (1954), the Pill (1957), and lasers (1958) all appeared in rapid succession. But since then, technological advances have taken the form of clever new ways of combining existing technologies (as in the space race) and new ways of putting existing technologies to consumer use (the most famous example is television, invented in 1926, but mass produced only after the war.) Yet, in part because the space race gave everyone the impression that remarkable advances were happening, the popular impression during the sixties was that the pace of technological change was speeding up in terrifying, uncontrollable ways. Alvin Toffler's 1970 best seller Future Shock argued that almost all the social problems of the sixties could be traced back to the increasing pace of technological change. The endless outpouring of scientific breakthroughs transformed the grounds of daily existence, and left Americans without any clear idea of what normal life was. Just consider the family, where not just the Pill, but also the prospect of in vitro fertilization, test tube babies, and sperm and egg donation were about to make the idea of motherhood obsolete. Humans were not psychologically prepared for the pace of change, Toffler wrote. He coined a term for the phenomenon: "accelerative thrust." It had begun with the Industrial Revolution, but by roughly 1850, the effect had become unmistakable. Not only was everything around us changing, but most of it-human knowledge, the size of the population, industrial growth, energy use-was changing exponentially. The only solution, Toffler argued, was to begin some kind of control over the process, to create institutions that would assess emerging technologies and their likely effects, to ban technologies likely to be too socially disruptive, and to guide development in the direction of social harmony. While many of the historical trends Toffler describes are accurate, the book appeared when most of these exponential trends halted. It was right around 1970 when the increase in the number of scientific papers published in the world-a figure that had doubled every fifteen years since, roughly, 1685-began leveling off. The same was true of books and patents. Toffler's use of acceleration was particularly unfortunate. For most of human history, the top speed at which human beings could travel had been around 25 miles per hour. By 1900 it had increased to 100 miles per hour, and for the next seventy years it did seem to be increasing exponentially. By the time Toffler was writing, in 1970, the record for the fastest speed at which any human had traveled stood at roughly 25,000 mph, achieved by the crew of Apollo 10 in 1969, just one year before. At such an exponential rate, it must have seemed reasonable to assume that within a matter of decades, humanity would be exploring other solar systems. Since 1970, no further increase has occurred. The record for the fastest a human has ever traveled remains with the crew of Apollo 10. True, the maximum speed of commercial air flight did peak one year later, at 1,400 mph, with the launching of the Concorde in 1971. But that speed not only has failed to increase; it has decreased since the Concorde was abandoned in 2003. None of this stopped Toffler's own career. He kept retooling his analysis to come up with new spectacular pronouncements. In 1980, he produced The Third Wave, its argument lifted from Ernest Mandel's "third technological revolution"-except that while Mandel thought these changes would spell the end of capitalism, Toffler assumed capitalism was eternal. By 1990, Toffler was the personal intellectual guru to Republican congressman Newt Gingrich, who claimed that his 1994 "Contract With America" was inspired, in part, by the understanding that the United States needed to move from an antiquated, materialist, industrial mind-set to a new, free-market, information age, Third Wave civilization. There are all sorts of ironies in this connection. One of Toffler's greatest achievements was inspiring the government to create an Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). One of Gingrich's first acts on winning control of the House of Representatives in 1995 was defunding the OTA as an example of useless government extravagance. Still, there's no contradiction here. By this time, Toffler had long since given up on influencing policy by appealing to the general public; he was making a living largely by giving seminars to CEOs and corporate think tanks. His insights had been privatized. Gingrich liked to call himself a "conservative futurologist." This, too, might seem oxymoronic; but, in fact, Toffler's own conception of futurology was never progressive. Progress was always presented as a problem that needed to be solved. Toffler might best be seen as a lightweight version of the nineteenth-century social theorist Auguste Comte, who believed that he was standing on the brink of a new age-in his case, the Industrial Age-driven by the inexorable progress of technology, and that the social cataclysms of his times were caused by the social system not adjusting. The older feudal order had developed Catholic theology, a way of thinking about man's place in the cosmos perfectly suited to the social system of the time, as well as an institutional structure, the Church, that conveyed and enforced such ideas in a way that could give everyone a sense of meaning and belonging. The Industrial Age had developed its own system of ideas-science-but scientists had not succeeded in creating anything like the Catholic Church. Comte concluded that we needed to develop a new science, which he dubbed "sociology," and said that sociologists should play the role of priests in a new Religion of Society that would inspire everyone with a love of order, community, work discipline, and family values. Toffler was less ambitious; his futurologists were not supposed to play the role of priests. Gingrich had a second guru, a libertarian theologian named George Gilder, and Gilder, like Toffler, was obsessed with technology and social change. In an odd way, Gilder was more optimistic. Embracing a radical version of Mandel's Third Wave argument, he insisted that what we were seeing with the rise of computers was an "overthrow of matter." The old, materialist Industrial Society, where value came from physical labor, was giving way to an Information Age where value emerges directly from the minds of entrepreneurs, just as the world had originally appeared ex nihilo from the mind of God, just as money, in a proper supply-side economy, emerged ex nihilo from the Federal Reserve and into the hands of value-creating capitalists. Supply-side economic policies, Gilder concluded, would ensure that investment would continue to steer away from old government boondoggles like the space program and toward more productive information and medical technologies. But if there was a conscious, or semi-conscious, move away from investment in research that might lead to better rockets and robots, and toward research that would lead to such things as laser printers and CAT scans, it had begun well before Toffler's Future Shock (1970) and Gilder's Wealth and Poverty (1981). What their success shows is that the issues they raised-that existing patterns of technological development would lead to social upheaval, and that we needed to guide technological development in directions that did not challenge existing structures of authority-echoed in the corridors of power. Statesmen and captains of industry had been thinking about such questions for some time. Industrial capitalism has fostered an extremely rapid rate of scientific advance and technological innovation-one with no parallel in previous human history. Even capitalism's greatest detractors, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, celebrated its unleashing of the "productive forces." Marx and Engels also believed that capitalism's continual need to revolutionize the means of industrial production would be its undoing. Marx argued that, for certain technical reasons, value-and therefore profits-can be extracted only from human labor. Competition forces factory owners to mechanize production, to reduce labor costs, but while this is to the short-term advantage of the firm, mechanization's effect is to drive down the general rate of profit. For 150 years, economists have debated whether all this is true. But if it is true, then the decision by industrialists not to pour research funds into the invention of the robot factories that everyone was anticipating in the sixties, and instead to relocate their factories to labor-intensive, low-tech facilities in China or the Global South makes a great deal of sense. As I've noted, there's reason to believe the pace of technological innovation in productive processes-the factories themselves-began to slow in the fifties and sixties, but the side effects of America's rivalry with the Soviet Union made innovation appear to accelerate. There was the awesome space race, alongside frenetic efforts by U.S. industrial planners to apply existing technologies to consumer purposes, to create an optimistic sense of burgeoning prosperity and guaranteed progress that would undercut the appeal of working-class politics. These moves were reactions to initiatives from the Soviet Union. But this part of the history is difficult for Americans to remember, because at the end of the Cold War, the popular image of the Soviet Union switched from terrifyingly bold rival to pathetic basket case-the exemplar of a society that could not work. Back in the fifties, in fact, many United States planners suspected the Soviet system worked better. Certainly, they recalled the fact that in the thirties, while the United States had been mired in depression, the Soviet Union had maintained almost unprecedented economic growth rates of 10 percent to 12 percent a year-an achievement quickly followed by the production of tank armies that defeated Nazi Germany, then by the launching of Sputnik in 1957, then by the first manned spacecraft, the Vostok, in 1961. It's often said the Apollo moon landing was the greatest historical achievement of Soviet communism. Surely, the United States would never have contemplated such a feat had it not been for the cosmic ambitions of the Soviet Politburo. We are used to thinking of the Politburo as a group of unimaginative gray bureaucrats, but they were bureaucrats who dared to dream astounding dreams. The dream of world revolution was only the first. It's also true that most of them-changing the course of mighty rivers, this sort of thing-either turned out to be ecologically and socially disastrous, or, like Joseph Stalin's one-hundred-story Palace of the Soviets or a twenty-story statue of Vladimir Lenin, never got off the ground. After the initial successes of the Soviet space program, few of these schemes were realized, but the leadership never ceased coming up with new ones. Even in the eighties, when the United States was attempting its own last, grandiose scheme, Star Wars, the Soviets were planning to transform the world through creative uses of technology. Few outside of Russia remember most of these projects, but great resources were devoted to them. It's also worth noting that unlike the Star Wars project, which was designed to sink the Soviet Union, most were not military in nature: as, for instance, the attempt to solve the world hunger problem by harvesting lakes and oceans with an edible bacteria called spirulina, or to solve the world energy problem by launching hundreds of gigantic solar-power platforms into orbit and beaming the electricity back to earth. The American victory in the space race meant that, after 1968, U.S. planners no longer took the competition seriously. As a result, the mythology of the final frontier was maintained, even as the direction of research and development shifted away from anything that might lead to the creation of Mars bases and robot factories. The standard line is that all this was a result of the triumph of the market. The Apollo program was a Big Government project, Soviet-inspired in the sense that it required a national effort coordinated by government bureaucracies. As soon as the Soviet threat drew safely out of the picture, though, capitalism was free to revert to lines of technological development more in accord with its normal, decentralized, free-market imperatives-such as privately funded research into marketable products like personal computers. This is the line that men like Toffler and Gilder took in the late seventies and early eighties. In fact, the United States never did abandon gigantic, government-controlled schemes of technological development. Mainly, they just shifted to military research-and not just to Soviet-scale schemes like Star Wars, but to weapons projects, research in communications and surveillance technologies, and similar security-related concerns. To some degree this had always been true: the billions poured into missile research had always dwarfed the sums allocated to the space program. Yet by the seventies, even basic research came to be conducted following military priorities. One reason we don't have robot factories is because roughly 95 percent of robotics research funding has been channeled through the Pentagon, which is more interested in developing unmanned drones than in automating paper mills. A case could be made that even the shift to research and development on information technologies and medicine was not so much a reorientation toward market-driven consumer imperatives, but part of an all-out effort to follow the technological humbling of the Soviet Union with total victory in the global class war-seen simultaneously as the imposition of absolute U.S. military dominance overseas, and, at home, the utter rout of social movements. For the technologies that did emerge proved most conducive to surveillance, work discipline, and social control. Computers have opened up certain spaces of freedom, as we're constantly reminded, but instead of leading to the workless utopia Abbie Hoffman imagined, they have been employed in such a way as to produce the opposite effect. They have enabled a financialization of capital that has driven workers desperately into debt, and, at the same time, provided the means by which employers have created "flexible" work regimes that have both destroyed traditional job security and increased working hours for almost everyone. Along with the export of factory jobs, the new work regime has routed the union movement and destroyed any possibility of effective working-class politics. Meanwhile, despite unprecedented investment in research on medicine and life sciences, we await cures for cancer and the common cold, and the most dramatic medical breakthroughs we have seen have taken the form of drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft, or Ritalin-tailor-made to ensure that the new work demands don't drive us completely, dysfunctionally crazy. With results like these, what will the epitaph for neoliberalism look like? I think historians will conclude it was a form of capitalism that systematically prioritized political imperatives over economic ones. Given a choice between a course of action that would make capitalism seem the only possible economic system, and one that would transform capitalism into a viable, long-term economic system, neoliberalism chooses the former every time. There is every reason to believe that destroying job security while increasing working hours does not create a more productive (let alone more innovative or loyal) workforce. Probably, in economic terms, the result is negative-an impression confirmed by lower growth rates in just about all parts of the world in the eighties and nineties. But the neoliberal choice has been effective in depoliticizing labor and overdetermining the future. Economically, the growth of armies, police, and private security services amounts to dead weight. It's possible, in fact, that the very dead weight of the apparatus created to ensure the ideological victory of capitalism will sink it. But it's also easy to see how choking off any sense of an inevitable, redemptive future that could be different from our world is a crucial part of the neoliberal project. At this point all the pieces would seem to be falling neatly into place. By the sixties, conservative political forces were growing skittish about the socially disruptive effects of technological progress, and employers were beginning to worry about the economic impact of mechanization. The fading Soviet threat allowed for a reallocation of resources in directions seen as less challenging to social and economic arrangements, or indeed directions that could support a campaign of reversing the gains of progressive social movements and achieving a decisive victory in what U.S. elites saw as a global class war. The change of priorities was introduced as a withdrawal of big-government projects and a return to the market, but in fact the change shifted government-directed research away from programs like NASA or alternative energy sources and toward military, information, and medical technologies. Of course this doesn't explain everything. Above all, it does not explain why, even in those areas that have become the focus of well-funded research projects, we have not seen anything like the kind of advances anticipated fifty years ago. If 95 percent of robotics research has been funded by the military, then where are the Klaatu-style killer robots shooting death rays from their eyes? Obviously, there have been advances in military technology in recent decades. One of the reasons we all survived the Cold War is that while nuclear bombs might have worked as advertised, their delivery systems did not; intercontinental ballistic missiles weren't capable of striking cities, let alone specific targets inside cities, and this fact meant there was little point in launching a nuclear first strike unless you intended to destroy the world. Contemporary cruise missiles are accurate by comparison. Still, precision weapons never do seem capable of assassinating specific individuals (Saddam, Osama, Qaddafi), even when hundreds are dropped. And ray guns have not materialized-surely not for lack of trying. We can assume the Pentagon has spent billions on death ray research, but the closest they've come so far are lasers that might, if aimed correctly, blind an enemy gunner looking directly at the beam. Aside from being unsporting, this is pathetic: lasers are a fifties technology. Phasers that can be set to stun do not appear to be on the drawing boards; and when it comes to infantry combat, the preferred weapon almost everywhere remains the AK-47, a Soviet design named for the year it was introduced: 1947. The Internet is a remarkable innovation, but all we are talking about is a super-fast and globally accessible combination of library, post office, and mail-order catalogue. Had the Internet been described to a science fiction aficionado in the fifties and sixties and touted as the most dramatic technological achievement since his time, his reaction would have been disappointment. Fifty years and this is the best our scientists managed to come up with? We expected computers that would think! Overall, levels of research funding have increased dramatically since the seventies. Admittedly, the proportion of that funding that comes from the corporate sector has increased most dramatically, to the point that private enterprise is now funding twice as much research as the government, but the increase is so large that the total amount of government research funding, in real-dollar terms, is much higher than it was in the sixties. "Basic," "curiosity-driven," or "blue skies" research-the kind that is not driven by the prospect of any immediate practical application, and that is most likely to lead to unexpected breakthroughs-occupies an ever smaller proportion of the total, though so much money is being thrown around nowadays that overall levels of basic research funding have increased. Yet most observers agree that the results have been paltry. Certainly we no longer see anything like the continual stream of conceptual revolutions-genetic inheritance, relativity, psychoanalysis, quantum mechanics-that people had grown used to, and even expected, a hundred years before. Why? Part of the answer has to do with the concentration of resources on a handful of gigantic projects: "big science," as it has come to be called. The Human Genome Project is often held out as an example. After spending almost three billion dollars and employing thousands of scientists and staff in five different countries, it has mainly served to establish that there isn't very much to be learned from sequencing genes that's of much use to anyone else. Even more, the hype and political investment surrounding such projects demonstrate the degree to which even basic research now seems to be driven by political, administrative, and marketing imperatives that make it unlikely anything revolutionary will happen. Here, our fascination with the mythic origins of Silicon Valley and the Internet have blinded us to what's really going on. It has allowed us to imagine that research and development is now driven, primarily, by small teams of plucky entrepreneurs, or the sort of decentralized cooperation that creates open-source software. This is not so, even though such research teams are most likely to produce results. Research and development is still driven by giant bureaucratic projects. What has changed is the bureaucratic culture. The increasing interpenetration of government, university, and private firms has led everyone to adopt the language, sensibilities, and organizational forms that originated in the corporate world. Although this might have helped in creating marketable products, since that is what corporate bureaucracies are designed to do, in terms of fostering original research, the results have been catastrophic. My own knowledge comes from universities, both in the United States and Britain. In both countries, the last thirty years have seen a veritable explosion of the proportion of working hours spent on administrative tasks at the expense of pretty much everything else. In my own university, for instance, we have more administrators than faculty members, and the faculty members, too, are expected to spend at least as much time on administration as on teaching and research combined. The same is true, more or less, at universities worldwide. The growth of administrative work has directly resulted from introducing corporate management techniques. Invariably, these are justified as ways of increasing efficiency and introducing competition at every level. What they end up meaning in practice is that everyone winds up spending most of their time trying to sell things: grant proposals; book proposals; assessments of students' jobs and grant applications; assessments of our colleagues; prospectuses for new interdisciplinary majors; institutes; conference workshops; universities themselves (which have now become brands to be marketed to prospective students or contributors); and so on. As marketing overwhelms university life, it generates documents about fostering imagination and creativity that might just as well have been designed to strangle imagination and creativity in the cradle. No major new works of social theory have emerged in the United States in the last thirty years. We have been reduced to the equivalent of medieval scholastics, writing endless annotations of French theory from the seventies, despite the guilty awareness that if new incarnations of Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, or Pierre Bourdieu were to appear in the academy today, we would deny them tenure. There was a time when academia was society's refuge for the eccentric, brilliant, and impractical. No longer. It is now the domain of professional self-marketers. As a result, in one of the most bizarre fits of social self-destructiveness in history, we seem to have decided we have no place for our eccentric, brilliant, and impractical citizens. Most languish in their mothers' basements, at best making the occasional, acute intervention on the Internet. If all this is true in the social sciences, where research is still carried out with minimal overhead largely by individuals, one can imagine how much worse it is for astrophysicists. And, indeed, one astrophysicist, Jonathan Katz, has recently warned students pondering a career in the sciences. Even if you do emerge from the usual decade-long period languishing as someone else's flunky, he says, you can expect your best ideas to be stymied at every point: You will spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors, you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems. . . . It is proverbial that original ideas are the kiss of death for a proposal, because they have not yet been proved to work. That pretty much answers the question of why we don't have teleportation devices or antigravity shoes. Common sense suggests that if you want to maximize scientific creativity, you find some bright people, give them the resources they need to pursue whatever idea comes into their heads, and then leave them alone. Most will turn up nothing, but one or two may well discover something. But if you want to minimize the possibility of unexpected breakthroughs, tell those same people they will receive no resources at all unless they spend the bulk of their time competing against each other to convince you they know in advance what they are going to discover. In the natural sciences, to the tyranny of managerialism we can add the privatization of research results. As the British economist David Harvie has reminded us, "open source" research is not new. Scholarly research has always been open source, in the sense that scholars share materials and results. There is competition, certainly, but it is "convivial." This is no longer true of scientists working in the corporate sector, where findings are jealously guarded, but the spread of the corporate ethos within the academy and research institutes themselves has caused even publicly funded scholars to treat their findings as personal property. Academic publishers ensure that findings that are published are increasingly difficult to access, further enclosing the intellectual commons. As a result, convivial, open-source competition turns into something much more like classic market competition. There are many forms of privatization, up to and including the simple buying up and suppression of inconvenient discoveries by large corporations fearful of their economic effects. (We cannot know how many synthetic fuel formulae have been bought up and placed in the vaults of oil companies, but it's hard to imagine nothing like this happens.) More subtle is the way the managerial ethos discourages everything adventurous or quirky, especially if there is no prospect of immediate results. Oddly, the Internet can be part of the problem here. As Neal Stephenson put it: Most people who work in corporations or academia have witnessed something like the following: A number of engineers are sitting together in a room, bouncing ideas off each other. Out of the discussion emerges a new concept that seems promising. Then some laptop-wielding person in the corner, having performed a quick Google search, announces that this "new" idea is, in fact, an old one; it-or at least something vaguely similar-has already been tried. Either it failed, or it succeeded. If it failed, then no manager who wants to keep his or her job will approve spending money trying to revive it. If it succeeded, then it's patented and entry to the market is presumed to be unattainable, since the first people who thought of it will have "first-mover advantage" and will have created "barriers to entry." The number of seemingly promising ideas that have been crushed in this way must number in the millions. And so a timid, bureaucratic spirit suffuses every aspect of cultural life. It comes festooned in a language of creativity, initiative, and entrepreneurialism. But the language is meaningless. Those thinkers most likely to make a conceptual breakthrough are the least likely to receive funding, and, if breakthroughs occur, they are not likely to find anyone willing to follow up on their most daring implications. Giovanni Arrighi has noted that after the South Sea Bubble, British capitalism largely abandoned the corporate form. By the time of the Industrial Revolution, Britain had instead come to rely on a combination of high finance and small family firms-a pattern that held throughout the next century, the period of maximum scientific and technological innovation. (Britain at that time was also notorious for being just as generous to its oddballs and eccentrics as contemporary America is intolerant. A common expedient was to allow them to become rural vicars, who, predictably, became one of the main sources for amateur scientific discoveries.) Contemporary, bureaucratic corporate capitalism was a creation not of Britain, but of the United States and Germany, the two rival powers that spent the first half of the twentieth century fighting two bloody wars over who would replace Britain as a dominant world power-wars that culminated, appropriately enough, in government-sponsored scientific programs to see who would be the first to discover the atom bomb. It is significant, then, that our current technological stagnation seems to have begun after 1945, when the United States replaced Britain as organizer of the world economy. Americans do not like to think of themselves as a nation of bureaucrats-quite the opposite-but the moment we stop imagining bureaucracy as a phenomenon limited to government offices, it becomes obvious that this is precisely what we have become. The final victory over the Soviet Union did not lead to the domination of the market, but, in fact, cemented the dominance of conservative managerial elites, corporate bureaucrats who use the pretext of short-term, competitive, bottom-line thinking to squelch anything likely to have revolutionary implications of any kind. If we do not notice that we live in a bureaucratic society, that is because bureaucratic norms and practices have become so all-pervasive that we cannot see them, or, worse, cannot imagine doing things any other way. Computers have played a crucial role in this narrowing of our social imaginations. Just as the invention of new forms of industrial automation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had the paradoxical effect of turning more and more of the world's population into full-time industrial workers, so has all the software designed to save us from administrative responsibilities turned us into part- or full-time administrators. In the same way that university professors seem to feel it is inevitable they will spend more of their time managing grants, so affluent housewives simply accept that they will spend weeks every year filling out forty-page online forms to get their children into grade schools. We all spend increasing amounts of time punching passwords into our phones to manage bank and credit accounts and learning how to perform jobs once performed by travel agents, brokers, and accountants. Someone once figured out that the average American will spend a cumulative six months of life waiting for traffic lights to change. I don't know if similar figures are available for how long it takes to fill out forms, but it must be at least as long. No population in the history of the world has spent nearly so much time engaged in paperwork. In this final, stultifying stage of capitalism, we are moving from poetic technologies to bureaucratic technologies. By poetic technologies I refer to the use of rational and technical means to bring wild fantasies to reality. Poetic technologies, so understood, are as old as civilization. Lewis Mumford noted that the first complex machines were made of people. Egyptian pharaohs were able to build the pyramids only because of their mastery of administrative procedures, which allowed them to develop production-line techniques, dividing up complex tasks into dozens of simple operations and assigning each to one team of workmen-even though they lacked mechanical technology more complex than the inclined plane and lever. Administrative oversight turned armies of peasant farmers into the cogs of a vast machine. Much later, after cogs had been invented, the design of complex machinery elaborated principles originally developed to organize people. Yet we have seen those machines-whether their moving parts are arms and torsos or pistons, wheels, and springs-being put to work to realize impossible fantasies: cathedrals, moon shots, transcontinental railways. Certainly, poetic technologies had something terrible about them; the poetry is likely to be as much of dark satanic mills as of grace or liberation. But the rational, administrative techniques were always in service to some fantastic end. >From this perspective, all those mad Soviet plans-even if never realized-marked the climax of poetic technologies. What we have now is the reverse. It's not that vision, creativity, and mad fantasies are no longer encouraged, but that most remain free-floating; there's no longer even the pretense that they could ever take form or flesh. The greatest and most powerful nation that has ever existed has spent the last decades telling its citizens they can no longer contemplate fantastic collective enterprises, even if-as the environmental crisis demands- the fate of the earth depends on it. What are the political implications of all this? First of all, we need to rethink some of our most basic assumptions about the nature of capitalism. One is that capitalism is identical with the market, and that both therefore are inimical to bureaucracy, which is supposed to be a creature of the state. The second assumption is that capitalism is in its nature technologically progressive. It would seem that Marx and Engels, in their giddy enthusiasm for the industrial revolutions of their day, were wrong about this. Or, to be more precise: they were right to insist that the mechanization of industrial production would destroy capitalism; they were wrong to predict that market competition would compel factory owners to mechanize anyway. If it didn't happen, that is because market competition is not, in fact, as essential to the nature of capitalism as they had assumed. If nothing else, the current form of capitalism, where much of the competition seems to take the form of internal marketing within the bureaucratic structures of large semi-monopolistic enterprises, would come as a complete surprise to them. Defenders of capitalism make three broad historical claims: first, that it has fostered rapid scientific and technological growth; second, that however much it may throw enormous wealth to a small minority, it does so in such a way as to increase overall prosperity; third, that in doing so, it creates a more secure and democratic world for everyone. It is clear that capitalism is not doing any of these things any longer. In fact, many of its defenders are retreating from claiming that it is a good system and instead falling back on the claim that it is the only possible system-or, at least, the only possible system for a complex, technologically sophisticated society such as our own. But how could anyone argue that current economic arrangements are also the only ones that will ever be viable under any possible future technological society? The argument is absurd. How could anyone know? Granted, there are people who take that position-on both ends of the political spectrum. As an anthropologist and anarchist, I encounter anticivilizational types who insist not only that current industrial technology leads only to capitalist-style oppression, but that this must necessarily be true of any future technology as well, and therefore that human liberation can be achieved only by returning to the Stone Age. Most of us are not technological determinists. But claims for the inevitability of capitalism have to be based on a kind of technological determinism. And for that very reason, if the aim of neoliberal capitalism is to create a world in which no one believes any other economic system could work, then it needs to suppress not just any idea of an inevitable redemptive future, but any radically different technological future. Yet there's a contradiction. Defenders of capitalism cannot mean to convince us that technological change has ended-since that would mean capitalism is not progressive. No, they mean to convince us that technological progress is indeed continuing, that we do live in a world of wonders, but that those wonders take the form of modest improvements (the latest iPhone!), rumors of inventions about to happen ("I hear they are going to have flying cars pretty soon"), complex ways of juggling information and imagery, and still more complex platforms for filling out of forms. I do not mean to suggest that neoliberal capitalism-or any other system-can be successful in this regard. First, there's the problem of trying to convince the world you are leading the way in technological progress when you are holding it back. The United States, with its decaying infrastructure, paralysis in the face of global warming, and symbolically devastating abandonment of its manned space program just as China accelerates its own, is doing a particularly bad public relations job. Second, the pace of change can't be held back forever. Breakthroughs will happen; inconvenient discoveries cannot be permanently suppressed. Other, less bureaucratized parts of the world-or at least, parts of the world with bureaucracies that are not so hostile to creative thinking-will slowly but inevitably attain the resources required to pick up where the United States and its allies have left off. The Internet does provide opportunities for collaboration and dissemination that may help break us through the wall as well. Where will the breakthrough come? We can't know. Maybe 3D printing will do what the robot factories were supposed to. Or maybe it will be something else. But it will happen. About one conclusion we can feel especially confident: it will not happen within the framework of contemporary corporate capitalism-or any form of capitalism. To begin setting up domes on Mars, let alone to develop the means to figure out if there are alien civilizations to contact, we're going to have to figure out a different economic system. Must the new system take the form of some massive new bureaucracy? Why do we assume it must? Only by breaking up existing bureaucratic structures can we begin. And if we're going to invent robots that will do our laundry and tidy up the kitchen, then we're going to have to make sure that whatever replaces capitalism is based on a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth and power-one that no longer contains either the super-rich or the desperately poor willing to do their housework. Only then will technology begin to be marshaled toward human needs. And this is the best reason to break free of the dead hand of the hedge fund managers and the CEOs-to free our fantasies from the screens in which such men have imprisoned them, to let our imaginations once again become a material force in human history. ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technoprogressive/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technoprogressive/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: technoprogressive-digest at yahoogroups.com technoprogressive-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: technoprogressive-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 15:41:29 2012 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:41:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Long, and somewhat moralistic, piece that OTOH to a large extent expresses > in a more eloquent and documented way what I have been repeating for a > while... > > http://www.thebaffler.com/past/of_flying_cars > > Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit > > David Graeber > > from The Baffler No. 19 > > A secret question hovers over us, a sense of disappointment, a broken > promise we were given as children about what our adult world was supposed > to be like. snip > Even those inventions that seemed ready to emerge-like cloning or > cryogenics-ended up betraying their lofty promises. What happened to them? I wonder where this guy has been the past 16 years? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_%28sheep%29) I don't know about the rest of you, but using the wrong word for cryonics is an instant indication that the rest of the article may be a waste of time to read. Keith From moulton at moulton.com Mon Jun 18 19:02:37 2012 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:02:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> On 06/18/2012 08:41 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > I don't know about the rest of you, but using the wrong word for > cryonics is an instant indication that the rest of the article may be > a waste of time to read. > > Keith > I also did a quick scan of the article and quickly spotted a big error. The article refers to George Gilder as a libertarian. George Gilder is not a libertarian; he is a conservative who falsely claims to be a libertarian. Anyone can spend five minutes on Google and find this out. For example George Gilder is against Same Sex Marriage yet falsely claims to be libertarian. I am getting really sick and tired of conservatives claiming to be libertarian. On the topic of political identification I am not sure if George Gilder is committing fraud or engaging in a public display of ignorance or perhaps some muddle headed combination. For the author of the article not to have spent five minutes with Google to determine that Gilder is not a libertarian but to refer to Gilder as a libertarian in the article demonstrates sloppy work and I would be cautious about anything in the article. As Keith points out an article with obvious errors that can be noticed just on a casual scan is often a waste of time. Fred From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 18 20:03:12 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:03:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> References: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> Message-ID: <004701cd4d8d$685104c0$38f30e40$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of F. C. Moulton Subject: Re: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit >... For example George Gilder is against Same Sex Marriage yet falsely claims to be libertarian...Fred _______________________________________________ Fred, a person can be a libertarian while opposing SSM by being in opposition to ANY legally-recognized marriage contract, regardless of the gender of the participants. If Gilder or anyone else goes that route, I would recognize their line of reasoning: governments should not be in the business of defining what constitutes a marriage and what does not. That should be the religion people defining that, not lawmakers. If we look at real libertarianism, lawmakers don't need to be doing much really. Definitely not sitting around trying to decide what is a marriage. Does Gilder state his opinion on different sex marriage? spike From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 19:20:37 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:20:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Could the answer be that both the United States and the Soviet Union had > been, in the century before, societies of pioneers, one expanding across the > Western frontier, the other across Siberia? This was the factual error that stood out the most to me. (Answer: no, because the Soviet Union - and before it, Russia - claimed Siberia long before the 19th century. A bit of research shows it was fully claimed by the mid-17th century, but even without that, you have to aggressively make up stuff to believe that 19th century Siberia was socially similar to 19th century western North America.) From moulton at moulton.com Mon Jun 18 20:29:02 2012 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:29:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <004701cd4d8d$685104c0$38f30e40$@att.net> References: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> <004701cd4d8d$685104c0$38f30e40$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FDF8F8E.7080700@moulton.com> On 06/18/2012 01:03 PM, spike wrote: > > Fred, a person can be a libertarian while opposing SSM by being in > opposition to ANY legally-recognized marriage contract, regardless of the > gender of the participants. Yes, this is so obvious that I did not bother mentioning it. I have written about this else where at greater length: http://www.alf.org/marriagemoulton.php Gilder takes the very unlibertarian stand the governments should make marriage as between one woman and one man. As I say Gilder is not a libertarian. Fred From anders at aleph.se Mon Jun 18 20:01:31 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:01:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Intelligence inside a black hole In-Reply-To: <4FDD26DA.1090109@aleph.se> References: <4FDD26DA.1090109@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4FDF891B.5050608@aleph.se> On 17/06/2012 01:37, Anders Sandberg wrote: > The real thing to try if you have a Kerr hole like this is to use > closed timelike curves to send information to the past, and hence use > acausal computation. That will likely beat most forms of computronium, > since you can do hypercomputation. Incidentally, I came across Scott Aaronson's nice paper http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/ctc.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/ctc-dc.ppt today. This is the one where he proves that if you can get CTCs classical and quantum computation become equally powerful (*very* powerful - PSPACE, which includes NP: these systems eat the travelling salesman problem for breakfast, and find roots to any equations in O(1) time). Strictly speaking this is not hypercomputation since the PSPACE-computer is just solving intractable problems quickly: it is not computing uncomputable functions. However, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0047.pdf show that CTCs can do hyperturing computation. They also mention that you can use a Kerr black hole to do hypercomputation of a kind, by jumping into it and having a computer on the outside calculating forever, sending the answer to you (since you get infinite blueshift as you approach the ring singularity it will reach you in time). But they argue that wormholes work better. Whether this is a good argument against CTCs and wormholes, or whether this is an argument that we live in a universe where very poweful computation is possible, nobody knows. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 18 20:54:31 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:54:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <4FDF8F8E.7080700@moulton.com> References: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> <004701cd4d8d$685104c0$38f30e40$@att.net> <4FDF8F8E.7080700@moulton.com> Message-ID: <006201cd4d94$8fb69aa0$af23cfe0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of F. C. Moulton Subject: Re: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit On 06/18/2012 01:03 PM, spike wrote: > >>... Fred, a person can be a libertarian while opposing SSM by being in > opposition to ANY legally-recognized marriage contract, regardless of > the gender of the participants. >...Gilder takes the very unlibertarian stand the governments should make marriage as between one woman and one man. Fred _______________________________________________ Ja, when people take the Gilder position, I ask them how do we define the terms man and woman? When I applied for a marriage license, no one asked to look at my birth certificate or to drop my pants. I am way outside my area of expertise here, but I can easily imagine people having partial gender reassignment surgery on their top half only. So if the top half disagrees with the bottom half, what is their gender? We had a guy at Lockheed who announced her new name, before any surgery had taken place. She was accepted as a woman before the visible transition was very far along. Hey, you produce the code, we don't care what name you call yourself or which restroom you use. She looks like a woman now, but of course all I see is the top half, and I don't ask any questions. A person's gender is whatever they say it is. No answer on how we handle the high school gym shower problem. So we are back to the Gilder question. How do we define the terms man and woman? spike From gsantostasi at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 21:37:18 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:37:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The article is good, even if does silly mistakes in terminology. The essence of the article is actually perfectly right: capitalism is not good for scientific and technological progress, maybe it was good in the past (really? what about Sputnik) but has absolutely become obsolete today. Common guys, let's stop justify the unjustifiable. Giovanni On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Long, and somewhat moralistic, piece that OTOH to a large extent expresses > in a more eloquent and documented way what I have been repeating for a > while... > > http://www.thebaffler.com/past/of_flying_cars > > Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit > > David Graeber > > from The Baffler No. 19 > > A secret question hovers over us, a sense of disappointment, a broken > promise we were given as children about what our adult world was supposed > to be like. I am referring not to the standard false promises that children > are always given (about how the world is fair, or how those who work hard > shall be rewarded), but to a particular generational promise-given to those > who were children in the fifties, sixties, seventies, or eighties-one that > was never quite articulated as a promise but rather as a set of assumptions > about what our adult world would be like. And since it was never quite > promised, now that it has failed to come true, we're left confused: > indignant, but at the same time, embarrassed at our own indignation, > ashamed we were ever so silly to believe our elders to begin with. > > Where, in short, are the flying cars? Where are the force fields, tractor > beams, teleportation pods, antigravity sleds, tricorders, immortality > drugs, colonies on Mars, and all the other technological wonders any child > growing up in the mid-to-late twentieth century assumed would exist by now? > Even those inventions that seemed ready to emerge-like cloning or > cryogenics-ended up betraying their lofty promises. What happened to them? > > We are well informed of the wonders of computers, as if this is some sort > of unanticipated compensation, but, in fact, we haven't moved even > computing to the point of progress that people in the fifties expected we'd > have reached by now. We don't have computers we can have an interesting > conversation with, or robots that can walk our dogs or take our clothes to > the Laundromat. > > As someone who was eight years old at the time of the Apollo moon landing, > I remember calculating that I would be thirty-nine in the magic year 2000 > and wondering what the world would be like. Did I expect I would be living > in such a world of wonders? Of course. Everyone did. Do I feel cheated now? > It seemed unlikely that I'd live to see all the things I was reading about > in science fiction, but it never occurred to me that I wouldn't see any of > them. > > At the turn of the millennium, I was expecting an outpouring of > reflections on why we had gotten the future of technology so wrong. > Instead, just about all the authoritative voices-both Left and Right-began > their reflections from the assumption that we do live in an unprecedented > new technological utopia of one sort or another. > > The common way of dealing with the uneasy sense that this might not be so > is to brush it aside, to insist all the progress that could have happened > has happened and to treat anything more as silly. "Oh, you mean all that > Jetsons stuff?" I'm asked-as if to say, but that was just for children! > Surely, as grown-ups, we understand The Jetsons offered as accurate a view > of the future as The Flintstones offered of the Stone Age. > > Even in the seventies and eighties, in fact, sober sources such as > National Geographic and the Smithsonian were informing children of imminent > space stations and expeditions to Mars. Creators of science fiction movies > used to come up with concrete dates, often no more than a generation in the > future, in which to place their futuristic fantasies. In 1968, Stanley > Kubrick felt that a moviegoing audience would find it perfectly natural to > assume that only thirty-three years later, in 2001, we would have > commercial moon flights, city-like space stations, and computers with human > personalities maintaining astronauts in suspended animation while traveling > to Jupiter. Video telephony is just about the only new technology from that > particular movie that has appeared-and it was technically possible when the > movie was showing. 2001 can be seen as a curio, but what about Star Trek? > The Star Trek mythos was set in the sixties, too, but the show kept getting > revived, leaving audiences for Star Trek Voyager in, say, 2005, to try to > figure out what to make of the fact that according to the logic of the > program, the world was supposed to be recovering from fighting off the rule > of genetically engineered supermen in the Eugenics Wars of the nineties. > > By 1989, when the creators of Back to the Future II were dutifully placing > flying cars and anti-gravity hoverboards in the hands of ordinary teenagers > in the year 2015, it wasn't clear if this was meant as a prediction or a > joke. > > The usual move in science fiction is to remain vague about the dates, so > as to render "the future" a zone of pure fantasy, no different than Middle > Earth or Narnia, or like Star Wars, "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far > away." As a result, our science fiction future is, most often, not a future > at all, but more like an alternative dimension, a dream-time, a > technological Elsewhere, existing in days to come in the same sense that > elves and dragon-slayers existed in the past-another screen for the > displacement of moral dramas and mythic fantasies into the dead ends of > consumer pleasure. > > Might the cultural sensibility that came to be referred to as > postmodernism best be seen as a prolonged meditation on all the > technological changes that never happened? The question struck me as I > watched one of the recent Star Wars movies. The movie was terrible, but I > couldn't help but feel impressed by the quality of the special effects. > Recalling the clumsy special effects typical of fifties sci-fi films, I > kept thinking how impressed a fifties audience would have been if they'd > known what we could do by now-only to realize, "Actually, no. They wouldn't > be impressed at all, would they? They thought we'd be doing this kind of > thing by now. Not just figuring out more sophisticated ways to simulate it." > > That last word-simulate-is key. The technologies that have advanced since > the seventies are mainly either medical technologies or information > technologies-largely, technologies of simulation. They are technologies of > what Jean Baudrillard and Umberto Eco called the "hyper-real," the ability > to make imitations that are more realistic than originals. The postmodern > sensibility, the feeling that we had somehow broken into an unprecedented > new historical period in which we understood that there is nothing new; > that grand historical narratives of progress and liberation were > meaningless; that everything now was simulation, ironic repetition, > fragmentation, and pastiche-all this makes sense in a technological > environment in which the only breakthroughs were those that made it easier > to create, transfer, and rearrange virtual projections of things that > either already existed, or, we came to realize, never would. Surely, if we > were vacationing in geodesic domes on Mars or toting about pocket-size > nuclear fusion plants or telekinetic mind-reading devices no one would ever > have been talking like this. The postmodern moment was a desperate way to > take what could otherwise only be felt as a bitter disappointment and to > dress it up as something epochal, exciting, and new. > > > In the earliest formulations, which largely came out of the Marxist > tradition, a lot of this technological background was acknowledged. Fredric > Jameson's "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" > proposed the term "postmodernism" to refer to the cultural logic > appropriate to a new, technological phase of capitalism, one that had been > heralded by Marxist economist Ernest Mandel as early as 1972. Mandel had > argued that humanity stood at the verge of a "third technological > revolution," as profound as the Agricultural or Industrial Revolution, in > which computers, robots, new energy sources, and new information > technologies would replace industrial labor-the "end of work" as it soon > came to be called-reducing us all to designers and computer technicians > coming up with crazy visions that cybernetic factories would produce. > > End of work arguments were popular in the late seventies and early > eighties as social thinkers pondered what would happen to the traditional > working-class-led popular struggle once the working class no longer > existed. (The answer: it would turn into identity politics.) Jameson > thought of himself as exploring the forms of consciousness and historical > sensibilities likely to emerge from this new age. > > What happened, instead, is that the spread of information technologies and > new ways of organizing transport-the containerization of shipping, for > example-allowed those same industrial jobs to be outsourced to East Asia, > Latin America, and other countries where the availability of cheap labor > allowed manufacturers to employ much less technologically sophisticated > production-line techniques than they would have been obliged to employ at > home. > > From the perspective of those living in Europe, North America, and Japan, > the results did seem to be much as predicted. Smokestack industries did > disappear; jobs came to be divided between a lower stratum of service > workers and an upper stratum sitting in antiseptic bubbles playing with > computers. But below it all lay an uneasy awareness that the postwork > civilization was a giant fraud. Our carefully engineered high-tech sneakers > were not being produced by intelligent cyborgs or self-replicating > molecular nanotechnology; they were being made on the equivalent of > old-fashioned Singer sewing machines, by the daughters of Mexican and > Indonesian farmers who, as the result of WTO or NAFTA-sponsored trade > deals, had been ousted from their ancestral lands. It was a guilty > awareness that lay beneath the postmodern sensibility and its celebration > of the endless play of images and surfaces. > > Why did the projected explosion of technological growth everyone was > expecting-the moon bases, the robot factories-fail to happen? There are two > possibilities. Either our expectations about the pace of technological > change were unrealistic (in which case, we need to know why so many > intelligent people believed they were not) or our expectations were not > unrealistic (in which case, we need to know what happened to derail so many > credible ideas and prospects). > > Most social analysts choose the first explanation and trace the problem to > the Cold War space race. Why, these analysts wonder, did both the United > States and the Soviet Union become so obsessed with the idea of manned > space travel? It was never an efficient way to engage in scientific > research. And it encouraged unrealistic ideas of what the human future > would be like. > > Could the answer be that both the United States and the Soviet Union had > been, in the century before, societies of pioneers, one expanding across > the Western frontier, the other across Siberia? Didn't they share a > commitment to the myth of a limitless, expansive future, of human > colonization of vast empty spaces, that helped convince the leaders of both > superpowers they had entered into a "space age" in which they were battling > over control of the future itself? All sorts of myths were at play here, no > doubt, but that proves nothing about the feasibility of the project. > > Some of those science fiction fantasies (at this point we can't know which > ones) could have been brought into being. For earlier generations, many > science fiction fantasies had been brought into being. Those who grew up at > the turn of the century reading Jules Verne or H.G. Wells imagined the > world of, say, 1960 with flying machines, rocket ships, submarines, radio, > and television-and that was pretty much what they got. If it wasn't > unrealistic in 1900 to dream of men traveling to the moon, then why was it > unrealistic in the sixties to dream of jet-packs and robot laundry-maids? > > In fact, even as those dreams were being outlined, the material base for > their achievement was beginning to be whittled away. There is reason to > believe that even by the fifties and sixties, the pace of technological > innovation was slowing down from the heady pace of the first half of the > century. There was a last spate in the fifties when microwave ovens (1954), > the Pill (1957), and lasers (1958) all appeared in rapid succession. But > since then, technological advances have taken the form of clever new ways > of combining existing technologies (as in the space race) and new ways of > putting existing technologies to consumer use (the most famous example is > television, invented in 1926, but mass produced only after the war.) Yet, > in part because the space race gave everyone the impression that remarkable > advances were happening, the popular impression during the sixties was that > the pace of technological change was speeding up in terrifying, > uncontrollable ways. > > Alvin Toffler's 1970 best seller Future Shock argued that almost all the > social problems of the sixties could be traced back to the increasing pace > of technological change. The endless outpouring of scientific breakthroughs > transformed the grounds of daily existence, and left Americans without any > clear idea of what normal life was. Just consider the family, where not > just the Pill, but also the prospect of in vitro fertilization, test tube > babies, and sperm and egg donation were about to make the idea of > motherhood obsolete. > > Humans were not psychologically prepared for the pace of change, Toffler > wrote. He coined a term for the phenomenon: "accelerative thrust." It had > begun with the Industrial Revolution, but by roughly 1850, the effect had > become unmistakable. Not only was everything around us changing, but most > of it-human knowledge, the size of the population, industrial growth, > energy use-was changing exponentially. The only solution, Toffler argued, > was to begin some kind of control over the process, to create institutions > that would assess emerging technologies and their likely effects, to ban > technologies likely to be too socially disruptive, and to guide development > in the direction of social harmony. > > While many of the historical trends Toffler describes are accurate, the > book appeared when most of these exponential trends halted. It was right > around 1970 when the increase in the number of scientific papers published > in the world-a figure that had doubled every fifteen years since, roughly, > 1685-began leveling off. The same was true of books and patents. > > Toffler's use of acceleration was particularly unfortunate. For most of > human history, the top speed at which human beings could travel had been > around 25 miles per hour. By 1900 it had increased to 100 miles per hour, > and for the next seventy years it did seem to be increasing exponentially. > By the time Toffler was writing, in 1970, the record for the fastest speed > at which any human had traveled stood at roughly 25,000 mph, achieved by > the crew of Apollo 10 in 1969, just one year before. At such an exponential > rate, it must have seemed reasonable to assume that within a matter of > decades, humanity would be exploring other solar systems. > > Since 1970, no further increase has occurred. The record for the fastest a > human has ever traveled remains with the crew of Apollo 10. True, the > maximum speed of commercial air flight did peak one year later, at 1,400 > mph, with the launching of the Concorde in 1971. But that speed not only > has failed to increase; it has decreased since the Concorde was abandoned > in 2003. > > None of this stopped Toffler's own career. He kept retooling his analysis > to come up with new spectacular pronouncements. In 1980, he produced The > Third Wave, its argument lifted from Ernest Mandel's "third technological > revolution"-except that while Mandel thought these changes would spell the > end of capitalism, Toffler assumed capitalism was eternal. By 1990, Toffler > was the personal intellectual guru to Republican congressman Newt Gingrich, > who claimed that his 1994 "Contract With America" was inspired, in part, by > the understanding that the United States needed to move from an antiquated, > materialist, industrial mind-set to a new, free-market, information age, > Third Wave civilization. > > There are all sorts of ironies in this connection. One of Toffler's > greatest achievements was inspiring the government to create an Office of > Technology Assessment (OTA). One of Gingrich's first acts on winning > control of the House of Representatives in 1995 was defunding the OTA as an > example of useless government extravagance. Still, there's no contradiction > here. By this time, Toffler had long since given up on influencing policy > by appealing to the general public; he was making a living largely by > giving seminars to CEOs and corporate think tanks. His insights had been > privatized. > > Gingrich liked to call himself a "conservative futurologist." This, too, > might seem oxymoronic; but, in fact, Toffler's own conception of futurology > was never progressive. Progress was always presented as a problem that > needed to be solved. > > Toffler might best be seen as a lightweight version of the > nineteenth-century social theorist Auguste Comte, who believed that he was > standing on the brink of a new age-in his case, the Industrial Age-driven > by the inexorable progress of technology, and that the social cataclysms of > his times were caused by the social system not adjusting. The older feudal > order had developed Catholic theology, a way of thinking about man's place > in the cosmos perfectly suited to the social system of the time, as well as > an institutional structure, the Church, that conveyed and enforced such > ideas in a way that could give everyone a sense of meaning and belonging. > The Industrial Age had developed its own system of ideas-science-but > scientists had not succeeded in creating anything like the Catholic Church. > Comte concluded that we needed to develop a new science, which he dubbed > "sociology," and said that sociologists should play the role of priests in > a new Religion of Society that would inspire everyone with a love of order, > community, work discipline, and family values. Toffler was less ambitious; > his futurologists were not supposed to play the role of priests. > > Gingrich had a second guru, a libertarian theologian named George Gilder, > and Gilder, like Toffler, was obsessed with technology and social change. > In an odd way, Gilder was more optimistic. Embracing a radical version of > Mandel's Third Wave argument, he insisted that what we were seeing with the > rise of computers was an "overthrow of matter." The old, materialist > Industrial Society, where value came from physical labor, was giving way to > an Information Age where value emerges directly from the minds of > entrepreneurs, just as the world had originally appeared ex nihilo from the > mind of God, just as money, in a proper supply-side economy, emerged ex > nihilo from the Federal Reserve and into the hands of value-creating > capitalists. Supply-side economic policies, Gilder concluded, would ensure > that investment would continue to steer away from old government > boondoggles like the space program and toward more productive information > and medical technologies. > > But if there was a conscious, or semi-conscious, move away from investment > in research that might lead to better rockets and robots, and toward > research that would lead to such things as laser printers and CAT scans, it > had begun well before Toffler's Future Shock (1970) and Gilder's Wealth and > Poverty (1981). What their success shows is that the issues they > raised-that existing patterns of technological development would lead to > social upheaval, and that we needed to guide technological development in > directions that did not challenge existing structures of authority-echoed > in the corridors of power. Statesmen and captains of industry had been > thinking about such questions for some time. > > > > Industrial capitalism has fostered an extremely rapid rate of scientific > advance and technological innovation-one with no parallel in previous human > history. Even capitalism's greatest detractors, Karl Marx and Friedrich > Engels, celebrated its unleashing of the "productive forces." Marx and > Engels also believed that capitalism's continual need to revolutionize the > means of industrial production would be its undoing. Marx argued that, for > certain technical reasons, value-and therefore profits-can be extracted > only from human labor. Competition forces factory owners to mechanize > production, to reduce labor costs, but while this is to the short-term > advantage of the firm, mechanization's effect is to drive down the general > rate of profit. > > For 150 years, economists have debated whether all this is true. But if it > is true, then the decision by industrialists not to pour research funds > into the invention of the robot factories that everyone was anticipating in > the sixties, and instead to relocate their factories to labor-intensive, > low-tech facilities in China or the Global South makes a great deal of > sense. > > As I've noted, there's reason to believe the pace of technological > innovation in productive processes-the factories themselves-began to slow > in the fifties and sixties, but the side effects of America's rivalry with > the Soviet Union made innovation appear to accelerate. There was the > awesome space race, alongside frenetic efforts by U.S. industrial planners > to apply existing technologies to consumer purposes, to create an > optimistic sense of burgeoning prosperity and guaranteed progress that > would undercut the appeal of working-class politics. > > These moves were reactions to initiatives from the Soviet Union. But this > part of the history is difficult for Americans to remember, because at the > end of the Cold War, the popular image of the Soviet Union switched from > terrifyingly bold rival to pathetic basket case-the exemplar of a society > that could not work. Back in the fifties, in fact, many United States > planners suspected the Soviet system worked better. Certainly, they > recalled the fact that in the thirties, while the United States had been > mired in depression, the Soviet Union had maintained almost unprecedented > economic growth rates of 10 percent to 12 percent a year-an achievement > quickly followed by the production of tank armies that defeated Nazi > Germany, then by the launching of Sputnik in 1957, then by the first manned > spacecraft, the Vostok, in 1961. > > It's often said the Apollo moon landing was the greatest historical > achievement of Soviet communism. Surely, the United States would never have > contemplated such a feat had it not been for the cosmic ambitions of the > Soviet Politburo. We are used to thinking of the Politburo as a group of > unimaginative gray bureaucrats, but they were bureaucrats who dared to > dream astounding dreams. The dream of world revolution was only the first. > It's also true that most of them-changing the course of mighty rivers, this > sort of thing-either turned out to be ecologically and socially disastrous, > or, like Joseph Stalin's one-hundred-story Palace of the Soviets or a > twenty-story statue of Vladimir Lenin, never got off the ground. > > After the initial successes of the Soviet space program, few of these > schemes were realized, but the leadership never ceased coming up with new > ones. Even in the eighties, when the United States was attempting its own > last, grandiose scheme, Star Wars, the Soviets were planning to transform > the world through creative uses of technology. Few outside of Russia > remember most of these projects, but great resources were devoted to them. > It's also worth noting that unlike the Star Wars project, which was > designed to sink the Soviet Union, most were not military in nature: as, > for instance, the attempt to solve the world hunger problem by harvesting > lakes and oceans with an edible bacteria called spirulina, or to solve the > world energy problem by launching hundreds of gigantic solar-power > platforms into orbit and beaming the electricity back to earth. > > The American victory in the space race meant that, after 1968, U.S. > planners no longer took the competition seriously. As a result, the > mythology of the final frontier was maintained, even as the direction of > research and development shifted away from anything that might lead to the > creation of Mars bases and robot factories. > > The standard line is that all this was a result of the triumph of the > market. The Apollo program was a Big Government project, Soviet-inspired in > the sense that it required a national effort coordinated by government > bureaucracies. As soon as the Soviet threat drew safely out of the picture, > though, capitalism was free to revert to lines of technological development > more in accord with its normal, decentralized, free-market imperatives-such > as privately funded research into marketable products like personal > computers. This is the line that men like Toffler and Gilder took in the > late seventies and early eighties. > > In fact, the United States never did abandon gigantic, > government-controlled schemes of technological development. Mainly, they > just shifted to military research-and not just to Soviet-scale schemes like > Star Wars, but to weapons projects, research in communications and > surveillance technologies, and similar security-related concerns. To some > degree this had always been true: the billions poured into missile research > had always dwarfed the sums allocated to the space program. Yet by the > seventies, even basic research came to be conducted following military > priorities. One reason we don't have robot factories is because roughly 95 > percent of robotics research funding has been channeled through the > Pentagon, which is more interested in developing unmanned drones than in > automating paper mills. > > A case could be made that even the shift to research and development on > information technologies and medicine was not so much a reorientation > toward market-driven consumer imperatives, but part of an all-out effort to > follow the technological humbling of the Soviet Union with total victory in > the global class war-seen simultaneously as the imposition of absolute U.S. > military dominance overseas, and, at home, the utter rout of social > movements. > > For the technologies that did emerge proved most conducive to > surveillance, work discipline, and social control. Computers have opened up > certain spaces of freedom, as we're constantly reminded, but instead of > leading to the workless utopia Abbie Hoffman imagined, they have been > employed in such a way as to produce the opposite effect. They have enabled > a financialization of capital that has driven workers desperately into > debt, and, at the same time, provided the means by which employers have > created "flexible" work regimes that have both destroyed traditional job > security and increased working hours for almost everyone. Along with the > export of factory jobs, the new work regime has routed the union movement > and destroyed any possibility of effective working-class politics. > > Meanwhile, despite unprecedented investment in research on medicine and > life sciences, we await cures for cancer and the common cold, and the most > dramatic medical breakthroughs we have seen have taken the form of drugs > such as Prozac, Zoloft, or Ritalin-tailor-made to ensure that the new work > demands don't drive us completely, dysfunctionally crazy. > > With results like these, what will the epitaph for neoliberalism look > like? I think historians will conclude it was a form of capitalism that > systematically prioritized political imperatives over economic ones. Given > a choice between a course of action that would make capitalism seem the > only possible economic system, and one that would transform capitalism into > a viable, long-term economic system, neoliberalism chooses the former every > time. There is every reason to believe that destroying job security while > increasing working hours does not create a more productive (let alone more > innovative or loyal) workforce. Probably, in economic terms, the result is > negative-an impression confirmed by lower growth rates in just about all > parts of the world in the eighties and nineties. > > But the neoliberal choice has been effective in depoliticizing labor and > overdetermining the future. Economically, the growth of armies, police, and > private security services amounts to dead weight. It's possible, in fact, > that the very dead weight of the apparatus created to ensure the > ideological victory of capitalism will sink it. But it's also easy to see > how choking off any sense of an inevitable, redemptive future that could be > different from our world is a crucial part of the neoliberal project. > > At this point all the pieces would seem to be falling neatly into place. > By the sixties, conservative political forces were growing skittish about > the socially disruptive effects of technological progress, and employers > were beginning to worry about the economic impact of mechanization. The > fading Soviet threat allowed for a reallocation of resources in directions > seen as less challenging to social and economic arrangements, or indeed > directions that could support a campaign of reversing the gains of > progressive social movements and achieving a decisive victory in what U.S. > elites saw as a global class war. The change of priorities was introduced > as a withdrawal of big-government projects and a return to the market, but > in fact the change shifted government-directed research away from programs > like NASA or alternative energy sources and toward military, information, > and medical technologies. > > Of course this doesn't explain everything. Above all, it does not explain > why, even in those areas that have become the focus of well-funded research > projects, we have not seen anything like the kind of advances anticipated > fifty years ago. If 95 percent of robotics research has been funded by the > military, then where are the Klaatu-style killer robots shooting death rays > from their eyes? > > Obviously, there have been advances in military technology in recent > decades. One of the reasons we all survived the Cold War is that while > nuclear bombs might have worked as advertised, their delivery systems did > not; intercontinental ballistic missiles weren't capable of striking > cities, let alone specific targets inside cities, and this fact meant there > was little point in launching a nuclear first strike unless you intended to > destroy the world. > > Contemporary cruise missiles are accurate by comparison. Still, precision > weapons never do seem capable of assassinating specific individuals > (Saddam, Osama, Qaddafi), even when hundreds are dropped. And ray guns have > not materialized-surely not for lack of trying. We can assume the Pentagon > has spent billions on death ray research, but the closest they've come so > far are lasers that might, if aimed correctly, blind an enemy gunner > looking directly at the beam. Aside from being unsporting, this is > pathetic: lasers are a fifties technology. Phasers that can be set to stun > do not appear to be on the drawing boards; and when it comes to infantry > combat, the preferred weapon almost everywhere remains the AK-47, a Soviet > design named for the year it was introduced: 1947. > > The Internet is a remarkable innovation, but all we are talking about is a > super-fast and globally accessible combination of library, post office, and > mail-order catalogue. Had the Internet been described to a science fiction > aficionado in the fifties and sixties and touted as the most dramatic > technological achievement since his time, his reaction would have been > disappointment. Fifty years and this is the best our scientists managed to > come up with? We expected computers that would think! > > Overall, levels of research funding have increased dramatically since the > seventies. Admittedly, the proportion of that funding that comes from the > corporate sector has increased most dramatically, to the point that private > enterprise is now funding twice as much research as the government, but the > increase is so large that the total amount of government research funding, > in real-dollar terms, is much higher than it was in the sixties. "Basic," > "curiosity-driven," or "blue skies" research-the kind that is not driven by > the prospect of any immediate practical application, and that is most > likely to lead to unexpected breakthroughs-occupies an ever smaller > proportion of the total, though so much money is being thrown around > nowadays that overall levels of basic research funding have increased. > > Yet most observers agree that the results have been paltry. Certainly we > no longer see anything like the continual stream of conceptual > revolutions-genetic inheritance, relativity, psychoanalysis, quantum > mechanics-that people had grown used to, and even expected, a hundred years > before. Why? > > Part of the answer has to do with the concentration of resources on a > handful of gigantic projects: "big science," as it has come to be called. > The Human Genome Project is often held out as an example. After spending > almost three billion dollars and employing thousands of scientists and > staff in five different countries, it has mainly served to establish that > there isn't very much to be learned from sequencing genes that's of much > use to anyone else. Even more, the hype and political investment > surrounding such projects demonstrate the degree to which even basic > research now seems to be driven by political, administrative, and marketing > imperatives that make it unlikely anything revolutionary will happen. > > Here, our fascination with the mythic origins of Silicon Valley and the > Internet have blinded us to what's really going on. It has allowed us to > imagine that research and development is now driven, primarily, by small > teams of plucky entrepreneurs, or the sort of decentralized cooperation > that creates open-source software. This is not so, even though such > research teams are most likely to produce results. Research and development > is still driven by giant bureaucratic projects. > > What has changed is the bureaucratic culture. The increasing > interpenetration of government, university, and private firms has led > everyone to adopt the language, sensibilities, and organizational forms > that originated in the corporate world. Although this might have helped in > creating marketable products, since that is what corporate bureaucracies > are designed to do, in terms of fostering original research, the results > have been catastrophic. > > My own knowledge comes from universities, both in the United States and > Britain. In both countries, the last thirty years have seen a veritable > explosion of the proportion of working hours spent on administrative tasks > at the expense of pretty much everything else. In my own university, for > instance, we have more administrators than faculty members, and the faculty > members, too, are expected to spend at least as much time on administration > as on teaching and research combined. The same is true, more or less, at > universities worldwide. > > The growth of administrative work has directly resulted from introducing > corporate management techniques. Invariably, these are justified as ways of > increasing efficiency and introducing competition at every level. What they > end up meaning in practice is that everyone winds up spending most of their > time trying to sell things: grant proposals; book proposals; assessments of > students' jobs and grant applications; assessments of our colleagues; > prospectuses for new interdisciplinary majors; institutes; conference > workshops; universities themselves (which have now become brands to be > marketed to prospective students or contributors); and so on. > > As marketing overwhelms university life, it generates documents about > fostering imagination and creativity that might just as well have been > designed to strangle imagination and creativity in the cradle. No major new > works of social theory have emerged in the United States in the last thirty > years. We have been reduced to the equivalent of medieval scholastics, > writing endless annotations of French theory from the seventies, despite > the guilty awareness that if new incarnations of Gilles Deleuze, Michel > Foucault, or Pierre Bourdieu were to appear in the academy today, we would > deny them tenure. > > There was a time when academia was society's refuge for the eccentric, > brilliant, and impractical. No longer. It is now the domain of professional > self-marketers. As a result, in one of the most bizarre fits of social > self-destructiveness in history, we seem to have decided we have no place > for our eccentric, brilliant, and impractical citizens. Most languish in > their mothers' basements, at best making the occasional, acute intervention > on the Internet. > > If all this is true in the social sciences, where research is still > carried out with minimal overhead largely by individuals, one can imagine > how much worse it is for astrophysicists. And, indeed, one astrophysicist, > Jonathan Katz, has recently warned students pondering a career in the > sciences. Even if you do emerge from the usual decade-long period > languishing as someone else's flunky, he says, you can expect your best > ideas to be stymied at every point: > > You will spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. > Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors, you cannot > follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on > anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important > scientific problems. . . . It is proverbial that original ideas are the > kiss of death for a proposal, because they have not yet been proved to work. > > That pretty much answers the question of why we don't have teleportation > devices or antigravity shoes. Common sense suggests that if you want to > maximize scientific creativity, you find some bright people, give them the > resources they need to pursue whatever idea comes into their heads, and > then leave them alone. Most will turn up nothing, but one or two may well > discover something. But if you want to minimize the possibility of > unexpected breakthroughs, tell those same people they will receive no > resources at all unless they spend the bulk of their time competing against > each other to convince you they know in advance what they are going to > discover. > > In the natural sciences, to the tyranny of managerialism we can add the > privatization of research results. As the British economist David Harvie > has reminded us, "open source" research is not new. Scholarly research has > always been open source, in the sense that scholars share materials and > results. There is competition, certainly, but it is "convivial." This is no > longer true of scientists working in the corporate sector, where findings > are jealously guarded, but the spread of the corporate ethos within the > academy and research institutes themselves has caused even publicly funded > scholars to treat their findings as personal property. Academic publishers > ensure that findings that are published are increasingly difficult to > access, further enclosing the intellectual commons. As a result, convivial, > open-source competition turns into something much more like classic market > competition. > > There are many forms of privatization, up to and including the simple > buying up and suppression of inconvenient discoveries by large corporations > fearful of their economic effects. (We cannot know how many synthetic fuel > formulae have been bought up and placed in the vaults of oil companies, but > it's hard to imagine nothing like this happens.) More subtle is the way the > managerial ethos discourages everything adventurous or quirky, especially > if there is no prospect of immediate results. Oddly, the Internet can be > part of the problem here. As Neal Stephenson put it: > > Most people who work in corporations or academia have witnessed something > like the following: A number of engineers are sitting together in a room, > bouncing ideas off each other. Out of the discussion emerges a new concept > that seems promising. Then some laptop-wielding person in the corner, > having performed a quick Google search, announces that this "new" idea is, > in fact, an old one; it-or at least something vaguely similar-has already > been tried. Either it failed, or it succeeded. If it failed, then no > manager who wants to keep his or her job will approve spending money trying > to revive it. If it succeeded, then it's patented and entry to the market > is presumed to be unattainable, since the first people who thought of it > will have "first-mover advantage" and will have created "barriers to > entry." The number of seemingly promising ideas that have been crushed in > this way must number in the millions. > > And so a timid, bureaucratic spirit suffuses every aspect of cultural > life. It comes festooned in a language of creativity, initiative, and > entrepreneurialism. But the language is meaningless. Those thinkers most > likely to make a conceptual breakthrough are the least likely to receive > funding, and, if breakthroughs occur, they are not likely to find anyone > willing to follow up on their most daring implications. > > Giovanni Arrighi has noted that after the South Sea Bubble, British > capitalism largely abandoned the corporate form. By the time of the > Industrial Revolution, Britain had instead come to rely on a combination of > high finance and small family firms-a pattern that held throughout the next > century, the period of maximum scientific and technological innovation. > (Britain at that time was also notorious for being just as generous to its > oddballs and eccentrics as contemporary America is intolerant. A common > expedient was to allow them to become rural vicars, who, predictably, > became one of the main sources for amateur scientific discoveries.) > > Contemporary, bureaucratic corporate capitalism was a creation not of > Britain, but of the United States and Germany, the two rival powers that > spent the first half of the twentieth century fighting two bloody wars over > who would replace Britain as a dominant world power-wars that culminated, > appropriately enough, in government-sponsored scientific programs to see > who would be the first to discover the atom bomb. It is significant, then, > that our current technological stagnation seems to have begun after 1945, > when the United States replaced Britain as organizer of the world economy. > > Americans do not like to think of themselves as a nation of > bureaucrats-quite the opposite-but the moment we stop imagining bureaucracy > as a phenomenon limited to government offices, it becomes obvious that this > is precisely what we have become. The final victory over the Soviet Union > did not lead to the domination of the market, but, in fact, cemented the > dominance of conservative managerial elites, corporate bureaucrats who use > the pretext of short-term, competitive, bottom-line thinking to squelch > anything likely to have revolutionary implications of any kind. > > If we do not notice that we live in a bureaucratic society, that is > because bureaucratic norms and practices have become so all-pervasive that > we cannot see them, or, worse, cannot imagine doing things any other way. > > Computers have played a crucial role in this narrowing of our social > imaginations. Just as the invention of new forms of industrial automation > in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had the paradoxical effect of > turning more and more of the world's population into full-time industrial > workers, so has all the software designed to save us from administrative > responsibilities turned us into part- or full-time administrators. In the > same way that university professors seem to feel it is inevitable they will > spend more of their time managing grants, so affluent housewives simply > accept that they will spend weeks every year filling out forty-page online > forms to get their children into grade schools. We all spend increasing > amounts of time punching passwords into our phones to manage bank and > credit accounts and learning how to perform jobs once performed by travel > agents, brokers, and accountants. > > Someone once figured out that the average American will spend a cumulative > six months of life waiting for traffic lights to change. I don't know if > similar figures are available for how long it takes to fill out forms, but > it must be at least as long. No population in the history of the world has > spent nearly so much time engaged in paperwork. > > In this final, stultifying stage of capitalism, we are moving from poetic > technologies to bureaucratic technologies. By poetic technologies I refer > to the use of rational and technical means to bring wild fantasies to > reality. Poetic technologies, so understood, are as old as civilization. > Lewis Mumford noted that the first complex machines were made of people. > Egyptian pharaohs were able to build the pyramids only because of their > mastery of administrative procedures, which allowed them to develop > production-line techniques, dividing up complex tasks into dozens of simple > operations and assigning each to one team of workmen-even though they > lacked mechanical technology more complex than the inclined plane and > lever. Administrative oversight turned armies of peasant farmers into the > cogs of a vast machine. Much later, after cogs had been invented, the > design of complex machinery elaborated principles originally developed to > organize people. > > Yet we have seen those machines-whether their moving parts are arms and > torsos or pistons, wheels, and springs-being put to work to realize > impossible fantasies: cathedrals, moon shots, transcontinental railways. > Certainly, poetic technologies had something terrible about them; the > poetry is likely to be as much of dark satanic mills as of grace or > liberation. But the rational, administrative techniques were always in > service to some fantastic end. > > From this perspective, all those mad Soviet plans-even if never > realized-marked the climax of poetic technologies. What we have now is the > reverse. It's not that vision, creativity, and mad fantasies are no longer > encouraged, but that most remain free-floating; there's no longer even the > pretense that they could ever take form or flesh. The greatest and most > powerful nation that has ever existed has spent the last decades telling > its citizens they can no longer contemplate fantastic collective > enterprises, even if-as the environmental crisis demands- the fate of the > earth depends on it. > > > What are the political implications of all this? First of all, we need to > rethink some of our most basic assumptions about the nature of capitalism. > One is that capitalism is identical with the market, and that both > therefore are inimical to bureaucracy, which is supposed to be a creature > of the state. > > The second assumption is that capitalism is in its nature technologically > progressive. It would seem that Marx and Engels, in their giddy enthusiasm > for the industrial revolutions of their day, were wrong about this. Or, to > be more precise: they were right to insist that the mechanization of > industrial production would destroy capitalism; they were wrong to predict > that market competition would compel factory owners to mechanize anyway. If > it didn't happen, that is because market competition is not, in fact, as > essential to the nature of capitalism as they had assumed. If nothing else, > the current form of capitalism, where much of the competition seems to take > the form of internal marketing within the bureaucratic structures of large > semi-monopolistic enterprises, would come as a complete surprise to them. > > Defenders of capitalism make three broad historical claims: first, that it > has fostered rapid scientific and technological growth; second, that > however much it may throw enormous wealth to a small minority, it does so > in such a way as to increase overall prosperity; third, that in doing so, > it creates a more secure and democratic world for everyone. It is clear > that capitalism is not doing any of these things any longer. In fact, many > of its defenders are retreating from claiming that it is a good system and > instead falling back on the claim that it is the only possible system-or, > at least, the only possible system for a complex, technologically > sophisticated society such as our own. > > But how could anyone argue that current economic arrangements are also the > only ones that will ever be viable under any possible future technological > society? The argument is absurd. How could anyone know? > > Granted, there are people who take that position-on both ends of the > political spectrum. As an anthropologist and anarchist, I encounter > anticivilizational types who insist not only that current industrial > technology leads only to capitalist-style oppression, but that this must > necessarily be true of any future technology as well, and therefore that > human liberation can be achieved only by returning to the Stone Age. Most > of us are not technological determinists. > > But claims for the inevitability of capitalism have to be based on a kind > of technological determinism. And for that very reason, if the aim of > neoliberal capitalism is to create a world in which no one believes any > other economic system could work, then it needs to suppress not just any > idea of an inevitable redemptive future, but any radically different > technological future. Yet there's a contradiction. Defenders of capitalism > cannot mean to convince us that technological change has ended-since that > would mean capitalism is not progressive. No, they mean to convince us that > technological progress is indeed continuing, that we do live in a world of > wonders, but that those wonders take the form of modest improvements (the > latest iPhone!), rumors of inventions about to happen ("I hear they are > going to have flying cars pretty soon"), complex ways of juggling > information and imagery, and still more complex platforms for filling out > of forms. > > I do not mean to suggest that neoliberal capitalism-or any other > system-can be successful in this regard. First, there's the problem of > trying to convince the world you are leading the way in technological > progress when you are holding it back. The United States, with its decaying > infrastructure, paralysis in the face of global warming, and symbolically > devastating abandonment of its manned space program just as China > accelerates its own, is doing a particularly bad public relations job. > Second, the pace of change can't be held back forever. Breakthroughs will > happen; inconvenient discoveries cannot be permanently suppressed. Other, > less bureaucratized parts of the world-or at least, parts of the world with > bureaucracies that are not so hostile to creative thinking-will slowly but > inevitably attain the resources required to pick up where the United States > and its allies have left off. The Internet does provide opportunities for > collaboration and dissemination that may help break us through the wall as > well. Where will the breakthrough come? We can't know. Maybe 3D printing > will do what the robot factories were supposed to. Or maybe it will be > something else. But it will happen. > > About one conclusion we can feel especially confident: it will not happen > within the framework of contemporary corporate capitalism-or any form of > capitalism. To begin setting up domes on Mars, let alone to develop the > means to figure out if there are alien civilizations to contact, we're > going to have to figure out a different economic system. Must the new > system take the form of some massive new bureaucracy? Why do we assume it > must? Only by breaking up existing bureaucratic structures can we begin. > And if we're going to invent robots that will do our laundry and tidy up > the kitchen, then we're going to have to make sure that whatever replaces > capitalism is based on a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth and > power-one that no longer contains either the super-rich or the desperately > poor willing to do their housework. Only then will technology begin to be > marshaled toward human needs. And this is the best reason to break free of > the dead hand of the hedge fund managers and the CEOs-to free our fantasies > from the screens in which such men have imprisoned them, to let our > imaginations once again become a material force in human history. > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technoprogressive/ > > <*> Your email settings: > Individual Email | Traditional > > <*> To change settings online go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technoprogressive/join > (Yahoo! ID required) > > <*> To change settings via email: > technoprogressive-digest at yahoogroups.com > technoprogressive-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > technoprogressive-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > -- > 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 anders at aleph.se Mon Jun 18 22:16:09 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:16:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> On 18/06/2012 22:37, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > The article is good, even if does silly mistakes in terminology. I am not convinced. Look at this passage: > Why did the projected explosion of technological growth everyone was > expecting?the moon bases, the robot factories?fail to happen? There > are two possibilities. Either our expectations about the pace of > technological change were unrealistic (in which case, we need to know > why so many intelligent people believed they were not) or our > expectations were not unrealistic (in which case, we need to know what > happened to derail so many credible ideas and prospects). It completely misses the possibility that past expectations about the *direction* of technology was wrong. The old future was all macrotechnology: spacecraft, fusion, flying cars and soaring buildings. But what we got was microtechnology: biotech, computers, Internet, nanotechnology. This is important and powerful stuff, yet it is dismissed as mere simulation. I think the article meshes nicely with Tyle Cowen's "The Great Stagnation" and Thiel's worries. I do think we have a problem. But I don't think the diagnosis is right. The reason we don't have antigravity shoes is not that we academics spend too much time writing grant proposals. It is because we have no clue how to do it. Bureaucracy and risk aversion *are* problems, but they are hardly due to capitalism - just check the distribution of uncertainty avoidance as per Hofstede in the world and crosscorrelate with economic freedom. I think Tyler Cowen gets closer to the point. We have picked all the low-hanging fruit, found ways of expanding our world that doesn't necessarily equate to economic growth or progress, and indeed set up incentive structures that do not promote radical or long-term change. But the later problem is in many ways local to the developed countries: there is a real chance that the BRICs will just ignore it (and make their own interesting mistakes). -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From gsantostasi at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 22:39:22 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:39:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> References: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> Message-ID: Why microtechnology should preclude the development of macrotechnology? Maybe because macrotechnology is less marketable and it takes much more time to develop. What I take from the article is a the general, overall message. It may be wrong in some of the historical details or in some technological terminology but the overall message is something that makes you to sit and ponder. Corporatism is fascism incarnated as Mussolini aptly said. It is a suffocating machine that allows control and manipulation of masses and it can only serve small elites in the inner circle. It has short sight, greedy goals. We don't have the future of science fiction because I grandiose vision of life, an epic vision of life is what is needed and corporatism cannot offer that, in fact it fears that. This why so many people find refuge in video games (another simulation) to find an epic dimension of life and corporatism is fine with that. The article most powerful analysis is why corporatism is trying to resist at any cost full automation and its final consequence that is democratization of the means of production and rather use modern slavery to continue to have control of production. That is the core of the matter. In fact, this is the fundamental question (that corporatism is trying to avoid to answer at any cost): what will happen to our economical and social organization when almost of the manual jobs and non creative jobs (from factory worker, to taxi and truck driver, to cashier and even lawyers and accountants) are done by robots? The only solution I can imagine that doesn't require widespread riots and social revolution is redistributing and equalizing wealth. Giovanni On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 18/06/2012 22:37, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > >> The article is good, even if does silly mistakes in terminology. >> > > I am not convinced. Look at this passage: > > Why did the projected explosion of technological growth everyone was >> expecting?the moon bases, the robot factories?fail to happen? There are two >> possibilities. Either our expectations about the pace of technological >> change were unrealistic (in which case, we need to know why so many >> intelligent people believed they were not) or our expectations were not >> unrealistic (in which case, we need to know what happened to derail so many >> credible ideas and prospects). >> > > It completely misses the possibility that past expectations about the > *direction* of technology was wrong. The old future was all > macrotechnology: spacecraft, fusion, flying cars and soaring buildings. But > what we got was microtechnology: biotech, computers, Internet, > nanotechnology. This is important and powerful stuff, yet it is dismissed > as mere simulation. > > I think the article meshes nicely with Tyle Cowen's "The Great Stagnation" > and Thiel's worries. I do think we have a problem. But I don't think the > diagnosis is right. The reason we don't have antigravity shoes is not that > we academics spend too much time writing grant proposals. It is because we > have no clue how to do it. Bureaucracy and risk aversion *are* problems, > but they are hardly due to capitalism - just check the distribution of > uncertainty avoidance as per Hofstede in the world and crosscorrelate with > economic freedom. > > I think Tyler Cowen gets closer to the point. We have picked all the > low-hanging fruit, found ways of expanding our world that doesn't > necessarily equate to economic growth or progress, and indeed set up > incentive structures that do not promote radical or long-term change. But > the later problem is in many ways local to the developed countries: there > is a real chance that the BRICs will just ignore it (and make their own > interesting mistakes). > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Future of Humanity Institute > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University > > > ______________________________**_________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/**mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-**chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 18 22:53:34 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:53:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ac01cd4da5$30eb6c10$92c24430$@att.net> >. On Behalf Of Giovanni Santostasi Subject: Re: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit >.The article is good, even if does silly mistakes in terminology. The essence of the article is actually perfectly right: capitalism is not good for scientific and technological progress, maybe it was good in the past (really? what about Sputnik) but has absolutely become obsolete today. Common guys, let's stop justify the unjustifiable.Giovanni I disagree the article was good, but no matter, we can do a test. If he thinks capitalism is bad for science and technology, and that some other system is better, very well, this world is big and several different systems exist. People are a lot more mobile than they used to be, so (as far as I know) even communist nations do not actually prevent people from leaving. So any scientist can go anywhere she wants. So let the systems compete with each other, see which one produces the most science and technology. In my mind, what is really great about capitalism is that it fosters competition, and competition fosters excellence. It settles arguments: lets have a race. Let's see who is strongest, fastest, most agile. Debate on which system is best? No problem, let's see which one makes for the best outcome, as measured in wealth. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 23:24:43 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:24:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <00ac01cd4da5$30eb6c10$92c24430$@att.net> References: <00ac01cd4da5$30eb6c10$92c24430$@att.net> Message-ID: I think too much competition (and narrow minded goals) is the problem not the good thing about capitalism. Plus is not really true this form of capitalism (corporatism) is always fostering competition, not at least healthy forms of competition, there are so many monopolies and nested companies. Sometime humans need to cooperate instead of competing to achieve grandiose goals. Even great national collaborative efforts, like early space exploration, that seemed propelled by international competition with other nations was actually killed by it when the space race was perceived to be won. If the goal was that of competing with one self, to go to the next step civilizations would have higher and more ambitious goals. Giovanni On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:53 PM, spike wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *Giovanni Santostasi > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit**** > > ** ** > > >?The article is good, even if does silly mistakes in terminology. The > essence of the article is actually perfectly right: capitalism is not good > for scientific and technological progress, maybe it was good in the past > (really? what about Sputnik) but has absolutely become obsolete today.**** > > Common guys, let's stop justify the unjustifiable?Giovanni**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > I disagree the article was good, but no matter, we can do a test. If he > thinks capitalism is bad for science and technology, and that some other > system is better, very well, this world is big and several different > systems exist. People are a lot more mobile than they used to be, so (as > far as I know) even communist nations do not actually prevent people from > leaving. So any scientist can go anywhere she wants. So let the systems > compete with each other, see which one produces the most science and > technology.**** > > ** ** > > In my mind, what is really great about capitalism is that it fosters > competition, and competition fosters excellence. It settles arguments: > lets have a race. Let?s see who is strongest, fastest, most agile. Debate > on which system is best? No problem, let?s see which one makes for the > best outcome, as measured in wealth.**** > > ** ** > > 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 Tue Jun 19 00:09:50 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:09:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: <00ac01cd4da5$30eb6c10$92c24430$@att.net> Message-ID: <00d501cd4daf$d871e1d0$8955a570$@att.net> On Behalf Of Giovanni Santostasi Subject: Re: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit >.I think too much competition (and narrow minded goals) is the problem not the good thing about capitalism. Cool, we can find out which is best. Let's have a competition. >. Plus is not really true this form of capitalism (corporatism) is always fostering competition, not at least healthy forms of competition, there are so many monopolies and nested companies. Ja! A wonderful mix is seen, with competitors sometimes working together to whoop a third competitor, then more competitors forming defacto teams to devour others. Constructive chaos ensues. In the very long run, even the losers win, because they leave the loser company and join the guy that whooped them. Then they work together on the better products that won before. >.Sometime humans need to cooperate instead of competing to achieve grandiose goals. Exactly! This is what capitalism does so very well: people work together, cooperate to compete, the best products rise to the top and make the winners rich! Young people see the winners, and want to be like them. When we were kids who would have guessed that the geek would inherit the earth? Yet here was Bill Gates, and it would be hard to imagine a geekier guy, who ends up owning everything that is worth having. You and I reap the benefits, and to some extent pay the price. Life is good. >.Even great national collaborative efforts, like early space exploration, that seemed propelled by international competition with other nations was actually killed by it when the space race was perceived to be won. Ja, the big manned rocket systems were funded because it developed for us the ability to lift weapons and deliver them to the bad guys, and the control systems to steer them accurately on their way. Turns out we didn't need to do that, but we got the rocket systems and advanced control systems out of the deal. The fact that we and the commies developed these advanced rockets and nukes meant we didn't need to face each other on the battlefield and hurl chunks of metal at each other. Now we really don't need to do that at all (even though some primitive savages are still doing it.) In evolution, there is the term preadaptation, an example being feathers evolved as heat retention mechanisms, but eventually worked great for flying. Our rockets were developed for lifting nukes, but eventually worked great for flying. >.If the goal was that of competing with one self, to go to the next step civilizations would have higher and more ambitious goals. Giovanni Economically whooping ass can be a higher and more ambitious goal. In the long run, competition is our friend. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 00:43:22 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:43:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <00d501cd4daf$d871e1d0$8955a570$@att.net> References: <00ac01cd4da5$30eb6c10$92c24430$@att.net> <00d501cd4daf$d871e1d0$8955a570$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike, you still don't address the question of what happens with the robots do all the menial tasks. Can you give me a piece of you mind on that? Giovanni On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:09 PM, spike wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *On Behalf Of *Giovanni Santostasi > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit**** > > ** ** > > >?I think too much competition (and narrow minded goals) is the problem > not the good thing about capitalism?**** > > ** ** > > Cool, we can find out which is best. Let?s have a competition.**** > > ** ** > > >? Plus is not really true this form of capitalism (corporatism) is > always fostering competition, not at least healthy forms of competition, > there are so many monopolies and nested companies?**** > > ** ** > > Ja! A wonderful mix is seen, with competitors sometimes working together > to whoop a third competitor, then more competitors forming defacto teams to > devour others. Constructive chaos ensues. In the very long run, even the > losers win, because they leave the loser company and join the guy that > whooped them. Then they work together on the better products that won > before.**** > > **** > > >?Sometime humans need to cooperate instead of competing to achieve > grandiose goals?**** > > ** ** > > Exactly! This is what capitalism does so very well: people work together, > cooperate to compete, the best products rise to the top and make the > winners rich! Young people see the winners, and want to be like them. > When we were kids who would have guessed that the geek would inherit the > earth? Yet here was Bill Gates, and it would be hard to imagine a geekier > guy, who ends up owning everything that is worth having. You and I reap > the benefits, and to some extent pay the price. Life is good.**** > > **** > > >?Even great national collaborative efforts, like early space > exploration, that seemed propelled by international competition with other > nations was actually killed by it when the space race was perceived to be > won?**** > > ** ** > > Ja, the big manned rocket systems were funded because it developed for us > the ability to lift weapons and deliver them to the bad guys, and the > control systems to steer them accurately on their way. Turns out we didn?t > need to do that, but we got the rocket systems and advanced control systems > out of the deal. The fact that we and the commies developed these advanced > rockets and nukes meant we didn?t need to face each other on the > battlefield and hurl chunks of metal at each other. Now we really don?t > need to do that at all (even though some primitive savages are still doing > it.) **** > > ** ** > > In evolution, there is the term preadaptation, an example being feathers > evolved as heat retention mechanisms, but eventually worked great for > flying. Our rockets were developed for lifting nukes, but eventually > worked great for flying.**** > > **** > > >?If the goal was that of competing with one self, to go to the next step > civilizations would have higher and more ambitious goals. Giovanni**** > > **** > > Economically whooping ass can be a higher and more ambitious goal. In the > long run, competition is our friend.**** > > ** ** > > 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 Tue Jun 19 05:27:35 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:27:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: <00ac01cd4da5$30eb6c10$92c24430$@att.net> <00d501cd4daf$d871e1d0$8955a570$@att.net> Message-ID: <001201cd4ddc$3d590340$b80b09c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Santostasi Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 5:43 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit Spike, you still don't address the question of what happens with the robots do all the menial tasks. Can you give me a piece of you mind on that? Giovanni Good question Giovanni. I don't have the answers, but what I find remarkable is that we discussed this at length in ExI-chat right here about 15 yrs ago, back when I did a lot more reading than I did posting. We never did figure out the answers to that in those days, and still haven't. Little has changed really, other than now machines already do a lot of the work humans used to do. We recognized back then that as time went on, the problem would only get larger, as work went from being comprised of moving objects about to moving bits. Brainwork was taking over. The amount of physical work humans can do generally spans a single order of magnitude from the weakest to the strongest. But in the kinds of work we have left, humans can span several orders of magnitude. Example: coding. Some people can crank out really good computer code, but most people can't write two lines that work together. We had a guy back then (don't remember who it was) making a very similar argument to yours. Actually he was more coming on saying capitalism was a complete failure and we need to institute communism before it is too late, which is related to your contention I think, possibly more extreme. He might have been intentionally baiting us too, knowing we were a bunch of libertarian types and we wanted to see if we had any real ideas on how the future of production would look. What I do remember from those days is a general realization that communism wouldn't solve the problem, even with the general notion that capitalism wouldn't solve it. I get the vague feeling Greece is mostly concluding the same thing. All that being said, one way or another I am convinced that competition is good. Because of competition we have created a world in which those who lose the competition still can have a mostly decent life, few luxuries but seldom will starvation threaten. Fairly recently starvation was a constant threat. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jun 19 09:41:02 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:41:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> <20120615184720.n7zpr4x4fkog4c0w@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <20120619094102.GX17120@leitl.org> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 07:30:07PM +0200, Giulio Prisco wrote: > I don't really dislike him, he writes fun and often interesting > (other) things. He dislikes us all though, without distinctions. We seem to be in vigorous agreement. From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 14:21:18 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:21:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Open Source Alternative to Power Point (was Re: He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting) Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:01 PM, spike wrote: > Is there a better public domain or Open Office equivalent to > PP with all the same art tools? I really like this one Spike http://prezi.com/ It is not only free to use, it gives you a very different way to approach the overall problem. Here is a quick Prezi I put together a while back... just to give you an idea of how they approach the problem differently. http://prezi.com/p4dojebvzmcd/the-singularity/ -Kelly From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 14:50:46 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:50:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> References: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, F. C. Moulton wrote: > On 06/18/2012 08:41 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >> > ?For example ... against Same Sex Marriage yet falsely > claims to be libertarian. ?I am getting really sick and tired of > conservatives claiming to be libertarian. Fred, I'm unaware of this being a litmus test for being a libertarian. Here's a libertarian idea for you... how about the government gets the hell out of legislating anything with regards to human relationships altogether? How about I'm against same sex marriage, opposite sex marriage, marriage to toasters, marriages to animals, or any marriage whatsoever. Wouldn't that be consistent with a libertarian approach? Let people do what they want with whom they want, blessed by religion or not. Let whoever wants to set up a business to celebrate people's commitment to each other, and let the free market reign. Give people freedom. Give insurance companies freedom to insure who they want how they want. Insurance companies that want to extend benefits to "family" members however people want to define that may find more customers. Oh, and get rid of all laws relating to this. If someone wants somebody else covered under their insurance or whatever, let them work that out with the insurance company. If people want to separate their lives, let a judge decide if they have lived as a couple, or just as room mates, and divide assets and children and whatnot independent of laws defining marriage. I think it's silly that having a 5 minute ceremony means the difference between people having rights on each other's property or not. Ridiculous. Are you now going to say that I'm not a libertarian because I don't support same sex marriage? Really? -Kelly From spike66 at att.net Tue Jun 19 15:07:52 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:07:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Open Source Alternative to Power Point (was Re: He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701cd4e2d$4d41dfb0$e7c59f10$@att.net> Cool! Thanks Kelly. spike -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:21 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Open Source Alternative to Power Point (was Re: He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting) On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:01 PM, spike wrote: > Is there a better public domain or Open Office equivalent to PP with > all the same art tools? I really like this one Spike http://prezi.com/ It is not only free to use, it gives you a very different way to approach the overall problem. Here is a quick Prezi I put together a while back... just to give you an idea of how they approach the problem differently. http://prezi.com/p4dojebvzmcd/the-singularity/ -Kelly _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From moulton at moulton.com Tue Jun 19 15:30:56 2012 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:30:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> Message-ID: <4FE09B30.9080107@moulton.com> On 06/19/2012 07:50 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, F. C. Moulton wrote: >> On 06/18/2012 08:41 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >>> >> For example ... against Same Sex Marriage yet falsely >> claims to be libertarian. I am getting really sick and tired of >> conservatives claiming to be libertarian. > > Fred, I'm unaware of this being a litmus test for being a libertarian. > > Here's a libertarian idea for you... Kelly Did you bother to read and understand the article for which I gave a URL? Your reply to me indicates that you have totally misunderstood the point I was making. Fred From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 16:05:18 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:05:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <4FE09B30.9080107@moulton.com> References: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> <4FE09B30.9080107@moulton.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, F. C. Moulton wrote: > On 06/19/2012 07:50 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, F. C. Moulton wrote: >>> On 06/18/2012 08:41 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >>>> >>> ?For example ... against Same Sex Marriage yet falsely >>> claims to be libertarian. ?I am getting really sick and tired of >>> conservatives claiming to be libertarian. >> >> Fred, I'm unaware of this being a litmus test for being a libertarian. >> >> Here's a libertarian idea for you... > > Kelly > > Did you bother to read and understand the article for which I gave a > URL? ?Your reply to me indicates that you have totally misunderstood the > point I was making. Sorry if I misunderstood Fred, but I thought the point you were making was separate from the (very long, pretty boring) article. Your complaint seemed to be that you did not like conservatives pretending to be libertarians, and your example was some of them not supporting same sex marriage. My counter point being that I know of no requirement for libertarians to support same sex marriage. If you want to try again making your point, then I will try again to address it, but I thought I was addressing a side issue that had nothing to do with the original article of the thread. -Kelly From spike66 at att.net Tue Jun 19 16:20:31 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:20:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> <4FE09B30.9080107@moulton.com> Message-ID: <002101cd4e37$72f83790$58e8a6b0$@att.net> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, F. C. Moulton wrote: > On 06/19/2012 07:50 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, F. C. Moulton wrote: >>> On 06/18/2012 08:41 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >>>> >>> ?... ?I am getting really sick and tired of conservatives >>> claiming to be libertarian. >> >> Fred, I'm unaware of this being a litmus test for being a libertarian. Kelly The meta-observation here is that no one has ever really derived a good universally accepted definition for libertarian, consequently it is a mixture of a lot of different things. Libertarian includes the all-drugs-legal and no borders crowd, the government-hands-off-business crowd, the government-hands-off-abortion (a position generally shared by liberals) the usual less-government advocates (generally shared by modern conservatives.) But libertarianism seems to be a loose coalition of a lot of different notions. No one has the authority to exclude anyone else who considers themselves libertarian, and even if they did, being libertarian they would generally eschew authority, in which case they would reject themselves. If it is any comfort to libertarians, neither the liberals nor the conservatives can derive a unified theory on defining themselves either. They too are big sloppy coalitions, both of which are straining to remain unified in our current era of cultural upheaval. spike From anders at aleph.se Tue Jun 19 17:04:21 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:04:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <002101cd4e37$72f83790$58e8a6b0$@att.net> References: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> <4FE09B30.9080107@moulton.com> <002101cd4e37$72f83790$58e8a6b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FE0B115.4030402@aleph.se> On 19/06/2012 17:20, spike wrote: > The meta-observation here is that no one has ever really derived a good > universally accepted definition for libertarian, consequently it is a > mixture of a lot of different things. There is a really good section of David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" where he skewers libertarians trying to come to an axiomatic definition of what the core libertarian idea is. It is pretty evidently a thick mix of values. Not unlike transhumanism. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 18:18:34 2012 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1340129914.96408.YahooMailClassic@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "spike" wrote: > I am convinced that competition is good. Well, more to the point, competition is /inevitable/. Competition is the only game in town, really. Or out of town, for that matter. What other way of determining which of two different systems works better could there be? They aren't going to go "After you": "No, no, after you!", are they? Ben Zaiboc From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Jun 19 14:16:20 2012 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:16:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4FE089B4.80507@libero.it> Il 19/06/2012 00:39, Giovanni Santostasi ha scritto: > Why microtechnology should preclude the development of macrotechnology? Competition for brilliant minds. Given the not unlimited pool of minds available, if the brightest work on developing micro-technology they have no time to develop macro-technology. And often the development of some technology must await advances in some, apparently unrelated, field to proceed. If the governments hire brilliant minds to pursue some central defined goals, they drain these minds from pursuing some locally defined goals. For example, if the government finance projects like ITER with billions of ?, they drain people from other fields and leave people like Prof. Woodward and Dr. March to experiment with their pocket money and their spare time. It is like betting a big sum (a significant sum) for a far away and very uncertain return (in the mean time the money spent is lining a long list of pockets). This prevent people from experimenting in many directions using small sums for nearer returns. > Corporatism is fascism incarnated as Mussolini aptly said. > It is a suffocating machine that allows control and manipulation of > masses and it can only serve small elites in the inner circle. Corporatism is a type of socialism, nothing to do with capitalism and a free economy. It is socialism because corporatism can not exist without government support for a corporation against its competitors. It is like criticizing democracy when some party decide for a "one head, one vote, one time (if we win)" policy. If an corporation succeed in becoming dominant on the market competing fairly and after persuade the government to prevent further competitors from competing, it is like the leading marathoner after the first mile convincing the refers to throw nails behind him. Do you blame the slowing pace to the runners behind the leader? To the leader? Or to the refers? Do you blame the feet's wounds to the competition or to the refers? Just stop competing, so people stop hurting themselves but don't stop refers from throwing nails around. How would we do without refers? > The article most powerful analysis is why corporatism is trying to > resist at any cost full automation and its final consequence that is > democratization of the means of production and rather use modern slavery > to continue to have control of production. > That is the core of the matter. > In fact, this is the fundamental question (that corporatism is trying to > avoid to answer at any cost): what will happen to our economical and > social organization when almost of the manual jobs and non creative jobs > (from factory worker, to taxi and truck driver, to cashier and even > lawyers and accountants) are done by robots? Poor people could always work for each other, if they have not the resources to work for or buy from wealthy people. They could pay each other with some money they issue. Then, what is the reason to build a factory to mass produce things if there is no mass to sell them to? If production costs fall because of robotization and likes, then stuff will cost less for all. Then more people will have free income to spend as they like. For example, people could find preferable to hire someone to cook something for them than cook themselves or pay someone to tend their orchard instead of themselves. > The only solution I can imagine that doesn't require widespread riots > and social revolution is redistributing and equalizing wealth. And who would do the redistribution? You? Your pals? Capitalism do a pretty good job in redistributing wealth when governments stop interfering with the market. For sure it don't redistribute wealth as you or anyone would like to who you or anyone would like. But this is not a bug. It is a feature. Mirco From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Jun 19 13:22:23 2012 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:22:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> References: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4FE07D0F.9000500@libero.it> Il 19/06/2012 00:16, Anders Sandberg ha scritto: > It completely misses the possibility that past expectations about the > *direction* of technology was wrong. The old future was all > macro-technology: spacecraft, fusion, flying cars and soaring buildings. > But what we got was micro-technology: biotech, computers, Internet, > nanotechnology. This is important and powerful stuff, yet it is > dismissed as mere simulation. In fact, as Asimov noted long ago, no one foresaw the fax machine in the '40 or '50 before its introduction. The problem with the foresighted technologies was lack of market demand, both for genuine lack of it and for government meddling. The simple fact drug research have moved from Europe to US and now from US to China is indicative of a problem first in Europe and then in US. If an entire industry need to move to find a place good enough to be able to work and earn a profit, there is something wrong. In Italy, the great stagnation coincided with the raising of the tax burden, increase of the government share of GDP, increase of regulations, increase of people with invalidity checks (often blatantly false), increase of the number of regulatory bodies and city controlled enterprises (needed to find a job or give a check to the politicians out of their elected positions). In the end, the market was slowly choked by the governments. No market, no competition for the clients money, no innovations to obtain edges against the competition. I just said politicians hate competitions? Just look at the situation in Italy and Greece, both the traditional left and right parties are together to support a banker as prime minister or to submit the government to the bankers. The were all against each other on stage, but in the background they eat the same pork and go tot he same restaurant. Now, when the time are hard (for them) they show they are one and the same. > I think the article meshes nicely with Tyle Cowen's "The Great > Stagnation" and Thiel's worries. I do think we have a problem. But I > don't think the diagnosis is right. The reason we don't have anti-gravity > shoes is not that we academics spend too much time writing grant > proposals. The problem, paraphrasing Lenin, is not who write the grant proposal but who read them: bureaucrats (maybe with outstanding credentials for science and technology). The first feature of bureaucrats is to not question authority, the second is to never ever take risks unneeded. > It is because we have no clue how to do it. If people write requests for grants for researches that don't "rock the boat" of the examiners, it is improbable they will clues enough to find the bathroom. In the end, the people asking for grants are committed in living inside a group. So they must abide to the rules, written and unwritten, if they want stay there. This breed uniformity, > Bureaucracy and > risk aversion *are* problems, but they are hardly due to capitalism - > just check the distribution of uncertainty avoidance as per Hofstede in > the world and cross-correlate with economic freedom. In fact, stagnation is about the government taking over of vast parts of economy, education, research, health care, pension funds and whatever and meddling, meddling, meddling. All of them are going to hell in a basket case. Someone faster, someone slower, someone first, someone after. > I think Tyler Cowen gets closer to the point. We have picked all the > low-hanging fruit, The problem is we picked up all the hanging fruits and stopped to climb. There are no more low-hanging fruits because we just stopped to climb. Truly, climbing with a 400 lbs pig on the neck is not easy nor fast. Mirco From spike66 at att.net Tue Jun 19 18:45:41 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:45:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nintendo ds for grownups Message-ID: <005c01cd4e4b$baa1c4d0$2fe54e70$@att.net> Question please, ExI gadget hipsters, Ja, I know I could google on this and find out, but I would like the local gadget hipsters to comment on the relative value of the commercially available electronic gadgets, opinions welcome, something google couldn't really do. I am looking for a portable computer that has the same or very similar form factor as a Nintendo DS, or could even be a derivative of that remarkably competent little computer. But I need something with at least a soft keyboard, enough memory to carry a bunch of spreadsheets and a few word documents, and it needs to fit in a pocket, thus the DS form factor. I haven't been keeping up with the market, but I am confident such a thing exists, and should be available for about the same as a DS, which is a couple hundred bucks. I had a palm pilot a dozen years ago, so what I want is a bigger version of that, with the ability to hold my own spreadsheets. But not a tablet; those are a bit too big for my pocket and I still haven't figured out how to carry one. Not an iPhone: the screen is too small for my ageing eyes. I don't need video games, so I can use something like a portable gamer without the thumb controls, but with the dual screens, one of which can be a soft keypad. The closest description I can manage is a Nintendo DS for grownups, perhaps with a bit bigger screen. Such a thing must exist. spike From gsantostasi at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 19:08:52 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:08:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <4FE089B4.80507@libero.it> References: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> <4FE089B4.80507@libero.it> Message-ID: * * *The only solution I can imagine that doesn't require widespread riots* *and social revolution is redistributing and equalizing wealth.* And who would do the redistribution? You? Your pals? Let's start with more fair tax system. It would be a good step. Giovanni On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Mirco Romanato wrote: > Il 19/06/2012 00:39, Giovanni Santostasi ha scritto: > > Why microtechnology should preclude the development of macrotechnology? >> > > Competition for brilliant minds. > > Given the not unlimited pool of minds available, if the brightest work on > developing micro-technology they have no time to develop macro-technology. > And often the development of some technology must await advances in some, > apparently unrelated, field to proceed. > > If the governments hire brilliant minds to pursue some central defined > goals, they drain these minds from pursuing some locally defined goals. > For example, if the government finance projects like ITER with billions of > ?, they drain people from other fields and leave people like Prof. Woodward > and Dr. March to experiment with their pocket money and their spare time. > It is like betting a big sum (a significant sum) for a far away and very > uncertain return (in the mean time the money spent is lining a long list of > pockets). This prevent people from experimenting in many directions using > small sums for nearer returns. > > > Corporatism is fascism incarnated as Mussolini aptly said. >> It is a suffocating machine that allows control and manipulation of >> masses and it can only serve small elites in the inner circle. >> > > Corporatism is a type of socialism, nothing to do with capitalism and a > free economy. It is socialism because corporatism can not exist without > government support for a corporation against its competitors. > > It is like criticizing democracy when some party decide for a "one head, > one vote, one time (if we win)" policy. > If an corporation succeed in becoming dominant on the market competing > fairly and after persuade the government to prevent further competitors > from competing, it is like the leading marathoner after the first mile > convincing the refers to throw nails behind him. > > Do you blame the slowing pace to the runners behind the leader? To the > leader? Or to the refers? Do you blame the feet's wounds to the competition > or to the refers? Just stop competing, so people stop hurting themselves > but don't stop refers from throwing nails around. How would we do without > refers? > > > The article most powerful analysis is why corporatism is trying to >> resist at any cost full automation and its final consequence that is >> democratization of the means of production and rather use modern slavery >> to continue to have control of production. >> > > That is the core of the matter. >> > > In fact, this is the fundamental question (that corporatism is trying to >> avoid to answer at any cost): what will happen to our economical and >> social organization when almost of the manual jobs and non creative jobs >> (from factory worker, to taxi and truck driver, to cashier and even >> lawyers and accountants) are done by robots? >> > > Poor people could always work for each other, if they have not the > resources to work for or buy from wealthy people. > They could pay each other with some money they issue. > Then, what is the reason to build a factory to mass produce things if > there is no mass to sell them to? > > If production costs fall because of robotization and likes, then stuff > will cost less for all. Then more people will have free income to spend as > they like. For example, people could find preferable to hire someone to > cook something for them than cook themselves or pay someone to tend their > orchard instead of themselves. > > > > > The only solution I can imagine that doesn't require widespread riots >> and social revolution is redistributing and equalizing wealth. >> > > And who would do the redistribution? You? Your pals? > > Capitalism do a pretty good job in redistributing wealth when governments > stop interfering with the market. > For sure it don't redistribute wealth as you or anyone would like to who > you or anyone would like. But this is not a bug. It is a feature. > > Mirco > > ______________________________**_________________ > 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 Tue Jun 19 19:19:12 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:19:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <4FE089B4.80507@libero.it> References: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> <4FE089B4.80507@libero.it> Message-ID: <006e01cd4e50$69371460$3ba53d20$@att.net> ... >>... The only solution I can imagine that doesn't require widespread riots > and social revolution is redistributing and equalizing wealth. >...And who would do the redistribution? You? Your pals? Mirco NO! Me, and my pals. No other arrangement is acceptable. The obvious problem with the initial comment is that redistributing and equalizing wealth very much does require widespread riots and social revolution, more so than any of the alternatives, and far more brutal. spike From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Jun 19 19:55:47 2012 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:55:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> <4FE089B4.80507@libero.it> Message-ID: <4FE0D943.1080708@libero.it> Il 19/06/2012 21:08, Giovanni Santostasi ha scritto: > / > / > /The only solution I can imagine that doesn't require widespread riots/ > /and social revolution is redistributing and equalizing wealth./ > > And who would do the redistribution? You? Your pals? > > Let's start with more fair tax system. > It would be a good step. Please describe it. I would support a flat tax for personal income and no corporate tax (corporate taxes are an indirect tax on personal income of the buyers of the services or product acquired). Mirco From nanite1018 at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 19:04:56 2012 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (Joshua Job) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:04:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <1340129914.96408.YahooMailClassic@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1340129914.96408.YahooMailClassic@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello everyone, haven't posted in like two years. We can quibble about libertarianism, I don't blame the author for calling someone what they call themselves, as in the case of Mr. Gilder. The article itself is actually quite good (though a tad Marxist), and worthy of discussion. The actual meat of the article is identifying something Peter Thiel has discussed for a while now---the seeming slowdown of technological advance in everything that isn't an information technology that began with the rise of Big Science after WWII, and came to a virtual stop by the early 70s. While I'm not sure I agree with the notion that such a slowdown has most definitely occurred, there is a good amount of evidence pointing that way. The heart of the article is it's identification of the problem: the rise of bureaucratism in the world economy resulting from it's expansion from corporations (or so the article says) to every area of life, including science. I don't think it's corporations that are the problem, but rather government interventionism that began in the 30s with the New Deal (and to some degree earlier) that caused the rise of bureaucracy in all areas of American life. Nevertheless, I think the author is basically right, especially when he talks about the conservatism in science (I can see it in academia already, and I'm only entering graduate school this fall). -Josh On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > "spike" wrote: > > > I am convinced that competition is good. > > > Well, more to the point, competition is /inevitable/. Competition is the > only game in town, really. Or out of town, for that matter. > > What other way of determining which of two different systems works better > could there be? > > They aren't going to go "After you": "No, no, after you!", are they? > > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 20:50:04 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:50:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] nintendo ds for grownups In-Reply-To: <005c01cd4e4b$baa1c4d0$2fe54e70$@att.net> References: <005c01cd4e4b$baa1c4d0$2fe54e70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:45 PM, spike wrote: >?I am looking for a portable computer that has the same or very > similar form factor as a Nintendo DS, or could even be a derivative of that > remarkably competent little computer. ?But I need ?something with at least a > soft keyboard, enough memory to carry a bunch of spreadsheets and a few word > documents, and it needs to fit in a pocket, thus the DS form factor. ?I > haven't been keeping up with the market, but I am confident such a thing > exists, and should be available for about the same as a DS, which is a > couple hundred bucks. > > I had a palm pilot a dozen years ago, so what I want is a bigger version of > that, with the ability to hold my own spreadsheets. ?But not a tablet; those > are a bit too big for my pocket and I still haven't figured out how to carry > one. ?Not an iPhone: the screen is too small for my ageing eyes. ?I don't > need video games, so I can use something like a portable gamer without the > thumb controls, but with the dual screens, one of which can be a soft > keypad. > > The closest description I can manage is a Nintendo DS for grownups, perhaps > with a bit bigger screen. ?Such a thing must exist. > > I think you want a mini netbook. Unfortunately, fashion is killing them off as tablets become the latest 'must-have' gadget. You need to consider carefully your requirements. You want a small size, but small size means you get a cramped keyboard with tiny keys and a small screen that you can't see and is pretty much unusable for spreadsheets. That's why customer demand has mostly replaced the 7" screen netbooks with more popular 10" screen models. So have a try of 7" and 10 " netbooks and see how they suit what you have in mind. You can always get a satchel or backpack if it is too big for your pocket. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 21:16:16 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:16:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Open Source Alternative to Power Point (was Re: He's Back - Carrico's continued ranting) In-Reply-To: <000701cd4e2d$4d41dfb0$e7c59f10$@att.net> References: <000701cd4e2d$4d41dfb0$e7c59f10$@att.net> Message-ID: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:01 PM, spike wrote: >> Is there a better public domain or Open Office equivalent to PP with >> all the same art tools? > Try this site for alternatives for all software. Type the name in the search box and you get a big list. of alternatives. Prezi is the most popular alternative to PP. BillK From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 21:57:03 2012 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:57:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] how mosquitoes fly in the rain In-Reply-To: <017701cd4c94$13bd3450$3b379cf0$@att.net> References: <017701cd4c94$13bd3450$3b379cf0$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike, thanks for the cool and informative article! Growing up in Alaska, I was fascinated how there were the bigger and slower species of mosquito, and then the smaller and much more evasive kind. I never tired of the feeling of success I got from killing a skeeter that had found it's way into my home. I remember being out on the tundra during a camping trip, and a black cloud of mosquitoes hungrily tried to close in on me and my fellow campers, but the persistently strong winds always kept us just out of reach, as long as we kept steadily moving. I suppose the pursuing bloodsuckers were in a form of mosquito hell... I like the Inuit myth of how there was an evil giant who went around eating people, and how a brave tribal leader declared enough was enough, and so a huge pit was dug, with pitch at the bottom, and camouflaging twigs and leaves covering it up. A young hunter volunteered to goad the giant into following him to the trap. The titanic monster fell in as hoped, and despite his best efforts, could not escape. As the villagers threw down torches which ignited the pitch, the giant screamed with his last breath that from his ashes would come a curse that would vex the people for countless generations. And as his ashes rose up into the sky, they turned into hordes of mosquitoes! ; ) John On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:18 AM, spike wrote: > Is this cool or what?**** > > ** ** > > Many years ago I was up at Mount Rainier in late September when there was > a freak early snowfall. I stood around outside the lodge and noticed there > was a mosquito hovering about as the flakes gently fell, but she wasn?t > getting caught by them. I watched for long enough to marvel that she > managed to dodge every flake. I assumed that eventually one would clobber > her and haul her down to the ground where presumably she would perish, > which is good actually for I detest the wretched beasts. But I had to feel > a certain disdainful admiration for her ability to hover about and > apparently dodge snowflakes. I hadn?t realized until I saw this that > mosquitoes can survive direct hits from raindrops: **** > > ** ** > > > http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2012/06/how-do-mosquitoes-fly-in-the-rain/?utm_source=smithsoniantopic&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120617-Weekender > **** > > ** ** > > Fortunately they still have not evolved the ability to evade my paw. > Dodge THIS, Needlenose!**** > > ** ** > > 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 msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 21:54:54 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:54:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] nintendo ds for grownups In-Reply-To: References: <005c01cd4e4b$baa1c4d0$2fe54e70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:50 PM, BillK wrote: > So have a try of 7" and 10 " netbooks and see how they suit what you > have in mind. > You can always get a satchel or backpack if it is too big for your pocket. Or epoxy two mounting points for a lanyard and wear it around your neck like kids do with their college id / dorm access card. You know the only time you'll take it off your person is to charge it while you sleep. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 21:36:32 2012 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:36:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] humans as much bonobo as chimp In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike wrote: Cool! Bonobos are as human as chimps. This is good: I would far rather be a bonobo?s cousin than a chimp?s cousin. The researchers say bonobos are much nicer people than either chimps or people. >>> It would make for an interesting science fiction novel, to show a world where humans came exclusively from the Bonobo side. It could be a parallel worlds novel, with our violence shocking them, and their sexual abandon horrifying us... John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 23:12:52 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:12:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nintendo ds for grownups In-Reply-To: References: <005c01cd4e4b$baa1c4d0$2fe54e70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM, BillK wrote: > So have a try of 7" and 10 " netbooks and see how they suit what you > have in mind. Alternately, if you're willing to give one screen over to a soft keyboard, you could get a smartphone with a hard keyboard, winding up with the same net screen area. My Motorola Droid slides the screen out to uncover a keyboard, for instance. But yeah - consider first the screen size you want (assume a roughly 3:2 aspect ratio, then figure the diagonal; that's how most of these are measured), then look for consumer electronics in that size. From gsantostasi at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 23:53:37 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:53:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] humans as much bonobo as chimp In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> Message-ID: I think I'm mostly a bonobo. Giovanni On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:36 PM, John Grigg wrote: > Spike wrote: > Cool! Bonobos are as human as chimps. This is good: I would far rather > be a bonobo?s cousin than a chimp?s cousin. The researchers say bonobos > are much nicer people than either chimps or people. > >>> > > > It would make for an interesting science fiction novel, to show a world > where humans came exclusively from the Bonobo side. It could be a parallel > worlds novel, with our violence shocking them, and their sexual abandon > horrifying us... > > > John > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jun 19 23:54:38 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:54:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] how mosquitoes fly in the rain In-Reply-To: References: <017701cd4c94$13bd3450$3b379cf0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FE1113E.6060906@aleph.se> Mosquitos are a plague up in the north on both sides of the Atlantic. Up in G?llivare in north Sweden they have a mosquito museum (with a section housed on a stair in a bigger museum!) http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/6064999153/ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CDyVKgVIW24C&pg=PA486&lpg=PA486&dq=Sjaunja++mosquito+museum&source=bl&ots=rkQo0bKJxE&sig=VJjL9Yx43XLd3_4ZrXWJowvr4bI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SxDhT6mFCIO_8APukqmUDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Sjaunja%20%20mosquito%20museum&f=false I think the survival of mosquitos in rain also tells us something about how to make resilient gnatbots. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 20 00:34:08 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:34:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destroying 3 billion year old lifeforms, was: RE: how mosquitoes fly in the rain Message-ID: <00e701cd4e7c$681c9fb0$3855df10$@att.net> On Behalf Of John Grigg Subject: Re: [ExI] how mosquitoes fly in the rain >.Spike, thanks for the cool and informative article! My observation of a mosquito in the rain/snow at Mt. Rainier is the only time in an entire life of being a bug watcher that I was ever able to witness that firsthand. Seeing a mosquito in the rain is a wonderfully rare treat for a bugger. >.Growing up in Alaska, I was fascinated how there were the bigger and slower species of mosquito, and then the smaller and much more evasive kind. Ja, I learned on a trip to your beautiful vast state that the mosquito is the Alaska state bird. >.I never tired of the feeling of success I got from killing a skeeter that had found it's way into my home. Ok, but consider the most direct path of continued existence of the largest number of your cells is through mosquito bites. Read on please, and check my reasoning. A few days ago someone, perhaps Natasha, made a thought-provoking comment about cells "remembering" their past. Let us go on a flight of fancy and imagine that cells, being living things, have some sort of something analogous to our memory and consciousness, scaled by size of course, so they would have a trillionth as much of these senses as we do. Play along, it's just a game. So imagine "you" are a cell in a human, and you can remember back to before the last time you divided. From your point of view, half of you just blebbed off and went away, and a couple years before that the same thing happened, and so on all the way back to when you were an ovum, and this little guy came along and joined you and halves of you started coming off regularly. If you prefer to think of yourself as a sperm, that works fine too, you went for a delightful swim, joined another really big cell, and the whole division thing started up. In any case, assume you can remember before that unification event, and there was an entire span of divisions before that, leading back to another singular unification event, and so on all the way back to a really boring couple billion years of that whole blue-green algal mat phase (nothing much was going on back in those days, occasional huge meteorite is all; the whole multicellular eon is much more interesting.) Today you perceive yourself as a cell in a human, which is really cool, because this particular cluster containing you (and other pieces which were once you) goes around and does interesting things, much more fun than those hundreds of millions of years where it was all about looking for food and trying to not be eaten. Of course from your point of view as a cell, your particular organism being devoured by some other organism wasn't the worst thing: you were in a sense recycled into a cell of some often more interesting beast, even if not directly. There was the usual disassembly and reassembly, but hey, cells having a trillionth the awareness also experience only a trillionth the pain, so being devoured was scarcely a bother. >.And as his ashes rose up into the sky, they turned into hordes of mosquitoes! ; ) The point of all this is that as humans, the overwhelming majority of our cells never get recycled. After surviving (in a sense) for three billion years, nearly all of our cells just get buried in a sealed container where they all perish, or are incinerated, where they all perish, for modern humans have no real predators; we are seldom devoured by other beasts. For so many cells, the brief existence as part of a human is the end of the long three billion year continuous existence. So tragic! We don't perish out in the open, where other beasts can devour our cooling flesh, giving the cells a chance for continued existence in another beast. Even if we imagine our cells are food for worms in a coffin (which I rather doubt) all the worms would necessarily perish right there in that same box, so it is merely a delayed terminus of three billion years of life for any worm cells. If our cells could remember their own past, how tragic to become part of a human, for that is THE END of a long and glorious journey. With one exception. The only common case in our modern world where our living cells are devoured by some living beast is when we are bitten by a mosquito. That is nearly the only path I can think of where a cell with an imaginary memory of its past can have continuity through having been part of a human. I can scarcely imagine any other path of continuity, for we wash away nearly all other parasites with daily bathing, and defeat by some hygienic or medical practice all other examples of some living beast devouring our living cells. But if a mosquito sucks away some of our currently active cells and reprocesses those into more mosquitoes, those cells (in a sense) survive a desperately dangerous existence, achieving continuity through the (usually final) human stage. >.I never tired of the feeling of success I got from killing a skeeter. John Success? Well how do you feel about killing that skeeter, John, now that you realize you swatted into oblivion the very last remote chance for continuity after three billion years for those few living cells that noble mosquito sucked out of you at enormous risk to its own existence, in the wretched beast's last desperate bid to save as many of the ancient lifeforms as possible from a likely terminal plunge into liquid nitrogen, or an absolutely certainly terminal burial or incineration? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 01:02:52 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:02:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] destroying 3 billion year old lifeforms, was: RE: how mosquitoes fly in the rain In-Reply-To: <00e701cd4e7c$681c9fb0$3855df10$@att.net> References: <00e701cd4e7c$681c9fb0$3855df10$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike, It was me that said I was nostalgic of when I was a unicellular being. And Natasha replied she was too. Anyway, why being buried is not recycling? Even in a container eventually the cell material is being recycled. Missing something? But we know what is important is the information of a living being not its material structure and if a cell ends up in a transhumanist, its chances to live for ever in its information pattern or its contribution to the overall information pattern would be very enhanced. Giovanni On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:34 PM, spike wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *On Behalf Of *John Grigg > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] how mosquitoes fly in the rain**** > > ** ** > > >?Spike, thanks for the cool and informative article! **** > > **** > > My observation of a mosquito in the rain/snow at Mt. Rainier is the only > time in an entire life of being a bug watcher that I was ever able to > witness that firsthand. Seeing a mosquito in the rain is a wonderfully > rare treat for a bugger.**** > > ** ** > > >?Growing up in Alaska, I was fascinated how there were the bigger and > slower species of mosquito, and then the smaller and much more evasive kind > ?**** > > ** ** > > Ja, I learned on a trip to your beautiful vast state that the mosquito is > the Alaska state bird.**** > > ** ** > > >?I never tired of the feeling of success I got from killing a skeeter > that had found it's way into my home. **** > > **** > > Ok, but consider the most direct path of continued existence of the > largest number of your cells is through mosquito bites. Read on please, > and check my reasoning.**** > > ** ** > > A few days ago someone, perhaps Natasha, made a thought-provoking comment > about cells ?remembering? their past. Let us go on a flight of fancy and > imagine that cells, being living things, have some sort of something > analogous to our memory and consciousness, scaled by size of course, so > they would have a trillionth as much of these senses as we do. Play along, > it?s just a game.**** > > ** ** > > So imagine ?you? are a cell in a human, and you can remember back to > before the last time you divided. From your point of view, half of you > just blebbed off and went away, and a couple years before that the same > thing happened, and so on all the way back to when you were an ovum, and > this little guy came along and joined you and halves of you started coming > off regularly. If you prefer to think of yourself as a sperm, that works > fine too, you went for a delightful swim, joined another really big cell, > and the whole division thing started up.**** > > ** ** > > In any case, assume you can remember before that unification event, and > there was an entire span of divisions before that, leading back to another > singular unification event, and so on all the way back to a really boring > couple billion years of that whole blue-green algal mat phase (nothing much > was going on back in those days, occasional huge meteorite is all; the > whole multicellular eon is much more interesting.) Today you perceive > yourself as a cell in a human, which is really cool, because this > particular cluster containing you (and other pieces which were once you) > goes around and does interesting things, much more fun than those hundreds > of millions of years where it was all about looking for food and trying to > not be eaten. **** > > ** ** > > Of course from your point of view as a cell, your particular organism > being devoured by some other organism wasn?t the worst thing: you were in a > sense recycled into a cell of some often more interesting beast, even if > not directly. There was the usual disassembly and reassembly, but hey, > cells having a trillionth the awareness also experience only a trillionth > the pain, so being devoured was scarcely a bother.**** > > ** ** > > >?And as his ashes rose up into the sky, they turned into hordes of > mosquitoes! ; )**** > > ** ** > > The point of all this is that as humans, the overwhelming majority of our > cells never get recycled. After surviving (in a sense) for three billion > years, nearly all of our cells just get buried in a sealed container where > they all perish, or are incinerated, where they all perish, for modern > humans have no real predators; we are seldom devoured by other beasts. For > so many cells, the brief existence as part of a human is the end of the > long three billion year continuous existence. So tragic! We don?t perish > out in the open, where other beasts can devour our cooling flesh, giving > the cells a chance for continued existence in another beast. Even if we > imagine our cells are food for worms in a coffin (which I rather doubt) all > the worms would necessarily perish right there in that same box, so it is > merely a delayed terminus of three billion years of life for any worm > cells. If our cells could remember their own past, how tragic to become > part of a human, for that is THE END of a long and glorious journey.**** > > ** ** > > With one exception?**** > > ** ** > > The only common case in our modern world where our living cells are > devoured by some living beast is when we are bitten by a mosquito. That is > nearly the only path I can think of where a cell with an imaginary memory > of its past can have continuity through having been part of a human. I can > scarcely imagine any other path of continuity, for we wash away nearly all > other parasites with daily bathing, and defeat by some hygienic or medical > practice all other examples of some living beast devouring our living > cells. But if a mosquito sucks away some of our currently active cells and > reprocesses those into more mosquitoes, those cells (in a sense) survive a > desperately dangerous existence, achieving continuity through the (usually > final) human stage. **** > > ** ** > > >?I never tired of the feeling of success I got from killing a skeeter? > John**** > > Success? Well how do you feel about killing that skeeter, John, now that > you realize you swatted into oblivion the very last remote chance for > continuity after three billion years for those few living cells that noble > mosquito sucked out of you at enormous risk to its own existence, in the > wretched beast?s last desperate bid to save as many of the ancient > lifeforms as possible from a likely terminal plunge into liquid nitrogen, > or an absolutely certainly terminal burial or incineration?**** > > ** ** > > 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 02:04:23 2012 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:04:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] destroying 3 billion year old lifeforms, was: RE: how mosquitoes fly in the rain In-Reply-To: References: <00e701cd4e7c$681c9fb0$3855df10$@att.net> Message-ID: I reckon this is the most beautiful thing I have read posted by Spike thus far on this list. Simply excellent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 03:50:25 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:50:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] self driving cars In-Reply-To: References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Emlyn wrote: > On 16 May 2012 14:41, spike wrote: > Kids in cars on their own will be really interesting. If you as a parent can > trust the car to get them from A to B, and can even track where it is at any > time, then why not? So suddenly, kids can get around. I would love this, it would emancipate me from being a soccer mom, er dad! Really good thinking on that one! I just had a new thought... Roads are currently wide and paved all the way across to compensate for the lack of precision of human drivers... So you could build roads that were more like railroad rails if the cars all followed exactly the same track all the time, which would really result in some significant savings in the cost to build really long roads, as you would only have to provide a surface that was much smaller than what is currently required. At intersections, you might have to have a little more pavement, and you might have to have pavement to compensate for different sized vehicles, but still the cost savings in pavement and maintenance could be rather significant. -Kelly -Kelly From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 20 04:14:02 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:14:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destroying 3 billion year old lifeforms, was: RE: how mosquitoes fly in the rain In-Reply-To: References: <00e701cd4e7c$681c9fb0$3855df10$@att.net> Message-ID: <014c01cd4e9b$20866b30$61934190$@att.net> >. On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: Re: [ExI] destroying 3 billion year old lifeforms, was: RE: how mosquitoes fly in the rain >.I reckon this is the most beautiful thing I have read posted by Spike thus far on this list. Simply excellent. Thanks Will. You like that one? I am full of it. THEM, rather, I am full of THEM! Flights of fancy, like mosquitoes desperately rescuing pico-memory lifeforms, with their needle-nose probosci, lots of that kind of junk rattling around in my head. There was kind of a point to all this, which I will now present. I made the argument that every living cell in our bodies have continuity backwards to a previous cell, all the way back to an embryo, which has continuity back to a previous embryo and so on back to the very first living organism. Furthermore, humans are rather unique among beasts in that nothing eats us, other than mosquitoes (other examples please?) and our bodies are disposed in such a way that usually all the cells die. However, there is one other mechanism whereby some of these ancient organisms can perhaps survive in a sense the experience of having been a picohuman: blood donation. We can look up the volume of a typical human erythrocyte and see that it is about 100 femtoliters, but using the argument I gave earlier, that doesn't count, for the red blood cell has no nucleus and therefore does not divide. I am not merely expressing anti-procaryotic chauvinism, but rather holding to the reasoning given in the Emergency Medical Mosquito post. We can even disregard the leukocytes, which are larger but still irrelevant for this next flight of fancy, but the blood contains some number of stem cells. We know that stem cells must be transported to the site of injured tissue by some means, so my reasoning is that a few of them must be in the bloodstream. I don't even know how to estimate an order of magnitude, but perhaps Anders or one of the other JupiterBrains among us can offer a suggestion. In any case, last Wednesday I visited Stanford to excrete a unit to complete my fifth gallon of blood donations, so I would take a wild guess and estimate at least a billion stem cells would be sloshing around in that bloody mess, and these would go into patients who would (I hope) recover, and of these, some fraction would then go on to breed, after having one of my stem cells fortuitously land in his testicles and contribute to generating a sperm cell. Hey, those things come from somewhere, and keep coming from somewhere, so my reasoning is that stem cells must come into play somehow. So by way of blood donation, my cells end up in another yet another human, which from the cell's point of view is like leaping from the sinking Titanic into the icy sea. But perhaps the new, young human will be inclined to blood donation as well, in which a cell could wind up surviving yet another perilous longshot to ultimate survival, and eventually be rescued by a mosquito, or perhaps another intriguing possibility, which I will now suggest. At Mount Rainier, near where I observed the snowflake dodging mosquito, I recently heard a couple of greens discussing how to dispose of their earthly remains in the most environmentally friendly way, using the least amount of fuel for their cremation and so forth. I suggested having one's body frozen in liquid nitrogen, then using perhaps a modified clothes dryer held at liquid nitrogen temperatures, , tumble the frozen body with a couple of shot-puts or cannon balls until it is bashed into bits the size of beach sand. Then take the remains in this form (punsters, do think of a name for it) up the slopes of the revered mountain to scatter widely, at which time the material melts and is an ideal size for snacking by the local ant population. No burial sites cluttering the landscape, no fuel use, a good excuse for your friends and family to hike up in that beautiful place, and most importantly, those cells immediately escape the perilous end-game existence as a femto-human to become a much larger fraction of an ant, which causes it to be far more likely to rejoin the mainstream of life on this blue-green planet and continue its 3 gigayear existence. For those of us who are cryonics-oriented, this is all perfectly compatible with our vision: remove head, freeze, store, into the dryer with the rest of the remains, tumble to frozen sand, scatter. Alcor could perhaps offer the service to green-minded individuals. Perhaps some of these clients have plenty of money and no children, and may see the wisdom of getting their heads preserved while passing along the rest of their carbon to the ants on Mount Rainier, minimizing their own carbon footprint etc. I donate this idea to the public domain. Say nice things about me if you make a fortune on it. But go give blood. It's the kind of good deed that doesn't even cost you any actual money. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 05:27:05 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:27:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Swim like a dolphin Message-ID: I know it is a transhumanist dream to fly like an eagle, slither like a snake or swim like a dolphin... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-7RlL3YtiQ&NR We may not have to wait so long with this sort of technology. Looks like a hell of a lot of fun! -Kelly From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 20 05:17:23 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:17:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nintendo ds for grownups In-Reply-To: References: <005c01cd4e4b$baa1c4d0$2fe54e70$@att.net> Message-ID: <016601cd4ea3$fa344de0$ee9ce9a0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] nintendo ds for grownups On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM, BillK wrote: > >...So have a try of 7" and 10 " netbooks and see how they suit what you have in mind. >...But yeah - consider first the screen size you want (assume a roughly 3:2 aspect ratio, then figure the diagonal; that's how most of these are measured), then look for consumer electronics in that size. _______________________________________________ Thanks for all suggestions. What we really need is exactly a Nintendo DS, modified software-wise to accommodate a spreadsheet. Reasoning: the Nintendo DS already has the advantage of massive economies of scale. The factories exist, they churned out skerJILLIONs of those very popular toys, and the form factor is perfect for my needs. The screen really isn't big enough, but the external envelope is such that it fits in my pocket, and cannot be a bit bigger. I have thought so hard on how to carry a iPad or equivalent, and nothing works for me. I don't want to carry a backpack or a fanny pack, I don't want to hang it around my neck. A DS is just the size it could be carried as naturally as a cell phone, in a pocket. It would compromise on screen size, but I think it would work. If we use the DS hardware, I know there are many game cartridges which can be carried, so it stands to reason those could be programmed with a spreadsheet and a word processor, as well as a voice-to-text, which might be better than trying to include a keyboard. I don't know much about the resolution of a DS screen, so we might still not be there, but I can imagine plenty of electronics capitalists are recognizing there is a market for this and a buttload of money to be made, because I have never seen a really practical way to carry an iPad everywhere always. The 200 bucks DS price range makes me willing to compromise on display size and accept the 256x192 resolution. It already has all the video game stuff with it, which I don't care about, but I can imagine a collection of games for grownups. Perhaps they could take away the game-boy shoot-em-ups and add chess, Sudoku and some good books. Perhaps they could name it game-geezer. We are not quite there yet, but we are getting there. spike From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 05:47:25 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:47:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nintendo ds for grownups In-Reply-To: <016601cd4ea3$fa344de0$ee9ce9a0$@att.net> References: <005c01cd4e4b$baa1c4d0$2fe54e70$@att.net> <016601cd4ea3$fa344de0$ee9ce9a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM, spike wrote: >?What we really need is exactly a Nintendo DS, > modified software-wise to accommodate a spreadsheet. One option is to simply use the DS's Web browser (an Opera variant) with Web-enabled spreadsheets. 'Course, you can't edit locally, because there is no local file system. That said, a DS's screen is in fact smaller than a large smartphone's screen. (I have an iPhone and a DS lying around.) True, the DS has two - but if you're giving one over to a soft keypad, then a smartphone with a slide-out keyboard will give you more screen space in the end (it's the same as 2 larger screens, 1 permanently given over to the keyboard). If you're having trouble reading text on a smartphone, you would have trouble reading text at the same font size on a DS (though apps on the DS tend to use a larger font size). From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 06:09:30 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:09:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old In-Reply-To: References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote: > >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: >> > On Mon, 28 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote: >> > To sum it all in short, I don't buy the idea that we, as a species, are to >> > be less and less violent. >> >> I think it has more to do with memes than genes. > > Memes, really. We should already know ourselves better than hoping for > good memes. We are prone to fabricate and believe all kind of memes > whenever there is promise of any material gain in them. The truth or facts > are expendable in such cases, of course. Clearly. Meme does not equal truth. Even successful/popular meme does not equal truth. Just look no further than Christianity or certain aspects of Global Warming. > Well, how can you be sure it works? You don't attend elementary school, do > you? I would rather suspect some forms of bullying went underground. > "Experts" cannot spot it now, so they can tout about success and receive a > paycheck, perhaps? I have four children in elementary school... So I'm likely closer to this than you might be... but as you say the form of bullying has probably evolved from physical and emotional to something a bit more subtle. But that in and of itself might be considered a reduction in violence. Name calling is less violent than fisticuffs, Facebook bullying is less violent than name calling, and so forth. >> But wars in out of the way places are fought with less scary weapons, >> in areas with somewhat more sparse populations, and the total number >> of deaths per capita, globally, goes down. > > Maybe it goes, but I would like to see a statistics saying so. Even if > there is one that can't be questionned, all it is saying is something like > "for now, in current conditions/economy violence per capita goes down". > But statistics cannot identify reason for this, or predict the trend is > persistent. > > The "end of violence" BS is touted from time to time. Guess what happens > next. > > BTW, unless you have some kind of revolutionary data, "deaths per capita" > is exactly 1.0 and this did not change AFAIK. :-) Sorry, I meant violent deaths per capita. And yes, there are pretty good statistics backing up this assertion. >> You can worry about all of that stuff, OR you can say, it's been a >> very long time (if ever for some risks) since we've faced that, so >> statistically, we are reasonably safe. > > Statistically, we are not safe. We just happen to not know enough. We are not safe, but we are safer than we have ever been, assuming there isn't some big thing hanging out there we don't know about. > I can learn, but I don't worry because it is useless. I fail to see how learning is useless, perhaps I have lost context here. >> And go on living. It's called optimism. It isn't hyperoptimism for me to >> live in the kill zone radius of the Yellowstone volcano. If it goes off >> most of you will die slowly, while I will have a merciful quickish >> death. > > Uh, this is optimism? It looks more like a realism to me. > > Optimists are - to me only, I guess - a bit like mental cases. Something > like, "property prices in Yellowstone went down 100-fold for no apparent > reason, let's buy a house there, it's a bargain". Optimists sometimes know that bad things are coming. Optimists can be realists. The thing that differentiates an optimist from a pessimist is that GIVEN the probability of a good and bad outcome is roughly equal, the optimist will assume the good outcome is more likely, while a pessimist will assume the bad outcome is more likely. Even an optimist would not walk into South Central LA waving a confederate flag and whistling dixie... the outcome is not probable to be good in such a case... It is only a different approach to similar odds that differentiate the two classes. The optimist you describe is optimistic in the face of overwhelming odds. These are the idiots that buy lottery tickets. Confusing lottery ticket buyers with optimists seems somewhat tenuous. >> > So, this idea that one day we will become those angelic creatures, good >> > and nice... No, I don't think so. Rather, I think we humans are beasts and >> > in best case, we can become self-controlling beasts. >> >> Or, eventually, they'll implant something in our heads to make us >> controlled beasts. They'll take away our ability to react violently. >> We may even sign up for it in exchange for something we can't imagine >> at this point. > > This I can believe. But doing this kind of control will frak us out of > history in not very long time. Few hundred years at best. But without it, they might find it necessary to eliminate us even sooner... Just saying, it's a possibility. >> > Now, a problem. Self-control seems to be unfashionable. >> >> How so???? It's all the rage! > > I fail to see this "rage". Or we understand this differently. For me, > self-control requires lots of work performed over oneself. Gallons of > sweat, maybe spiced with tears. I am not granted this by watching TV and > having Facebook page. BTW, I am not there yet. But you are granted a portion of self control by taking the right mind altering drugs, by attending the requisite anger management classes should you fail to meet society's expectations, or you can be controlled by society without self control by being incarcerated should your violation of said expectations be serious enough. With the highest incarceration rate in history, as well as the highest rates of drug use (say for ADHD) and judges ordering people into anger management, it has an effect, overall on violence. That effect has been for violence to go down. For whatever reasons. >> > I have, however, heard other stories, counterweighting those grim options >> > mentioned. Like of Mr Gichin Funakoshi, who started learning Karate at the >> > age of 13 to improve his poor health, later became master himself but >> > fought his first real life fight age 72 (AFAIR - I have read it megayears >> > ago and cannot find anything on the net) when he helped a woman attacked >> > by a thug. Now that's the man. He did not go on killing journey, just >> > practiced the art for his whole life. >> >> And as far as I know, self defense with the martial arts is a rarity, >> statistically speaking. I'm not against the martial arts for self >> control, for inner peace, for physical fitness. But to protect >> yourself, it isn't the greatest bargain in the world in terms of money >> or time. > > Maybe because learning MA makes one avoid "stressful situations" more and > behaving better in those that cannot be avoided. > > But, for a successful defence, one needs to be in better shape and have > more mental control of surroundings than attacker(s). MAs can deliver > here. It can't guarantee anything, however :-). The reality though is that there is no supporting evidence I am aware of that knowing a martial art makes you any safer. >> The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes explains a lot of the decrease in >> violence. Before the dispassionate third party, in the form of the all >> powerful state would dish out just rewards, there were cycles of >> vengeance and revenge. The Leviathan stopped those cycles, and brought >> with it a more peaceful way to deal with conflict. > > There were cases of all-powerful dispassionate states, which after all > turned out to be something totally else. I don't think I will believe such > state is possible, as long as it is constructed from selfish members, > each trying to prolong their own genes at expense of everything else. If > members cannot face what they are and what is their purpose, this doesn't > make them better, only more ignorant and dangerous. > > Were there any cases of such states which did as they promised? Even delivering a fraction of what they promise, which I believe they have done, is improvement over the previous state of being in terms of violence. Maybe not so much in terms of freedom... >> > So, maybe one day I will go after this book but I doubt I will run after >> > it. >> >> I hope to finish reading it in a few months... it takes a while when >> you read ten books at a time... > > Well, if you read it and find something convincing, I will gladly read > about it here. Especially if you can prove this is not some kind of shady > propaganda aimed at monetary gains of some yet-to-be-seen group. What I've read so far makes sense... but I'm not all that far into it. As to the conspiracy theory behind the book, I have no clue what that might be, LOL. -Kelly From mike at alcor.org Wed Jun 20 19:03:54 2012 From: mike at alcor.org (Mike Perry) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] How to survive forever Message-ID: <201206201930.q5KJUgGb000574@andromeda.ziaspace.com> A paper I wrote (in 1986) on the possibility of infinite survival of records via backup copies can be found at https://dl.dropbox.com/u/75307856/INFSURV.DOC. It considers individual records or chunks of information but also growing hierarchies of records in which every individual record can survive forever with nonzero probability. Records are destroyed essentially by radioactive decay, at a fixed assumed rate, and cosmology is uncomplicated and does not eventually intervene. >On 15/06/2012 17:30, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > > The main problem is likely that temperature never gets below > > T_min=10^-19 K due to horizon radiation, and that forces a finite > > amount of possible computation. Still, that is M_cluster/(kT_min > > ln(2)) irreversible computations (including error corrections) - plus > > a large number of reversible computations. > > > >Ah, forgot a factor of c^2. The right number is c^2 M_cluster/(kT_min >ln(2)). > >Using the Virgo cluster and asusming we use the dark matter too, we get >10^15 solar masses, or about 10^45 kg. That will allow around 10^104 >computations. > >A lot, although far less than Seth Lloyds estimate that the universe so >far has performed 10^120 operations ( >http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141) - but his operations seem to >include reversible ones, which are not covered by the above estimate >which is based on the Brillouin inequality. We will at any rate have a long lead time for a workaround to this apparent eventual limit on our lifespans. If all else fails there is the possibility that benevolent beings in a still longer-lived universe will recreate us in copy form, perhaps to be followed by another recreation in a still longer-lived universe after that one becomes unlivable, and so on ad infinitum, each recreation to include all the beings of the previous, mortal domains. Mike Perry From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 06:30:17 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:30:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Abiogenesis under extremes of pressure In-Reply-To: References: <1339253915.85244.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:20 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > ?I think you would find the work of Robert M. Hazen very interesting. > His book "Genesis" talks exactly about abiogenesis under high > pressure. He has an entire chapter entitled "Under Pressure". He > started life as a geologist, so this was pretty natural for him to > think about. > > The origin of life challenge: Searching for how life began June 20, 2012 By Nola Taylor Redd Quote: Considered the blueprint of life, DNA is found in all living cells. Scientists think it was preceded by RNA, which may have played a role in the development of the first life on Earth. In 2011, retired chemist and entrepreneur Harry Lonsdale announced his plans to fund research on how life originally formed. Of the 76 proposals submitted to his Origin of Life Challenge, Lonsdale and his team of experts selected three to fund for at least the next year, with the potential to continue financial support in the future. Though not the expressed intention, all three proposals wound up examining some aspect of the RNA world. RNA is thought to be the precursor to DNA, at one time not only carrying genetic information but also acting as a catalyst. ------------------- BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 21 20:09:09 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:09:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time Message-ID: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> Ordinarily I would not forward this kind of thing, but this is the coolest one I have seen in a long time, and has a lot to do with our future and transhumanism (indirectly.) I am doing a lot of calculations on energy usage and generation these days, and keep coming up with similar looking answers: we have plenty of potentially viable energy sources which will likely come into play, but the low hanging fruit is all still in technologies to use less power. There is a lot of low hanging fruit there. One of the notions I have in mind is the increase and improvement in virtual travel, such as that found in the links below. Stuff like this didn?t even exist a decade ago, and now it is pretty good. Extrapolate this into the future, and imagine how good virtual travel could get. Then, for instance, instead of using up the fuel to travel to that place in Italy where the guy in the pointy white hat lives (can?t recall the name; Ratzinger?) you could bring it to your desktop, and see that place where that guy painted all that stuff on the ceiling. In some ways it might actually be better than going there in person, because if you are there, you can only stand on the floor and strain your neck. spike I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS....YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE TO GET ON A PLANE AGAIN........ Mesmerizing!!! This is just fantastic. Pick out any interesting location around the world and click on it. A page will come up with a photo. In the centre is a circle with a triangle. Click on the triangle. Now you get a full picture. If it's not a full screen, click on the 4 dots in the lower right corner. Now with full screen, place your curser anywhere on the screen and slowly drag the picture in any direction you want. Left, right, up, down, slow or stop. Try the Egyptian Pyramids in Egypt or Moscow, Kremlin to get started. This is a one e-mail you will want to save. Enjoy. Panoramas and 3D Tours of the Most Beautiful Places Around the World! Click on the below City Names & Enjoy ! Victoria Falls, Zambia ? Venezuela, Surroundings of Angel Falls, Venezuela ? Angel falls, Venezuela ? Kalyan Minaret, Bukhara, Uzbekistan ? Miami, USA ? Las Vegas, USA ? Lake Powell, USA ? Manhattan, New York, USA ? Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, USA ? Millennium UN Plaza Hotel, New York, USA ? Oahu, Hawaii, USA ? Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ? Millennium UN Plaza Hotel, New York, USA ? Golden Gate Bridge, USA ? Statue of Liberty, New York, USA ? Manhattan, New York, USA ? Hollywood, California, USA ? San Juan and Colorado rivers, USA ? Goosenecks, Utah, USA ? Mono Lake, California, USA ? Millennium UN Plaza Hotel, New York, USA ? Chicago, Illinois, USA ? Los Angeles, California, USA ? Kiev, Ukraine ? Ay-Petri, Ukraine ? Dubai, UAE ? Dubai, Islands, UAE ? Palm Jumeirah, Dubai, UAE ? Bangkok, Thailand ? Sankt-Moritz, Switzerland ? Cape Good Hope, South Africa ? Cape-Town, South Africa ? Moscow, MSU, Russia ? Moscow, Kremlin, Bolotnaya Square , Russia ? Moscow, Russia ? Moscow Kremlin, Russia ? 55.748765;37.540841, Russia ? Moscow City, Russia ? Kremlin, Moscow, Russia ? Moscow City, Russia ? Trinity Lavra of Sait Sergius, Russia ? Saint-Petersburg, Russia ? New Jerusalem Monastery, Russia ? Saint Petersburg, Russia ? Novodevichy Convent. Moscow, Russia ? Ramenki,Moscow, Russia ? MKAD, Moscow, Russia ? Moscow, Russia ? Moscow, Russia ? Krokus Expo Center, Moscow, Russia ? Moscow Region, Russia ? Moeraki Boulders, New Zealand ? Fiordland, New Zealand ? Nepal, Nepal ? Maldives, Maldives ? Kuala-Lumpur, Malaysia ? Grimsvotn, Iceland ? Amsterdam, Holland ? Neuschwanstein Castle, Germany ? Egyptian Pyramids, Egypt ? Hong Kong, China ? The Iguassu Falls, Brazil ? Twelve Apostles Marine National Park, Australia ? Sydney, Australia ? Buenos Aires, Argentina ? Egyptian Pyramids, Egypt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 21:07:32 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:07:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:09 PM, spike wrote: > One of the notions I have in mind is the increase and improvement in > virtual travel, such as that found in the links below. ?Stuff like this > didn?t even exist a decade ago, and now it is pretty good.? Extrapolate this > into the future, and imagine how good virtual travel could get.? Then, for > instance, instead of using up the fuel to travel to that place in Italy > where the guy in the pointy white hat lives (can?t recall the name; > Ratzinger?) you could bring it to your desktop, and see that place where > that guy painted all that stuff on the ceiling.? In some ways it might > actually be better than going there in person, because if you are there, you > can only stand on the floor and strain your neck. > > These are nice photographic panoramic views that you can move around in. But they are not 'live'. For 'live' you need webcams. As you know there are many webcam directories around. But did you know that google maps has a webcams layer? You can enable it by clicking on "More..." and selecting "Webcams". If you click on a thumbnail, Google will show "a snapshot of the camera that has been taken in the last 15 minutes". You'll need to click on the snapshot twice (first at Google Maps and then at webcams.travel) to get to the source and see the live webcam. Google links to the webcams on BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 21 23:14:11 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:14:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <001701cd5003$91df0ad0$b59d2070$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:09 PM, spike wrote: >>... One of the notions I have in mind is the increase and improvement in virtual travel... >...These are nice photographic panoramic views that you can move around in. But they are not 'live'. I see a market for both, as well as a third system, a travelling real-time camera that goes around on an self-driven car. These really nice panorama helicopter views are great for a nice sparkly clear summer day, perfect conditions, such as are seldom seen in the actual locations in realtime. >...For 'live' you need webcams. As you know there are many webcam directories around... Ja, roadcams for instance. I use them often: http://video.dot.ca.gov/ >...But did you know that google maps has a webcams layer? BillK Ja. Very cool. Way better than the future of the past. spike From max at maxmore.com Fri Jun 22 00:10:58 2012 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:10:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paper on costly errors in the scientific research and publication process Message-ID: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3029 -- Max More, PhD Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader* CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation 7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480/905-1906 ext 113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jun 22 06:30:59 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:30:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20120622063059.GP17120@leitl.org> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:07:32PM +0100, BillK wrote: > These are nice photographic panoramic views that you can move around in. > But they are not 'live'. > > For 'live' you need webcams. As you know there are many webcam > directories around. For 'live' you need a 2K or 4K cam attached to a mobile, rentable teleoperated platform. Like an airborne drone, for instance. Anything else is not really travel. > But did you know that google maps has a webcams layer? > > You can enable it by clicking on "More..." and selecting "Webcams". > If you click on a thumbnail, Google will show "a snapshot of the > camera that has been taken in the last 15 minutes". You'll need to > click on the snapshot twice (first at Google Maps and then at > webcams.travel) to get to the source and see the live webcam. > > Google links to the webcams on > From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 22 07:54:54 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:54:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: <20120622063059.GP17120@leitl.org> References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> <20120622063059.GP17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4FE424CE.6090405@aleph.se> On 22/06/2012 07:30, Eugen Leitl wrote: > For 'live' you need a 2K or 4K cam attached to a mobile, rentable > teleoperated platform. Like an airborne drone, for instance. Anything > else is not really travel. Something like Giraff, http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/6875667459/ perhaps. But while this might be useful for dropping by colleagues' offices, it still is pretty bad for trying a gelato in Rome or getting the awesome feeling of climbing down into Grand Canyon. Still, a lot of travel is just pointless. We are starting to discover how useful it is to use skype with video to cut down on moving people over city distances for short meetings. What we really need is for this practice to become normal or even high status, so the massive flows of meeting-goers stop. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 11:53:20 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:53:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: <4FE424CE.6090405@aleph.se> References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> <20120622063059.GP17120@leitl.org> <4FE424CE.6090405@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Something like Giraff, > http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/6875667459/ > perhaps. But while this might be useful for dropping by colleagues' offices, > it still is pretty bad for trying a gelato in Rome or getting the awesome > feeling of climbing down into Grand Canyon. > > Hey, that thing looks rather like Spike already! It's got the same svelte body style. In fact, has anybody seen one of these in the same room as Spike? No? - that proves it then. BillK From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 11:44:21 2012 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 04:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Paper on costly errors in the scientific research and publication process References: Message-ID: <1340365461.28578.YahooMailNeo@web164505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > >http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3029? > > Relevant excerpt: ------------------------------------------- While Simonsohn acknowledges that academics have long been concerned about the liberties that some researchers take when analyzing data, he highlights three unique contributions that his paper makes. First, he and his co-authors offer a simple, low-cost solution to the problem that does not interfere with the work of scientists already doing everything right -- asking them to disclose what they did in ways that would add only a few dozen words to most articles. Second, they demonstrate just how big the problem can get: While up to now, it was suspected that the consequences of taking these liberties were relatively minor, the authors show it can increase the odds of finding evidence for a false hypothesis to over 50%. And third, the authors did an actual experiment to illustrate their point about how data are manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.? --------------------------------------- ? ? Interesting?article, Max. It seems psychology research is suffering from problems similar to those of?medical research as described by this article first brought to our attention?by BillK a few weeks ago: ? http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/in-cancer-science-many-discoveries-don-t-hold-up ------------------- During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 "landmark" publications -- papers in top journals, from reputable labs -- for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development. Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature. "It was shocking," said Begley, now senior vice president of privately held biotechnology company TetraLogic, which develops cancer drugs. "These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development. But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value." -------------------- ? I am sure more than one scientific?career has gone down in flames trying to replicate a?false positive reported in a prestigious journal.?The life-sciences and social sciences?really need to?fix this problem or religious people will feel?justified in?disbelieving?science. Since religious people vote, that of course means less funding for science which makes it even more competitive and prone to fraud. It's like a nasty chain reaction that's turning the well into poison. ?? Stuart LaForge "Man is a strange animal, he doesn't like to read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it."? -Adlai Stevenson From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 22 13:58:04 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:58:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> <20120622063059.GP17120@leitl.org> <4FE424CE.6090405@aleph.se> Message-ID: <002101cd507f$0bcbd9b0$23638d10$@att.net> >...Hey, that thing looks rather like Spike already! It's got the same svelte body style...BillK Hey I resemble that! Wait, that's what you said. {8^D Actually that's me on the left, disguised as the black-eyed blondie with the blue water hose wrapped around. >> the awesome feeling of climbing down into Grand Canyon...Anders This is a terrific example, for the comment brought back fond memories from 11 years ago when my bride and I, along with another couple, hiked from the south rim to the north rim, with three nights on the trail. We became acquainted with two other couples doing the same thing down there and became friends, for it was a fairly unusual pair of groups: we were four engineers who went to school together, they were four doctors who went to school together. They were all around 30, we were all around 40. With the decade handicap, the oldster engineers were still able to hike their young socks off. Of course, they offered a perfectly logical explanation: we were spending our weekends hiking, they were spending theirs working at the hospital. The reason I wanted to hike the Grand Canyon was I wanted to examine the interface where the layers change. Look at this photo, and notice the transition a few hundred meters down from the rim of the canyon, especially visible toward the right of the photo where the color changes from tan to a reddish brown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GRANDVIEWREVB.jpg I had flown over the canyon a number of times on my way to and from Phoenix and had wondered what the heck that transition was. I wanted to see that up close. So I talked my bride and my friends into doing this three day hike, reasoning that the trail had to cross that transition somewhere, so I could look at it. A few hours into the hike, as we neared that transition, I marveled at how abrupt that layer changes, even as you get closer to it. It appeared just as sharp as when viewed from 10 km in a plane. Still closer, still appeared to be a sharp transition. Eventually I found a place on the trail where I could walk right up to that layer change. It is so sudden that you can find that transition and place your thumb on it. Half your thumb will be touching a tan material and half will be touching the reddish brown. The layer boundary is as sharp as if you drew it with a pencil. To this day, I find it completely astonishing that geological layers have a transition that abrupt. That is an example of something that cannot be experienced by virtual travel in any real sense. The feel of the air, the opportunity to meet the young doctors. spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 14:43:01 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:43:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: <002101cd507f$0bcbd9b0$23638d10$@att.net> References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> <20120622063059.GP17120@leitl.org> <4FE424CE.6090405@aleph.se> <002101cd507f$0bcbd9b0$23638d10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:58 PM, spike wrote: > That is an example of something that cannot be experienced by virtual travel > in any real sense. ?The feel of the air, the opportunity to meet the young > doctors. > > Google Street View has had a trike for several years that records paths and trails where cars can't go. Now they have just announced a backpack version for hiking trails. And there is a competitor for hiking trails: BillK From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 22 14:59:15 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:59:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gimps Message-ID: <002e01cd5087$98019520$c804bf60$@att.net> It's been a long time since I posted anything about GIMPS, the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search. We have had some interesting milestones recently. A couple days ago, GIMPS exceeded 100 teraFLOPS for almost 12 hours. Sustained throughput these days tends to be around 75-ish TFLOPS, which is interesting because when I started GIMPS in 1998, throughput then was around 75-ish GFLOPS on a good day. So we have gained a prefix in 14 years. I recall when we broke 100 MFLOPS for the first time, and we were popping virtual Champaign corks and making extrapolations and predictions. Now we have about 20 times as many computers working on the problem and each one is about 50 times more powerful in ops per second. It has been a little over three years since the 47th known prime was discovered, after the mind-boggling cluster which is still driving people nuts (fortunately only the kind of people who get driven nuts by this kind of thing.) I found in my archives a poll that was made back in 2005: What is the highest speed GIMPS will ever attain? A) Already reached its peak, <21 TFLOPS B) Most growth is over, 21-30 TFLOPS C) Still considerable growth ahead, 30-50 TFLOPS D) Great things still to come, 50-100 TFLOPS E) You haven't seen anything yet, >100 TFLOPS The poll results were A=0%, B=12%, C=10%, D=19% and E=59% So now the Great-things-ers are currently right, but the Haven't-seeners might justifiably interpret the recent results as vindicating their soaring optimism. I was one of the Haven't-seeners. While we go on about technological change slowing, note that my own memories are still fresh of the time when a typical computer could do only a fiftieth of what the typical computer does today. The computers blew our minds back then. Huh. You young people don't know how good life is today. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jun 22 14:41:12 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:41:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Neal Stephenson Message-ID: <00a601cd5085$121ac870$36505950$@cc> Is anyone friends with Stephenson who can introduce me? Thanks, Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jun 22 15:55:29 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:55:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] gimps In-Reply-To: <002e01cd5087$98019520$c804bf60$@att.net> References: <002e01cd5087$98019520$c804bf60$@att.net> Message-ID: <20120622155529.GG17120@leitl.org> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 07:59:15AM -0700, spike wrote: > While we go on about technological change slowing, note that my own memories > are still fresh of the time when a typical computer could do only a fiftieth > of what the typical computer does today. The computers blew our minds back > then. Huh. You young people don't know how good life is today. The rate of growth has been slowing down for a while, though. You're lucky in that yours is a specific numerical application that happens to profit unusually good from ALU speed. The clocks effectively stopped doubling in 2003, and it's been not so good in general http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm In order to continue scaling as long as Moore's going to hold (not for very much longer, the 2d litho limit is probably around 1-3 nm) we need different architectures, and people who can deal with asynchronous shared-nothing distributed (and even nondeterministic) applications. We'll probably run out of Moore well before the paradigm switches from multithreaded to the asynchronous nondeterminism. Sorry to be the perpetual party-pooper. On the positive side, we'll need to have architectural needs and 3d volume integration now must come by hook or by crook. From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 22 16:12:54 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:12:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] biology question please Message-ID: <003201cd5091$e162c900$a4285b00$@att.net> Perhaps I could find this answer somehow on Google, but I know we have some biology hipsters here, Anders and several others. I have been thinking along the lines of the every-cell-a-3Giga-yr-old-organism notion. I don't know, but I have a line of reasoning that leads to a startling conclusion. 1. Stem cells create new tissue at the site of an injury, such as a scar on the skin or at the interface between damages surfaces of broken bone. 2. The stem cells get to the damage site by some means. 3. It must be they are carried there by the blood. 4. So there must be stem cells in the blood stream always. So far so good? 5. Sperm regenerates constantly. Reasoning: I have been losing those things regularly for a lot of years, yet have never run out. 6. Like any other cell, sperm must come from stem cells. 7. I would assume one particular stem cell becomes one particular sperm cell. 8. The stem cells must get to the testes from the bloodstream. 9. Tissue from a donor, with unmatched DNA, can be incorporated into the body of a recipient, such as a transplanted kidney, for instance. 10. If a patient receives donor blood, that recipient is getting a bunch of donor stem cells as well. 11. If a patient needs blood and receives a unit, at least for a short time the number of stem cells in the bloodstream of the recipient may reach 10% or more from the donor. 12. Some fraction of these would make their way to the testes, and create sperm cells with the donor's DNA. If this line of reasoning holds, and I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't, or any step in the above line of reasoning that is incorrect, then donating blood introduces some chance of the donor having biological offspring, having never actually copulated. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 19:11:41 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:11:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] biology question please In-Reply-To: <003201cd5091$e162c900$a4285b00$@att.net> References: <003201cd5091$e162c900$a4285b00$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:12 AM, spike wrote: > 2.?????? The stem cells get to the damage site by some means. > > 3.?????? It must be they are carried there by the blood. Unless they are already present, but if they are always present near any part of the body, then they are also present near and probably in the blood too. > 4.?????? So there must be stem cells in the blood stream always.? So far so > good? Not necessarily. Stem cells could be released upon event, such as a signal that part of the body is damaged. (Unless they are always present anyway, per above.) > 6.?????? Like any other cell, sperm must come from stem cells. > > 7.?????? I would assume one particular stem cell becomes one particular > sperm cell. > > 8.?????? The stem cells must get to the testes from the bloodstream. I think, but I am not sure, that the testes has its own internal stem cell supply. They divide, and some of them become sperm while others divide (some of those becoming sperm, and so on). No bloodstream necessary... > 12.?? Some fraction of these would make their way to the testes, and create > sperm cells with the donor?s DNA. ...which breaks this. I know this is not the case for a woman's egg cells, all of which are present when the girl is born. From gsantostasi at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 19:20:44 2012 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:20:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] biology question please In-Reply-To: References: <003201cd5091$e162c900$a4285b00$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike, sperm is produced by germ cell that are (from wiki) Within the seminiferous tubules - Here, germ cells develop into spermatogonia , spermatocytes , spermatids and spermatozoon through the process of spermatogenesis. The gametes contain DNA for fertilization of an ovum[6] - Sertoli cells - the true epithelium of the seminiferous epithelium, critical for the support of germ cell development into spermatozoa. Sertoli cells secrete inhibin .[7] - Peritubular myoid cells surround the seminiferous tubules.[8] Giovanni On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:12 AM, spike wrote: > > 2. The stem cells get to the damage site by some means. > > > > 3. It must be they are carried there by the blood. > > Unless they are already present, but if they are always present > near any part of the body, then they are also present near and > probably in the blood too. > > > 4. So there must be stem cells in the blood stream always. So far > so > > good? > > Not necessarily. Stem cells could be released upon event, such as > a signal that part of the body is damaged. (Unless they are always > present anyway, per above.) > > > 6. Like any other cell, sperm must come from stem cells. > > > > 7. I would assume one particular stem cell becomes one particular > > sperm cell. > > > > 8. The stem cells must get to the testes from the bloodstream. > > I think, but I am not sure, that the testes has its own internal stem cell > supply. They divide, and some of them become sperm while others > divide (some of those becoming sperm, and so on). No bloodstream > necessary... > > > 12. Some fraction of these would make their way to the testes, and > create > > sperm cells with the donor?s DNA. > > ...which breaks this. > > I know this is not the case for a woman's egg cells, all of which are > present when the girl is born. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jun 22 19:03:27 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:03:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gimps In-Reply-To: <20120622155529.GG17120@leitl.org> References: <002e01cd5087$98019520$c804bf60$@att.net> <20120622155529.GG17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM, spike wrote: > So we have gained a prefix in 14 > years. Which about tracks with Moore's law (doubling every 1.5 years -> gain a prefix every 15). On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > The clocks effectively stopped doubling in 2003, and it's been not so > good in general http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm Yeah, yeah, transistor growth has gone into parallel processing more than clock speed increment. > In order to continue scaling as long as Moore's going to hold (not > for very much longer, the 2d litho limit is probably around 1-3 nm) > we need different architectures, and people who can deal with asynchronous > shared-nothing distributed (and even nondeterministic) applications. Already happening. For instance, games w/high end graphics farm out their rendering tasks to different cores where possible. Often, this is done via software libraries, so most of any given game's developers don't have to worry about it. And this happens on a computer which is often running other tasks (like a VOIP client to connect the gamers) at the same time. Or, for non-games, consider Web and database servers for large businesses. How many threads do they run in parallel on most days? As many as they can. (Ever seen a server try to deal with about 10,000 simultaneous user requests? I have, and we'd only expected a few hundred simultaneous peak users. The system held up, but we rearchitected for bigger peaks once the event was over. This wasn't even a large business; this was a 5-man startup.) And then, of course, there are scientific applications like Spike's. From max at maxmore.com Fri Jun 22 19:53:13 2012 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:53:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Daniel Dennett on AI and evolution Message-ID: Haven't time to read it yet, but Dennett's probably worth reading on this combination of topics: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/a-perfect-and-beautiful-machine-what-darwins-theory-of-evolution-reveals-about-artificial-intelligence/258829/ -- Max More, PhD 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 max at maxmore.com Fri Jun 22 20:24:45 2012 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:24:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: <002101cd507f$0bcbd9b0$23638d10$@att.net> References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> <20120622063059.GP17120@leitl.org> <4FE424CE.6090405@aleph.se> <002101cd507f$0bcbd9b0$23638d10$@att.net> Message-ID: Hey, Spike, Anders, other ExI pals -- come to the Alcor-40 conference and stay a few days extra. We'll take a trip to the Grand Canyon. I haven't been into it in well over 20 years. --Max On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:58 AM, spike wrote: > > > >> the awesome feeling of climbing down into Grand Canyon...Anders > > This is a terrific example, for the comment brought back fond memories from > 11 years ago when my bride and I, along with another couple, hiked from the > south rim to the north rim, with three nights on the trail. We became > acquainted with two other couples doing the same thing down there and > became > friends, for it was a fairly unusual pair of groups: we were four engineers > who went to school together, they were four doctors who went to school > together. They were all around 30, we were all around 40. With the decade > handicap, the oldster engineers were still able to hike their young socks > off. Of course, they offered a perfectly logical explanation: we were > spending our weekends hiking, they were spending theirs working at the > hospital. > > The reason I wanted to hike the Grand Canyon was I wanted to examine the > interface where the layers change. Look at this photo, and notice the > transition a few hundred meters down from the rim of the canyon, especially > visible toward the right of the photo where the color changes from tan to a > reddish brown: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GRANDVIEWREVB.jpg > > I had flown over the canyon a number of times on my way to and from Phoenix > and had wondered what the heck that transition was. I wanted to see that > up > close. So I talked my bride and my friends into doing this three day hike, > reasoning that the trail had to cross that transition somewhere, so I could > look at it. > > A few hours into the hike, as we neared that transition, I marveled at how > abrupt that layer changes, even as you get closer to it. It appeared just > as sharp as when viewed from 10 km in a plane. Still closer, still > appeared > to be a sharp transition. Eventually I found a place on the trail where I > could walk right up to that layer change. It is so sudden that you can > find > that transition and place your thumb on it. Half your thumb will be > touching a tan material and half will be touching the reddish brown. The > layer boundary is as sharp as if you drew it with a pencil. > > To this day, I find it completely astonishing that geological layers have a > transition that abrupt. > > That is an example of something that cannot be experienced by virtual > travel > in any real sense. The feel of the air, the opportunity to meet the young > doctors. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Max More, PhD 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 tech101 at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 12:59:13 2012 From: tech101 at gmail.com (Adam A. Ford) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:59:13 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Daniel Dennett on AI and evolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'A Perfect and Beautiful Machine': What Darwin's Theory of Evolution Reveals About Artificial IntelligenceI thought it was a pleasurable read. Dennett equates Alan Turing with Charles Darwin. "Turing, like Darwin, broke down the mystery of intelligence (or Intelligent Design) into what we might call atomic steps of dumb happenstance, which, when accumulated by the millions, added up to a sort of pseudo-intelligence. " "We still haven't arrived at "real" understanding in robots, but we are getting closer. That, at least, is the conviction of those of us inspired by Turing's insight. The trickle-down theorists are sure in their bones that no amount of further building will ever get us to the real thing. They think that a Cartesian *res cogitans*, a thinking thing, cannot be constructed out of Turing's building blocks. And creationists are similarly sure in their bones that no amount of Darwinian shuffling and copying and selecting could ever arrive at (real) living things. They are wrong, but one can appreciate the discomfort that motivates their conviction. Turing's strange inversion of reason, like Darwin's, goes against the grain of millennia of earlier thought. If the history of resistance to Darwinian thinking is a good measure, we can expect that long into the future, long after every triumph of human thought has been matched or surpassed by "mere machines," there will still be thinkers who insist that the human mind works in mysterious ways that no science can comprehend." P.s it is Alan Turing's 100th birthday today (23rd). Kind regards, Adam A. Ford Singularity Summit Australia Coordinator H+ Australia, H+ @ Melbourne Summit Coordinator Mob: +61 421 979 977 | Email: tech101 at gmail.com Singularity Summit Australia 18-19 Aug 2012 in Melbourne * * Singularity Summit Australia | Facebook| Twitter | Youtube "A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels." ("Atomic Education Urged by Albert Einstein", New York Times, 25 May 1946) Please consider the environment before printing this email On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Max More wrote: > Haven't time to read it yet, but Dennett's probably worth reading on this > combination of topics: > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/a-perfect-and-beautiful-machine-what-darwins-theory-of-evolution-reveals-about-artificial-intelligence/258829/ > > > > -- > Max More, PhD > 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 atymes at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 16:50:21 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:50:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Daniel Dennett on AI and evolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Adam A. Ford wrote: > "...The trickle-down theorists are sure in their bones that no > amount of further building will ever get us to the real thing. They think > that a Cartesian res cogitans, a thinking thing, cannot be constructed out > of Turing's building blocks. And creationists are similarly sure in their > bones that no amount of Darwinian shuffling and copying and selecting could > ever arrive at (real) living things. They are wrong, but one can appreciate > the discomfort that motivates their conviction." http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division (just because one creationism is wrong doesn't mean all theories of complexity are true) http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion (that people are uncomfortable neither proves nor disproves the topic at hand) http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity (in reverse: stating that just because something is difficult to grasp, it is true) Whether or not I think AI is possible, that many logical fallacies that close together spoils the read for me. From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 23 16:49:48 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:49:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] temporary open season on turing Message-ID: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> Happy Alan Turing day! Norvig on Turing: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/what-happened-to-turings-thinking-machines/806 39?tag=mantle_skin;content This being Alan Turing's 100th birthday, and he being a patron saint of transhumanism, a proto-extropian in every way, I propose a temporary open season on anything having to do with Alan Turing, to last all weekend or longer if necessary. If you post your favorite Turing link, it doesn't count against the usual voluntary posting guideline of 5 posts per day maximum. I have Turing on my list of the greatest or most consequential minds of the 20th century. Note that my use of consequential can be the consequences in one's own life, rather than in changing the course of history. If Turing isn't in the top spot, he shares the top five with Einstein, Feynman, Hofstadter and John Nash. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 00:59:25 2012 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:59:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: <002101cd507f$0bcbd9b0$23638d10$@att.net> References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> <20120622063059.GP17120@leitl.org> <4FE424CE.6090405@aleph.se> <002101cd507f$0bcbd9b0$23638d10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 7:58 AM, spike wrote: > That is an example of something that cannot be experienced by virtual travel > in any real sense. ?The feel of the air, the opportunity to meet the young > doctors. I don't see why you could not, in theory, meet fellow virtual travelers. I've often thought that any successful virtual vacation would require that you meet other travelers. As for tele-presence robots, I think they will be successful when they are the size of mosquitoes and fly. Imagine seeing your fellow tele-travelers rendered as avatars in your virtual space as you fly around the Sistine chapel together... :-) Perhaps avatars with angel wings... LOL... -Kelly From scerir at alice.it Sun Jun 24 06:30:09 2012 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:30:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] temporary open season on turing In-Reply-To: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> References: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> Message-ID: Post : Was Alan Turing's death an accident? URL : http://quantummoxie.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/was-alan-turings-death-an-accident/ Posted : June 23, 2012 at 7:19 pm Author : quantummoxie Categories : Uncategorized On the 100th anniversary of the birth of Alan Turing, a new analysis of the evidence surrounding his death by Prof. Jack Copeland, suggests that it may actually have been accidental and not a suicide by cyanide poisoning as the official inquest had ruled. Prof. Copeland points to Turing's penchant for experimentation that once resulted [...] From estropico at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 07:46:55 2012 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:46:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the link I sent doesn't work, try this: http://wh.gov/lqpW Cheers, Fabio From estropico at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 07:36:21 2012 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:36:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? Message-ID: If you think it's a good idea to fund life-extension research, please sign this petition on the White House website: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/include-funding-next-fiscal-budget-life-extension-researchit-idea-whose-time-has-come/w8KnYT69?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl It's an initiative of the Coalition to Extend Life (coalitiontoextendlife.org), the people behind another recent petition on the same subject that was very successful on sciencedebate.org: http://questions.sciencedebate.org/forums/149344-the-top-science-questions-facing-america-2012-edi/suggestions/2693427-should-the-united-states-fund-a-war-on-aging- The White House petition needs about 150 signatures to be put on the "front page" (about half way there right now) and 25000 to be submitted to Obama (non-US citizens can sign it too). Spread the word! :-) Cheers, Fabio (apologies should this have been mentioned here already) We petition the obama administration to: include funding in the next fiscal budget for "life extension research." It is an idea whose time has come!!! Slowly but surely,scientists,doctors and other researchers are beginning to understand why people age and die.Today,236 years after America's founders wisely chose,"life"as the first unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence we are beginning to see progress in understanding why we age and die after a short period of time. Seminal research is underway which may produce dramatic life extension in humans.Support for these and other life extension measures must become a fiscal priority in this great country. In fact,the political leaders in our country should make,"indefinite life extension"an issue that can bring us together as one nation pursuing the most profound undertaking in the history of the world,"INDEFINITE LIFE EXTENSION" Created: Jun 20, 2012 From Carsten.Zander at t-online.de Sun Jun 24 12:35:45 2012 From: Carsten.Zander at t-online.de (Carsten Zander) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:35:45 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Time for a political robot party? Message-ID: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> Is it time for a political robot party? In a few years robots will influence or determine all areas of our life. The economy and the way of life and work will be radically different from now. That's why this is a *political* issue. Robot topics are more imaginable and vivid as general technical topics. The benefit of using robots is understandable for the most people. !!! Vividness of robots = automatic attention = possible success of a party !!! Topics could be: - produce attention to robot topics - force other political parties to take up robot topics - show the benefit of using robots - give young people future perspectives - claim priorities for research and development - support robot contests - unconditional basic income for all - How to live without hard and monotonous work? (alternatives: creativity, role playing worlds etc.) - clear up misunderstandings: We do not have to be like Borgs. (Everyone can choose the way of life: traditional, natural, futuristic) Any further suggestions? -Carsten From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 24 13:05:22 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:05:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Time for a political robot party? In-Reply-To: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> References: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4FE71092.60408@aleph.se> On 24/06/2012 13:35, Carsten Zander wrote: > Is it time for a political robot party? > > In a few years robots will influence or determine all areas of our life. > The economy and the way of life and work will be radically different > from now. That's why this is a *political* issue. We still don't have an Internet party (except for the Pirate Party). Yet the Internet is influencing all areas of our life, it has big political impact and is pretty attention-grabbing. If it has taken 20 years for the Internet to produce just the Pirate Party, why do you think a robot party would be viable? It might be smarter to merge your ideas with theirs - the real strength of the PP is that they actually put technology issues high on their agenda. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 13:00:19 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:00:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF7B4D.9020602@moulton.com> Message-ID: On 19 June 2012 16:50, Kelly Anderson wrote: > Here's a libertarian idea for you... how about the government gets the > hell out of legislating anything with regards to human relationships > altogether? How about I'm against same sex marriage, opposite sex > marriage, marriage to toasters, marriages to animals, or any marriage > whatsoever. Wouldn't that be consistent with a libertarian approach? > One wonders in fact why "marriage" should be recognised ad generating legal effects in the first place. It is certainly not a matter of "freedom" when exactly the same goals can be achieved, with much fewer intrusive nanny-state regulations, through contracts, wills, joint-property regimes, trusts, etc. So, advocacy for gay marriage sounds to me pretty similar to the hypothetical one objecting to "discriminatory" rules preventing Geminis or vegerarians to sell themselves into slavery, and I am used to say that I am in favour only inasmuch as its advocates are also in favour of poligamic, poliandric, group-, interspecific, time-limited, incestuous, chaste and with-oneself marriages as well. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 13:15:26 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:15:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] humans as much bonobo as chimp In-Reply-To: References: <009901cd4b1a$3410edd0$9c32c970$@att.net> Message-ID: On 19 June 2012 23:36, John Grigg wrote: > It would make for an interesting science fiction novel, to show a world > where humans came exclusively from the Bonobo side. It could be a parallel > worlds novel, with our violence shocking them, and their sexual abandon > horrifying us... > In principle, gorillas went their way first, then the Homo clade, chimps and bonobos diversified at a later stage, so strictly speaking a bonobo may be more a chimp than a human, but a human cannot be more one than the other... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 13:53:18 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:53:18 +0200 Subject: [ExI] gimps In-Reply-To: <20120622155529.GG17120@leitl.org> References: <002e01cd5087$98019520$c804bf60$@att.net> <20120622155529.GG17120@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 22 June 2012 17:55, Eugen Leitl wrote: > The clocks effectively stopped doubling in 2003, and it's been not so > good in general http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm > Yup. And even though parallelism has kept us going sofar, one wonders. Additionally, one wonders about sociology. I am known to be especially fond of the folding at home distributed computing project (the team I established, TranshumanistFoldingTeam, no. 157440, floats around the 1200-1300th place out of 200.000+ theoretical groups). Now, the usually triumphant stats have increasing troubles in hiding that a) the number of people and machines involved are not increasing, rather the opposite b) much of the increase in GFLOPS are owed to GPU-based clients that are super-efficient in the performance of only rather specialised calculations. But, hey, Facebook traffic is fine and dandy. That's the "progress", honey. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From veronesepk at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 13:15:38 2012 From: veronesepk at gmail.com (Keith Veronese) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:15:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Time for a political robot party? In-Reply-To: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> References: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> Message-ID: <102E6134-F195-4A61-8489-9696D3F0D3C0@gmail.com> I'm not sure I see this happening in a few years. Maybe in a century - political clout takes a substantial amount of time to build. Keith Veronese On Jun 24, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Carsten Zander wrote: > Is it time for a political robot party? > > In a few years robots will influence or determine all areas of our life. > The economy and the way of life and work will be radically different from now. That's why this is a *political* issue. > > Robot topics are more imaginable and vivid as general technical topics. > The benefit of using robots is understandable for the most people. > > !!! Vividness of robots = automatic attention = possible success of a party !!! > > Topics could be: > - produce attention to robot topics > - force other political parties to take up robot topics > - show the benefit of using robots > - give young people future perspectives > - claim priorities for research and development > - support robot contests > - unconditional basic income for all > - How to live without hard and monotonous work? > (alternatives: creativity, role playing worlds etc.) > - clear up misunderstandings: > We do not have to be like Borgs. > (Everyone can choose the way of life: traditional, natural, futuristic) > > Any further suggestions? > > -Carsten > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 14:12:36 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:12:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: <4FDFA8A9.5010208@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 19 June 2012 00:39, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Why microtechnology should preclude the development of macrotechnology? > Maybe because macrotechnology is less marketable and it takes much more > time to develop. How would biotech be defined as "macrotechnology" when it deals with DNA, enzymes, proteins, gametes and microbes? Yet, much of the bio-revolution anticipated by the end-of-nineties sources I mention in my book about Biopolitics (much of the bibliography linked therein is in English) blatantly failed to materialise. Was it just hype? Or rather it suffered the consequences of lack of funds, lack of vision, adverse cultural and legal frameworks, declining educational systems, inability of societies dominated by next-week stock-exchange levels to embark in civilisational, long-term projects? When one is a biologist only because he is too stupid to become a broker or a merchant banker, not too much can be expected... > Corporatism is fascism incarnated as Mussolini aptly said. In fact, the Italian word corporazioni is best translated as "(vertical) unions" (the word for private corporations is "societ?"). In Italian, the language employed by Mussolini, corporatism therefore refers to the control, and eventually the ownership, of means of production by trade unions exercising public powers under the aegis of the State. This of course was just the theory, because fascism failed to a large extent to impose its power on capitalist circles. In contemporary western countries, I suspect that we find ourselves closer to the Marxist and reversed definition of the (capitalist) State and of its governement as the "board of directors of the bourgeosie". Only, such "bourgeoisie" has by now only the vaguest resemblence to a class of industrialists and entrepreneurs, the essential control of wealth having been taken over since by financial institutions that of course can parasitically thrive for a long time even in imploding economies where the material wealth created is not increasing, or is even declining. The only solution I can imagine that doesn't require widespread riots and > social revolution is redistributing and equalizing wealth. > What's wrong with social revolution? :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jun 24 14:15:23 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:15:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Neal Stephenson In-Reply-To: <00a601cd5085$121ac870$36505950$@cc> References: <00a601cd5085$121ac870$36505950$@cc> Message-ID: <002a01cd5213$cb970220$62c50660$@cc> Fyi: there has been many emails going back and forth off list on Stephenson and his project at ASU. When I read it I was shocked by a disparaging comment he made about nanotech and steel being better choice. He mocked those interested in emerging/speculative technologies, and especially the singularity. Anyway, I just read this: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Dear-Science-Fiction-Writers-St op-Being-So-Pessimistic.html Too bad the author didn't tell him to stop being so pessimistic! From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 9:41 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [ExI] Neal Stephenson Is anyone friends with Stephenson who can introduce me? Thanks, Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 14:18:17 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:18:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: <00ac01cd4da5$30eb6c10$92c24430$@att.net> References: <00ac01cd4da5$30eb6c10$92c24430$@att.net> Message-ID: On 19 June 2012 00:53, spike wrote: > In my mind, what is really great about capitalism is that it fosters > competition, and competition fosters excellence. It settles arguments: > lets have a race. Let?s see who is strongest, fastest, most agile. Debate > on which system is best? No problem, let?s see which one makes for the > best outcome, as measured in wealth. > In principle, I would be inclined to agree. Only, is this really the case in capitalist system? What about monopolies, barriers to entry, inertia, the kind of class protection against social competition and mobility that enraged the original Social Darwinists, the monetary mechanisms well described in things such as Money as Debt? Moreover, no reason why we should not consider competition amongst systems as well. Now, before its massive bureaucratisation in the aftermath of WWII, the growth of Soviet economy consistently outperformed in percentage that of the USA in spite of its being based on rather flawed, rigid and ideological postulates. What about intangible aspects related to group competition? -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Carsten.Zander at t-online.de Sun Jun 24 15:01:11 2012 From: Carsten.Zander at t-online.de (Carsten Zander) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:01:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Time for a political robot party? References: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> <4FE71092.60408@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4FE72BB7.2020204@t-online.de> Anders Sandberg wrote: > If it has taken 20 years for the Internet to produce just the Pirate > Party, why do you think a robot party would be viable? It might be > smarter to merge your ideas with theirs - the real strength of the PP > is that they actually put technology issues high on their agenda. Yes, this would be desirable. But for the moment, it's not my impression that the Pirate Party would do this. It could be subjective. How can we force the Pirate Party to take up robot issues? Answer: with the idea of a robot party. Perhaps just the idea has an effect. Let me bring an example: We have 100 Billion dollars for the flight to mars. :-) 1.) Conventional thinking: We start a huge mars program and we'll fly to mars in 20 years. 2.) New way of thinking: We start a robot development program. In 20 years we would have catapulted the world into the future. We would have solved the global problems of the world. And by the way we'll fly to mars. That's why a separate political robot party. Or just the idea. To change the way of tinking. Yes, it's just a crazy thought. It's a symbolic thought. Sorry. -Carsten From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 24 16:34:29 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:34:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] turing again Message-ID: <008d01cd5227$3a4c3f10$aee4bd30$@att.net> Good Alan Turing article: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/after-hours/2012/03/03/alan-turing-10-ideas-beyond-enigma-40095181/?tag=content;siu-container Alan Turing: 10 ideas beyond Enigma By S Barry Cooper, 3 March, 2012 12:00 ANALYSIS There is nothing remarkable about mathematicians' achievements going unrecognised in a wider world changed by their discoveries. The hidden history of Alan Turing is just a particularly bizarre example ? one we can expect to become much better known during the 2012 centenary of his birth. The mental checklist of things that make Turing remembered includes: * Being just 24 years old when he came up with the idea of the "stored program" computer, basically the blueprint for every computer in existence today; * His leading role at the secret decoding centre at Bletchley Park , helping shorten the Second World War by two years with his groundbreaking involvement in building and fully exploiting decoding machines ; * His seminal role in the actual designing and programming the early computers after the war, and his still important in?uence on how computer scientists see arti?cial intelligence; * The innovative and original work in bringing mathematics to bear on important problems in biology and medicine * And his disgraceful neglect, and prosecution for being gay, in 1950s Manchester. More? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jun 24 17:16:20 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:16:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Life Extension Funding - Gov Message-ID: <000c01cd522d$12f897a0$38e9c6e0$@cc> https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/include-funding-next-fiscal -budget-life-extension-researchit-idea-whose-time-has-come/w8KnYT69?utm_sour ce=wh.gov &utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl Natasha Vita-More PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK esDESiGN_6_med Chairman, Humanity+ Editor, The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and ContemporaryEssays on the Science, Technology and Philosophy of the Human Future "The things one feels absolutely certain about are never true. Oscar Wilde (But is this true then?) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 15604 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 17:30:45 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:30:45 +0200 Subject: [ExI] temporary open season on turing In-Reply-To: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> References: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> Message-ID: On 23 June 2012 18:49, spike wrote: > If Turing isn?t in the top spot, he shares the top five with Einstein, > Feynman, Hofstadter and John Nash. > Hey, what about Crick & Watson, von Braun, Heisenberg? In a way, they are more even more deserving to be considered as patron saints than the rest. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Sun Jun 24 18:41:27 2012 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:41:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit In-Reply-To: References: <00ac01cd4da5$30eb6c10$92c24430$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FE75F57.3030005@libero.it> Il 24/06/2012 16:18, Stefano Vaj ha scritto: > On 19 June 2012 00:53, spike > > wrote: > In my mind, what is really great about capitalism is that it fosters > competition, and competition fosters excellence. It settles > arguments: lets have a race. Let?s see who is strongest, fastest, > most agile. Debate on which system is best? No problem, let?s see > which one makes for the best outcome, as measured in wealth. > In principle, I would be inclined to agree. Only, is this really the > case in capitalist system? What about monopolies, barriers to entry, > inertia, the kind of class protection against social competition and > mobility that enraged the original Social Darwinists, the monetary > mechanisms well described in things such as Money as Debt? A capitalist system where there are what you write is no more a capitalist system, it is a socialist system (where profits and losses are socialized to the advantage of the ruling elite). Better would be to understand what are the causes of the shift from a system to another and the ways to prevent it. > Moreover, no reason why we should not consider competition amongst > systems as well. Now, before its massive bureaucratisation in the > aftermath of WWII, the growth of Soviet economy consistently > outperformed in percentage that of the USA in spite of its being based > on rather flawed, rigid and ideological postulates. What about > intangible aspects related to group competition? The reason the USSR in the 20's and '30s was able to outperform the US is simple enough: they used and abused the workforce of their inmates (as the people in the Gulags had a death rate of 1% per day). But, mainly, their increase of productivity was due to the electrification. The increase of productivity due to electrification was enough to offset the decrease of productivity due to lack of a full market system (they had to settle with a very limited market system to prevent total starvation of the population AKA NEP). They were a one-trick pony. When the electrification stopped to yield increase of productivity, they stopped to grow and started to decline. In the final decades they were dependent from oil exports to Western countries to support their system and when the US started to push them in a Arm Race and the Saudis crashed the Oil market, they went bust. Now, it would be interesting to understand because the elite there was unable to run the system in the right direction and prevent the collapse. If history and Austrian theory are correct, the reason is the same for all type of government elite and whatever system have a not market selected (in and out) elite will run in the same problems before than after. Mirco From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 24 19:30:02 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:30:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Time for a political robot party? In-Reply-To: <4FE72BB7.2020204@t-online.de> References: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> <4FE71092.60408@aleph.se> <4FE72BB7.2020204@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4FE76ABA.4020809@aleph.se> On 24/06/2012 16:01, Carsten Zander wrote: > > But for the moment, it's not my impression that the Pirate Party would > do this. It could be subjective. > How can we force the Pirate Party to take up robot issues? > Answer: with the idea of a robot party. Let me guess, you have not been involved in actual politics? The PP has some chances of having effect simply by forcing other parties to take up their questions in order to prevent them from losing voters to the PP. It worked fine for the green parties around Europe. In order for this strategy to work, the challenging party needs to be able to draw enough votes for the incumbent parties to become worried. But this assumes that there is enough people who care strongly about the issue, and that the parties recognize the threat. Inventing a new issue is a *tough* challenge. It took at least two decades for the environment to become a proper political issue, and that was driven by a cadre of highly motivated people spending their energy in promoting it. So if you want to do the same, expect the chance of influence in 20 years after you have made this your life career. Given the very open nature of the PP and that they actually do engage with futurism - I have seen the internal wiki - it seems much smarter for you to argue directly to the PP that they should bring up robots. They might not agree, but you could have a good discussion. > Yes, it's just a crazy thought. It's a symbolic thought. Sorry. Don't be sorry for crazy and symbolic ideas. Sometimes they change the world. But politics is not kind to this kind of thinking. It is a messy, professionalised business where idealists tend to be ground down not just by compromise but also by backbreaking work and an environment where most decisions are about committees and taxation rules. You should instead look for how to turn your vision into something alternative - a popular movement, funded lobbyists, a think tank, some new kind of on-line institution - and use that as leverage to spread the idea and influence people. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 24 19:50:13 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:50:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] temporary open season on turing In-Reply-To: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> References: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FE76F75.3080601@aleph.se> Turing likely transformed the 20th century far more deeply than most people understand. First, he created computer science by bridging mathematics, logic and automated calculation. Computer science has led to the world-view we are now living in where information is seen as fundamental rather than matter. His theorems meant that G?del's theorem crept into the world of practical engineering, a subtle and still not fully understood effect. Read anything by Chaitin to see how profound and unsettling this is. Second, he created the field of AI for real by his Mind paper, forcing philosophy and computation together. Sure, others coined the term and worked on it, but what he did there was to get philosophers interested in automating thought. That would prove profoundly influential: AI researchers picked up powerful tools from the philosophers, who were discovering deep problems thanks to the AI project. It also triggered some extremely key minds like von Neumann (computers, game theory etc.), Shannon (information theory, cryptography) and Herbert Simon (AI, economics, cognitive biases) - the AI project has influenced our intellectual environment in some very crucial domains. Third, his work on biological pattern formation prefigured computational biology by decades. The Turing mechanism explains a lot, and has been validated experimentally and theoretically. The fact that he could do it using the computers of the 50s was amazing. I think one can see Turing as similar to Aleister Crowley in terms of wide ranging influences: you can nearly always find odd strands of inspiration that lead back to him, even in apparently unrelated fields. Having a broad and incisive mind that starts new domains by fusing previous disciplines tend to do that. Here is me taking advice: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/2291440659/ -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 20:41:58 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:41:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Time for a political robot party? In-Reply-To: <4FE76ABA.4020809@aleph.se> References: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> <4FE71092.60408@aleph.se> <4FE72BB7.2020204@t-online.de> <4FE76ABA.4020809@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 24 June 2012 21:30, Anders Sandberg wrote: > The PP has some chances of having effect simply by forcing other parties > to take up their questions in order to prevent them from losing voters to > the PP. It worked fine for the green parties around Europe. > Exactly. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 21:20:28 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:20:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Time for a political robot party? In-Reply-To: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> References: <4FE709A1.4040109@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Carsten Zander wrote: > Is it time for a political robot party? On the one hand, one could argue that most of the major political party candidates in most large Western democracies (including republics such as the US) are largely already automata, following scripts others program them with. On the other hand, actual robots don't have voting rights in said governments (outside of hacked or rigged voting schemes). What about a transhumanist party, that would apply the philosophy beyond just one or a few fields of technology? Some stances would be obvious, such as abortion (mother's right to choose, period), same sex marriages (equal recognition, though perhaps replace the m-word with "civil union" in all laws, to distinguish the religious tradition from the legal one), and energy policy (focus on renewables, especially solar, and synthetic petroleum to the extent that we still need it). But what would be its stance on immigration (as commonly defined: movement of human beings and enrollment in the nation that claims the territory they enter)? Affirmative action? Foreign relations? How exactly would it propose to reform education or campaign finance (most people agree that reforms are needed, but the details are problematic)? And perhaps most importantly: how many people could it get on the ballot? At least in the US, third parties keep trying to go for the Presidential race but lose out largely because they don't have the support that comes from running in all the minor little state and Congressional races. Would it be able to buckle down and *not* run someone for President before it actually had a decent number of people in enough state legislatures and/or Congressional seats to matter? From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 22:39:19 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:39:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You know something that works one heck of a lot better than Internet petitions? Writing a short note to your Representative and Senators asking them to back life extension research. Postal mail only. Yes, a stamp isn't free, but it's cheap. Yes, it's a bit less convenient - and that's the point: if it's convenient, it convinces no one who matters. Better if you hand write the letter, but if your handwriting is terrible, printing it out and hand signing will suffice. (So long as it's not a letter you copied from someone else.) It only needs to be a paragraph or two. You know what burns up and wastes a lot of the passion that we could be using to actually get stuff done? Internet petitions. From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 24 23:59:43 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:59:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now + 10k Message-ID: <000001cd5265$6d44eaa0$47cebfe0$@att.net> An offlist discussion has me thinking about how attitudes are shaped by our vision of what this world will look like 10k years from now. I speculate that most readers of this list have a different vision of that world than normal people. So I challenge you to an experiment. Next time you talk to friends, family, neighbors, etc, normal sorts, have them describe what they see as the world ten millennia from now. What did you find? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 24 23:47:08 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:47:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FE7A6FC.30006@aleph.se> On 24/06/2012 23:39, Adrian Tymes wrote: > You know what burns up and wastes a lot of the passion > that we could be using to actually get stuff done? > > Internet petitions. Very true. Tonis Tonisson pointed out in his excellent handbook "Power as a hobby" that mass demonstrations don't impress people with power much. They are a demonstration that somebody has organisational skill, nothing more. What tends to get them impressed is when they get letters from people of importance who support or object to something. The book was written before the Internet, but the lesson is still true. A million supporters or petitioners online isn't even a fraction as impressive as a small march to Washington. The "organiser" is after all just software and word-of-mouth. However, while the impact of the letter from the titans of industry/academia/religion/whatever is big, one should not underestimate the impact of ordinary letters too. A friend worked at a newspaper internal to a big political party, and he remarked that if they got two independent letters to the editor about the same issue, they tended to take notice and maybe run a story about it. There are leverage effects in sending signals to the right places. For life extension I think getting the people who set the agenda for the NIH and NIA is a key project. If they can be made aware that a direct attack on ageing solves a lot of their problems and that a lot of important people care about the issue, then they might put some pressure on actual research on fixing ageing and not just stopgap measures. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jun 25 00:54:03 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:54:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001a01cd526d$0449a2e0$0cdce8a0$@cc> Did you build this thread based on my earlier post? -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:39 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? You know something that works one heck of a lot better than Internet petitions? Writing a short note to your Representative and Senators asking them to back life extension research. Postal mail only. Yes, a stamp isn't free, but it's cheap. Yes, it's a bit less convenient - and that's the point: if it's convenient, it convinces no one who matters. Better if you hand write the letter, but if your handwriting is terrible, printing it out and hand signing will suffice. (So long as it's not a letter you copied from someone else.) It only needs to be a paragraph or two. You know what burns up and wastes a lot of the passion that we could be using to actually get stuff done? Internet petitions. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jun 25 00:54:47 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:54:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001b01cd526d$1e5fcc40$5b1f64c0$@cc> Right! Thanks. I posted too. Sorry I did not see this. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of estropico Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:36 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? If you think it's a good idea to fund life-extension research, please sign this petition on the White House website: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/include-funding-next-fiscal -budget-life-extension-researchit-idea-whose-time-has-come/w8KnYT69?utm_sour ce=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl It's an initiative of the Coalition to Extend Life (coalitiontoextendlife.org), the people behind another recent petition on the same subject that was very successful on sciencedebate.org: http://questions.sciencedebate.org/forums/149344-the-top-science-questions-f acing-america-2012-edi/suggestions/2693427-should-the-united-states-fund-a-w ar-on-aging- The White House petition needs about 150 signatures to be put on the "front page" (about half way there right now) and 25000 to be submitted to Obama (non-US citizens can sign it too). Spread the word! :-) Cheers, Fabio (apologies should this have been mentioned here already) We petition the obama administration to: include funding in the next fiscal budget for "life extension research." It is an idea whose time has come!!! Slowly but surely,scientists,doctors and other researchers are beginning to understand why people age and die.Today,236 years after America's founders wisely chose,"life"as the first unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence we are beginning to see progress in understanding why we age and die after a short period of time. Seminal research is underway which may produce dramatic life extension in humans.Support for these and other life extension measures must become a fiscal priority in this great country. In fact,the political leaders in our country should make,"indefinite life extension"an issue that can bring us together as one nation pursuing the most profound undertaking in the history of the world,"INDEFINITE LIFE EXTENSION" Created: Jun 20, 2012 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 01:31:06 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:31:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? In-Reply-To: <001a01cd526d$0449a2e0$0cdce8a0$@cc> References: <001a01cd526d$0449a2e0$0cdce8a0$@cc> Message-ID: I know not to which post you refer, so no. But I would not be surprised if you have said much the same thing at one point, perhaps better than I put it. On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Did you build this thread based on my earlier post? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:39 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? > > You know something that works one heck of a lot better than Internet > petitions? > > Writing a short note to your Representative and Senators asking them to back > life extension research. > > Postal mail only. ?Yes, a stamp isn't free, but it's cheap. > Yes, it's a bit less convenient - and that's the point: if it's convenient, > it convinces no one who matters. > > Better if you hand write the letter, but if your handwriting is terrible, > printing it out and hand signing will suffice. ?(So long as it's not a > letter you copied from someone else.) It only needs to be a paragraph or > two. > > > > You know what burns up and wastes a lot of the passion that we could be > using to actually get stuff done? > > Internet petitions. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 01:34:21 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:34:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now + 10k In-Reply-To: <000001cd5265$6d44eaa0$47cebfe0$@att.net> References: <000001cd5265$6d44eaa0$47cebfe0$@att.net> Message-ID: No coherent vision. No vision at all, for the most part: they and everything they know will be long since past, so they don't care. It's too soon for geologic changes, and solidly beyond their ability to predict how society and technology might evolve, in any case. On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM, spike wrote: > An offlist discussion has me thinking about how attitudes are shaped by our > vision of what this world will look like 10k years from now.? I speculate > that most readers of this list have a different vision of that world than > normal people.? So I challenge you to an experiment.? Next time you talk to > friends, family, neighbors, etc, normal sorts, have them describe what they > see as the world ten millennia from now.? What did you find? > > > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 02:41:30 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:41:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] now + 10k In-Reply-To: <000001cd5265$6d44eaa0$47cebfe0$@att.net> References: <000001cd5265$6d44eaa0$47cebfe0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM, spike wrote: > An offlist discussion has me thinking about how attitudes are shaped by our > vision of what this world will look like 10k years from now.? I speculate > that most readers of this list have a different vision of that world than > normal people.? So I challenge you to an experiment.? Next time you talk to > friends, family, neighbors, etc, normal sorts, have them describe what they > see as the world ten millennia from now.? What did you find? Would you get much agreement from even this list on now+0.1k ? Many of the optimists have a singularity scheduled before then. The realists would likely remind us accelerating change puts us at increasing disadvantage to make useful prediction... Given how far off 1960 was at predicting 2010, how likely are we to predict another 50 years much less 100, 1000, or 10k? From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 25 04:32:18 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:32:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now + 10k In-Reply-To: References: <000001cd5265$6d44eaa0$47cebfe0$@att.net> Message-ID: <003201cd528b$818ff740$84afe5c0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Subject: Re: [ExI] now + 10k On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM, spike wrote: >>... An offlist discussion has me thinking about how attitudes are shaped > by our vision of what this world will look like 10k years from now... spike >...Would you get much agreement from even this list on now+0.1k ? Many of the optimists have a singularity scheduled before then. The realists would likely remind us accelerating change puts us at increasing disadvantage to make useful prediction... Given how far off 1960 was at predicting 2010, how likely are we to predict another 50 years much less 100, 1000, or 10k?... Mike _______________________________________________ Good point Mike, and this is why I specified 10k years. We are in a period of rapid change due to technology, but most everyone will agree that by 10k years from now, whatever is going to happen will have happened: all out nuclear war back into the stone age, or gray goo, or biowar, or uploading and MBrain, or something like a Star Trek future in which mankind settles into some kind of long term sustainable equilibrium with our natural resources, or something. The 10k future is in some ways easier to predict than the 100 year future. spike From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 14:36:25 2012 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:36:25 -0300 Subject: [ExI] RES: temporary open season on turing In-Reply-To: References: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> Message-ID: <016001cd52df$e7faa440$b7efecc0$@gmail.com> Hey, what about Crick & Watson, von Braun, Heisenberg? In a way, they are more even more deserving to be considered as patron saints than the rest. :-) By Von Braun you mean that nazi guy that used extensive slave labour to build V2 bombs? Just wanting to be clear. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 15:36:50 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:36:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] now + 10k In-Reply-To: <003201cd528b$818ff740$84afe5c0$@att.net> References: <000001cd5265$6d44eaa0$47cebfe0$@att.net> <003201cd528b$818ff740$84afe5c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 25 June 2012 06:32, spike wrote: > Good point Mike, and this is why I specified 10k years. We are in a period > of rapid change due to technology, but most everyone will agree that by 10k > years from now, whatever is going to happen will have happened: all out > nuclear war back into the stone age, or gray goo, or biowar, or uploading > and MBrain, or something like a Star Trek future in which mankind settles > into some kind of long term sustainable equilibrium with our natural > resources, or something. The 10k future is in some ways easier to predict > than the 100 year future. > I suspect that technically a period of 10 kiloyears is in any event beyond a singularity, meaning a point where our predictive tools collapse owing to the iterative effects of changes having taken place in the meantime. That is, unless one believes that a short-term Brave New Worldish evolution can achieve enough stability to prevent any futher change for millennia, or that extinction is incumbent. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 25 16:25:35 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:25:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] RES: temporary open season on turing In-Reply-To: <016001cd52df$e7faa440$b7efecc0$@gmail.com> References: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> <016001cd52df$e7faa440$b7efecc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006d01cd52ef$269765d0$73c63170$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Henrique Moraes Machado Subject: [ExI] RES: temporary open season on turing >>...Hey, what about Crick & Watson, von Braun, Heisenberg? In a way, they are more even more deserving to be considered as patron saints than the rest. :-) >...By Von Braun you mean that nazi guy that used extensive slave labour to build V2 bombs? Just wanting to be clear. Henrique _______________________________________________ I wouldn't have Von Braun on the same list with the others. He was a good engineer, and recognized that if you turbo-pressurize liquid oxygen and mix it with pretty much any liquid fuel, you can make a great rocket, and that the concept scales up enough to haul humans into orbit and beyond. The concept of staging predated him (as did liquid rockets for that matter) and the structural dynamics for the rocket biggies were done largely by educated guess (damn good guesses I will grant.) Regarding those slave laborers, those were my own distant cousins, so of course that may influence my thinking. Heisenberg, now there is an interesting case. Consider the question "Did Heisenberg intentionally go down the heavy water path in order to prevent the Nazis from getting the A-bomb in time?" Armchair historians are still swatting that one around, but I suspect he might have realized Nazi Germany didn't have the undamaged manufacturing base to refine sufficient amounts of plutonium, and that der Fuhrer was too stupid and crazy to understand that. (Evidence available on request.) So my own theory is that Heisenberg did everything he could to increase the odds of survival of Heisenberg, which led to the heavy water path. I couldn't blame him for doing that. You and I might well do the same in his position. Agree he was one of the 20th century's most brilliant minds. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 16:38:24 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:38:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] RES: temporary open season on turing In-Reply-To: <016001cd52df$e7faa440$b7efecc0$@gmail.com> References: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> <016001cd52df$e7faa440$b7efecc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 25 June 2012 16:36, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: > By Von Braun you mean that nazi guy that used extensive slave labour to > build V2 bombs? Just wanting to be clear. > No, the One That Saved Good God-Fearing US Citizens From Soviet Domination of the World and Perhaps the Universe by Putting Them First On the Moon. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 16:47:58 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:47:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] RES: temporary open season on turing In-Reply-To: <006d01cd52ef$269765d0$73c63170$@att.net> References: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> <016001cd52df$e7faa440$b7efecc0$@gmail.com> <006d01cd52ef$269765d0$73c63170$@att.net> Message-ID: On 25 June 2012 18:25, spike wrote: > I wouldn't have Von Braun on the same list with the others. He was a good > engineer, and recognized that if you turbo-pressurize liquid oxygen and mix > it with pretty much any liquid fuel, you can make a great rocket, and that > the concept scales up enough to haul humans into orbit and beyond. In scientific terms, you are right. But space has never been about theoretical breakthroughs (sofar, at least), and yet it would appear quite central to futurist and transhumanist spirit, mythology and ambitions... Heisenberg, now there is an interesting case. > The historical importance of Heisenberg on the contrary has really little to do with engineering and planning problems, let lone those pertaining to nuclear power or weapons, but upon the fact that much more of contemporary technology, starting with IT itself, and worldview has to do with his work and field than with that of, say, Einstein. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 25 16:54:59 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:54:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] intrade betting on the constitutionality of aca Message-ID: <008501cd52f3$421b2c20$c6518460$@att.net> Here in the states our congress passed a law a couple years ago which requires proles to buy health insurance, and a corresponding requirement for insurance companies to sell it to any prole. Arguments about the constitutionality of that law have been swirling ever since, with lower courts handing down a split decision, so Thursday the Supreme Court will announce if the law is legal or not. This post isn't about the Affordable Care Act, but rather the betting that is ongoing regarding the legality of the law on InTrade, which is one of the real-money offspring of Robin Hansen's Ideas Futures, which many of us played in the old days. Here's how the betting is going so far: https://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/timeAndSalesForm.jsp?contractId=745353 &tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com What I find interesting is that there are nine justices and I don't know how many clerks who know and have known since April how this decision went. So these could theoretically bet and be assured of a win, pocketing arbitrarily much cash. In the stock and derivative world, this would be insider trading, but those laws are not necessarily applicable to InTrade. Hansen's Ideas Futures was intentionally set up to not only allow insider trading, but in a sense to encourage it: the notion was to offer a meme, buy shares in it and then try to make it so. I made piles of play money by predicting when the next record prime number would be discovered for instance, because I did have some special insight on that question: I created a mathematical model of the growth of GIMPS and superimposed the cumulative probability per candidate and the number of candidates cleared per day. It worked thrice in a row. So now I am rich in imaginary money. I could fund a lavish imaginary retired life with all that imaginary money. But InTrade uses actual currency, and we have in the above link an example of where insider trading could be done apparently legally. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 18:04:03 2012 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:04:03 -0300 Subject: [ExI] RES: RES: temporary open season on turing In-Reply-To: References: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> <016001cd52df$e7faa440$b7efecc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01b601cd52fc$e98fbd00$bcaf3700$@gmail.com> On 25 June 2012 16:36, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: By Von Braun you mean that nazi guy that used extensive slave labour to build V2 bombs? Just wanting to be clear. Stefano Vaj> No, the One That Saved Good God-Fearing US Citizens From Soviet Domination of the World and Perhaps the Universe by Putting Them First On the Moon. :-) Well, the bloody commies did put a satellite and a man (and don't forget the dog) in orbit first, using their own version of slave labour and all without Von Braun. The obvious conclusion is that Von Braun is not the great hero of 'space conquest', but slave labour is. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 18:20:10 2012 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:20:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now + 10k In-Reply-To: <000001cd5265$6d44eaa0$47cebfe0$@att.net> References: <000001cd5265$6d44eaa0$47cebfe0$@att.net> Message-ID: In 10k years we will have joined the Mysterions, wherever they are, and left it for the next iteration of emerging intelligence, in their version of the Fermi question, to wonder why they are seemingly alone in the universe. I expect that within the next 20-30 years, because it's not hard to do, and barring comprehensive government surveillance by advanced machine intelligence to prevent it, some emotionally-distressed yet capable autodidact will release a diy bio-weapon which will kill most human life not situated in remote isolation. Soviet bio-weapons makers made just such a "weapon", apparently as an experiment, confirmed its easy creation and ghastly effectiveness, and then did something with it (who can say what?) -- put it in storage or destroyed it. Have a nice day, or not, YMMV. Best, Jeff Davis On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM, spike wrote: > An offlist discussion has me thinking about how attitudes are shaped by our > vision of what this world will look like 10k years from now.? I speculate > that most readers of this list have a different vision of that world than > normal people.? So I challenge you to an experiment.? Next time you talk to > friends, family, neighbors, etc, normal sorts, have them describe what they > see as the world ten millennia from now.? What did you find? > > > > 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 Mon Jun 25 21:47:02 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:47:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bio-weapons, was: RE: now + 10k Message-ID: <00f601cd531c$0e595e60$2b0c1b20$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Jeff Davis ... Soviet bio-weapons makers made just such a "weapon", apparently as an experiment, confirmed its easy creation and ghastly effectiveness, and then did something with it (who can say what?) -- put it in storage or destroyed it... Best, Jeff Davis I am astonished pleasantly that bio-weapons haven't been used. Compared to refining a critical mass, this seems like a much easier process, within the reach of most terrorist organizations. If all you want to do is slay the infidel, this seems like the way to go. spike From anders at aleph.se Tue Jun 26 00:11:13 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 01:11:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] RES: temporary open season on turing In-Reply-To: <006d01cd52ef$269765d0$73c63170$@att.net> References: <005501cd5160$33ea0f20$9bbe2d60$@att.net> <016001cd52df$e7faa440$b7efecc0$@gmail.com> <006d01cd52ef$269765d0$73c63170$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FE8FE21.1070407@aleph.se> While von Braun might have helped the US get to the Moon, we should not forget the Great Engineer, aka Sergei Korolev on the other side. Actually, when considering space races as a good thing, we should probably revere him even more for his fairly clear vision of 1) he wanted to colonize space (in part continuing the Russian Cosmism ideology that many of us knowingly or not adhere to), 2) he figured out how to sell this idea to the people with power (using small steps - "Wouldn't it be useful to have better rocket launchers?" "Wouldn't it be useful to have better missiles?" "Wouldn't it be better to have satellites?"), and 3) he was actually good at realizing it. He started his project earlier than anybody else, and had he been in a slightly more sane society he would have gone much farther. But while we can revere Korolev, von Braun, Crick & Watson and Heisenberg, I don't think any of them really had the same profound broad intellectual impact as Turing. The rocket guys changed the world for good and ill, but they did not really change the way we think. Crick & Watson found a very important structure, but the genetic revolution was done by many others (Gamow, Nirenberg, Khorana, Holley, Berg and so on). Heisenberg was part of the quantum revolution but not the originator or final word. While his uncertainty relation is the part of quantum mechanics most people know about, it is not really the center of it. If I wanted to list a scientist who shows up as broadly as Turing, I would suggest von Neumann instead. Algebra, logic, set theory, nuclear weapons, self replication, quantum information, game theory, ENIAC, merge sort, cellular automata, statistical mechanics... he shows up *everywhere*. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From estropico at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 06:52:27 2012 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:52:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? Message-ID: > From: Adrian Tymes > > You know something that works one heck of a lot better than > Internet petitions? > Writing a short note to your Representative and Senators > asking them to back life extension research. Absolutely, but I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. > You know what burns up and wastes a lot of the passion > that we could be using to actually get stuff done? > > Internet petitions. Well, it took me two minutes to sign it. Not sure I would consider that a significant investment in terms of passion or energy. In the meantime the petition has overcome the first hurdle, the 150 signatures needed for it to appear on the "front page" of the petitions section of the White House website. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it did reach the 25000 signatures needed to be submitted to Obama, but still it's a very easy way to bring (some) attention to the life-extension cause. Cheers, Fabio Cheers, Fabio From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 07:18:50 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:18:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:52 PM, estropico wrote: > Well, it took me two minutes to sign it. Not sure I would consider > that a significant investment in terms of passion or energy. It means you have Done Something, so you might no longer think you should also write a letter. For the vast majority of people, this is a problem. Perhaps not you or I, but the issue here is getting a bunch of people to do the right thing, so one must acknowledge and design around the habits of the majority. From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 07:39:32 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:39:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > It means you have Done Something, so you might no longer think > you should also write a letter. > > For the vast majority of people, this is a problem. ?Perhaps not > you or I, but the issue here is getting a bunch of people to do the > right thing, so one must acknowledge and design around the habits > of the majority. > You have a generational clash here. Old politicians notice receiving a hand-written letter. Anybody under 20 has probably never written a letter in their life. They hardly ever use email either. It takes too much time to structure an email properly. Texting, IM, Facebook provide the instant gratification they require. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 08:35:52 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:35:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Landing Rover on Mars Message-ID: Following from recent discussions about the problems of landing asteroids safely on earth, the new Curiosity Rover has a unique system for landing safely on Mars. Their problem was that Curiosity is the size of a small car, so airbags wouldn't be feasible. Read here: Exciting video (5 minutes) here: BillK From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 10:19:31 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:19:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Paper on costly errors in the scientific research and publication process In-Reply-To: <1340365461.28578.YahooMailNeo@web164505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1340365461.28578.YahooMailNeo@web164505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I am sure more than one scientific?career has gone down in flames trying to replicate a >?false positive reported in a prestigious journal.?The life-sciences and social sciences?really > need to?fix this problem or religious people will feel?justified in?disbelieving?science. > Since religious people vote, that of course means less funding for science which makes it > even more competitive and prone to fraud. It's like a nasty chain reaction that's turning the > well into poison. > > Ben Goldacre reviews the situation. Problems with statistics in psychology and neuroscience research 26 June 2012 Here is a news story about a psychology researcher who has been caught out manipulating his data. There is one very interesting aspect to this case: the researcher regarded the dodgy manipulations he used as completely standard practice. ----------------------- BillK From pizerdavid at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 15:44:01 2012 From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] (no subject) Message-ID: <1340725441.69099.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> http://mikynail.altervista.org/gallery/zp-core/plugins/tiny_mce/plugins/ajaxfilemanager/inc/bnwex.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 16:23:56 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:23:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Should the US fund life-extension research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:39 AM, BillK wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Adrian Tymes ?wrote: >> It means you have Done Something, so you might no longer think >> you should also write a letter. >> >> For the vast majority of people, this is a problem. ?Perhaps not >> you or I, but the issue here is getting a bunch of people to do the >> right thing, so one must acknowledge and design around the habits >> of the majority. > > You have a generational clash here. > > Old politicians notice receiving a hand-written letter. > > Anybody under 20 has probably never written a letter in their life. > They hardly ever use email either. It takes too much time to structure > an email properly. > Texting, IM, Facebook provide the instant gratification they require. It is not as extreme as you think. The majority of Americans between 17 and 20 have written at least one actual postal letter. Granted, they may have printed it and signed it rather than hand written it, but it did go on paper and it did go through the traditional postal system. How do I know? College applications. Yes, some colleges allow all-electronic applications these days, but many are still bound to paper-only processes, and practically all of those require a letter, composed by the applicant, as part of the admissions process - in part to judge their writing skills. It is no coincidence that the most widely used college admissions test in the US - the SAT - focuses on English and math to the exclusion of all other subjects. Further, most (at a rough guess, I'd estimate somewhere around 90%) of those under 20 are under 18, and thus unable to vote anyway. Politicians pay more attention to correspondence from those who could actually vote against them (in the election that determines if they retain their office, anyway, as opposed to mock elections). From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 16:45:23 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:45:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <1340725441.69099.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1340725441.69099.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, david pizer wrote: > WARNING!!! This post links to a webpage that attempts to install the Trojan.HTML.Redirector on your Windows computer. This message may not have come from David, or his pc may be infected with a virus. BillK From spike66 at att.net Tue Jun 26 17:04:38 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:04:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Landing Rover on Mars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004e01cd53bd$c59f7ae0$50de70a0$@att.net> >...] On Behalf Of BillK Subject: [ExI] Landing Rover on Mars >...Following from recent discussions about the problems of landing asteroids safely on earth, the new Curiosity Rover has a unique system for landing safely on Mars. Their problem was that Curiosity is the size of a small car, so airbags wouldn't be feasible. Read here: Exciting video (5 minutes) here: >...BillK _______________________________________________ This lander is the controls engineers' playground, but oh boy is it scary. There is no practical way to really test it in a 1G field: you need to run your computer simulations and do every calculation carefully and repeatedly, check it over and over, and when you are finished go straight to the closest church or synagogue, get down on your knees and pray to evolution that it works. spike From timhalterman at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 17:55:58 2012 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:55:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bio-weapons, was: RE: now + 10k In-Reply-To: <00f601cd531c$0e595e60$2b0c1b20$@att.net> References: <00f601cd531c$0e595e60$2b0c1b20$@att.net> Message-ID: > I am astonished pleasantly that bio-weapons haven't been used. ?Compared to > refining a critical mass, this seems like a much easier process, within the > reach of most terrorist organizations. ?If all you want to do is slay the > infidel, this seems like the way to go. > > spike A well designed bio-weapon should be indistinguishable from natural mutations, I'd imagine the first ones would be based off nature's own design anyway. I'm not confident enough to say they have not been used. Tim From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jun 26 18:30:53 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:30:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] VIRUS ALERT (Re: (no subject)) In-Reply-To: References: <1340725441.69099.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120626143053.zprsv972o8w0cgg4@webmail.natasha.cc> David, please check your computer for viruses. If this is a false alarm, I apologize. But it is better to be safe. Quoting BillK : > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, david pizer wrote: >> > > WARNING!!! > > This post links to a webpage that attempts to install the > Trojan.HTML.Redirector on your Windows computer. > > This message may not have come from David, or his pc may be infected > with a virus. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 18:32:05 2012 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:32:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bio-weapons, was: RE: now + 10k In-Reply-To: References: <00f601cd531c$0e595e60$2b0c1b20$@att.net> Message-ID: On Jun 26, 2012 2:26 PM, "Tim Halterman" wrote: > > > I am astonished pleasantly that bio-weapons haven't been used. Compared to > > refining a critical mass, this seems like a much easier process, within the > > reach of most terrorist organizations. If all you want to do is slay the > > infidel, this seems like the way to go. > > > > spike > > A well designed bio-weapon should be indistinguishable from natural > mutations, I'd imagine the first ones would be based off nature's own > design anyway. I'm not confident enough to say they have not been > used. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat I agree, scarily. The best way to make a bioweapon as of now would be to cram a bunch of sick animals of multiple species into a dirty cage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 19:21:40 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:21:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] VIRUS ALERT (Re: (no subject)) In-Reply-To: <20120626143053.zprsv972o8w0cgg4@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <1340725441.69099.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20120626143053.zprsv972o8w0cgg4@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:30 PM, natasha wrote: > David, please check your computer for viruses. If this is a false alarm, I > apologize. But it is better to be safe. > > The previous message that David sent to the list came from Phoenix, Arizona. The virus message came from Israel. So either it is a faked email address or David is visiting Israel and has used an infected computer. BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 19:30:12 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:30:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Landing Rover on Mars In-Reply-To: <004e01cd53bd$c59f7ae0$50de70a0$@att.net> References: <004e01cd53bd$c59f7ae0$50de70a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:04 PM, spike wrote: > This lander is the controls engineers' playground, but oh boy is it scary. > There is no practical way to really test it in a 1G field: you need to run > your computer simulations and do every calculation carefully and repeatedly, > check it over and over, and when you are finished go straight to the closest > church or synagogue, get down on your knees and pray to evolution that it > works. Is there a moon version that'd be literally a bit closer to home? Or is that too costly a test for too little payback? While watching this I was thinking about what kind of approach aliens might use to put a lander on Earth. Suppose various asteroids were information gathering preamble to a larger lander. Possibly the Tunguska event was an early mishap (or success if the 1m rock at the bottom of Lake Cheko is the payload) But what might a extra-terrestrial lander look like to us if it were launched FROM us given a similar level of commitment to getting a lander safely onto Mars? From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 19:32:55 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:32:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bio-weapons, was: RE: now + 10k In-Reply-To: References: <00f601cd531c$0e595e60$2b0c1b20$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > I agree, scarily.? The best way to make a bioweapon as of now would be to > cram a bunch of sick animals of multiple species into a dirty cage. that's the _best_ way? I wonder how well-funded bioterrorists need to be in order to be 'successful' From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 20:04:52 2012 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:04:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bio-weapons, was: RE: now + 10k In-Reply-To: References: <00f601cd531c$0e595e60$2b0c1b20$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Will Steinberg > wrote: > > I agree, scarily. The best way to make a bioweapon as of now would be to > > cram a bunch of sick animals of multiple species into a dirty cage. > > that's the _best_ way? I wonder how well-funded bioterrorists need to > be in order to be 'successful' I just got back from presenting at the DIYbio/FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction workshop. You might be interested in the transcripts from the event: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/fbi-diybio-2012/ Anyway, personally my opinion is that the death rate is too high for viruses already, and whether or not bioterrorists add to it is of no additional concern to me (e.g., it's already too high and should be stopped). - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jun 26 21:06:41 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:06:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again Message-ID: <004601cd53df$95d10b90$c17322b0$@att.net> Hey check this, watch these hummingbirds hassle each other. Those who watch hummingbirds much realize they may be cute but they are mean sons a bitches. This video has some excellent beeage too, along with butterflies and such buggery. When you see that flock of monarchs, it really makes you wonder how we could gather a few million of these things and eat them: http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/xHkq1edcbk4?rel=0 Is that astonishing photography or what? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Jun 27 00:28:11 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 01:28:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Paper on costly errors in the scientific research and publication process In-Reply-To: References: <1340365461.28578.YahooMailNeo@web164505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4FEA539B.5040602@aleph.se> On 26/06/2012 11:19, BillK wrote: > There is one very interesting aspect to this case: the researcher > regarded the dodgy manipulations he used as completely standard > practice. One of my colleagues rips this view to shreds http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/06/honesty-and-science/ He argues that the problem is that scientists are not clear on the nature of their duty. But this might be because we do not recognize dishonesty as a major problem in general: it is just extra obvious that it is unethical in the case of science. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 27 00:53:02 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:53:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paper on costly errors in the scientific research and publication process In-Reply-To: <4FEA539B.5040602@aleph.se> References: <1340365461.28578.YahooMailNeo@web164505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4FEA539B.5040602@aleph.se> Message-ID: <009101cd53ff$35d5c3a0$a1814ae0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Paper on costly errors in the scientific research and publication process On 26/06/2012 11:19, BillK wrote: >>... There is one very interesting aspect to this case: the researcher regarded the dodgy manipulations he used as completely standard practice. >...One of my colleagues rips this view to shreds http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/06/honesty-and-science/ >...He argues that the problem is that scientists are not clear on the nature of their duty. But this might be because we do not recognize dishonesty as a major problem in general: it is just extra obvious that it is unethical in the case of science. -- Anders Sandberg, _______________________________________________ This problem is perhaps even bigger in the field of engineering. There, one is often pressure to design a test in such a way that will favor or disfavor a particular design approach. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 04:04:32 2012 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:04:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] machine learning: cats Message-ID: Google scientists find evidence of machine learning http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57460267-76/google-scientists-find-evidence-of-machine-learning/ "A neural network created by connecting 16,000 computer processors appears to support biologists' theories on how the human brain identifies objects. Hint: It's all about the cats." I sincerely hope the result of this training is not to make a more accurate google search for "lolcats" From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 27 05:02:40 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:02:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] FW: pvs on oregon ranch In-Reply-To: <00f001cd5421$68524b10$38f6e130$@att.net> References: <00f001cd5421$68524b10$38f6e130$@att.net> Message-ID: <00f901cd5422$1470a400$3d51ec00$@att.net> A few months ago, I mentioned a friend who has a ranch in Oregon, contemplating installing PVs. He did it. He has 11 of these so far, and some 1-axis trackers. His ground-based PV is the first installation in that area. Pretty soon we will get some data on cost and output in his area (eastern Oregon, north and west of Ontario) so perhaps we can get an idea of how this would scale, end some of the speculation. spike Description: cid:F78E81CC7C024E2EBCAB03C356E636F4 at HP01 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 31741 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jun 27 06:32:47 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:32:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] FW: pvs on oregon ranch In-Reply-To: <00f901cd5422$1470a400$3d51ec00$@att.net> References: <00f001cd5421$68524b10$38f6e130$@att.net> <00f901cd5422$1470a400$3d51ec00$@att.net> Message-ID: <20120627063247.GK7109@leitl.org> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:02:40PM -0700, spike wrote: > > > > > > > A few months ago, I mentioned a friend who has a ranch in Oregon, > contemplating installing PVs. He did it. He has 11 of these so far, and This is a small installation, by local standards. Most farmers have far more on their barn roofs. > some 1-axis trackers. His ground-based PV is the first installation in that I think movable parts in PV is a mistake. > area. Pretty soon we will get some data on cost and output in his area > (eastern Oregon, north and west of Ontario) so perhaps we can get an idea of > how this would scale, end some of the speculation. From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 28 15:55:18 2012 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:55:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robot beats human at rock paper scissors Message-ID: <001401cd5546$6b4b48a0$41e1d9e0$@att.net> {8^D Haaaaaahahahahahahahaaaahahahaaaa. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/06/robot-beats-humans-at-r ock-pap.html spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 17:09:09 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:09:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] robot beats human at rock paper scissors In-Reply-To: <001401cd5546$6b4b48a0$41e1d9e0$@att.net> References: <001401cd5546$6b4b48a0$41e1d9e0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2012/6/28 spike wrote: > {8^D?? Haaaaaahahahahahahahaaaahahahaaaa? > > http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/06/robot-beats-humans-at-rock-pap.html > So how much faster would a human have to be to win every time? >From Wikipedia, the average human reaction time is around 0.2 to 0.25 seconds, which is too slow for it not to be noticed that you were reacting to your opponent. Reading about the fast draw competitors, the reaction times of the best fast draw shooters is 0.145 seconds and they regularly draw and fire in less than half a second. Watching the video of the world champion, you can't even see what he does! He seems to just stand there, then a puff of smoke appears beside the holstered gun. BillK From anders at aleph.se Thu Jun 28 21:27:40 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:27:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] robot beats human at rock paper scissors In-Reply-To: <001401cd5546$6b4b48a0$41e1d9e0$@att.net> References: <001401cd5546$6b4b48a0$41e1d9e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4FECCC4C.5000208@aleph.se> It is pretty hilarious. It is also a nice example of how a system that is strongly superhuman in one domain can win against a human by playing a different game than the human thinks it is playing, moving the game into its own playing field. As long as systems do not have the insights leading to doing this we are fine, but when we get even a somewhat workable AI cheating engine we are in trouble... -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Jun 28 22:57:33 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:57:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robot beats human at rock paper scissors In-Reply-To: <4FECCC4C.5000208@aleph.se> References: <001401cd5546$6b4b48a0$41e1d9e0$@att.net> <4FECCC4C.5000208@aleph.se> Message-ID: <20120628185733.vvoh3srag48g4g0g@webmail.natasha.cc> Quoting Anders Sandberg : > It is pretty hilarious. > > It is also a nice example of how a system that is strongly superhuman > in one domain can win against a human by playing a different game than > the human thinks it is playing, moving the game into its own playing > field. As long as systems do not have the insights leading to doing > this we are fine, but when we get even a somewhat workable AI cheating > engine we are in trouble... Yes :-) funny. And?yes - nice example (it?might be fun to observe games that attempt to trick the trickster). And, lastly,?yes - we are in trouble. Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Fri Jun 29 03:56:45 2012 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:56:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Alcor-40 Conference registration now open Message-ID: There are still a couple of speakers to add, but you can now find information online about the October conference -- Alcor's first conference in five years, and one that marks our 40th year: http://www.alcor.org/conferences/2012/index.html I hope to see many old friends there. --Max -- Max More, PhD 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 Jun 29 10:14:11 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:14:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] virtual travel improving all the time In-Reply-To: References: <009601cd4fe9$b813ebe0$283bc3a0$@att.net> <20120622063059.GP17120@leitl.org> <4FE424CE.6090405@aleph.se> <002101cd507f$0bcbd9b0$23638d10$@att.net> Message-ID: <20120629101411.GX7109@leitl.org> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 06:59:25PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote: > As for tele-presence robots, I think they will be successful when they > are the size of mosquitoes and fly. Imagine seeing your fellow Quadcopters would do fine. The key is sufficient density of rentable telepresence platforms in the area to reduce subjective travel time to nearly zero. > tele-travelers rendered as avatars in your virtual space as you fly > around the Sistine chapel together... :-) Perhaps avatars with angel > wings... LOL... From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 11:00:01 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:00:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Cambridge Existential Risks Message-ID: Is this Cambridge taking a hint from Anders? Or is it academic competition? I see they have Nick Bostrom as one of their advisers. The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk June 29, 2012 Concerned that developments in human technology may soon pose new, extinction-level risks to our species as a whole, Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, Cambridge University philosopher Huw Price, and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn have formed The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk. ---------- BillK From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 29 11:26:04 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:26:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Cambridge Existential Risks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FED90CC.4020400@aleph.se> On 29/06/2012 12:00, BillK wrote: > Is this Cambridge taking a hint from Anders? > Or is it academic competition? > I see they have Nick Bostrom as one of their advisers. They are some very welcome competitors/colleagues to us in FHI. I have high hopes they will help stimulate this kind of research, especially since now we have two independent groups looking at the questions from different angles. We must avoid groupthink to get really good solutions. Of course, the typical smug Oxfordian answer would be that the people of "the other place" are just copycats. But in this case we know the people involved and that they are good - I am looking forward for getting more excuses of making trips to the fens. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jun 29 13:15:40 2012 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:15:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Cambridge Existential Risks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002401cd55f9$47f15b70$d7d41250$@cc> Existential risk is okay, but when talking about humanity it seems that existence risk is the best phrasing. The term existential risk was not coined by our friend Nick, bty. Right? -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 6:00 AM To: Extropy Chat Subject: [ExI] Cambridge Existential Risks Is this Cambridge taking a hint from Anders? Or is it academic competition? I see they have Nick Bostrom as one of their advisers. The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk June 29, 2012 Concerned that developments in human technology may soon pose new, extinction-level risks to our species as a whole, Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, Cambridge University philosopher Huw Price, and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn have formed The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk. ---------- BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 15:08:46 2012 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:08:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Cambridge Existential Risks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 June 2012 13:00, BillK wrote: > Is this Cambridge taking a hint from Anders? > Or is it academic competition? > I see they have Nick Bostrom as one of their advisers. > > > The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk June 29, 2012 > > Concerned that developments in human technology may soon pose new, > extinction-level risks to our species as a whole, Astronomer Royal > Martin Rees, Cambridge University philosopher Huw Price, and Skype > co-founder Jaan Tallinn have formed The Cambridge Project for > Existential Risk. > Rees has forever had a fascination for doom stories (even though not necessarily in any millenial, neoLuddite sense, several of his scenarios are not even remotely anthropic). See Our Final Hour. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 30 10:10:33 2012 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:10:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18638807? The B612 foundation is looking to find donors who get them a few hundred million bucks to launch a deep space mission to look for NEOs. Tom From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jun 30 10:31:53 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:31:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120630103153.GP12615@leitl.org> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:10:33AM +0100, Tom Nowell wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18638807? > > > The B612 foundation is looking to find donors who get them a few hundred million bucks to launch a deep space mission to look for NEOs. Thanks Tom -- can you please post full text in future as well as the hyperlinks? From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 10:44:28 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:44:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: <20120630103153.GP12615@leitl.org> References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20120630103153.GP12615@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Thanks Tom -- can you please post full text in future as well > as the hyperlinks? > Breaks BBC copyright rules. Links are allowed, but not reposting articles. Besides, going to the linked article lets you read all the comments as well. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jun 30 10:55:54 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:55:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20120630103153.GP12615@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20120630105554.GR12615@leitl.org> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:44:28AM +0100, BillK wrote: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Thanks Tom -- can you please post full text in future as well > > as the hyperlinks? > > > > Breaks BBC copyright rules. Rules are there to be broken. > Links are allowed, but not reposting articles. And the result is: 404 - Page Not Found This might be because you typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling ensuring that it does not contain capital letters or spaces. It is possible that the page you were looking for may have been moved, updated or deleted. Please click the back button to try another link. Or Visit the BBC News Home Page. Visit the BBC Sport Home Page. Explore our full list of sites and services. > Besides, going to the linked article lets you read all the comments as well. Or nothing at all, because the link has expired. From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 11:09:23 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:09:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: <20120630105554.GR12615@leitl.org> References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20120630103153.GP12615@leitl.org> <20120630105554.GR12615@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > And the result is: > > 404 - Page Not Found > The link works fine for me. Maybe it is because you are not in the UK. The BBC site changes what it shows to strange foreign people. Try going to the home page and doing a search. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jun 30 11:14:22 2012 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:14:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20120630103153.GP12615@leitl.org> <20120630105554.GR12615@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20120630111422.GV12615@leitl.org> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:09:23PM +0100, BillK wrote: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > And the result is: > > > > 404 - Page Not Found > > > > The link works fine for me. > > Maybe it is because you are not in the UK. > The BBC site changes what it shows to strange foreign people. > > Try going to the home page and doing a search. See, all this would be completely unnecessary when the first poster would have just taken a couple of seconds, and pasted the full text of the article into the email. This is the reason why we do full-text on http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2012-June/thread.html From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 11:38:05 2012 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:38:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: <20120630111422.GV12615@leitl.org> References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20120630103153.GP12615@leitl.org> <20120630105554.GR12615@leitl.org> <20120630111422.GV12615@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > See, all this would be completely unnecessary when the first > poster would have just taken a couple of seconds, and pasted > the full text of the article into the email. > > You might be OK (in some countries) with copying complete articles for NON-COMMERCIAL use. But it is a grey area. Copying some paragraphs is considered 'fair use' and is always OK. In fact it is good practice to always quote enough of the article that people get enough information to know whether they want to click on the link to read the full article. BillK From anders at aleph.se Sat Jun 30 13:06:24 2012 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:06:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4FEEF9D0.7000201@aleph.se> Leaving quibbling over posting etiquette and the barminess of the BBC aside, the best thing is usually to link as close to the source of a story as possible. This also reduces the Chinese whisper effects of much mass media. http://b612foundation.org/ http://b612foundation.org/media/faqs/ -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 18:13:39 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:13:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: <4FEEF9D0.7000201@aleph.se> References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4FEEF9D0.7000201@aleph.se> Message-ID: So we have this and then we have Planetary Resources - which have no formal connection. One is asking for money to go do this. The other has a credible plan to make money by doing this. I don't think there is any question which one of them is far (far) more likely to succeed if given the resources, and as a direct consequence, which one is more likely to get the necessary resources. (Aside from the backers each has already gained - but that is a consequence of which one is more likely to succeed.) On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Leaving quibbling over posting etiquette and the barminess of the BBC aside, > the best thing is usually to link as close to the source of a story as > possible. This also reduces the Chinese whisper effects of much mass media. > > http://b612foundation.org/ > http://b612foundation.org/media/faqs/ From dan_ust at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 21:19:23 2012 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4FEEF9D0.7000201@aleph.se> Message-ID: <1341091163.24237.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> If launch costs come down enough, this might not be as big a hurdle to jump over. That's my mantra and I'm sticking to it. :) Regards, Dan ________________________________ From: Adrian Tymes To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding So we have this and then we have Planetary Resources - which have no formal connection. One is asking for money to go do this.? The other has a credible plan to make money by doing this. I don't think there is any question which one of them is far (far) more likely to succeed if given the resources, and as a direct consequence, which one is more likely to get the necessary resources.? (Aside from the backers each has already gained - but that is a consequence of which one is more likely to succeed.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 21:37:22 2012 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:37:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding In-Reply-To: <1341091163.24237.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1341051033.35544.YahooMailNeo@web132104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4FEEF9D0.7000201@aleph.se> <1341091163.24237.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: How are launch costs going to come down? Only one of these is likely to be able to do anything about that. On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Dan wrote: > If launch costs come down enough, this might not be as big a hurdle to jump > over. That's my mantra and I'm sticking to it. :) > > Regards, > > Dan > ________________________________ > From: Adrian Tymes > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 2:13 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroid search mission looking for funding > > So we have this and then we have Planetary Resources - which > have no formal connection. > > One is asking for money to go do this.? The other has a credible > plan to make money by doing this. > > I don't think there is any question which one of them is far (far) > more likely to succeed if given the resources, and as a direct > consequence, which one is more likely to get the necessary > resources.? (Aside from the backers each has already gained - > but that is a consequence of which one is more likely to > succeed.) > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >