From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 1 03:51:13 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:51:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] atrophy or hypertrophy Message-ID: <001b01d0fbfc$6bd75970$43860c50$@att.net> When a threat looms up before us, we get a shot of adrenaline, as the old familiar fight or flight mechanisms do what they do so well. It gives us a little boost in strength and speed, suppresses the pain receptors and such as that. Adrenaline does more than that however. It plays a role in immune system reactions to infection for instance. So if the adrenal system doesn't work right, it is more serious than your becoming a boring snoozy apathetic person. We have adrenal glands above our kidneys, but there are other cortisols and hormones and things produced by the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland which enable to adrenals to do what they do. (Dr. Rafal, do I have that approximately right, in terms even a controls engineer can grasp?) If so, imagine the following scenario. Suppose a guy retires from a rewarding career, so he has no 9 to 5 and no compelling reason to seek another one. He has hobbies and works out and does things, writes code and stuff so the guy isn't bored. He has no schedule and just does whatever the mood suggests. He isn't sniffing around at the local fauna, so no risk of his bride catching him at anything untoward, no risk of an IRS audit (because he isn't earning any money) no risk of really anything: he lives in a safe area with no visible gangs or scruffy looking dudes any of that sort of thing, he sold his last racing motorcycle several years ago and now rides only touring bikes in a sedate manner, he has a home life in which a harsh word is seldom uttered, he has a life filled with inner peace and serenity, completely by accident: it really just happened that way. The fight or flight mechanism is seldom triggered because there is no one to fight and no reason to flee. Question: what happens to that guy's adrenal system? Does it hypertrophy? Since the system evolved to deal with risk, in the absence of threats does it fish around for dangers that aren't even there, triggering at every little spider or imaginary shadow of threat? Or does the whole system atrophy, like a muscle which is seldom called upon to do anything, becoming withered, weak and ineffective from disuse? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 13:20:56 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:20:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] re Odyssey, hero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Flexman, Connor wrote: ?Here is all I am saying and it is inarguable: I can judge the ILiad, Odyssey, the Bible, or absolutely anything any way I want to. I do not disregard others' view or put them down. They have the same right I do to judge. We are talking about the actions of human beings, though fictional. Why should I not be able to approve or disapprove of the actions of my species? No doubt that if the Odyssey were real and happened last week, there would be many who approve of everything about it. I am not one of those. Our species is, or at least can be, barbaric, and I hate that. Dan's justification of the actions of Odysseus do not float with me. To me he is a thug. Period. Now if any of you are saying that there is one and only one correct interpretation of fiction, the Bible, Obama, or reality in any sense, then we have a whole new discussion. So, Anders et al, to me there are no shoulds involved in perception of fiction or reality. Perhaps the only 'should' is that we should leave ourselves open to others' views. I certainly have changed mine a zillion times in trying to adapt to the world?. I appreciate that my views may not be those of the ancient Greeks, and they are certainly not in line with many people of today. You got a problem with that? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 14:54:16 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:54:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] re Odyssey, hero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1 October 2015 at 14:20, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > So, Anders et al, to me there are no shoulds involved in perception of > fiction or reality. Perhaps the only 'should' is that we should leave > ourselves open to others' views. I certainly have changed mine a zillion > times in trying to adapt to the world. I appreciate that my views may not > be those of the ancient Greeks, and they are certainly not in line with many > people of today. > > Ethical Singularity BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 15:27:44 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:27:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] re Odyssey, hero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:54 AM, BillK wrote: > On 1 October 2015 at 14:20, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > So, Anders et al, to me there are no shoulds involved in perception of > > fiction or reality. Perhaps the only 'should' is that we should leave > > ourselves open to others' views. I certainly have changed mine a zillion > > times in trying to adapt to the world. I appreciate that my views may > not > > be those of the ancient Greeks, and they are certainly not in line with > many > > people of today. > > > > > > Ethical Singularity > > > > BillK > ?Thanks - that's a keeper bill w? > _______________________________________________ > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 19:30:27 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:30:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] book alert In-Reply-To: <7FA52FDD-890A-4C90-97C7-1B9C0C369033@gmu.edu> References: <5606BD21.2060002@aleph.se> <7FA52FDD-890A-4C90-97C7-1B9C0C369033@gmu.edu> Message-ID: Shanahan, M., The Technological Singularity, MIT Press (2015). https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/technological-singularity (Probably a bit too popular for many on this list, but Murray is a smart fellow and has written well about many of our favorite topics.) Does this mean that it may be on a low technical level? Maybe just right for a nontech like me? Of course I have no way of judging. Thanks! bill w On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Robin D Hanson wrote: > On Sep 26, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > By the way, other books to look out for: > > Robin Hanson, The Age of Em, Oxford University Press (2016) > http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198754626.do > (The economics and sociology of an upload world, by this list's very own > Robin Hanson) > > > Thanks for the mention Anders. A bit more info is at: http://ageofem.com > I very much look forward to hearing what you all think. Alas I?ll have to > wait til March. > > Robin Hanson http://hanson.gmu.edu > Res. Assoc., Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford Univ. > Assoc. Professor, George Mason University > Chief Scientist, Consensus Point > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 06:40:55 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:40:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Objective standards? In-Reply-To: References: <6E1B5434-6A24-40CC-9598-BC295C2874C7@gmail.com> <005101d0fab2$ba585c20$2f091460$@att.net> <9B423AB8-7B91-4580-B1AC-9346D9A79E7D@gmail.com> <010901d0fadf$eb71a910$c254fb30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > In terms of music, Beethoven has certainly done much much better than > Hummel, though during their lives both were thought of as equals, at least > early on. Hummel is not without influence, and you can certainly find > recordings of his work. But he's at a much lower rank in popularity. Why?) > ### Hummel's music tends to be rather boring, easily slides off my mind into nonbeing. Beethoven is so distinctive, there are so many moving parts that fit perfectly, and have never been used before. The race between the pedestrian and the genius may take a long time but the result tends to be definitive. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 07:02:06 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 03:02:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James, you may want to peruse the analysis of this (chromosome X=IQ) hypothesis I posted earlier. The hypothesis is not true at all. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:50 PM, James Mukasa wrote: > Very true... > On Sep 14, 2015 8:20 PM, "PJ Manney" wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 4:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace < >> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Who has more social mobility than pretty/beautiful women? So it makes >>> sense that the men that get them are more wealthy, powerful, hence more >>> intelligent. >>> >>> And so their children tend, at least. towards being better looking and >>> more intelligent. >>> >> >> When it comes to intelligence, it's the mother's genes that count in >> boys. They've only got one X chromosome which expresses intelligence. >> That's why you sometimes see the sons of the wealthy and powerful are as >> dumb as a sack of hammers, if dear old dad only married for beauty. >> >> PJ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 07:05:43 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 03:05:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Based on what I have seen on this planet, beauty and brains are > totally unrelated. Beautiful idiot, smart genius, smart idiot, > beautiful genius, there is plenty of all that. By the way, I have the > impression that all propositions (besides the trivial ones) that > contain "men" or "women" are very wrong. ### This is incorrect. There is a respectable, if not very high, positive correlation between beauty and IQ = 0.381. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 07:06:52 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 00:06:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Objective standards? In-Reply-To: References: <6E1B5434-6A24-40CC-9598-BC295C2874C7@gmail.com> <005101d0fab2$ba585c20$2f091460$@att.net> <9B423AB8-7B91-4580-B1AC-9346D9A79E7D@gmail.com> <010901d0fadf$eb71a910$c254fb30$@att.net> Message-ID: <27D3BA1D-C9F4-4A57-8110-D251017A7A32@gmail.com> On Oct 1, 2558 BE, at 11:40 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> In terms of music, Beethoven has certainly done much much better than Hummel, though during their lives both were thought of as equals, at least early on. Hummel is not without influence, and you can certainly find recordings of his work. But he's at a much lower rank in popularity. Why?) > > ### Hummel's music tends to be rather boring, easily slides off my mind into nonbeing. Beethoven is so distinctive, there are so many moving parts that fit perfectly, and have never been used before. I feel the same way, though, to be sure, I've only heard a tiny bit of Hummel. > The race between the pedestrian and the genius may take a long time but the result tends to be definitive. I don't know enough about Hummel to say that he's pedestrian, and it's kind of harsh comparing him to Beethoven. One can still be at a very high level in musical composition and originality and be outshone by Beethoven, IMO. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 08:41:27 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:41:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] atrophy or hypertrophy In-Reply-To: <001b01d0fbfc$6bd75970$43860c50$@att.net> References: <001b01d0fbfc$6bd75970$43860c50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:51 PM, spike wrote: > When a threat looms up before us, we get a shot of adrenaline, as the old > familiar fight or flight mechanisms do what they do so well. It gives us a > little boost in strength and speed, suppresses the pain receptors and such > as that. > > > > Adrenaline does more than that however. It plays a role in immune system > reactions to infection for instance. So if the adrenal system doesn?t work > right, it is more serious than your becoming a boring snoozy apathetic > person. > > > > We have adrenal glands above our kidneys, but there are other cortisols > and hormones and things produced by the hypothalamus and the pituitary > gland which enable to adrenals to do what they do. (Dr. Rafal, do I have > that approximately right, in terms even a controls engineer can grasp?) > > > > If so, imagine the following scenario. Suppose a guy retires from a > rewarding career, so he has no 9 to 5 and no compelling reason to seek > another one. He has hobbies and works out and does things, writes code and > stuff so the guy isn?t bored. He has no schedule and just does whatever > the mood suggests. He isn?t sniffing around at the local fauna, so no risk > of his bride catching him at anything untoward, no risk of an IRS audit > (because he isn?t earning any money) no risk of really anything: he lives > in a safe area with no visible gangs or scruffy looking dudes any of that > sort of thing, he sold his last racing motorcycle several years ago and now > rides only touring bikes in a sedate manner, he has a home life in which a > harsh word is seldom uttered, he has a life filled with inner peace and > serenity, completely by accident: it really just happened that way. The > fight or flight mechanism is seldom triggered because there is no one to > fight and no reason to flee. > > > > Question: what happens to that guy?s adrenal system? Does it > hypertrophy? Since the system evolved to deal with risk, in the absence of > threats does it fish around for dangers that aren?t even there, triggering > at every little spider or imaginary shadow of threat? Or does the whole > system atrophy, like a muscle which is seldom called upon to do anything, > becoming withered, weak and ineffective from disuse? > ### As far as I can tell, there is very little if any research directly assessing changes in adrenal mass as a function of stress levels in humans, since small changes in adrenal mass are rather hard to measure. A more commonly used measure of response to stress is the level of corticoid hormones. It is known that corticoid hormone levels are higher in persons under sustained psychosocial stress, such as being the caregiver of a demented person, compared to matched non-stressed individuals. Higher corticoid levels are usually an indicator of higher activity in the HPA axis (hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal). An increase in stress is detected by the hypothalamus, which then releases CRH, which triggers release of ACTH by the pituitary, which finally stimulates production of corticoids in the adrenals. Under most circumstances, the mass of the adrenal cortex, which produces corticoids, tends to increase when the adrenals are more stimulated, for example in patients with Cushing's disease. We might then expect that there would be some increase in adrenal mass in response to stress, and that, conversely, there should be a mild reduction in adrenal mass when stress levels are reduced. There are exceptions to this rule but they are unlikely to be relevant to the question you posed. So, I would expect a mild loss of adrenal mass in response to the completely laid-back lifestyle. You are however unlikely to experience severe adrenal atrophy, since even under perfectly non-stressful circumstances there is a basal HPA activity level that keeps your adrenals going. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Oct 2 08:48:09 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:48:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] book alert In-Reply-To: References: <5606BD21.2060002@aleph.se> <7FA52FDD-890A-4C90-97C7-1B9C0C369033@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <560E44C9.4020606@aleph.se> On 2015-10-01 21:30, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Shanahan, M., The Technological Singularity, MIT Press (2015). > https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/technological-singularity (Probably a > bit too popular for many on this list, but Murray is a smart fellow > and has written well about many of our favorite topics.) > > Does this mean that it may be on a low technical level? Maybe just > right for a nontech like me? Of course I have no way of judging. It is good nontechnical writing. I enjoyed it when I was checking the brain emulation parts. Murray has written books before. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Oct 2 09:24:56 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:24:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] re Odyssey, hero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> While one certainly *can* judge anything in any way, there are some judgements that make more sense than others. Critiquing the Illiad for not taking climate change seriously is kind of pointless. Arguing whether Odysseus should be regarded as a hero is far more apt; I can imagine ancient Greeks discussing it too at a symposium. Analysing past views via current views is OK. It is possible to say that ancient Greek treatment of women was unequal and indeed unjust according to universal timeless principles we have discovered. But we have to (more or less explicitely) say "given these ethical positions, Odysseus was..." and we can analyse how these views have shifted. But *starting* with the view that current ethics is the one correct ethics and then making judgements about a work that clearly is a great example of how some values have shifted enormously seems to be a problematic approach. Because it undermines itself: the whole approach is predicated on us being right *now*, and using the very same approach in the past (using values we now regard as wrong) it would have produced bad judgements - so using it has to assume we know we are perfecly right now, despite millennia of people being wrong yet convinced about the very same thing. The problem is when the naive projection of our values gets in the way of learning anything from the text, or enjoying it. By current standards Melville's Moby Dick is a paean to environmental destruction, colonialism and racism. Yet it would be stupid to throw it away as a deeply immoral book. We can gleefully point out assumptions Melville did not notice that date the work, but it is unreasonable to hold him morally responsible outside his world. That is just as silly as criticising the Illiad's climate change policy. There are interesting cases like HP. Lovecraft where one can argue that racism was actually integral to his stories. I am not convinced this renders them unreadable or immoral, but I can see for example why the SF community is starting to reconsider giving out awards in his name. As transhumanists it behooves us to look at some of the similar skeletons in our intellectual cupboards and think about whether to dress them up and hide them, drag them into the light, or throw away everything tainted with them. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Fri Oct 2 09:27:22 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:27:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] atrophy or hypertrophy In-Reply-To: References: <001b01d0fbfc$6bd75970$43860c50$@att.net> Message-ID: <560E4DFA.3080303@aleph.se> On 2015-10-02 10:41, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > So, I would expect a mild loss of adrenal mass in response to the > completely laid-back lifestyle. You are however unlikely to experience > severe adrenal atrophy, since even under perfectly non-stressful > circumstances there is a basal HPA activity level that keeps your > adrenals going. And that basal activity is also set to some extent by basic personality - it has relatively little to do with actual circumstances. Stressed people find ways to be stressed even in total retirement, laid-back people relax while working. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Oct 2 09:33:55 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:33:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A Geophysics problem In-Reply-To: References: <560BE06A.4000908@aleph.se> Message-ID: <560E4F83.60305@aleph.se> On 2015-09-30 16:29, BillK wrote: > Do you need to allow for the orbital speed of the earth (30 km/s) > ploughing through the solar wind? Nope, since the solar wind is about 10 times larger it will dominate the calculation. > Isn't LEO up to GSO within the magnetosphere? So the solar wind effect > will be reduced before it hits Keith's hydrogen? Most of the solar wind is neutral hydrogen unaffected by the magnetosphere. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Fri Oct 2 09:38:55 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:38:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560E50AF.1030707@aleph.se> On 2015-09-30 20:37, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Giulio Prisco > wrote: > > Based on what I have seen on this planet, beauty and brains are > totally unrelated. Beautiful idiot, smart genius, smart idiot, > beautiful genius, there is plenty of all that. By the way, I have the > impression that all propositions (besides the trivial ones) that > contain "men" or "women" are very wrong. > > ? There are quite a few significant differences between men and > women that are far from trivial. Aside from the usual - women are > better with words and men with directions - women are better than > men at small muscle tasks, such as sewing, women stand great pain > better than men, women recover from romantic disappointments more > quickly than men, women's sexual capabilities are very different > from men's - and a lot more. Verified by studies, not by old > wives' tales or folklore. > > > Kind of... I really reccomend Hyde's "The gender similarity hypothesis" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.374.1723&rep=rep1&type=pdf and her work on actually collecting the effect sizes of these differences. They exist, but they are rather small. http://www.devpsy.org/teaching/gender/sex_differences.html Significant differences are not necessarily important differences. Conversely, even small effect sizes sometimes have disproportionate effects out in the tails (look at the ratio of two Gaussian distributions with slightly different means). But most of the time small effect sizes have small effects. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 10:51:08 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:51:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Geophysics problem In-Reply-To: <560E4F83.60305@aleph.se> References: <560BE06A.4000908@aleph.se> <560E4F83.60305@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 2 October 2015 at 10:33, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2015-09-30 16:29, BillK wrote: >> Isn't LEO up to GSO within the magnetosphere? So the solar wind effect >> will be reduced before it hits Keith's hydrogen? > > > Most of the solar wind is neutral hydrogen unaffected by the magnetosphere. > > I doubt that you really mean that. :) The magnetosphere stops the solar wind stripping Earth's atmosphere away. Unlike Mars, that lost its magnetosphere and little of the atmosphere now remains. Quotes: The solar wind consists of ripped-apart atoms (called plasma) flying out of the Sun. This is mostly hydrogen, that is, bare electrons and protons, with a little bit of other kinds of nuclei, mostly helium. The space between solar systems is similar, but they come from other stars in our galaxy. These charged particles can be redirected by magnetic fields; for instance, Earth's magnetic field shields us from these particles. ----------------- So the earth magnetosphere should deflect most of the solar wind. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 15:08:50 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:08:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] atrophy or hypertrophy In-Reply-To: <560E4DFA.3080303@aleph.se> References: <001b01d0fbfc$6bd75970$43860c50$@att.net> <560E4DFA.3080303@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2015-10-02 10:41, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > So, I would expect a mild loss of adrenal mass in response to the > completely laid-back lifestyle. You are however unlikely to experience > severe adrenal atrophy, since even under perfectly non-stressful > circumstances there is a basal HPA activity level that keeps your adrenals > going. > > > And that basal activity is also set to some extent by basic personality - > it has relatively little to do with actual circumstances. Stressed people > find ways to be stressed even in total retirement, laid-back people relax > while working. > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > ?So, what about the gonads? Don't they atrophy with age? Else why are all these men getting testosterone shots? My MD told me that the pancreas ages as well. Also, the target sites for hormones can get relatively resistant to the hormone, right? Psychopathic behavior tends to diminish when the men (almost all men involved here) reach their 40s and their hormone levels go down. So it's age and personality. bill w? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 15:12:27 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:12:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] re Odyssey, hero In-Reply-To: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > While one certainly *can* judge anything in any way, there are some > judgements that make more sense than others. Critiquing the Illiad for not > taking climate change seriously is kind of pointless. Arguing whether > Odysseus should be regarded as a hero is far more apt; I can imagine > ancient Greeks discussing it too at a symposium. > > Analysing past views via current views is OK. It is possible to say that > ancient Greek treatment of women was unequal and indeed unjust according to > universal timeless principles we have discovered. But we have to (more or > less explicitely) say "given these ethical positions, Odysseus was..." and > we can analyse how these views have shifted. > > But *starting* with the view that current ethics is the one correct ethics > and then making judgements about a work that clearly is a great example of > how some values have shifted enormously seems to be a problematic approach. > Because it undermines itself: the whole approach is predicated on us being > right *now*, and using the very same approach in the past (using values we > now regard as wrong) it would have produced bad judgements - so using it > has to assume we know we are perfecly right now, despite millennia of > people being wrong yet convinced about the very same thing. > > The problem is when the naive projection of our values gets in the way of > learning anything from the text, or enjoying it. By current standards > Melville's Moby Dick is a paean to environmental destruction, colonialism > and racism. Yet it would be stupid to throw it away as a deeply immoral > book. We can gleefully point out assumptions Melville did not notice that > date the work, but it is unreasonable to hold him morally responsible > outside his world. That is just as silly as criticising the Illiad's > climate change policy. > > There are interesting cases like HP. Lovecraft where one can argue that > racism was actually integral to his stories. I am not convinced this > renders them unreadable or immoral, but I can see for example why the SF > community is starting to reconsider giving out awards in his name. As > transhumanists it behooves us to look at some of the similar skeletons in > our intellectual cupboards and think about whether to dress them up and > hide them, drag them into the light, or throw away everything tainted with > them. > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > ?When we assemble our own moral structure we undoubtedly use, consciously > or unconsciously much of what we have observed in reality, in print, in > movies and so on. In the 60s I was quite taken with Barry Goldwater and > Robert Heinlein, though much has changed since then. > ?So my moral sense has evolved and probably will continue to do so. I am a work in progress. But I can only judge things as I currently think. I can consider things in historical context, certainly, - to do otherwise is naive, as Anders says - and that often provides a great contrast with my current view. My current view is the 'right' one. When my view changes , it will be the right one. I never argue that any view is absolute since change always occurs. Do I set myself up at the judge of everything? Don't we all? Do we libertarians believe that authoritarianism is the wrong way to go about many things? Don't we? If we didn't think we were right, then we wouldn't hold to our views, would we? A huge problem is that we very often do not know what the ethos was at the time of Homer, or Augustine, or most historical figures. We know only what the elite thought because only the elite wrote. And didn't someone say that history was the account (lies, that is) written by the winners? By the way, Moby Dick only sold 2500 copies in the author's lifetime. I doubt we can find much written about it and so cannot tell what most people thought of it. Can we, in fact, conclude that a work such as the Iliad, or Moby Dick, reflected the ethos of the times? I think we surely cannot do that. Even if we could know that, and even if Odysseus was a hero by their standards, I still think he's a thug who could have dismissed and sent away those he killed. I did enjoy the work a lot - that did not ruin it for me. It was a good lesson in different moralities. As an aside, do we even know that the Old Testament was fact and not morality tales like Aesop? No, we don't. I can understand other views, but I have to judge by my own. Don't we all? ?Anders says above that we have discovered universal timeless principles.? I'd like to know what they are and who proposed them, because that's chutzpah of the highest order. Oh boy - let's discuss that one. bill w > ? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 2 16:43:10 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:43:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] atrophy or hypertrophy Message-ID: <01e001d0fd31$6eb3b400$4c1b1c00$@att.net> On 2015-10-02 10:41, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >>. So, I would expect a mild loss of adrenal mass in response to the completely laid-back lifestyle... Rafal I thought it would go that direction too Rafal. We hear a lot about our immune systems getting lazy because we modern people enjoy a sterile clean environment. It stands to reason the adrenal system would do likewise. >.Anders wrote: >.Stressed people find ways to be stressed even in total retirement, laid-back people relax while working. Anders This comment brought me a smile. Anders, the biggest adrenaline surge I have had in the six years since retirement is last year when you and I were attempting to drive in San Francisco. {8-] That gave the old adrenal system a good workout. {8^D spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From connor_flexman at brown.edu Fri Oct 2 17:18:07 2015 From: connor_flexman at brown.edu (Flexman, Connor) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:18:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] re Odyssey, hero In-Reply-To: References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:12 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?So my moral sense has evolved and probably will continue to do so. I am a > work in progress. > > But I can only judge things as I currently think. I can consider things > in historical context, certainly, - to do otherwise is naive, as Anders > says - and that often provides a great contrast with my current view. My > current view is the 'right' one. When my view changes , it will be the > right one. I never argue that any view is absolute since change always > occurs. Do I set myself up at the judge of everything? Don't we all? Do > we libertarians believe that authoritarianism is the wrong way to go about > many things? Don't we? If we didn't think we were right, then we wouldn't > hold to our views, would we? > One convenient way around this is to have uncertainty in what we believe. Instead of saying my views at this moment are "right", because I believe them, we can take the outside view and consider the past history of changing our outlook/views/beliefs. This can help one become a lot more humble in their convictions. Knowing that one has in the past accidentally espoused views that were too strong about, e.g., how definitively good taking antioxidant pills was, we can revisit our thoughts on best nutrition practices now. If we tend to think that paleo is the REAL fix, we can look back and see our poor track record at predicting these things and revise our beliefs to "I find paleo has some good insights and may be promising, but there is a good chance it won't hold much benefit." The diet problem is simpler because we don't usually have beliefs about it vital to our sense of self: trying to apply this principle to things more important to us is a big step up. For those of us who either converted to deistic faith or from it, we should be very wary of future beliefs given that we once were so wrong about something so central. For those of us who were once skeptical of AI risk and are no longer, this is another belief we were probably vehement about that turned out to be wrong. Have your political beliefs changed? Did you learn economics and discover huge turnarounds in your worldview? What about your differing values in different stages of life? Shouldn't we continue to expect all these changes? Setting one's current self up as judge of everything isn't making use of all the evidence we have. If we know our past track record, use it. If we expect in the future to change some of our views, we should be less confident about them now. If we see other people as smart as we are who hold different views, we might be well-advised to take their evidence into account as well: we are not alone in what we see, but have many others to help gather evidence, including our future and past selves. Connor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 19:58:31 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:58:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] re Odyssey, hero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:20 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Flexman, Connor < > connor_flexman at brown.edu> wrote: > ?Here is all I am saying and it is inarguable: I can judge the ILiad, > Odyssey, the Bible, or absolutely anything any way I want to. I do not > disregard others' view or put them down. They have the same right I do to > judge. > Bill does indeed have a right to judge. I'm not sure anyone's saying he doesn't. But does he also accept that others may judge his judgment on anything he cares to share his judgments about? Also, I brought up _The Odyssey_ NOT as an example of fine moral teaching we should all try to follow, but as an example of a work of literature that the cultural elites see as great and that has a happy ending. My bringing it up was aimed at Bill's earlier statement about how cultural elites -- or literary critics or whatever -- say only works with tragic endings are great art. Note that I did not use _The Iliad_ but _The Odyssey_ as my example too -- for the obvious reason that the former work has a pretty tragic or at least unhappy ending. > We are talking about the actions of human beings, though fictional. Why > should I not be able to approve or disapprove of the actions of my > species? No doubt that if the Odyssey were real and happened last week, > there would be many who approve of everything about it. I am not one of > those. > There's nothing wrong per se with morally judging a character in a work of fiction or in real life. (Putting this another way: one need not be restricted to judging a work of art merely by esthetic standards. In fact, in many works of art, moral or political concerns seem essential. A few days ago, I saw ""Two Days, One Night," a film about workers choosing whether to keep their bonus or allow a fellow employee not to be laid off. That moral dilemma is central to the film. I think it would be very hard for most people to see this film as not having moral content and even crying out for the viewer to judge the actions of her fellow workers. That was part of the enjoyment of the film for me.) But the point was to see why some, in fact a great many readers of _The Odyssey_ might see Odysseus as a hero rather than a pure thug. (Of course, in terms of the Heroic Age morality, Odysseus is a very problematic hero -- but not because he's a thug. Rather, he's problematic because he uses his wits rather than just a straightforward contest of strength. Recall, in the other Homeric epic, Achilles beats Hector not by outwitting him but simply because Achilles is stronger, has more stamina, and better with a spear.) > Our species is, or at least can be, barbaric, and I hate that. > > Dan's justification of the actions of Odysseus do not float with me. To > me he is a thug. Period. > Dan is wondering where he _justified_ the actions of Odysseus here. :) I ask Bill to present the actual passages where I justify those actions -- and which actions. Also, inside this particular epic, what are the particular actions of Odysseus that are thuggish? His journey home? What did he do in particular on that that would be the actions of a thug even by modern standards? It's been a while since I read the poem, so maybe I missed something. And when he does get home, the actions seem more vindictive than thuggish. Yes, I would NOT condone that kind of thing either, but the Suitors and the household members who side with them were not exactly good people doing only just things. The Suitors were there to forcibly marry Penelope and likely to kill her son Telemachus. They were also eating her out of house and home. (That said, we can argue that Odysseus' house and home were built on the backs of peasants, but the Suitors and the servants siding with them were not there to bring about a revolution, but merely to place themselves in power.) I've also pointed out that I have moral issues with many characters in fiction. I brought up the example of Henry V in Shakespeare's play. Henry V is the hero of the play and he seems depicted as a hero, yet I was repulsed by many of his actions. (And his actions in the play are more overtly thuggish, though they're also mixed. He's not purely cruel -- unlike, say, Richard III in Shakespeare's "Richard III.") And many people can enjoy a work of fiction yet judge the main character (if there be one) as morally repugnant. One of my favorite plays is "Macbeth." Yet I don't take the title character to be a paragon of morality. > Now if any of you are saying that there is one and only one correct > interpretation of fiction, the Bible, Obama, or reality in any sense, then > we have a whole new discussion. > I see nothing wrong with the view that there might be one correct interpretation in fiction or whatever, though I know that view has been out of favor. But let's say there is more than one valid interpretation of a work of art. I have no problem with that, though it doesn't rule that even with many different valid interpretations there might also be an inequality among interpretations and even that some interpretations might not only be less correct than others but even simply and plainly wrong. Settling this for any serious work would likely be a long discussion. One might apply inference to best explanation or Bayes here. In _The Odyssey_ (I notice Bill is silent about the other great epic I mentioned as having a happy ending: Dante's _Divine Comedy_), I think it's plain to see it has a happy ending in how this is meant conventionally by people today: the protagonist succeeds or wins by winning. (I bring this up because there are works where the protagonist wins by losing -- is ultimately frustrated by learns afterward that the prize wasn't worth the candle and they still have the candle -- or loses by winning -- gets what they want only to find it not worth it.) The best explanation seems to be what here? > So, Anders et al, to me there are no shoulds involved in perception of > fiction or reality. Perhaps the only 'should' is that we should leave > ourselves open to others' views. I certainly have changed mine a zillion > times in trying to adapt to the world?. I appreciate that my views may not > be those of the ancient Greeks, and they are certainly not in line with > many people of today. > > You got a problem with that? > No, but I disagree about shoulds. I have no problem with using should here. And like Bill, I remain open to changing my mind. But I don't anyone here -- Bill, Anders, Connor, Adrian, Rafal -- who said they would never ever change their mind on something. Were someone to say that, I would think they were joking or setting themselves up for a fall. It's also funny that to morally judge a character on one hand and castigate others for using (or implying) "should" on the other. (Well, even the bald fact of implying one should not use should seems irony enough.:) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 20:14:20 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:14:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > James, you may want to peruse the analysis of this (chromosome X=IQ) > hypothesis I posted earlier. > > The hypothesis is not true at all. > I was wondering where that came from. By the way, a chapter in _This Idea Must Die_ lambastes (spelling?) the idea of IQ. I don't agree with that chapter, but I'm no expert and haven't looked at the IQ debate in years. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 21:38:47 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:38:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] re Odyssey, hero In-Reply-To: References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Flexman, Connor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:12 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> ?So my moral sense has evolved and probably will continue to do so. I am >> a work in progress. >> >> But I can only judge things as I currently think. I can consider things >> in historical context, certainly, - to do otherwise is naive, as Anders >> says - and that often provides a great contrast with my current view. My >> current view is the 'right' one. When my view changes , it will be the >> right one. I never argue that any view is absolute since change always >> occurs. Do I set myself up at the judge of everything? Don't we all? Do >> we libertarians believe that authoritarianism is the wrong way to go about >> many things? Don't we? If we didn't think we were right, then we wouldn't >> hold to our views, would we? >> > > One convenient way around this is to have uncertainty in what we believe. > Instead of saying my views at this moment are "right", because I believe > them, we can take the outside view and consider the past history of > changing our outlook/views/beliefs. This can help one become a lot more > humble in their convictions. > Yes, this is similar to a meta-induction in philosophy of science: we know past science was wrong (how many scientific theories of a hundred years ago, which all seemed if not completely correct certainly as close to truth as possible, are still around today?), so likely our current science is wrong. > Knowing that one has in the past accidentally espoused views that were too > strong about, e.g., how definitively good taking antioxidant pills was, we > can revisit our thoughts on best nutrition practices now. If we tend to > think that paleo is the REAL fix, we can look back and see our poor track > record at predicting these things and revise our beliefs to "I find paleo > has some good insights and may be promising, but there is a good chance it > won't hold much benefit." The diet problem is simpler because we don't > usually have beliefs about it vital to our sense of self: trying to apply > this principle to things more important to us is a big step up. For those > of us who either converted to deistic faith or from it, we should be very > wary of future beliefs given that we once were so wrong about something so > central. For those of us who were once skeptical of AI risk and are no > longer, this is another belief we were probably vehement about that turned > out to be wrong. Have your political beliefs changed? Did you learn > economics and discover huge turnarounds in your worldview? What about your > differing values in different stages of life? Shouldn't we continue to > expect all these changes? Setting one's current self up as judge of > everything isn't making use of all the evidence we have. If we know our > past track record, use it. If we expect in the future to change some of our > views, we should be less confident about them now. If we see other people > as smart as we are who hold different views, we might be well-advised to > take their evidence into account as well: we are not alone in what we see, > but have many others to help gather evidence, including our future and past > selves. > You're also right to focus in on how moral views are far more likely to be seen as core views. That said, I don't see anything wrong with saying "character X is a thug to me." I only brought up _The Odyssey_ not as example of morality in action, but as one of a great work that's championed by many literary critics that also is not tragic, even has a happy ending. (Well, maybe not for the Suitors and their supporters and all of Odysseus' shipmates.) Let me present another work of literature: Jim Thompson's _Pop. 1280_. The protagonist of this novel, IIRC, makes out quite well at the end. So, in some sense it has a happy ending. However, I don't think anyone reading it would view the protagonist as heroic or anything other than a sociopath. This seems true of other novels I read by Thompson: the protagonists are all bad people. I don't think Thompson was operating from a different moral code where murder and mayhem were okay or that he was a moral relativist. Or maybe he is. But people I know who've read and enjoyed the novel haven't come away telling me, "Wouldn't it be great to live like that?" Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Oct 3 04:54:12 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:54:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Receipts, Choice and Unintended Consequences In-Reply-To: <560BA9F8.1000108@yahoo.com> References: <560BA9F8.1000108@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Ben wrote: > Ha! I wrote the above before reading (from Dan): > > "Many places now ask if the customer want a printed receipt. Places using > Square also just email a receipt, so nothing gets printed -- unless there's > a special request" > > So, some element of choice, here - and some pressure to give out an email > address. > My understanding is that with Square, you give Square your email address. I don't know how easy it is for the retailer or clerk to find it out from there. > Paper is still needed though, at least for many purposes. There are good > reasons why the 'paperless office' never took off. > While true, paper use can be seriously reduced for many things. For instance, about a decade ago, before I used a GPS device, I would print out directions and maps. Then I started using Garmin devices, and promptly stopped printing out directions and maps. Now I don't even use dedicated GPS devices since GPS is available on just about anything -- and if you have a connection you can access updated maps and directions. If you don't have a connection -- say, if you're out of area or off the grid, which I often am -- you can plan ahead and simply have digital copies of maps and directions on whatever devices you carry. > There will always be unintended consequences, of course, but the > 'prescriptive solutions' mindset is at least something we can try to guard > against. > I agree about top-down solutions. I think the paperless thing is working itself out now. It will be evolutionary process, but likely a quick one as people learn it's easier to do without paper in almost all situations and the younger generation simply doesn't have the same concerns. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sat Oct 3 10:03:56 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:03:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Universal timeless principles In-Reply-To: References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> Message-ID: <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> On 2015-10-02 17:12, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?Anders says above that we have discovered universal timeless > principles.? I'd like to know what they are and who proposed them, > because that's chutzpah of the highest order. Oh boy - let's discuss > that one. Here is one: a thing is identical to itself. (1) Here is another one: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." (2) Here is a third one: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." (3) (1) was first explicitely mentioned by Plato (in Theaetetus). I think you also agree with it - things that are not identical to themselves are unlikely to even be called "things", and without the principle very little thinking makes sense. I am not sure whether it is chutzpah of the highest order or a very humble observation. (2) is from the UN declaration of universal human rights. This sentence needs *enormous* amounts of unpacking - "free", "equal", "dignity", "rights"... these words can (and are) used in very different ways. Yet I think it makes sense to say that according to a big chunk of Western philosophy this sentence is a true sentence (in the sense that ethical propositions are true), that it is universal (the truth is not contingent on when and where you are, although the applications may change), and we know historically that we have not known this principle forever. Now *why* it is true quickly branches out into different answers depending on what metaethical positions you hold, not to mention the big topic of what kind of truth moral truth actually is (if anything). The funny thing is that the universal part is way less contentious, because of the widely accepted (and rarely stated) metaethical principle that if it is moral to P in situation X, then the location in time and space where X happens does not matter (One day I will finish my paper on how relativity theory undermines certain egalitarian theories because of this). Chutzpah of the highest order? Totally. So is the UN. (3) is Immanuel Kant, and he argued that any rational moral agent could through pure reason reach this principle. It is in many ways like (1) almost a consistency requirement of moral will (not action, since he doesn't actually care about the consequences - we cannot fully control those, but we can control what we decide to do). There is a fair bit of unpacking of the wording, but unlike the UN case he defines his terms fairly carefully in the preceeding text. His principle is, if he is right, *the* supreme principle of morality. Chuzpah auf h?chstem Niveau? Total! Note that (1) is more or less an axiom: there is no argument for why it is true, because there is little point in even trying. (3) is intended to be like a theorem in geometry: from some axioms and the laws of logic, we end up with the categorical imperative. It is just as audacious or normal as the Pythagorean theorem. (2) is a kind of compromise between different ethical systems: the Kantians would defend it based on their system, while consequentialists could make a rule utilitarian argument for why it is true, and contractualists would say it is true because the UN declares it. They agree on the mid-level meaning, but not on the other's derivations. It is thick, messy and political, yet also represents fairly well what most educated people would conclude (of course, they would then show off by disagreeing loudly with each other about details, obscuring the actual agreement). Do people who think about these things actually believe in universal principles? One fun source is David Bourget and David J. Chalmers' survey of professional philosphers http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP http://philpapers.org/surveys/ 56.4% of the respondents were moral realists (there are moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our views), 65.7% were moral cognitivists (ethical sentences can be true or false); these were correlated to 0.562. 25.9% were deontologists, which means that they would hold somewhat Kant-like views that some actions are always or never right (some of the rest of course also believe in principles, but the survey cannot tell us anything more). 71.1% thought there was a priori knowledge (things we know by virtue of being thinking beings rather than experience). [ Do I believe in timeless principles? Kind of. There are statements in physics that are invariant of translations, rotations, Lorenz boosts and other transformations, and of course math remains math. Whether physics and math are "out there" or just in minds is hard to tell (I lean towards that at least physics is out there in some form), but clearly any minds that know some subset of correct, invariant physics and math can derive other correct conclusions from it. And other minds with the same information can make the same derivations and reach the same conclusions - no matter when or where. So there are knowable principles in these domains every sufficiently informed and smart mind would know. Things get iffy with values, since they might be far more linked to the entities experiencing them, but clearly we can do analyse game theory and make statements like "If agent A is trying to optimize X, agent B optimizes Y, and X and Y do not interact, then they can get more of X and Y by cooperating". So I think we can get pretty close to universal principles in this framework, even if it turns out that they merely reside inside minds knowing about the outside world. ] -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sat Oct 3 10:08:52 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:08:52 +0200 Subject: [ExI] atrophy or hypertrophy In-Reply-To: <01e001d0fd31$6eb3b400$4c1b1c00$@att.net> References: <01e001d0fd31$6eb3b400$4c1b1c00$@att.net> Message-ID: <560FA934.6060903@aleph.se> On 2015-10-02 18:43, spike wrote: > > On 2015-10-02 10:41, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > >// > > >>?/So, I would expect a mild loss of adrenal mass in response to the > completely laid-back lifestyle... Rafal/ > > I thought it would go that direction too Rafal. We hear a lot about > our immune systems getting lazy because we modern people enjoy a > sterile clean environment. It stands to reason the adrenal system > would do likewise. > The body adapts, but across evolutionary history the rate of adaptation has likely been set by how nonstationary environments tend to be. If you adapt to ease too quickly you become vulnerable to sudden threats, while slow adaptation to ease might miss out some fitness opportunities (stress and reproduction tend to be anticorrelated) but likely less - not having as many offspring as would have been possible is usually better than being dead. So I would expect a bias towards rather slow adaptation. > >?Anders wrote: >?Stressed people find ways to be stressed even in total retirement, laid-back > people relax while working? Anders > > This comment brought me a smile. Anders, the biggest adrenaline surge > I have had in the six years since retirement is last year when you and > I were attempting to drive in San Francisco. {8-] That gave the old > adrenal system a good workout. {8^D > Hahaha! Yeah, that was some trip. I felt bad for you. Maybe next time we should try a slightly more calming environment (or not, to keep the adrenal glands working). -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Oct 3 14:51:09 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:51:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A New Way to Shrink Transistors Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/science/ibm-scientists-find-new-way-to-shrink-transistors.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Oct 3 17:33:42 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 13:33:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why hasn't Evolution insured that everybody is beautiful? I can think of 2 reasons and they both involve sex: 1) Traits that we find attractive in one sex we may think ugly or grotesque in another, so a gene that enhances that trait will not dominate the gene pool. 2) Even if both sexes find a trait attractive the natural environment may not agree; I'm thinking of the tail of a peacock which is a hindrance at flight and a hindrance at everything except at finding a satisfactory mate. If the tail gets much larger or more beautiful the bird will probably go extinct in a blaze of gorgeousity. * "Oh bliss! Bliss and heaven! Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh. It was like a bird of rarest-spun heaven metal or like silvery wine flowing in a spaceship, gravity all nonsense now." Alex- A Clockwork Orange * John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Oct 3 18:34:39 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:34:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7F9814F5-6D4D-43E4-AF7A-7F51CD80E325@gmail.com> On Oct 3, 2558 BE, at 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote: > > Why hasn't Evolution insured that everybody is beautiful? I can think of 2 reasons and they both involve sex: > > 1) Traits that we find attractive in one sex we may think ugly or grotesque in another, so a gene that enhances that trait will not dominate the gene pool. > > 2) Even if both sexes find a trait attractive the natural environment may not agree; I'm thinking of the tail of a peacock which is a hindrance at flight and a hindrance at everything except at finding a satisfactory mate. If the tail gets much larger or more beautiful the bird will probably go extinct in a blaze of gorgeousity. Reproductive and selective mechanisms are also imperfect, no? And what amount of what's considered beautiful is heritable? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 07:09:51 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:09:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: > Why hasn't Evolution insured that everybody is beautiful? I can think of 2 > reasons and they both involve sex: > ### Seeing everybody as beautiful means you are unable to look at potential mates and rank them according to their fitness. Such failure is likely to be costly for your own fitness, which explains why evolution weeded out beauty-blind men and power-blind women. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 12:13:23 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 13:13:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Universal timeless principles In-Reply-To: <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 3 October 2015 at 11:03, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2015-10-02 17:12, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> Anders says above that we have discovered universal timeless principles. >> I'd like to know what they are and who proposed them, because that's >> chutzpah of the highest order. Oh boy - let's discuss that one. > > > Here is one: a thing is identical to itself. (1) > Here is another one: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity > and rights." (2) > Here is a third one: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at > the same time, will that it should become a universal law." (3) > > > [ Do I believe in timeless principles? Kind of. There are statements in > physics that are invariant of translations, rotations, Lorenz boosts and > other transformations, and of course math remains math. Whether physics and > math are "out there" or just in minds is hard to tell (I lean towards that > at least physics is out there in some form), but clearly any minds that know > some subset of correct, invariant physics and math can derive other correct > conclusions from it. And other minds with the same information can make the > same derivations and reach the same conclusions - no matter when or where. > So there are knowable principles in these domains every sufficiently > informed and smart mind would know. Things get iffy with values, since they > might be far more linked to the entities experiencing them, but clearly we > can do analyse game theory and make statements like "If agent A is trying to > optimize X, agent B optimizes Y, and X and Y do not interact, then they can > get more of X and Y by cooperating". So I think we can get pretty close to > universal principles in this framework, even if it turns out that they > merely reside inside minds knowing about the outside world. ] > Physics and Science change over time. Until we know everything change will continue. Before the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, science thought it had found universal principles. Re philosophical principles, if even philosophers can't agree among themselves can they really be called universal timeless principles? Certainly all the followers of various holy books and ethical systems will not agree with the suggested universal principles. The search for universal principles may not be successful but it is useful in providing some sort of guidance in human affairs. Though humans being what they are, they can always find reasons to make exceptions to applying their favourite universal principle. As the saying goes, 'Every man has his price'. (Not always money, of course). BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 12:35:38 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 05:35:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> On Oct 4, 2558 BE, at 12:09 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: >> Why hasn't Evolution insured that everybody is beautiful? I can think of 2 reasons and they both involve sex: > > ### Seeing everybody as beautiful means you are unable to look at potential mates and rank them according to their fitness. Such failure is likely to be costly for your own fitness, which explains why evolution weeded out beauty-blind men and power-blind women. I believe John meant not that somehow the processes should've weeded out beauty detection or discrimination mechanisms, but that it should've weeded out any differences in beauty -- but for the two "reasons" he offers. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 12:49:44 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 13:49:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4 October 2015 at 13:35, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Oct 4, 2558 BE, at 12:09 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: >>> Why hasn't Evolution insured that everybody is beautiful? I can think of 2 >>> reasons and they both involve sex: >> >> ### Seeing everybody as beautiful means you are unable to look at potential >> mates and rank them according to their fitness. Such failure is likely to be >> costly for your own fitness, which explains why evolution weeded out >> beauty-blind men and power-blind women. > > > I believe John meant not that somehow the processes should've weeded out > beauty detection or discrimination mechanisms, but that it should've weeded > out any differences in beauty -- but for the two "reasons" he offers. > I doubt that sex selection has much to do with it. In case you haven't noticed, males are not noted for being very selective re sex. They are hormone driven to have sex with almost anyone or anything or just themselves. :) Until recently women had to be more selective, as they got landed with the consequences of sex. BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 14:55:21 2015 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 07:55:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Comment for Scientific American Message-ID: I wrote this as a comment to "Climate Model Shows Limits of Global Pollution Pledges" on the Scientific American web site. Alas, the comment system seems to be down. If anyone sees a good place to post it, welcome to use some or all of it. Keith Why is it so hard to get agreement about cutting CO2? The consequences of not doing so are clearly bad. We expect weather disruptions and rising sea level to cause awful problems in the future. But those problems are in the relatively long-term future. Sharply reducing the CO2 output will cause huge problems in the near-term future. Reducing CO2 emissions will cause the cost of energy to rise, and anyone who remembers 1974 knows what that does to the economy. Governments are not going to cause their economies to crash in the short term to cope with a long term problem. Most of the people who are in power today count on being gone to the grave before the "CO2 chickens? come home to roost. So what could we do? The only way that I can see that makes sense is to find a cheaper replacement for fossil fuels. The current candidates--PV solar and wind--are too expensive, too limited or both. They both require very expensive storage. Nuclear is carbon free (more or less). It won't last forever, but it would be good for a number of decades to centuries. If we can solve the cancer problem (which seems likely) we can put up with an occasional meltdown. It takes about 15,000 one GW reactors to displace fossil fuel. Two ways (at least) might be able to get the cost of solar down. One of them is StratoSolar where you put the collectors on buoyant platforms at 20 km and use massive weights (gravity storage) to supply power at night. That high, you never are troubled with clouds making sunlight completely predictable. The other is solar power satellites. Invented in 1968, they have seen a lot of study, but the economics just didn't work. With recent developments in low cost transport to LEO and low-cost, beamed-energy, electric propulsion to GEO they could provide electricity about 25% cheaper than coal. It would take about 3000 five GW power plants in GEO to displace fossil fuel with less expensive, abundant energy from space (and there is room for a lot more). On a fast track humans could be off fossil fuel soon enough (early 2030s) to keep the temperature rise down. Further, with oceans of cheap energy, we could take CO2 out of the atmosphere to any level we want. I am not particular as to which way we replace fossil fuel except that it needs to be less expensive. If there was a less expensive source of energy, there would not be concerns or the need for international agreements. People would just quit using expensive fossil fuel and switch without being forced. Examining low-cost, no carbon energy solutions is not part of the mandate of the IPCC. Perhaps it should be. From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 16:16:36 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 12:16:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <7F9814F5-6D4D-43E4-AF7A-7F51CD80E325@gmail.com> References: <7F9814F5-6D4D-43E4-AF7A-7F51CD80E325@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > Reproductive and selective mechanisms are also imperfect, no? > ?Yes, nothing about Evolution is perfect. ? > ?> ? > And what amount of what's considered beautiful is heritable? > ? Yes, if it were perfect peahens would feel that the most beautiful tail of a peacock was the one that was the most aerodynamic ?,? but they don't. The gene for large gaudy tails and the gene to prefer to mate with ? ? peacocks with ? ? large gaudy tails ? ? are both under Evolutionary pressure, and in this extreme case it looks like the 2 genes have gotten into a positive feedback loop ?. When such loops end, and ? positive feedback loop ?s never last very long, the results are seldom pretty.? I think peacocks (and peahens) are headed for extinction. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 16:42:50 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 12:42:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 BillK wrote: > ?> ? > I doubt that sex selection has much to do with it. > ? ? > In case you haven't noticed, males are not noted for being very > selective re sex. ?That's because it takes much more resources to make a egg than to make a sperm?, not to mention the difficulties involved in embryo development and birth. > ?> ? > Until recently women had to be more selective, as they got landed with > ? ? > the consequences of sex. > ?Yes, and because the consequences of sex are so different the ? ?2 sexes have different strategies for getting their genes into the next generation. As you say males aren't picky ?so peahens can afford to look drab, they can always find a mate regardless of how they look, and they can wait until they find a male with a tail they consider exceptionally beautiful. In most animals the male is more flamboyant than the female but in the case of the peacock the fashion race seems to have gotten out of control. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 17:25:32 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 13:25:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Comment for Scientific American In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Keith Henson wrote: ?> ? > I am not particular as to which way we replace fossil fuel except that > ? ? > it needs to be less expensive. ? I don't see solar power satellites providing energy cheaper than fossil fuel anytime in the immediate future, to me even terrestrial solar and wind seem too dilute and intermittent to compete with coal economically. The only fuels I ?can ? think ?of that ? have a chance to beat coal in both the short term and the long are Uranium and Thorium. In the case of Thorium by long term I mean billions of years, and Thorium reactors are the very opposite of dilute, they run hotter and ? thus ? more efficiently than Uranium reactors. ? John K Clark? I wrote this as a comment to "Climate Model Shows Limits of Global > Pollution Pledges" on the Scientific American web site. > > Alas, the comment system seems to be down. > > If anyone sees a good place to post it, welcome to use some or all of it. > > Keith > > Why is it so hard to get agreement about cutting CO2? The > consequences of not doing so are clearly bad. We expect weather > disruptions and rising sea level to cause awful problems in the > future. But those problems are in the relatively long-term future. > Sharply reducing the CO2 output will cause huge problems in the > near-term future. Reducing CO2 emissions will cause the cost of > energy to rise, and anyone who remembers 1974 knows what that does to > the economy. Governments are not going to cause their economies to > crash in the short term to cope with a long term problem. Most of the > people who are in power today count on being gone to the grave before > the "CO2 chickens? come home to roost. > > So what could we do? The only way that I can see that makes sense is > to find a cheaper replacement for fossil fuels. The current > candidates--PV solar and wind--are too expensive, too limited or both. > They both require very expensive storage. > > Nuclear is carbon free (more or less). It won't last forever, but it > would be good for a number of decades to centuries. If we can solve > the cancer problem (which seems likely) we can put up with an > occasional meltdown. It takes about 15,000 one GW reactors to > displace fossil fuel. > > Two ways (at least) might be able to get the cost of solar down. One > of them is StratoSolar where you put the collectors on buoyant > platforms at 20 km and use massive weights (gravity storage) to supply > power at night. That high, you never are troubled with clouds making > sunlight completely predictable. > > The other is solar power satellites. Invented in 1968, they have seen > a lot of study, but the economics just didn't work. With recent > developments in low cost transport to LEO and low-cost, beamed-energy, > electric propulsion to GEO they could provide electricity about 25% > cheaper than coal. > > It would take about 3000 five GW power plants in GEO to displace > fossil fuel with less expensive, abundant energy from space (and there > is room for a lot more). On a fast track humans could be off fossil > fuel soon enough (early 2030s) to keep the temperature rise down. > Further, with oceans of cheap energy, we could take CO2 out of the > atmosphere to any level we want. > > I am not particular as to which way we replace fossil fuel except that > it needs to be less expensive. If there was a less expensive source > of energy, there would not be concerns or the need for international > agreements. People would just quit using expensive fossil fuel and > switch without being forced. > > Examining low-cost, no carbon energy solutions is not part of the > mandate of the IPCC. Perhaps it should be. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 5 00:44:51 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:44:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] atrophy or hypertrophy In-Reply-To: <560FA934.6060903@aleph.se> References: <01e001d0fd31$6eb3b400$4c1b1c00$@att.net> <560FA934.6060903@aleph.se> Message-ID: <084601d0ff07$0ca5a2a0$25f0e7e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg . This comment brought me a smile. Anders, the biggest adrenaline surge I have had in the six years since retirement is last year when you and I were attempting to drive in San Francisco. {8-] That gave the old adrenal system a good workout. {8^D Hahaha! Yeah, that was some trip. I felt bad for you. Maybe next time we should try a slightly more calming environment (or not, to keep the adrenal glands working). -- Anders Sandberg I probably would have been OK on that adventure had we been in my ratty old pickup rather than Mister Lincoln. Anytime I go into the city in that rattletrap hunk of Detroit, the proles look at me and assume I have a sidearm and no insurance. They give me plenty of room. {8^D There are a few cities in America which were invented before cars, such as Palo Alto and San Francisco. They are easy to spot: the streets go every which way, they are overcrowded, the houses and everything else are way too close together, there is insufficient parking, there really isn't even anywhere to pull over and just get out of the way. I used to fly out of JFK in New York City occasionally, and I always got the feeling they really needed to bulldoze that place and start over, build it right this time. Or just take out about every other building, or replace every third building with high-rise parking lots. Or get robo-cars and let those steely-nerved computer chips worry about the driving. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 5 01:56:28 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 18:56:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> Message-ID: <090401d0ff11$0dd404f0$297c0ed0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark >? In most animals the male is more flamboyant than the female but in the case of the peacock the fashion race seems to have gotten out of control?John K Clark Evolution is filled with examples of species which sex-selected themselves to extinction. Stephen Jay Gould gives the example of a branch of big horned elk. The last fossils found shows that the antlers were getting larger and larger for the males. Apparently they got so heavy the females could no longer bear the weight as they were mounted, all while choosing males with the biggest antlers. It has been argued that peacocks have more brilliant colors if they are free of parasites, so peahens selecting the most brilliantly colored males are selecting for the healthiest mates. If we really want to stretch, we could argue that the peacock would be impossible for a serpent to swallow, being too long. Or that the huge tail would discourage some predators, who could be intimidated by its size. Still I agree that as the tails become too unwieldly, this is more likely an example of mate selection to extinction. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Oct 5 07:43:13 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:43:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] atrophy or hypertrophy In-Reply-To: <084601d0ff07$0ca5a2a0$25f0e7e0$@att.net> References: <01e001d0fd31$6eb3b400$4c1b1c00$@att.net> <560FA934.6060903@aleph.se> <084601d0ff07$0ca5a2a0$25f0e7e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <56122A11.9010608@aleph.se> On 2015-10-05 02:44, spike wrote: > > > Hahaha! Yeah, that was some trip. I felt bad for you. Maybe next time we should try a > slightly more calming environment (or not, to keep the adrenal glands > working). > > > I probably would have been OK on that adventure had we been in my ratty old pickup rather than Mister Lincoln. Anytime I go into the city in that rattletrap hunk of Detroit, the proles look at me and assume I have a sidearm and no insurance. They give me plenty of room. {8^D Of course, in The Mission these days you run more risk of them trying to make you an angel investor or a beta-tester for their peer-2-peer social entrepreneurship incubator. It is a geek ghetto. But driving in a non-car adapted city is definitely an adrenal gland workout. Do not even try to bring a car to Oxford - it hardly worked in the era of horse and carriage, and we often see people have strokes trying to get from nearby point A to B and having to go around the entire town. Walking is often sigificantly faster. In the North the challenge is different: my husband has me as reindeer lookout during the looong drives in the wilderness. The reindeer just love to saunter out on the road, and you better notice them before it turns into a mess. (The elks at least are mostly moving at dusk and dawn). There you need to stay vigilant continually while there is nothing but spruce and pine to look at. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 16:09:46 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:09:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Universal timeless principles In-Reply-To: References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:13 AM, BillK wrote: > On 3 October 2015 at 11:03, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > On 2015-10-02 17:12, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > >> Anders says above that we have discovered universal timeless principles. > >> I'd like to know what they are and who proposed them, because that's > >> chutzpah of the highest order. Oh boy - let's discuss that one. > > > > > > Here is one: a thing is identical to itself. (1) > > Here is another one: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity > > and rights." (2) > > Here is a third one: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, > at > > the same time, will that it should become a universal law." (3) > > > > > > > [ Do I believe in timeless principles? Kind of. There are statements in > > physics that are invariant of translations, rotations, Lorenz boosts and > > other transformations, and of course math remains math. Whether physics > and > > math are "out there" or just in minds is hard to tell (I lean towards > that > > at least physics is out there in some form), but clearly any minds that > know > > some subset of correct, invariant physics and math can derive other > correct > > conclusions from it. And other minds with the same information can make > the > > same derivations and reach the same conclusions - no matter when or > where. > > So there are knowable principles in these domains every sufficiently > > informed and smart mind would know. Things get iffy with values, since > they > > might be far more linked to the entities experiencing them, but clearly > we > > can do analyse game theory and make statements like "If agent A is > trying to > > optimize X, agent B optimizes Y, and X and Y do not interact, then they > can > > get more of X and Y by cooperating". So I think we can get pretty close > to > > universal principles in this framework, even if it turns out that they > > merely reside inside minds knowing about the outside world. ] > > > > > Physics and Science change over time. Until we know everything change > will continue. > Before the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, science thought > it had found universal principles. > > Re philosophical principles, if even philosophers can't agree among > themselves can they really be called universal timeless principles? > Certainly all the followers of various holy books and ethical systems > will not agree with the suggested universal principles. The search for > universal principles may not be successful but it is useful in > providing some sort of guidance in human affairs. > > Though humans being what they are, they can always find reasons to > make exceptions to applying their favourite universal principle. As > the saying goes, 'Every man has his price'. (Not always money, of > course). > > BillK > ?I probably should not even attempt to discuss number 1. How can a thing be compared to itself unless it is two things? Never mind. Re "out there" - Would the universe exist if there were no people to observe it? This has to be the silliest question because it cannot be answered. I am going to try for one: Assume that the human race is worth keeping. (Yeah, I know, some days.......). Then it follows that whatever is good for it is good (unless you figure that that means unlimited population growth). Just unpack 'good' and you have what is moral. Haha. Maybe sort of circular? Consequentialist anyway. ("Do you think we should just attempt to change their minds by bombing them back to the Stone Age?" "I dunno. Let's try it. Could work out." Philosophers could not even agree on the value of philosophy, I think. And just why do they know any more about anything than the rest of us do? I know - they have a diploma, like the Straw Man in the Wizard of Oz. Authoritarians are afraid of letting people make their own decisions, and libertarians are afraid of letting others make their decisions for them. When will this ever end? Ha. Put some sort of social contract in place and let people tinker with it forever - that is just exactly what we have done and I can't think of a better way. Our system in the USA at least gives the appearance of letting hoi polloi have a say in their laws. As Churchill said...... A final solution: program our genes with powerful instincts so that we simply cannot do anything antihuman. Take away free will, if you will. If you never had it, you'll never miss it. bill w ? > _______________________________________________ > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 18:02:18 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:02:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Universal timeless principles In-Reply-To: References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> On Oct 5, 2558 BE, at 9:09 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:13 AM, BillK wrote: >> On 3 October 2015 at 11:03, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> > On 2015-10-02 17:12, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> >> Anders says above that we have discovered universal timeless principles. >> >> I'd like to know what they are and who proposed them, because that's >> >> chutzpah of the highest order. Oh boy - let's discuss that one. >> > >> > >> > Here is one: a thing is identical to itself. (1) >> > Here is another one: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity >> > and rights." (2) >> > Here is a third one: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at >> > the same time, will that it should become a universal law." (3) >> > >> >> > >> > [ Do I believe in timeless principles? Kind of. There are statements in >> > physics that are invariant of translations, rotations, Lorenz boosts and >> > other transformations, and of course math remains math. Whether physics and >> > math are "out there" or just in minds is hard to tell (I lean towards that >> > at least physics is out there in some form), but clearly any minds that know >> > some subset of correct, invariant physics and math can derive other correct >> > conclusions from it. And other minds with the same information can make the >> > same derivations and reach the same conclusions - no matter when or where. >> > So there are knowable principles in these domains every sufficiently >> > informed and smart mind would know. Things get iffy with values, since they >> > might be far more linked to the entities experiencing them, but clearly we >> > can do analyse game theory and make statements like "If agent A is trying to >> > optimize X, agent B optimizes Y, and X and Y do not interact, then they can >> > get more of X and Y by cooperating". So I think we can get pretty close to >> > universal principles in this framework, even if it turns out that they >> > merely reside inside minds knowing about the outside world. ] >> >> Physics and Science change over time. Until we know everything change >> will continue. >> Before the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, science thought >> it had found universal principles. >> >> Re philosophical principles, if even philosophers can't agree among >> themselves can they really be called universal timeless principles? >> Certainly all the followers of various holy books and ethical systems >> will not agree with the suggested universal principles. The search for >> universal principles may not be successful but it is useful in >> providing some sort of guidance in human affairs. >> >> Though humans being what they are, they can always find reasons to >> make exceptions to applying their favourite universal principle. As >> the saying goes, 'Every man has his price'. (Not always money, of >> course). > > ?I probably should not even attempt to discuss number 1. How can a thing be compared to itself unless it is two things? Never mind. > > Re "out there" - Would the universe exist if there were no people to observe it? This has to be the silliest question because it cannot be answered. I don't think it's silly unless you presuppose questions can only be answered in a certain way. In fact, my view is that something exists beyond observation is implied in observation itself. In other words, awareness implies something to be aware of. > I am going to try for one: Assume that the human race is worth keeping. (Yeah, I know, some days.......). Then it follows that whatever is good for it is good (unless you figure that that means unlimited population growth). Just unpack 'good' and you have what is moral. Haha. Maybe sort of circular? Consequentialist anyway. ("Do you think we should just attempt to change their minds by bombing them back to the Stone Age?" "I dunno. Let's try it. Could work out." The presumption here is one can also morally decide whether humans can continue to exist. As if that's a live option or should be. Even allowing this, your answer here is also binary: If something is worth it, then it must be infinitely worth it. Imagine this, by way of parody that's not meant in jest: Is it worth having lunch today? Amongst the likely alternatives, maybe. Okay, so then is it worth then destroying all life on Earth to have lunch today? > Philosophers could not even agree on the value of philosophy, I think. That's the argument from disagreement. If you take the argument from disagreement seriously, then shouldn't you apply it to all endeavors? Do scientists all agree on X? No, well, then X should be chucked out. X might be extended to all of science. In any field -- science, math, history, music, what and whether to have for lunch today -- you'll find a dissenter. (To pre-empt the argument that science or other fields all have means of settling such disagreements: No, there are dissenting voices there too. Not all scientists agree on how to settle science questions. Not all historians agree... And so forth.) > And just why do they know any more about anything than the rest of us do? I wouldn't presume they know more, though one can't be sure until one familiarizes oneself with their work. > I know - they have a diploma, like the Straw Man in the Wizard of Oz. Sure, though not all philosophers are the same and someone like George H. Smith lacks academic credentials. ;) > Authoritarians are afraid of letting people make their own decisions, and libertarians are afraid of letting others make their decisions for them. Not exactly. Libertarians should consistently want everyone to choose for themselves. It's not a fear or dislike of mysterious others, but a love of freedom that should underly that point of view. As a side note, for me, the central questions of political philosophy are: 1. Does anyone have right to rule others? 2. Does anyone have the duty to obey others? And the "libertarian" answer to both these is No. > When will this ever end? Ha. Put some sort of social contract in place and let people tinker with it forever - that is just exactly what we have done and I can't think of a better way. Social contract theory is basically used to justify existing power arrangements. > Our system in the USA at least gives the appearance of letting hoi polloi have a say in their laws. As Churchill said...... > > A final solution: program our genes with powerful instincts so that we simply cannot do anything antihuman. Take away free will, if you will. If you never had it, you'll never miss it. That's the authoritarian position, no? If people don't meet someone's social ideal, then change the people. Why would that ever be a good thing to enforce on others? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 19:57:35 2015 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:57:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Comment for Scientific American Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > I don't see solar power satellites providing energy cheaper than fossil > fuel anytime in the immediate future, to me even terrestrial solar and wind > seem too dilute and intermittent to compete with coal economically. The dilute factor isn't as much of a problem in space where you don't have to support the concentrating surface against gravity and wind. But if power satellites can't proved energy cheaper than any other source (except hydro which limited) then they just won't happen. > The only fuels I can think of that > have a chance to beat coal in both the short term and the long are Uranium > and Thorium. In the case of Thorium by long term I mean billions of years, I am slightly curious how you computed this. Even without growth, I have never seen estimates for how long thorium will last that exceed a few centuries. Not that it makes a lot of difference. Whatever we turn into over the next 5-10 decades can solve their own problems. Keith From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 20:47:56 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:47:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Comment for Scientific American In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > I don't see solar power satellites providing energy cheaper than fossil > > fuel anytime in the immediate future, to me even terrestrial solar and > wind > > seem too dilute and intermittent to compete with coal economically. > > The dilute factor isn't as much of a problem in space where you don't > have to support the concentrating surface against gravity and wind. > For sure. It's not the right comparison to make. > But if power satellites can't proved energy cheaper than any other > source (except hydro which limited) then they just won't happen. > The big problem with power sats for now is the huge initial investment. I think if and as launch capabilities expand, prices go down, and extraction of ET mineral resources occurs, this will change. But it doesn't seem like that it [power sats] will be a game-changer for more than a decade. > > The only fuels I can think of that > > have a chance to beat coal in both the short term and the long are > Uranium > > and Thorium. In the case of Thorium by long term I mean billions of > years, > > I am slightly curious how you computed this. Even without growth, I > have never seen estimates for how long thorium will last that exceed a > few centuries. > > Not that it makes a lot of difference. Whatever we turn into over the > next 5-10 decades can solve their own problems. If that's your horizon, to my non-expert eye, power sats look like a good solution. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 23:01:37 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 19:01:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Comment for Scientific American In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 Keith Henson wrote: > >> don't see solar power satellites providing energy cheaper than fossil > ? > fuel anytime in the immediate future, to me even terrestrial solar and wind > ? > seem too dilute and intermittent to compete with coal economically. > > ?> ? > The dilute factor isn't as much of a problem in space where you don't > have to support the concentrating surface against gravity and wind. > ?I agree, space would help a little at solving the dilution problem, but it would make the power distribution problem much worse. ? > >> ?>? >> The only fuels I can think of that >> ? >> have a chance to beat coal in both the short term and the long are >> Uranium >> ? >> and Thorium. In the case of Thorium by long term I mean billions of >> years, > > > ?> ? > I am slightly curious how you computed this. Even without growth, I > have never seen estimates for how long thorium will last that exceed a > few centuries. > Thorium is much more common than Uranium, in fact it's almost twice as common as Tin ?, ? Thorium has only one isotope and ? unlike Uranium ? a Thorium reactor can ?use? 100% of it. ?I? f at random you picked one cubic meter of rock anywhere ?on? the Earth's crust you would find about 12 grams of ? Thorium in it ?, if placed i ?t in? a Thorium reactor ? those ? 12 grams would produce the energy equivalent of 37 tons of coal, enough to power one person's western middle class lifestyle for about a decade. One ton of ?T? horium contains as much energy as 3 million tons of coal ?,? ? and ?t? h ?? e ? U S Geological Survey's latest estimate says that ? just ? one company, Thorium Energy Inc, has 915,000 tons of ? Thorium reserves in Idaho and Montana. That alone could replace coal for about 450 years, and that's just from the claims that one company has in 2 states. And Norway has as much Thorium as the entire USA, and Australia about twice as much, and India has about 3 times as much. It would only take 2000 tons of Thorium to equal the energy in 6 billion tons of coal that the world uses each year. There is 120 TRILLION tons of Thorium in the earth's ? crust and if the world needs 10 times as much energy as we get from just coal then we will run out of Thorium in the crust ?of? this planet in 6 billion years. ? ? And we've already discovered Thorium deposits on the Moon and Mars. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Oct 6 05:29:42 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 07:29:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Moral enhancement In-Reply-To: <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56135C46.1000409@aleph.se> On 2015-10-05 20:02, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Oct 5, 2558 BE, at 9:09 AM, William Flynn Wallace > > wrote: >> >> A final solution: program our genes with powerful instincts so that >> we simply cannot do anything antihuman. Take away free will, if you >> will. If you never had it, you'll never miss it. > > That's the authoritarian position, no? If people don't meet someone's > social ideal, then change the people. Why would that ever be a good > thing to enforce on others? We do enforce it on children and insane people, often for their own good. Unfortunately we also do do it for other, bad reasons. And as we argued in my most controversial paper ( http://www.smatthewliao.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HEandClimateChange.pdf ) we may want to enforce these things on *ourselves*. There has been a discussion in bioethics of moral enhancement for a few years (centered around Savulescu and Person's book "Unfit for the Future"): given that we are moving towards a world of powerful technologies in the hands of most people, it might be necessary for our survival to become more ethical and sane. So biomedical moral enhancement, improving people's ability to make good moral choices, may be something that should be enforced even if the exact choices or moral systems are left to people. https://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement From a transhumanist standpoint moral enhancement is interesting. When we had the discussion about enhanced emotions back around Extro 4, it touched on this (long before the outside philosophers crowded in). We can distinguish between enhancing the capacities useful for making moral behavior (improving our ability to foresee consequences, empathize with others, and control ourselves), enhancements of our social structures (setting up incentives to be nice, surveillance and reputations to make being bad worse), but also the ethical issues of being a moral enhanced being - with great power comes great responsibility. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Oct 6 08:03:37 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:03:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Universal timeless principles In-Reply-To: <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56138059.1020308@aleph.se> On 2015-10-05 20:02, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Oct 5, 2558 BE, at 9:09 AM, William Flynn Wallace > > wrote: >> Philosophers could not even agree on the value of philosophy, I think. > > That's the argument from disagreement. If you take the argument from > disagreement seriously, then shouldn't you apply it to all endeavors? > Do scientists all agree on X? No, well, then X should be chucked out. > X might be extended to all of science. In any field -- science, math, > history, music, what and whether to have for lunch today -- you'll > find a dissenter. > > (To pre-empt the argument that science or other fields all have means > of settling such disagreements: No, there are dissenting voices there > too. Not all scientists agree on how to settle science questions. Not > all historians agree... And so forth.) Disagreement does show that one should not be overconfident about a conclusion, though. As I argued in my uploading ethics papers, the fact that there is disagreement between reasonable people on whether software can be conscious should be enough to make even consciousness-sceptics agree that there is some chance that they are wrong, and hence we better treat potentially sentient software nicely (the opposite case, treating software nicely when it is actually non-sentient, is not as bad as treating sentient software badly). This approach works when some possibilities have a big and different weights, but there are still nontrivial issues of what counts as reasonable disagreement. Philosophy might be the field that criticises itself most vigorously. >> And just why do they know any more about anything than the rest of us >> do? > > I wouldn't presume they know more, though one can't be sure until one > familiarizes oneself with their work. Exactly. People who discount philosophy frequently reinvent philosophical wheels that have been in use for millennia. Philosophers at least know what ideas have been tried before and how they worked out. Many are also very good at critical reasoning about abstract areas: when they make claims, they typically have documented reasons for these claims. We know a fair bit about what tasks humans can become expert in (see http://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Shanteau/publication/4815960_Competence_in_experts_The_role_of_task_characteristics/links/00b495373e3fe7630f000000.pdf ). Philosophy does pretty well on decomposing problems and using formal decision aids. Depending on branch, one may look at static things with agreed on properties (good for expertise building) or messy human domains where there is little agreement on what is what (bad). Some philosophers keep on applying the same method to a lot of cases (good for becoming expert at the method), others jump between methods (bad for method expertise). Feedback is typically in the form of other philosophers criticising - useful for becoming an expert on making good formal arguments, but real-world feedback is clearly worth far more and less common. All in all, we should expect philosophers to be really good at doing academic philosophy, pretty good at analysing problems, decent in talking about real-world situations where we get feedback on what works and doesn't work, and hopeless in areas where there is no simple feedback. This is why I prefer practical ethics and epistemology (real world data and consequences!) to metaethics and metaphysics. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Oct 6 08:22:16 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:22:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Universal timeless principles In-Reply-To: <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561384B8.8050207@aleph.se> I attended a lecture on big History by David Christian yesterday. Great guy, and a very good lecture too. Big History is a fun approach to learning about the world, https://www.bighistoryproject.com/home He made a really interesting comment related to the emergence of life that also relates to this thread. He pointed out that there is universal information: gravity, electromagnetism and iron behave the same way everywhere, so an organism does not have to store this information internally. On the other hand, how the organism is organised is local information: it is contingent, and if the descrption is lost the organism cannot survive or reproduce. (Note that edge cases like viruses to a great extent rely on cells containing the neccesary information to reproduce: they just contain information on how to make *themselves*, not how to make proteins or how to assemble them.) In regards to universal timeless principles, they might be like universal information: something that is always true and acting on relevant systems whether they know it or not. Game theoretic equilibria and evolutionary stability comes to mind. In many situations that means you do not even need to know them, they just happen naturally. However, it might be *efficient* to have explicit representations of such information. Knowing the laws of electromagnetism allows us to make good predictions and inventions rather than hope some random configuration will do the job. Knowing that cooperation is fragile but reinforced by reputations and altruistic punishment, we can set up our societies to be better at reputation management and sponsor discouragement of misbehavior. Conversely, if a principle can be forgotten forever and never rediscovered, then it is not universal. So maybe we should consider what kind of "ethics" would be independently discovered by (1) humans in a parallel world or isolated continent, (2) aliens, or (3) intelligent agents. Something truly universal would show up in all categories, something universal-to-evolved-beings would show up among 1 and 2, something human-universal would be in category 1. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 09:44:27 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:44:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <090401d0ff11$0dd404f0$297c0ed0$@att.net> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <090401d0ff11$0dd404f0$297c0ed0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 5 October 2015 at 02:56, spike wrote: > > It has been argued that peacocks have more brilliant colors if they are free > of parasites, so peahens selecting the most brilliantly colored males are > selecting for the healthiest mates. If we really want to stretch, we could > argue that the peacock would be impossible for a serpent to swallow, being > too long. Or that the huge tail would discourage some predators, who could > be intimidated by its size. > > Still I agree that as the tails become too unwieldly, this is more likely an > example of mate selection to extinction. > Evolution tries everything. Quote: Most animals require close contact to reproduce, using either internal fertilization (as humans do) or fertilization nearby (think spawning salmon). So having a similarly matched body size is helpful for reasons of physical logistics?as well as for personal safety (as we?ll soon see). But for causes still obscure to most?except Evolution herself?in a very few, very distantly related animals, males and females long ago diverged to two radically different scales. ------------------- BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 14:36:41 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:36:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Alcor, California, and the right to die Message-ID: Now that California has joined Oregon Washington Montana and Vermont in becoming a right to die state I wonder if it would be wise for Alcor to open a branch office just over the border of their home state of Arizona. Or maybe, if they thought there was any chance of success, they could lobby the state legislators to pass similar laws in Arizona; but Arizona is pretty conservative so that might be hopeless. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 6 14:56:24 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:56:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Alcor, California, and the right to die In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017201d10047$2cdcf050$8696d0f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 7:37 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [Bulk] [ExI] Alcor, California, and the right to die Now that California has joined Oregon Washington Montana and Vermont in becoming a right to die state I wonder if it would be wise for Alcor to open a branch office just over the border of their home state of Arizona. Or maybe, if they thought there was any chance of success, they could lobby the state legislators to pass similar laws in Arizona; but Arizona is pretty conservative so that might be hopeless. John K Clark John if you live in Quartzsite California (just over the AZ stateline) you would treasure the right to die. There isn?t much to live for out there. I have a good story about Quartzsite, for later, if then. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 6 15:52:11 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:52:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Alcor, California, and the right to die In-Reply-To: <017201d10047$2cdcf050$8696d0f0$@att.net> References: <017201d10047$2cdcf050$8696d0f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <019201d1004e$f81fae90$e85f0bb0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: [Bulk] [ExI] Alcor, California, and the right to die >>? Alcor to open a branch office just over the border of their home state of Arizona? John K Clark >?John if you live in Quartzsite California (just over the AZ stateline) you would treasure the right to die. There isn?t much to live for out there. I have a good story about Quartzsite, for later, if then. spike Correction, Quartzsite is inside Arizona. Blythe CA is a few miles west of there over the CA stateline. Short version: I was on a motorcycle trip in 1987 to see my former college roommate who lived in the Phoenix area. Going east on Interstate 10, nothing but vast open desert, very little traffic so I was letting the bike do what bikes do so well out there. I was coming up on Quartzsite AZ, see a semi truck pulled over on the westbound side, driver outside his rig which was on fire. As I came up on it, the flames broke free and billowed up high from his trailer, which is something one seldom gets to witness. I let off of the throttle, moved to the right lane, slowed to about 50 miles an hour, when a car came blasting past me, missing me by inches. He was also looking to his left at the fire, didn?t even see me. That could have been the end of the road for the old Spikester right there out in Quartzsite AZ. There isn?t much to live for in Blythe CA either, for all the same reasons. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 16:26:48 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:26:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Alcor, California, and the right to die In-Reply-To: <019201d1004e$f81fae90$e85f0bb0$@att.net> References: <017201d10047$2cdcf050$8696d0f0$@att.net> <019201d1004e$f81fae90$e85f0bb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 6 October 2015 at 16:52, spike wrote: > Correction, Quartzsite is inside Arizona. Blythe CA is a few miles west of > there over the CA stateline. Short version: I was on a motorcycle trip in > 1987 to see my former college roommate who lived in the Phoenix area. Going > east on Interstate 10, nothing but vast open desert, very little traffic so > I was letting the bike do what bikes do so well out there. I was coming up > on Quartzsite AZ, see a semi truck pulled over on the westbound side, driver > outside his rig which was on fire. As I came up on it, the flames broke > free and billowed up high from his trailer, which is something one seldom > gets to witness. I let off of the throttle, moved to the right lane, slowed > to about 50 miles an hour, when a car came blasting past me, missing me by > inches. He was also looking to his left at the fire, didn?t even see me. > That could have been the end of the road for the old Spikester right there > out in Quartzsite AZ. > Everybody that has been a motorcyclist has stories of dicing with death and narrow escapes. Those who don't are no longer with us. I never actually broke any bones, though once I was unconscious and was taken to hospital for a checkup, just in case. Another incident only caused a few bruises, but resulted in a long drive home without a clutch cable, trying to avoid stop signs and having to change gear without using the clutch. :) Ohhh, those crazy days of youthful enthusiasm! BillK From rex at nosyntax.net Tue Oct 6 17:06:54 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:06:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Alcor, California, and the right to die In-Reply-To: References: <017201d10047$2cdcf050$8696d0f0$@att.net> <019201d1004e$f81fae90$e85f0bb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20151006170654.GD14083@nosyntax.net> BillK [2015-10-06 09:28]: > On 6 October 2015 at 16:52, spike wrote: > > I was letting the bike do what bikes do so well out there. I was coming up > > on Quartzsite AZ, see a semi truck pulled over on the westbound side, driver > > outside his rig which was on fire. As I came up on it, the flames broke > > free and billowed up high from his trailer, which is something one seldom > > gets to witness. I let off of the throttle, moved to the right lane, slowed > > to about 50 miles an hour, when a car came blasting past me, missing me by > > inches. He was also looking to his left at the fire, didn?t even see me. > > That could have been the end of the road for the old Spikester right there > > out in Quartzsite AZ. > > > > > Everybody that has been a motorcyclist has stories of dicing with > death and narrow escapes. Those who don't are no longer with us. Yes. In my USN days a friend's friend was run over and killed from the rear when they were riding two abreast, much like the scenario Spike described. I had a number of close calls, but was only hurt seriously once when I did an endo south of Ensenada and the bike landed on me. It was almost a year before the last of the residual pain faded away. -rex -- From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 21:16:04 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:16:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Help with tending crops Message-ID: http://www.popsci.com/farming-is-now-an-app-on-your-iphone Imagine how this will help with things like using water more efficiently. (Of course, simply allowing water prices for farmers to move -- rather than subsidizing overuse -- would hasten adoption of technology like this.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 01:36:15 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 18:36:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Help with tending crops In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As this becomes more widely known and affordable in US farms, it will be interesting to witness the effect on immigration. Turning away undocumented cheap labor when it is needed to keep food prices down is one thing. But once even cheaper robotic labor takes over... Same thing with other industries that currently employ a large enough number of illegal immigrants to apply political pressure against sealing the borders. On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://www.popsci.com/farming-is-now-an-app-on-your-iphone > > Imagine how this will help with things like using water more efficiently. > (Of course, simply allowing water prices for farmers to move -- rather than > subsidizing overuse -- would hasten adoption of technology like this.) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 02:04:12 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:04:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Help with tending crops In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7D66711E-BA8D-400F-B02F-67A02F530F40@gmail.com> On Oct 6, 2558 BE, at 6:36 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > As this becomes more widely known and affordable in US farms, it will be interesting to witness the effect on immigration. > > Turning away undocumented cheap labor when it is needed to keep food prices down is one thing. I believe current agriculture policies probably do much to raise prices on average. > But once even cheaper robotic labor takes over... > > Same thing with other industries that currently employ a large enough number of illegal immigrants to apply political pressure against sealing the borders. I reckon a bad consequence could of be fostering further sealing of borders. (Not just of the US, but of other nations as well. US-Americans aren't the only folks with xenophobic tendencies. I think such are pretty common across the globe.) Though the demand would be lower for some farm labor, so it might simply cause the issue to be of less concern. Then again, I feel immigration is an issue more because of anti-foreign bias than because of economic competition. (Were it mostly the latter, there'd be louder calls for regulating internal migration, IMO.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 07:40:27 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:40:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Moral enhancement In-Reply-To: <56135C46.1000409@aleph.se> References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> <56135C46.1000409@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2015-10-05 20:02, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2558 BE, at 9:09 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > A final solution: program our genes with powerful instincts so that we > simply cannot do anything antihuman. Take away free will, if you will. If > you never had it, you'll never miss it. > > > That's the authoritarian position, no? If people don't meet someone's > social ideal, then change the people. Why would that ever be a good thing > to enforce on others? > > > We do enforce it on children and insane people, often for their own good. > Unfortunately we also do do it for other, bad reasons. And as we argued in > my most controversial paper ( > http://www.smatthewliao.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HEandClimateChange.pdf > ) we may want to enforce these things on *ourselves*. > > There has been a discussion in bioethics of moral enhancement for a few > years (centered around Savulescu and Person's book "Unfit for the Future"): > given that we are moving towards a world of powerful technologies in the > hands of most people, it might be necessary for our survival to become more > ethical and sane. So biomedical moral enhancement, improving people's > ability to make good moral choices, may be something that should be > enforced even if the exact choices or moral systems are left to people. > > https://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement > > From a transhumanist standpoint moral enhancement is interesting. When we > had the discussion about enhanced emotions back around Extro 4, it touched > on this (long before the outside philosophers crowded in). We can > distinguish between enhancing the capacities useful for making moral > behavior (improving our ability to foresee consequences, empathize with > others, and control ourselves), enhancements of our social structures > (setting up incentives to be nice, surveillance and reputations to make > being bad worse), but also the ethical issues of being a moral enhanced > being - with great power comes great responsibility. > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Senior Scientist, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 08:00:41 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 04:00:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Moral enhancement In-Reply-To: <56135C46.1000409@aleph.se> References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> <56135C46.1000409@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > We do enforce it on children and insane people, often for their own good. > Unfortunately we also do do it for other, bad reasons. And as we argued in > my most controversial paper ( > http://www.smatthewliao.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HEandClimateChange.pdf > ) we may want to enforce these things on *ourselves*. > > There has been a discussion in bioethics of moral enhancement for a few > years (centered around Savulescu and Person's book "Unfit for the Future"): > given that we are moving towards a world of powerful technologies in the > hands of most people, it might be necessary for our survival to become more > ethical and sane. So biomedical moral enhancement, improving people's > ability to make good moral choices, may be something that should be > enforced even if the exact choices or moral systems are left to people. > ### Please disregard my empty post of a couple minutes ago. And yes, I am all for forcible moral enhancement! The evil ones should not be allowed to run free, they are sometimes expensive to dispose of, usually horrendously expensive to warehouse, so if the technology existed to make them all good like us, we should do it pronto. Now, the exact meaning of "enhancement" in this situation may be a trifle controversial... I am afraid that enhancement *my way* would have many folks running around in horror... but, well, only a liar would say progress is easy. Eventually, the gods of copybook headings will judge our efforts, harshly. We will see if diminutive, tree-hugging, grass-eating non-breeders will be a success when confronted with e.g. cooperative, fast, omnivorous, hyperspecialized, copy-clan extreme long-term fitness-maximizers. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 08:11:58 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 04:11:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Alcor, California, and the right to die In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:36 AM, John Clark wrote: > Now that California has joined Oregon Washington Montana and Vermont in > becoming a right to die state I wonder if it would be wise for Alcor to > open a branch office just over the border of their home state of Arizona. > Or maybe, if they thought there was any chance of success, they could lobby > the state legislators to pass similar laws in Arizona; but Arizona is > pretty conservative so that might be hopeless. > ### Yes, this also crossed my mind but there are lots of issues to be dealt with. Would Arizona arrest those who transport a euthanized body across state lines as accessories to murder? Would the coroner take the body out of the cooling box, stash in his morgue, and slice its brain just to be sure it's really dead? This would need to be approached with utmost care and always trying to elicit cooperation of the legislature before any action. If Alcor could start receiving patients who choose the time of deanimation, and therefore may be in a much better state, we could have a quantum leap in the quality of suspension, especially if high-pressure gas persufflation pans out as a cryonics technique. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 08:24:58 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 04:24:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Oct 4, 2558 BE, at 12:09 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < > rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> Why hasn't Evolution insured that everybody is beautiful? I can think of >> 2 reasons and they both involve sex: >> > > ### Seeing everybody as beautiful means you are unable to look at > potential mates and rank them according to their fitness. Such failure is > likely to be costly for your own fitness, which explains why evolution > weeded out beauty-blind men and power-blind women. > > > I believe John meant not that somehow the processes should've weeded out > beauty detection or discrimination mechanisms, but that it should've weeded > out any differences in beauty -- but for the two "reasons" he offers. > ### A process that weeds out differences in beauty will lead to the loss of adaptations needed to perceive differences in beauty. In evolution one follows the other. But in real life, it's unlikely that any evolutionary process would remove all externally perceptible fitness differences, which means there is always pressure to exploit such perceptible differences to adjust mating behavior, and thus there is evolutionary pressure to create and maintain the ability to see such differences as varying levels of beauty. Beauty would only disappear in a designed system, specifically one where no interactions between individuals can impact their fitness. But this would no longer be evolutionary. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 08:44:27 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 04:44:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <090401d0ff11$0dd404f0$297c0ed0$@att.net> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <090401d0ff11$0dd404f0$297c0ed0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 9:56 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Clark > > *>?* In most animals the male is more flamboyant than the female but in > the case of the peacock the fashion race seems to have gotten out of control > ?John K Clark > > > > Evolution is filled with examples of species which sex-selected themselves > to extinction. Stephen Jay Gould gives the example of a branch of big > horned elk. The last fossils found shows that the antlers were getting > larger and larger for the males. Apparently they got so heavy the females > could no longer bear the weight as they were mounted, all while choosing > males with the biggest antlers. > ### I don't believe it. Does Gould give a rigorous mathematical analysis, with simulations, of how allele frequencies could change to make a heterogeneous population evolve out of this mortal coil all by itself, without external influences and without assumptions that strain credulity? Here are links to three articles right off the top of a google search: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7557/full/nature14419.html http://www.kokkonuts.org/p/Sexy2die4.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691875/ All three point towards sexual selection as generally increasing the likelihood of species survival, and interestingly, the one experimental, controlled study is the most supportive of sexual selection as increasing survival. Gould was a very incompetent scientist with a bully pulpit. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rex at nosyntax.net Wed Oct 7 09:08:40 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 02:08:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <090401d0ff11$0dd404f0$297c0ed0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20151007090840.GE14083@nosyntax.net> Rafal Smigrodzki [2015-10-07 01:45]: > On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 9:56 PM, spike <[1]spike66 at att.net> wrote: > > From: extropy-chat [mailto:[2]extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Behalf Of John Clark > > >? In most animals the male is more flamboyant than the female but in > the case of the peacock the fashion race seems to have gotten out of > control?John K Clark > > > Evolution is filled with examples of species which sex-selected > themselves to extinction.? Stephen Jay Gould gives the example of a > branch of big horned elk.? The last fossils found shows that the antlers > were getting larger and larger for the males.? Apparently they got so > heavy the females could no longer bear the weight as they were mounted, > all while choosing males with the biggest antlers. > > ### I don't believe it. Does Gould give a rigorous mathematical analysis, > with simulations, of how allele frequencies could change to make a > heterogeneous population evolve out of this mortal coil all by itself, > without external influences and without assumptions that strain > credulity?? > Here are links to three articles right off the top of a google search: > [3]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7557/full/nature14419.html > [4]http://www.kokkonuts.org/p/Sexy2die4.pdf > [5]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691875/ > All three point towards sexual selection as generally increasing the > likelihood of species survival, and interestingly, the one experimental, > controlled study is the most supportive of sexual selection as increasing > survival. As I'm sure you know he doesn't give an analysis. > Gould was a very incompetent scientist with a bully pulpit. He claimed others fudged their data, but later examination showed Gould was the fudger and the original work he attacked was correct -- his talent for writing enabled him to achieve an undeserved status in popular science books. Pros saw him as a fake with a PC agenda (e.g., _The Mismeasure of Man_) from the beginning. -rex -- "Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined." --B de Spinoza From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 13:48:39 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:48:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] sports and the r.a.s. Message-ID: >From the NYTimes sports page: 'this is how sports performance evolves. To catch the pacesetters, athletes recalibrate their goals, which resets their reticular activating systems, enabling them to extend their boundaries of what they believe is possible.' My vote for the most nonsense ever to appear in any sports page. Yet, neurophysiology in sports: a coming thing? I can see it now: "As a result of an overactive amygdala he spit in the umpire's face." Another turn of phrase from the NYT: 'deeply nontransparent'. In an article about the complexity of cars, it said that cars could contain 100 million lines of code. Just wondering how many the most sophisticated AI has? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 7 14:38:34 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:38:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wooohooo! this is our hell mary bill Message-ID: <003f01d1010d$d9824190$8c86c4b0$@att.net> http://stateofreform.com/news/industry/healthcare-providers/2015/06/ca-senat e-committee-to-hear-right-to-try-bill/?cal CA: Senate committee to hear "Right to Try" bill By Jon Brumbach , June 12, 2015 SACRAMENTO - The Senate Health committee will consider legislation that would streamline access to experimental treatments for terminally ill patients. AB 159, also known as the "Right to Try Act", would allow manufacturers to provide, and physicians to prescribe, a drug, biological product, or device not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when the patient has a serious or immediate life-threatening condition. Insurance carriers would have the option to cover such treatments, but are not required to do so. Cool! When I had a terminal family member I started a thread on this. If we already know what will happen if they stay the course, and we have a willing patient, why not try some wacky theoretical medication or therapy? Document carefully what was taken and what happened. We create an online database of some sort, then let a million amateur dataminers try to find a pattern. That way we shuffle off this mortal coil at least contributing something to humanity, even if it is just one more negative data point. It is easy to imagine a guy with only months to live (and good indications those months will suck) saying to his bride: We should try something, anything. Hell Mary, we know what happens if we do nothing. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 15:24:03 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:24:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> Message-ID: <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> On Oct 7, 2558 BE, at 1:24 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>> On Oct 4, 2558 BE, at 12:09 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: >>>> Why hasn't Evolution insured that everybody is beautiful? I can think of 2 reasons and they both involve sex: >>> >>> ### Seeing everybody as beautiful means you are unable to look at potential mates and rank them according to their fitness. Such failure is likely to be costly for your own fitness, which explains why evolution weeded out beauty-blind men and power-blind women. >> >> I believe John meant not that somehow the processes should've weeded out beauty detection or discrimination mechanisms, but that it should've weeded out any differences in beauty -- but for the two "reasons" he offers. > > ### A process that weeds out differences in beauty will lead to the loss of adaptations needed to perceive differences in beauty. In evolution one follows the other. > > But in real life, it's unlikely that any evolutionary process would remove all externally perceptible fitness differences, which means there is always pressure to exploit such perceptible differences to adjust mating behavior, and thus there is evolutionary pressure to create and maintain the ability to see such differences as varying levels of beauty. Isn't there also genetic load here? I mean it might not be the case that there's one beauty gene that's easily selected for but a host of related genes that are difficult to individually select for given their interactions -- as well as the interactions with the rest of the genome. And this is presuming there's even a simple relationship here between genes and beauty. My guess regarding detection mechanisms is these are imperfect too. Obviously, if something like the red dress effect is real, they can be fooled quite easily. (Or is selecting the red dress a behavioral beauty trait, so the detector is not being fooled at all? But my guess is people wearing red dresses learn that red attracts attention rather than there's a variable genetic component under this. I could be wrong, of course.) > Beauty would only disappear in a designed system, specifically one where no interactions between individuals can impact their fitness. But this would no longer be evolutionary. That would seem to be the case with many beauty enhancements now, including choice of clothing, grooming, etc. Of course, these might be read as signs of enhanced fitness -- grooming, especially -- or might be selected for under supposed sexual selection, no? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 16:11:37 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:11:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous buses in CA Message-ID: <065BFC4D-807C-4CDC-A58F-F3A73CC8A894@gmail.com> http://gizmodo.com/the-uss-first-autonomous-buses-will-drive-around-a-cali-1734989938 Finally! Now they just have to rapidly spread north. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 7 16:07:08 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:07:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wooohooo! this is our hell mary bill In-Reply-To: <003f01d1010d$d9824190$8c86c4b0$@att.net> References: <003f01d1010d$d9824190$8c86c4b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <008001d1011a$38d70c50$aa8524f0$@att.net> >. On Behalf Of spike Subject: [ExI] wooohooo! this is our hell mary bill http://stateofreform.com/news/industry/healthcare-providers/2015/06/ca-senat e-committee-to-hear-right-to-try-bill/?cal CA: Senate committee to hear "Right to Try" bill By Jon Brumbach , June 12, 2015 SACRAMENTO - The Senate Health committee will consider legislation that would streamline access to experimental treatments for terminally ill patients. AB 159, also known as the "Right to Try Act", .patient has a serious or immediate life-threatening condition . >.Cool! . We should try something, anything. Hell Mary, we know what happens if we do nothing. spike Imagine a public database with a description of the (anonymized) patient's condition, as many metrics as we can get, a list of therapies being used and the results. Imagine another public database where anyone can donate an idea for treating one of the Hell Mary patients, perhaps along with a hypothetical line of reasoning for why that should be tried. Example, imagine someone suggested taro root for a terminal prostate cancer patient, reasoning that the yang overpowered the yin and taro is simultaneously a yinizing agent and yangosuppressant according to health guru Dr. Nick Riviera. Disregard. But if it says try the extract from the wild palmetto berry because the local indigenous population were eating the berries for that purpose back when the Europeans arrived and shot them for being too slow to confess their sins and accept Christianity, well hmmmm, that might be worth a Hell Mary play, especially after the medics have given up. The follow-up will be to document what was used and how the patient did after that. Then we figure out some kind of numerical code for each treatment used and in what quantities, along with a numerically coded outcome metric. We need to create a numerical system for everything, for which we need the medics' help (I have no idea how to create metrics for the outcome of a drug or therapy (a 1-0 scale for patient lived or died won't work (not enough resolution.))) Then we do a distributed background computing project where we do a Fourier calculus of variation style analysis, looking for any pattern anywhere, such as the taro root eaters perished in 68 days whereas the palmetto berry devourers lasted 97 days after correcting for other factors. We distribute the computing task over a jillion computers because the calculation task is enormous in multivariate calculus of variation. It chooses one factor to compare, the taro vs palmetto for instance, and finds all the ways to compare all other known factors by trial and error. This is the kind of analysis that cannot be done without enormous computing capacity, so it is a new-ish capability we have today, enabled by the internet and all these high-powered computers sitting around doing nothing 99% of the time even while we are using them. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 17:39:37 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:39:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > My guess regarding detection mechanisms is these are imperfect too. ?Yes certainly. A particular trait is determined by a gene and the fondness a animal has for that trait is also determined by a gene, usually a different gene; and both genes are under Evolutionary pressure. The female needs a rule of thumb to choose which male to mate with, but that rule of thumb could turn out to be a bad one. A bird species with a very small tail can't fly very well so a gene that said "mate with a male with a bigger tail" would be a good rule of thumb, but as the generations went by and the tail got bigger and bigger it would start to get too big and if that rule of thumb is not modified it could lead to trouble as in the peacock. If the gene for having a big tail and the gene for preferring a big tail were the same or if the 2 genes were close together on the chromosome and thus usually inherited together then the possibility of a disastrous positive feedback loop would increase. A mutant bird with a smaller more aerodynamic tail would probably live longer because he would be better at getting food and avoiding predators, but fewer of his genes would get into the next generation because he would have trouble finding a mate. John K Clark ? On Oct 7, 2558 BE, at 1:24 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > >> On Oct 4, 2558 BE, at 12:09 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < >> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >>> Why hasn't Evolution insured that everybody is beautiful? I can think of >>> 2 reasons and they both involve sex: >>> >> >> ### Seeing everybody as beautiful means you are unable to look at >> potential mates and rank them according to their fitness. Such failure is >> likely to be costly for your own fitness, which explains why evolution >> weeded out beauty-blind men and power-blind women. >> >> >> I believe John meant not that somehow the processes should've weeded out >> beauty detection or discrimination mechanisms, but that it should've weeded >> out any differences in beauty -- but for the two "reasons" he offers. >> > > ### A process that weeds out differences in beauty will lead to the loss > of adaptations needed to perceive differences in beauty. In evolution one > follows the other. > > But in real life, it's unlikely that any evolutionary process would remove > all externally perceptible fitness differences, which means there is always > pressure to exploit such perceptible differences to adjust mating behavior, > and thus there is evolutionary pressure to create and maintain the ability > to see such differences as varying levels of beauty. > > > Isn't there also genetic load here? I mean it might not be the case that > there's one beauty gene that's easily selected for but a host of related > genes that are difficult to individually select for given their > interactions -- as well as the interactions with the rest of the genome. > > And this is presuming there's even a simple relationship here between > genes and beauty. > > My guess regarding detection mechanisms is these are imperfect too. > Obviously, if something like the red dress effect is real, they can be > fooled quite easily. (Or is selecting the red dress a behavioral beauty > trait, so the detector is not being fooled at all? But my guess is people > wearing red dresses learn that red attracts attention rather than there's a > variable genetic component under this. I could be wrong, of course.) > > Beauty would only disappear in a designed system, specifically one where > no interactions between individuals can impact their fitness. But this > would no longer be evolutionary. > > > That would seem to be the case with many beauty enhancements now, > including choice of clothing, grooming, etc. Of course, these might be read > as signs of enhanced fitness -- grooming, especially -- or might be > selected for under supposed sexual selection, no? > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 20:24:36 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:24:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:39 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > >> > >> My guess regarding detection mechanisms is these are imperfect too. > > Yes certainly. I wanted to be annoyingly clear on that. :) > A particular trait is determined by a gene Well, an issue here is whether the particular trait or set of traits is determined by a gene or set of genes in the first place. Imagine this instead. The detection mechanism itself is wide-ranging. It's not a general beauty detector or even a specific-trait detector. It's simply a detector with many capabilities. (Not saying it's omni-capable here -- just that, for humans, it might not be something like a red-dress detector or even a color-red detector.) Then maybe early imprinting (or memory associations -- or whatever is not under direct genetic control here) simply tunes the detector for red dresses or the color red -- or for long straight black hair as opposed to curly auburn hair with blond highlights. (Presuming these latter are under more or less direct genetic control and easily selected for in an actual population -- as opposed to merely in the lab or merely in an idealized mathematical model.) Granted, if enough members of the population are tuned for curly auburn hair with blond highlights, then it might look like the mechanism is being selected for and the overall effect looks like sexual selection. (Let's assume that the detectors themselves are selected for by other things, such as being good at seeing colors overall is simply better for overall survival regardless of mate selection.) All this stuff would have to be confirmed for each trait too -- not just presumed because it makes a good story. (Beware the evolutionary just so stories as someone once warned here. With the example you're using, for instance, see http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110418/full/news.2011.245.html Kind of shows that empirical studies need to be done and alternatives considered before rushing to judgment, no?) > and the fondness a animal has > for that trait is also determined by a gene, usually a different gene; and both genes are > under Evolutionary pressure. The female needs a rule of thumb to choose which male > to mate with, but that rule of thumb could turn out to be a bad one. A bird species > with a very small tail can't fly very well so a gene that said "mate with a male with a > bigger tail" would be a good rule of thumb, but as the generations went by and the tail > got bigger and bigger it would start to get too big and if that rule of thumb is not modified > it could lead to trouble as in the peacock. If the gene for having a big tail and the gene > for preferring a big tail were the same or if the 2 genes were close together on the > chromosome and thus usually inherited together then the possibility of a disastrous > positive feedback loop would increase. > > A mutant bird with a smaller more aerodynamic tail would probably live longer because > he would be better at getting food and avoiding predators, but fewer of his genes would > get into the next generation because he would have trouble finding a mate. That's the typical tale :) with peafowl. Not sure how well it's been tested or whether it's a disaster. What I've heard used as an explanation is having a outsized tail and living is kind of proof to the peahen that the peacock is fit overall because a less overall fit male with the same large tail would likely end up as dinner or otherwise in dire straits. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 20:37:56 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:37:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Moral enhancement In-Reply-To: <56135C46.1000409@aleph.se> References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> <56135C46.1000409@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > On 2015-10-05 20:02, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2558 BE, at 9:09 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> A final solution: program our genes with powerful instincts so that we simply >>> cannot do anything antihuman. Take away free will, if you will. If you never >>> had it, you'll never miss it. >> >> That's the authoritarian position, no? If people don't meet someone's social ideal, >> then change the people. Why would that ever be a good thing to enforce on others? > > We do enforce it on children and insane people, often for their own good. Unfortunately > we also do do it for other, bad reasons. My fear would be the latter, of course, though I'm biased toward persuasion as opposed to forcing others to change to fit into some ideal of mine. There are other ways to go about this too. With regard to Bill's point, what I'm more afraid of not altering, say, genes, to make people smarter or to think more long range (i.e., have more willpower to use the traditional term) -- if such is possible -- but programming people to do what's now considered a socially appropriate behavior that involves removing more choices from them. I was more surprised since, correct me if I'm wrong (Bill or you), but I thought Bill called himself a libertarian. In which case, I'd expect him to have some qualms about this -- whether he's a transhumanist libertarian or no. > And as we argued in my most controversial > paper ( http://www.smatthewliao.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HEandClimateChange.pdf > ) we may want to enforce these things on *ourselves*. To be sure, he's arguing for a voluntary change -- though this is, I presume, voluntary for the parents not the offspring. My guess with this particular paper is it's totally unnecessary. And this is the usual argument for doing something drastic, no? Doom awaits us unless we do X! :) So, we must do X or suffer the consequences and only a bad person would be against doing X. > There has been a discussion in bioethics of moral enhancement for a few years (centered > around Savulescu and Person's book "Unfit for the Future"): given that we are moving > towards a world of powerful technologies in the hands of most people, it might be > necessary for our survival to become more ethical and sane. So biomedical moral > enhancement, improving people's ability to make good moral choices, may be > something that should be enforced even if the exact choices or moral systems > are left to people. > > https://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement > > From a transhumanist standpoint moral enhancement is interesting. When we had the > discussion about enhanced emotions back around Extro 4, it touched on this (long > before the outside philosophers crowded in). We can distinguish between enhancing > the capacities useful for making moral behavior (improving our ability to foresee > consequences, empathize with others, and control ourselves), enhancements of our > social structures (setting up incentives to be nice, surveillance and reputations to > make being bad worse), but also the ethical issues of being a moral enhanced being > - with great power comes great responsibility. I'm more worried about an attempt to remove the ability to choose overall rather than "moral enhancement." And your clause at the end, though not original, is true. I don't see dystopia as likely here, especially since the more likely outcome is a varied set of piecemeal changes -- if these are possible. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 20:53:16 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:53:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151007090840.GE14083@nosyntax.net> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <090401d0ff11$0dd404f0$297c0ed0$@att.net> <20151007090840.GE14083@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:08 AM, rex wrote: [S. J. Gould] > As I'm sure you know he doesn't give an analysis. Probably not. I've always felt he was more of the double standard type: he'll find confirming evidence/analyses for his position and disconfirming for the positions he's against, but never test his position or allow those he's against much of a benefit of doubt. >> Gould was a very incompetent scientist with a bully pulpit. I don't know about 'very' but the bully pulpit thing definitely got the upper hand. > He claimed others fudged their data, but later examination showed > Gould was the fudger and the original work he attacked was correct -- > his talent for writing enabled him to achieve an undeserved status in > popular science books. Pros saw him as a fake with a PC agenda (e.g., > _The Mismeasure of Man_) from the beginning. As pernicious was his view of Non-Overlapping Magisteria with regard to traditional religions. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 20:56:42 2015 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:56:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] wooohooo! this is our hell mary bill In-Reply-To: <008001d1011a$38d70c50$aa8524f0$@att.net> References: <003f01d1010d$d9824190$8c86c4b0$@att.net> <008001d1011a$38d70c50$aa8524f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:07 PM, spike wrote: > The follow-up will be to document what was used and how the patient did > after that. Then we figure out some kind of numerical code for each > treatment used and in what quantities, along with a numerically coded > outcome metric. We need to create a numerical system for everything, for > which we need the medics? help (I have no idea how to create metrics for the > outcome of a drug or therapy (a 1-0 scale for patient lived or died won?t > work (not enough resolution.))) You are not alone. People are generally "not great" at figuring out codes. for example: http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/W50-W64/W55- btw, I believe the expression is "Hail Mary" - but I'm never sure if you are being ironic... though if your intent is to step on toes, why stop at 'Hell Mary' - why not 'Heil Mary" :p From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 21:41:01 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:41:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wooohooo! this is our hell mary bill In-Reply-To: References: <003f01d1010d$d9824190$8c86c4b0$@att.net> <008001d1011a$38d70c50$aa8524f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Oct 7, 2015 1:57 PM, "Mike Dougherty" wrote: > btw, I believe the expression is "Hail Mary" - but I'm never sure if > you are being ironic... > though if your intent is to step on toes, why stop at 'Hell Mary' - > why not 'Heil Mary" :p Different sense of Hell, assuming Spike wasn't just misremembering. "This will either save Mary entirely, put her through hell though she'll live for longer, or kill her. The alternative is to let her suffer like hell until she dies. Suffering or dying, with a chance of neither, is better than suffering and dying." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 8 00:29:59 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:29:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wooohooo! this is our hell mary bill In-Reply-To: References: <003f01d1010d$d9824190$8c86c4b0$@att.net> <008001d1011a$38d70c50$aa8524f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <00f601d10160$78998430$69cc8c90$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:41 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] wooohooo! this is our hell mary bill On Oct 7, 2015 1:57 PM, "Mike Dougherty" wrote: > btw, I believe the expression is "Hail Mary" - but I'm never sure if > you are being ironic... > though if your intent is to step on toes, why stop at 'Hell Mary' - >>? why not 'Heil Mary" :p >?Different sense of Hell, assuming Spike wasn't just misremembering? Either one works. I think it was a misunderstanding to start with, similar to the Kumbaya song. Do encourage your aged Uncle Spike to tell you that story. >?"This will either save Mary entirely, put her through hell though she'll live for longer, or kill her. The alternative is to let her suffer like hell until she dies. Suffering or dying, with a chance of neither, is better than suffering and dying. Cool I like that saying. But if we get our Right to Try bill, we should also get a public database of Hell Mary plays. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Oct 8 11:53:26 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:53:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Moral enhancement In-Reply-To: References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> <56135C46.1000409@aleph.se> Message-ID: <56165936.7090105@aleph.se> On 2015-10-07 22:37, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Anders Sandberg > wrote: > > We do enforce it on children and insane people, often for their own > good. Unfortunately > > we also do do it for other, bad reasons. > > My fear would be the latter, of course, though I'm biased toward > persuasion as opposed to forcing others to change to fit into some > ideal of mine. Persuasion works to some extent (just consider the socialization of children and the fact that most of us do not committ crimes even when we can get away with it and it is beneficial for us), but the moral enhancement people have a point in that we have been trying to persuade people for 2,500 years with limited success. This is where Steven Pinker's thesis of reduced violence suggests that organisation and coordination may matter too. Of course, one can construct very creepy reinforces of prosocial behavior. See this article https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/chinas-nightmarish-citizen-scores-are-warning-americans and the correction/updates in this https://www.techinasia.com/china-citizen-scores-credit-system-orwellian/ I have little doubt that something like this could be used to produce "moral enhancement". > With regard to Bill's point, what I'm more afraid of not altering, > say, genes, to make people smarter or to think more long range (i.e., > have more willpower to use the traditional term) -- if such is > possible -- but programming people to do what's now considered a > socially appropriate behavior that involves removing more choices from > them. I was more surprised since, correct me if I'm wrong (Bill or > you), but I thought Bill called himself a libertarian. In which case, > I'd expect him to have some qualms about this -- whether he's a > transhumanist libertarian or no. Moral enhancement theorists generally do not think programming people constitutes "real" moral enhancement, just behavior control. Sometimes that or nudging is OK, but most of the time it is also very limited, since it only applies to situations somebody had thought about beforehand. > > > And as we argued in my most controversial > > paper ( > http://www.smatthewliao.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HEandClimateChange.pdf > > ) we may want to enforce these things on *ourselves*. > > To be sure, he's arguing for a voluntary change -- though this is, I > presume, voluntary for the parents not the offspring. My guess with > this particular paper is it's totally unnecessary. And this is the > usual argument for doing something drastic, no? Doom awaits us unless > we do X! :) So, we must do X or suffer the consequences and only a bad > person would be against doing X. That is not what we are saying, although I totally understand why you mention that reading. An awful number of policies are motivated by a major risk (real or not), and since the policy reduce the risk then arguing against it seems to be like arguing in favor of the bad outcome. Hence, less criticism than there should be. Climate change is not really bad enough to motivate radical interventions in humans (even the worst case scenarios span many decades, where other intervations are more effective), but it might apply to certain existential risks. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 16:10:54 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:10:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > Well, an issue here is whether the particular trait or set of traits is > determined by a gene or set of genes in the first place. > ?That would be a more complicated example especially if the various genes were a long distance from each other on the chromosome, but the end result would be the same because females who had a gene or genes for liking long tailed males probably had a mother who also had a gene or genes for liking long tailed males and probably mated with such a bird. Therefore a bird probably has a gene or genes for both producing a long tail AND a gene or genes for liking a long tail. And that is the recipe for a disastrous positive feedback loop. > ?> ? > Imagine this instead. The detection mechanism itself is wide-ranging. It's > not a general beauty detector > ?Beauty is not objective it is in the eye of the beholder. And a gene does not live in isolation, a gene is not good or bad ?in itself but only in relation to its environment, the other genes in the genome. Some teams of genes are good at getting into the next generation and some teams are not even though an individual gene might be great if it were on another team. > > >> ?>? >> A mutant bird with a smaller more aerodynamic tail would probably live >> longer because >> ? ? >> he would be better at getting food and avoiding predators, but fewer of >> his genes would >> ? ? >> get into the next generation because he would have trouble finding a mate. > > > ?>? > That's the typical tale :) with peafowl. Not sure how well it's been tested > Ronald Fisher ?, probably the greatest biologist since Darwin, tested ?the idea ? with the African long-tailed widowbird ? back in the 1930s? . The tails of ?widowbirds ?of? average length (but still too long for ?optimal? aerodynamics) were cut several inches shorter and released back into the environment and their behavior followed for many years. Just as predicted those widowbirds lived longer than average but had fewer descendants. ?It was also? found ?that when ? widowbirds with unusually short tails ?had? artificial tails ?surgically attached to bring them up to average length they didn't live as long as ?their? fellow ? short tailed birds without the prosthesis but ?they ? had more descendants ?.? ?And? that too was as predicted. > ?> ? > What I've heard used as an explanation is having a outsized tail anving is > kind of proof to the peahen that the peacock is fit overall because a less > overall fit male with the same large tail would likely end up as dinner or > otherwise in dire straits. > ?Maybe, but for whatever reason the female is choosing to mate with birds that have grossly un-aerodynamic tails, and that does not bode well for the future of the species. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 16:14:47 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:14:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Moral enhancement In-Reply-To: <56165936.7090105@aleph.se> References: <560E4D68.6050102@aleph.se> <560FA80C.2050406@aleph.se> <4B2D4528-43F8-4C23-AD22-2031D77512E0@gmail.com> <56135C46.1000409@aleph.se> <56165936.7090105@aleph.se> Message-ID: Anders - Moral enhancement theorists generally do not think programming people constitutes "real" moral enhancement, just behavior control. Sometimes that or nudging is OK, but most of the time it is also very limited, since it only applies to situations somebody had thought about beforehand. ? ?Yes - how can we get change unless we anticipate it and plan? I disagree with those theorists. Once someone has done something he wasn't totally forced to do, it becomes a part of his personality willy-nilly?. Recall the Red Cross example I gave - when people agreed to putting the sign up they became more supportive of the organization than before (to justify their actions - cognitive dissonance theory). Thus getting the behavior one way or another is the key to permanent change, then step up gradually to more and more commitment. Best if it's free choice, but get it somehow without involving force. Best if they can copy people like themselves. IF the theorists are just talking about a situation like a caged rat who has no choice but the depress the lever to get food, then they are right in part. But why is it 'just' behavior control? I suspect that they are thinking more about classical conditioning and most behavior isn't like that, although all emotional behavior is (and since emotions are involved in every opinion, it get's a bit hairy here). Most people are, I think, like me in this regard: I can be led, fairly easily in fact, if you just treat me right - push my buttons. Try to push me and you'll get resistance big time. The biggest problem with big problems is that there are conflicting views, often of a radical nature, like reforming the tax code or Social Security, and so nothing gets done because the politicos are afraid of their voters. Best if you start with a small problem to prevent a bigger one later - too late for tax reform and money for bridges and many other things, and so we have gridlock in Washington. But if they would just fix one little problem at a time, it won't hurt so bad at all. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 8 18:05:17 2015 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:05:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] news.ycombinator.com Message-ID: <00ed01d101f3$e3d28380$ab778a80$@natasha.cc> I took a look at the comments again at this feed. Some comments are ridiculous and others are have credence. (The ridiculous ones are way off base.) Anyone know who these folks are? The damn thing is that it comes up high in a search. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9594201 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 18:32:14 2015 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:32:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] news.ycombinator.com In-Reply-To: <00ed01d101f3$e3d28380$ab778a80$@natasha.cc> References: <00ed01d101f3$e3d28380$ab778a80$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:05 PM, wrote: > Anyone know who these folks are? The damn thing is that it comes up high > in a search. > > Hacker News is the tech startup scene. Most of the people in that thread are folks we know-- you can see gwern posting there, and reason at fightaging.org, jacquesm, TeMPOrAL, ggreer... just the regular crew, really. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 20:21:54 2015 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:21:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous buses in CA In-Reply-To: <065BFC4D-807C-4CDC-A58F-F3A73CC8A894@gmail.com> References: <065BFC4D-807C-4CDC-A58F-F3A73CC8A894@gmail.com> Message-ID: Kill those ants 18 40 60 Ilsa Bartlett Institute for Rewiring the System http://ilsabartlett.wordpress.com http://www.google.com/profiles/ilsa.bartlett www.hotlux.com/angel "Don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person." -John Coltrane On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > http://gizmodo.com/the-uss-first-autonomous-buses-will-drive-around-a-cali-1734989938 > > Finally! Now they just have to rapidly spread north. ;) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rex at nosyntax.net Fri Oct 9 02:29:09 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:29:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> John Clark [2015-10-08 09:13]: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 ?Dan TheBookMan <[1]danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote: > > ?> ?Well, an issue here is whether the particular trait or set of traits > is determined by a gene or set of genes in the first place. > > ?That would be a more complicated example especially if the various genes > were a long distance from each other on the chromosome, but the end result > would be the same because females who had a gene or genes for liking long > tailed males probably had a mother who also had a gene or genes for liking > long tailed males and probably mated with such a bird. Therefore a bird > probably has a gene or genes for both producing a long tail AND a gene or > genes for liking a long tail. And that is the recipe for a disastrous > positive feedback loop. ? Got an real example? I ask because it's easy to construct "just so" evolutionary arguments, but no so easy to find real examples, e.g., group selection exists in theory, but the conditions required for it to work are so restrictive that real examples are virtually non-existent. > Ronald Fisher ?, probably the greatest biologist since > Darwin,?tested ?the idea ?with the African long-tailed widowbird ? > back in the 1930s? . The tails of ?widowbirds ?of??average length > (but still too long for ?optimal??aerodynamics) were cut several > inches shorter and released back into the environment and their > behavior followed for many years. Just as predicted those > widowbirds lived longer than average but had fewer descendants. > > ?It was also??found ?that when ?widowbirds with unusually short tails > ?had??artificial tails ?surgically?attached?to bring them up to > average length they didn't live as long as ?their? ?fellow ? short > tailed birds without the prosthesis but ?they ?had more descendants. > ??And??that too was as predicted. But it doesn't follow that this would lead to extinction. After a positive feedback loop operates for a while it may alter the environment in such a way that the formerly positive feedback is now negative. Voila, you have semi-cyclic behavior instead of extinction. There are many examples of semi-cyclic population levels, but extinctions? > ?> ?What I've heard used as an explanation is having a outsized tail > anving is kind of proof to the peahen that the peacock is fit overall > because a less overall fit male with the same large tail would likely > end up as dinner or otherwise in dire straits. > > ?Maybe, but for whatever reason the female is choosing to mate with birds > that have grossly un-aerodynamic tails, and that does not bode well for > the future of the species.? In theory. -rex -- "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." --Winston Churchill From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 03:56:42 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 23:56:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:29 PM, rex wrote: ?> ? > There are many examples of semi-cyclic population levels, but extinctions? ?There are vastly more examples of extinctions than there are of ? semi-cyclic population levels ?. John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Oct 9 00:41:17 2015 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 07:41:17 +0700 (GMT+07:00) Subject: [ExI] Viruses and parasites: Eradicating disease Message-ID: <9305730.1444351277659.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21672213-viral-and-parasitic-diseases-are-not-only-worth-killing-they-are-also-increasingly?cid1=cust/ednew/n/n/n/2015108n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/n/email Viruses and parasites Eradicating disease Viral and parasitic diseases are not only worth killing off, they are also increasingly vulnerable Oct 10th 2015 | From the print edition TO EXTERMINATE a living species by accident is normally frowned on. To do so deliberately might thus seem an extraordinary sin. But if that species is Plasmodium falciparum, the sin may be excused. This parasitic organism causes the most deadly form of malaria. Together with four cousins, it is responsible for about 450,000 deaths a year, and the ruination of the lives of millions more people who survive the initial crisis of disease. Besides the direct suffering this causes, the lost human potential is enormous. The Gates Foundation, an American charity, reckons that eradicating malaria would bring the world $2 trillion of benefits by 2040. Malaria is one of the worst examples of the damage that transmissible diseases can wreak. But it is not alone. AIDS carries off fit, young adults by the millions and tuberculosis by the hundreds of thousands. Measles, whooping cough and diarrhoea together kill over 1m children a year. Parasitic worms and mosquito-borne viruses like dengue, though they take relatively few lives, debilitate many. Campaigns have brought the toll down heroically. As recently as 2000, malaria killed around 850,000 people a year; likewise, since 2000 deaths from measles have fallen by 75%, to around 150,000. These successes are to be celebrated, but an even greater prize exists: to go beyond controlling infections and infestations and instead to eradicate some of them completely, by exterminating the pathogens and parasites that cause them. That has been accomplished a couple of times in the past, for smallpox (a human disease) and rinderpest (a cattle disease similar to measles). The end is reckoned to be close for polio (a virus that once killed and crippled millions) and dracunculiasis (a parasitic worm). But more must follow. Swat teams Some diseases are not suitable for eradication because the organisms that cause them hang around in the environment, or have other animal hosts. Others, such as tuberculosis, can infect people ?silently?, without causing symptoms, so are invisible to doctors. But sometimes the culprit is a poverty of ambition. A list of five plausible targets?measles, mumps, rubella, filariasis and pork tapeworm?has hardly changed since the early 1990s, yet measles, mumps and rubella are all the subjects of intensive vaccination campaigns that could easily be converted into ones of eradication. And even though Swaziland is poised to become the first malaria-free country in sub-Saharan Africa (see article), only a few dare to make explicit the goal of ridding the planet of the disease. Hepatitis C should be made a target, too. It kills half a million a year, and affects rich and poor countries alike, yet new drugs against it are almost 100% effective and there are no silent carriers. Eradicating these seven diseases?the five, plus malaria and hepatitis C?would save a yearly total of 1.2m lives. It would transform countless more. People argue that the cost of chasing down the last few cases of a disease is not worth it. If the mass-vaccination campaigns under way can lower the incidence of measles, mumps, rubella and so on in poor countries to something close to rich-world levels, the argument goes, that is surely good enough. Well, it isn?t. A disease can bounce back. That is what malaria did in the 1960s, when political attention waned, and the parasites that cause it evolved resistance to drugs and the mosquitoes that spread it evolved resistance to insecticides. Three big improvements underpin the argument for throwing eradication?s net more widely. The first is better communications. The technology for locating and monitoring cases of disease in poor countries, even when few and far between, has improved immeasurably in the past two decades with the spread of mobile phones and the internet, and the expansion of road networks. The second is better medical technology. The reason filariasis is on the ?possibles? list, for example, is the invention of ivermectin, a drug that kills the worm which causes it. The inventors of this drug won half of this year?s Nobel prize for medicine (see article). The other half was won by the woman who came up with an answer to drug resistance in malaria?a medicine called artemisinin, which has been crucial to the success of the recent push against the disease. (This time, alert to the risk of resistance, doctors have formulated it with other drugs to create combination therapies that natural selection finds hard to get around.) Even better technology is in the pipeline. In the case of mosquito-borne illnesses such as malaria and dengue, genetic engineering promises ways of making the insects resistant to the pathogens that they pass on to people, of crashing the mosquito population, and even of attacking insects and pathogens with genetically modified fungi and bacteria. Genetic engineering also promises a wide range of new vaccines. The third reason for seeking eradication is a change in political attitudes. The emergence of AIDS, in particular, made governments everywhere sit up and take notice. Last year?s west African outbreak of Ebola only reinforced the message. Political attention leads to better medical infrastructure. To deal with AIDS, new networks of clinics were created and staffed with trained personnel. These can serve as the backbone of the campaigns that would be the starting-point for many extermination programmes. The Dalek doctrine The list of candidates for such programmes should be extended as and when circumstances change. The biggest prize might be AIDS itself. Smallpox, the first target for eradication, was picked in part because the virus that caused it had only humans as hosts and could not survive independently for more than a few hours. It had, in other words, no hiding place. Both of these are true of HIV, the AIDS-causing virus. What is missing is the third ingredient for smallpox: a reliable vaccine. Throughout history, humans and disease have waged a deadly and never-ending war. Today the casualties are chiefly the world?s poorest people. But victory against some of the worst killers is at last within grasp. Seize it. >From the print edition: Leaders From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 06:10:58 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 23:10:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:56 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:29 PM, rex wrote: >> >> There are many examples of semi-cyclic population levels, but extinctions? > > There are vastly more examples of extinctions than there are of > semi-cyclic population levels You left out some context. Rex wrote: 'But it doesn't follow that this would lead to extinction. After a positive feedback loop operates for a while it may alter the environment in such a way that the formerly positive feedback is now negative. Voila, you have semi-cyclic behavior instead of extinction. There are many examples of semi-cyclic population levels, but extinctions?' I believe this and the earlier parts of his post were asking you about linking actual extinctions to the mechanism -- not merely saying there are plenty of extinctions. Heck, with many long ago extinctions -- ones guessed at from the fossil record -- we can't always be sure a species went extinct in the sense of leaving no descendants or simply formed new species (whether by anagenesis or cladogenesis). Now, sure, one can't be sure that there's evidence for 'semi-cyclic behavior' either, especially going beyond population genetics models and fields studies today to the fossil record. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Oct 9 07:26:25 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:26:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Viruses and parasites: Eradicating disease In-Reply-To: <9305730.1444351277659.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <9305730.1444351277659.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <56176C21.8010102@aleph.se> My friends in the effective altruism community tend to rank charities and interventions against parasites at the top of lives saved per dollar. They are generally cheering this year's Medicine Prize. On 2015-10-09 02:41, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21672213-viral-and-parasitic-diseases-are-not-only-worth-killing-they-are-also-increasingly?cid1=cust/ednew/n/n/n/2015108n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/n/email > > > Viruses and parasites > Eradicating disease > > Viral and parasitic diseases are not only worth killing off, they are also increasingly vulnerable > Oct 10th 2015 | From the print edition > > > TO EXTERMINATE a living species by accident is normally frowned on. To do so deliberately might thus seem an extraordinary sin. But if that species is Plasmodium falciparum, the sin may be excused. This parasitic organism causes the most deadly form of malaria. Together with four cousins, it is responsible for about 450,000 deaths a year, and the ruination of the lives of millions more people who survive the initial crisis of disease. Besides the direct suffering this causes, the lost human potential is enormous. The Gates Foundation, an American charity, reckons that eradicating malaria would bring the world $2 trillion of benefits by 2040. > > Malaria is one of the worst examples of the damage that transmissible diseases can wreak. But it is not alone. AIDS carries off fit, young adults by the millions and tuberculosis by the hundreds of thousands. Measles, whooping cough and diarrhoea together kill over 1m children a year. Parasitic worms and mosquito-borne viruses like dengue, though they take relatively few lives, debilitate many. > > Campaigns have brought the toll down heroically. As recently as 2000, malaria killed around 850,000 people a year; likewise, since 2000 deaths from measles have fallen by 75%, to around 150,000. These successes are to be celebrated, but an even greater prize exists: to go beyond controlling infections and infestations and instead to eradicate some of them completely, by exterminating the pathogens and parasites that cause them. That has been accomplished a couple of times in the past, for smallpox (a human disease) and rinderpest (a cattle disease similar to measles). The end is reckoned to be close for polio (a virus that once killed and crippled millions) and dracunculiasis (a parasitic worm). But more must follow. > > Swat teams > > Some diseases are not suitable for eradication because the organisms that cause them hang around in the environment, or have other animal hosts. Others, such as tuberculosis, can infect people ?silently?, without causing symptoms, so are invisible to doctors. But sometimes the culprit is a poverty of ambition. A list of five plausible targets?measles, mumps, rubella, filariasis and pork tapeworm?has hardly changed since the early 1990s, yet measles, mumps and rubella are all the subjects of intensive vaccination campaigns that could easily be converted into ones of eradication. And even though Swaziland is poised to become the first malaria-free country in sub-Saharan Africa (see article), only a few dare to make explicit the goal of ridding the planet of the disease. Hepatitis C should be made a target, too. It kills half a million a year, and affects rich and poor countries alike, yet new drugs against it are almost 100% effective and there are no silent carriers. Eradicating these seven diseases?the five, plus malaria and hepatitis C?would save a yearly total of 1.2m lives. It would transform countless more. > > People argue that the cost of chasing down the last few cases of a disease is not worth it. If the mass-vaccination campaigns under way can lower the incidence of measles, mumps, rubella and so on in poor countries to something close to rich-world levels, the argument goes, that is surely good enough. > > Well, it isn?t. A disease can bounce back. That is what malaria did in the 1960s, when political attention waned, and the parasites that cause it evolved resistance to drugs and the mosquitoes that spread it evolved resistance to insecticides. > > Three big improvements underpin the argument for throwing eradication?s net more widely. The first is better communications. The technology for locating and monitoring cases of disease in poor countries, even when few and far between, has improved immeasurably in the past two decades with the spread of mobile phones and the internet, and the expansion of road networks. > > The second is better medical technology. The reason filariasis is on the ?possibles? list, for example, is the invention of ivermectin, a drug that kills the worm which causes it. The inventors of this drug won half of this year?s Nobel prize for medicine (see article). The other half was won by the woman who came up with an answer to drug resistance in malaria?a medicine called artemisinin, which has been crucial to the success of the recent push against the disease. (This time, alert to the risk of resistance, doctors have formulated it with other drugs to create combination therapies that natural selection finds hard to get around.) > > Even better technology is in the pipeline. In the case of mosquito-borne illnesses such as malaria and dengue, genetic engineering promises ways of making the insects resistant to the pathogens that they pass on to people, of crashing the mosquito population, and even of attacking insects and pathogens with genetically modified fungi and bacteria. Genetic engineering also promises a wide range of new vaccines. > > The third reason for seeking eradication is a change in political attitudes. The emergence of AIDS, in particular, made governments everywhere sit up and take notice. Last year?s west African outbreak of Ebola only reinforced the message. Political attention leads to better medical infrastructure. To deal with AIDS, new networks of clinics were created and staffed with trained personnel. These can serve as the backbone of the campaigns that would be the starting-point for many extermination programmes. > > The Dalek doctrine > > The list of candidates for such programmes should be extended as and when circumstances change. The biggest prize might be AIDS itself. Smallpox, the first target for eradication, was picked in part because the virus that caused it had only humans as hosts and could not survive independently for more than a few hours. It had, in other words, no hiding place. Both of these are true of HIV, the AIDS-causing virus. What is missing is the third ingredient for smallpox: a reliable vaccine. > > Throughout history, humans and disease have waged a deadly and never-ending war. Today the casualties are chiefly the world?s poorest people. But victory against some of the worst killers is at last within grasp. Seize it. > > From the print edition: Leaders > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From rex at nosyntax.net Fri Oct 9 08:16:02 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 01:16:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <20151009081602.GE9642@nosyntax.net> John Clark [2015-10-08 20:58]: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:29 PM, rex <[1]rex at nosyntax.net> wrote: > > ?> ?There are many examples of semi-cyclic population levels, but > extinctions? > > ?There are vastly more examples of extinctions than there are of > ?semi-cyclic population levels Sure. You omitted the context, but Dan sussed what I meant: "I believe this and the earlier parts of his post were asking you about linking actual extinctions to the mechanism -- not merely saying there are plenty of extinctions. Current thought is that the large majority of species that have ever existed are extinct, but that's irrelevant to my observation that a "just so" argument that exaggerated traits may progress to extinction does not imply that they will frequently do so. It's similar to group selection: it seems plausible and was accepted without question for decades. Eventually, the conditions necessary for group selection were elucidated and found to be be so restrictive that group selection almost never happens in the wild. I suspect extinctions due to runaway exaggerated traits are also rare. So far, not a single example has been presented. A quick search didn't turn up any examples, but it did reveal an example where sexual dimorphism "improved the carrying capacity of the environment, and thus presumably population viability." http://www.kokkonuts.org/wp-content/uploads/Sexy2die4.pdf [Full text at above URL] Ann. Zool. Fennici 40: 207?219 ISSN 0003-455X Helsinki 30 April 2003 ? Finnish Zoological and Botanical Publishing Board 2003 Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction Hanna Kokko & Robert Brooks Sexual selection is a field with a strong focus on the "costs " of traits. However, whether such costs have an influence on the demography of the population is very rarely discussed. Here we present various processes through which sexual selection might have an impact on population viability and thus increase or decrease the risk of extinction. We argue that evolutionary ?suicide? ? as sometimes suggested e.g. to have caused the extinction of the Irish elk ? is unlikely in deterministic environments, except if costs are not paid by the same individual that bears the trait. Thus, intra- or inter-locus sexual conflict could in principle drive a population extinct, and we do not know why this does not frequently happen. Whether sexual selection increases or decreases extinction risks when populations face variable or unforeseen environmental conditions is likewise unknown, and we outline mechanisms that could account for either pattern. Inbreeding is another factor that could either increase or decrease population viability in sexually selected species. Inbreeding may be caused by a high mating skew, but it could also be reduced if females adaptively choose mates to avoid inbred offspring. Finally, when intraspecific competition for resources is taken into account, it is unclear how individual viabilities translate to extinction risks faced by the population. We show an example where greater mortality of males due to sexual dimorphism improves the carrying capacity of the environment, and thus presumably population viability. http://humancond.org/_media/papers/crespi04_vicious_circles.pdf http://www.bio.uib.no/evofish/papers/BoukalBerec2002_JTB.pdf -rex -- "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare." -Justice H. Walter Croskey, 2008. From rex at nosyntax.net Fri Oct 9 08:37:57 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 01:37:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151009081602.GE9642@nosyntax.net> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> <20151009081602.GE9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <20151009083757.GF9642@nosyntax.net> rex [2015-10-09 01:17]: > I suspect extinctions due to runaway exaggerated traits are also > rare. So far, not a single example has been presented. A quick search > didn't turn up any examples, but it did reveal an example where sexual > dimorphism "improved the carrying capacity of the environment, and thus > presumably population viability." > > http://www.kokkonuts.org/wp-content/uploads/Sexy2die4.pdf > > [Full text at above URL] More from the above paper: Trade-offs between viability and male traits: Did the Irish elk go extinct because of its antlers? Megaloceros giganteus, the ?Irish elk?, has been extinct for about 10 000 years (Moen et al. 1999). Adult males grew the largest antlers ? up to 40 kg ? of any extinct or extant cervid (Gould 1974). A popular image is that the antlers simply grew too large for the animals to be viable: O?Rouke (1970: p. 111) speculates that extinction may have been ?the result of the excessive size of the antlers which made it difficult for the animals to feed?. To this date, such speculation remains popular: a characteristic anonymous web page (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/artio/irishelk.html) states that ?the Irish elk finally went extinct when the antlers became so large that the animals could no longer hold up their heads, or got entangled in the trees.? Somewhat more scientifically, Moen et al. (1999) estimated the energetic requirements for antler growth in this species and suggest that an inability to evolve smaller antlers quickly enough during a climate change event 10 600 years ago contributed to the extinction of the species. Gould (1974) likewise suggests that the antlers became a too heavy burden in this climatic and habitat change. There is little doubt that adaptations that improve a male?s mating success can be detrimental to his survival (Promislow 1992, Promislow et al. 1992, Owens & Bennett 1994, Moore & Wilson 2002). This applies both to ?armaments? used in male-male competition, and to ?ornaments? favoured by choosy females. Note that larger traits can be more detrimental despite the fact that in comparisons between individuals ornamental traits often correlate with higher viability (de Jong & van Nordwijk 1992, Jennions et al. 2001). But can these detrimental effects drive a population extinct? Consider a polygynous population, where males express a trait that improves their mating success over other males, but at a cost of reduced viability. It seems to us that evolutionary suicide ? i.e. deterministic evolution towards extinction in a constant environment ? is impossible in this scenario. Regardless of the details of the species? life history, extinction would require that too few males survive to maturity to fertilize a sufficient number of females to maintain a viable population. Since we are assuming that detrimental effects are evident in males only, a male which survives better than average would in this situation encounter a large number of surviving females, and virtually no competitors. The cost of being an inferior competitor must, therefore, diminish and disappear when surviving males become scarce. Selection must, therefore, favour the less extreme male genotypes, and it appears impossible to generate a scenario where males with larger antlers are still selected for when the lifetime reproductive success of males with large antlers approaches zero (as required for deterministic extinction to occur.) [...] -rex -- The primary goal in life is to keep existential pain at a sufficient distance. Drugs may help with this. From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 08:50:54 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 09:50:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151009081602.GE9642@nosyntax.net> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> <20151009081602.GE9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On 9 October 2015 at 09:16, rex wrote: > Current thought is that the large majority of species that have ever > existed are extinct, but that's irrelevant to my observation that a > "just so" argument that exaggerated traits may progress to extinction > does not imply that they will frequently do so. It's similar to > group selection: it seems plausible and was accepted without question > for decades. Eventually, the conditions necessary for group selection > were elucidated and found to be be so restrictive that group selection > almost never happens in the wild. > > I suspect extinctions due to runaway exaggerated traits are also > rare. So far, not a single example has been presented. A quick search > didn't turn up any examples, but it did reveal an example where sexual > dimorphism "improved the carrying capacity of the environment, and thus > presumably population viability." > > http://www.kokkonuts.org/wp-content/uploads/Sexy2die4.pdf > There is currently great concern about the amount of published research that cannot reproduce results when retested. Nature has published a new article. Quote: The issue goes well beyond cases of fraud. Earlier this year, a large project that attempted to replicate 100 psychology studies managed to reproduce only slightly more than one-third. In 2012, researchers at biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, reported that they could replicate only 6 out of 53 landmark studies in oncology and haematology. And in 2009, Ioannidis and his colleagues described how they had been able to fully reproduce only 2 out of 18 microarray-based gene-expression studies. ----------------- Evolutionary theory has been one of the worst disciplines for the 'Just so' story fallacy. Quote: Just-so storytelling. As data-analysis results are being compiled and interpreted, researchers often fall prey to just-so storytelling ? a fallacy named after the Rudyard Kipling tales that give whimsical explanations for things such as how the leopard got its spots. The problem is that post-hoc stories can be concocted to justify anything and everything ? and so end up truly explaining nothing. Baggerly says that he has seen such stories in genetics studies, when an analysis implicates a huge number of genes in a particular trait or outcome. ?It's akin to a Rorschach test,? he said at the bioinformatics conference. Researchers will find a story, he says, ?whether it's there or not. ------------------------- A good story is not evidence. Even when evidence is provided, you need to get it checked by groups that don't believe the good story. Because the claimed evidence may not really be there either. BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 15:19:41 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:19:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> <20151009081602.GE9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: Blast from the past: http://extropians.weidai.com/extropians.2Q00/2564.html Sorry, couldn't resist. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 15:30:22 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:30:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> <20151009081602.GE9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <0D493F60-5F0E-4FC2-A6B7-BC9193297E6A@gmail.com> On Oct 9, 2558 BE, at 1:50 AM, BillK wrote: >> On 9 October 2015 at 09:16, rex wrote: >> Current thought is that the large majority of species that have ever >> existed are extinct, but that's irrelevant to my observation that a >> "just so" argument that exaggerated traits may progress to extinction >> does not imply that they will frequently do so. It's similar to >> group selection: it seems plausible and was accepted without question >> for decades. Eventually, the conditions necessary for group selection >> were elucidated and found to be be so restrictive that group selection >> almost never happens in the wild. >> >> I suspect extinctions due to runaway exaggerated traits are also >> rare. So far, not a single example has been presented. A quick search >> didn't turn up any examples, but it did reveal an example where sexual >> dimorphism "improved the carrying capacity of the environment, and thus >> presumably population viability." >> >> http://www.kokkonuts.org/wp-content/uploads/Sexy2die4.pdf > > > > There is currently great concern about the amount of published > research that cannot reproduce results when retested. > > Nature has published a new article. > > > Quote: > The issue goes well beyond cases of fraud. Earlier this year, a large > project that attempted to replicate 100 psychology studies managed to > reproduce only slightly more than one-third. In 2012, researchers at > biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, reported that > they could replicate only 6 out of 53 landmark studies in oncology and > haematology. And in 2009, Ioannidis and his colleagues described how > they had been able to fully reproduce only 2 out of 18 > microarray-based gene-expression studies. > ----------------- > > > Evolutionary theory has been one of the worst disciplines for the > 'Just so' story fallacy. > > Quote: > Just-so storytelling. > As data-analysis results are being compiled and interpreted, > researchers often fall prey to just-so storytelling ? a fallacy named > after the Rudyard Kipling tales that give whimsical explanations for > things such as how the leopard got its spots. The problem is that > post-hoc stories can be concocted to justify anything and everything ? > and so end up truly explaining nothing. Baggerly says that he has seen > such stories in genetics studies, when an analysis implicates a huge > number of genes in a particular trait or outcome. ?It's akin to a > Rorschach test,? he said at the bioinformatics conference. Researchers > will find a story, he says, ?whether it's there or not. > ------------------------- > > A good story is not evidence. > > Even when evidence is provided, you need to get it checked by groups > that don't believe the good story. Because the claimed evidence may > not really be there either. A few years ago, I wrote a set piece on this sort of thing: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8353 By the way, Ian Tattersall's book _The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack_ mentions the kind of 'Rorschach test' with regard to how some researchers in paleontology argue that the 'fossils speak for themselves.' Happily (for me because this is my hobgoblin), he points out no fossil ever spoke to him -- even in the metaphorical sense. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 16:00:58 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:00:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > There are vastly more examples of extinctions than there are of >> ? ? >> semi-cyclic population levels > > > ?> ? > You left out some context. Rex wrote: > 'But it doesn't follow that this would lead to extinction. After a > positive feedback loop operates for a while it may alter the > environment in such a way that the formerly positive feedback is now > negative. Voila, you have semi-cyclic behavior instead of extinction. > There are many examples of semi-cyclic population levels, but extinctions?' > I believe this and the earlier parts of his post were asking you about > linking actual extinctions to the mechanism > ?It's very difficult to say for certain what caused a extinction or what caused semi-cyclic population levels for that matter, and if it happened long ago it's probably impossible. However if the only use of a attribute is decoration to attract a female and if that attribute is clearly detrimental in all other activities, as is the case of the Irish Elk's antlers or the Peacock's tail, then it's not unreasonable to conclude that attribute would reduce the number of individuals in a species compared to what they would have been if the female had used a better rule of thumb to ascertain the fitness of a male. And perhaps it could reduce those population numbers all the way down to zero. ?> ? > ?Kokka & Brooks:? ?"? > ? ? > Since we are assuming that > ? ? > detrimental effects are evident in males only, a male which survives > ? ? > better than average > ?" ? > ?Like a? Irish Elk with smaller than average antlers. > ?> ? > would in this situation encounter a large number > ? ? > of surviving females, ?Not necessarily. Females could become so rare that the poor male with small antlers can't find any females at all, much less females that will mate with him.? ?> ? > and virtually no competitors. ?Not necessarily. There might not be any real competitors as the big antler males are all dead but the female would not know that, there would still be competitors in her mind so she might refuse to settle for the geek with the ugly small antlers regardless of how practical they were. She wants bling not practicality. ?> ? > The cost of being > ? ? > an inferior competitor must, therefore, diminish and disappear when > ? ? > surviving males become scarce > ? > ?Not necessarily, not if a female Irish Elk thought that a male Irish Elk that had antlers of a size that was less than gargantuan to be so repellent that virginity is preferred. And after all for all the female knows there could be a beautiful male out there somewhere with huge grotesquely impractical antlers. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 9 18:38:35 2015 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:38:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] news.ycombinator.com In-Reply-To: References: <00ed01d101f3$e3d28380$ab778a80$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: <005401d102c1$b53e55c0$1fbb0140$@natasha.cc> This is disappointing to learn. But we must not know them very well if they think cryonics is foolish, that Aubrey de Grey is insignificant, and that scientific findings are BS. From: Bryan Bishop [mailto:kanzure at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 11:32 AM To: ExI chat list; Natasha Vita-More; Bryan Bishop Subject: Re: [ExI] news.ycombinator.com On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:05 PM, wrote: Anyone know who these folks are? The damn thing is that it comes up high in a search. Hacker News is the tech startup scene. Most of the people in that thread are folks we know-- you can see gwern posting there, and reason at fightaging.org, jacquesm, TeMPOrAL, ggreer... just the regular crew, really. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 9 19:52:03 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:52:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] lily the thrown drone Message-ID: <016101d102cb$f8c08c00$ea41a400$@att.net> Is this cool or what? I don't know for sure if it is real, but it looks like it. That underwater thing makes me a little suspicious, but the rest of it is plausible: https://www.youtube.com/embed/4vGcH0Bk3hg?rel=0 Think of the possibilities: hide the tracker in your daughter's car, she goes to the library (like she told her old man now) toss this thing, you get to watch where she is going to have fun fun fun. Ah, privacy was such fun while we still had it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 10:51:31 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 06:51:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:00 PM, John Clark wrote: ?It's very difficult to say for certain what caused a extinction or what > caused semi-cyclic population levels for that matter, and if it happened > long ago it's probably impossible. However if the only use of a attribute > is decoration to attract a female and if that attribute is clearly > detrimental in all other activities, as is the case of the Irish Elk's > antlers or the Peacock's tail, then it's not unreasonable to conclude > that attribute would reduce the number of individuals in a species compared > to what they would have been if the female had used a better rule of thumb > to ascertain the fitness of a male. And perhaps it could reduce those > population numbers all the way down to zero. > ### It is generally not reasonable to conclude anything in population genetics without doing some math, followed by simulations exploring various assumptions, followed by real-life measurements putting limits on assumptions. The least you can do before concluding anything is to read the relevant literature. ------------- > > ?Not necessarily. Females could become so rare that the poor male with > small antlers can't find any females at all, much less females that will > mate with him.? > ### You are concluding that the cost of a signal presented by some males could somehow reduce the survival of females. So tell me, how can an extra-large large peacock's tail, found in e.g. 10% of males, reduce the numbers of peahens down to zero ("any females at all")? --------------- > > ?Not necessarily. There might not be any real competitors as the big > antler males are all dead but the female would not know that, there would > still be competitors in her mind so she might refuse to settle for the geek > with the ugly small antlers regardless of how practical they were. She > wants bling not practicality. > ### This is silly. ---------------- > > ?Not necessarily, not if a female Irish Elk > thought that a male Irish Elk that had antlers of a size that was less > than gargantuan to be so repellent that virginity is preferred. And after > all for all the female knows there could be a beautiful male out there > somewhere with huge grotesquely impractical antlers. > ### Now, since you seem claim expertise in female elk sexuality, tell me how many elks did you see that actively rebuff males in order to protect their virginity? Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 15:16:21 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:16:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Haidt and Greene Message-ID: I understand that before I joined this group, there was a discussion of the Haidt book and its implications. After I read it, I then read Moral Tribes, by Joshua Greene, and think that if you liked Haidt you'll like Greene too, or even more. Where they differ I think Greene has the better of it. Bill W -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 17:00:14 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:00:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: ?>> ? >> ?It's very difficult to say for certain what caused a extinction or what >> caused semi-cyclic population levels for that matter, and if it happened >> long ago it's probably impossible. However if the only use of a attribute >> is decoration to attract a female and if that attribute is clearly >> detrimental in all other activities, as is the case of the Irish Elk's >> antlers or the Peacock's tail, then it's not unreasonable to conclude >> that attribute would reduce the number of individuals in a species compared >> to what they would have been if the female had used a better rule of thumb >> to ascertain the fitness of a male. And perhaps it could reduce those >> population numbers all the way down to zero. >> > > ?> ? > It is generally not reasonable to conclude anything in population > genetics without doing some math, followed by simulations exploring various > assumptions, followed by real-life measurements putting limits on > assumptions. > The least you can do before concluding anything is to read the relevant > literature. > ?Well... I've read Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation and the entire book is pretty much a report on the outcome of evolutionary computer simulations that Axelrod performed. And I've read Richard Dawkins's The Extended Phenotype (the best book on evolutionary biology I know of) which has a good amount of math. And the work of E O Wilson and Robert MacArthur got me interested in the subject in the first place. Was there anything specific you have read that I may have overlooked? > ?>> ? >> ?Not necessarily. Females could become so rare that the poor male with >> small antlers can't find any females at all, much less females that will >> mate with him.? >> > > ### You are concluding that the cost of a signal presented by some males > could somehow reduce the survival of females. > ? >From an Evolutionary point of view it doesn't matter if individuals survive or not, it only matters if their genes do. ? ? It might not reduce the survival of the female but it would reduce the survival of the female's genes because they will now be mixed with the gene for enormously impractical antlers (a male elk could receive the gene for exceptionally large antlers from his mother). So now the female's offspring have the gene for liking big impractical antlers that they got from their mother AND the gene for producing ? ? big impractical antlers that they got from their ? ? father; so that team of genes is headed for a positive feedback loop. And positive feedback ? ? loops ? ? seldom have gentle ?happy ? endings. ?>> ? >> ?There might not be any real competitors as the big antler males are all >> dead but the female would not know that, there would still be competitors >> in her mind so she might refuse to settle for the geek with the ugly small >> antlers regardless of how practical they were. She wants bling >> not practicality. >> > > ?> ? > ### This is silly. > ?And if I asked why it is silly I already know what you'd say "because you're being anthropomorphic". Yes I know I'm being anthropomorphic but it is a fact that human beings are part of the universe thus anthropomorphism can be a useful tool in figuring out how Evolution works, sometimes as an analogy and sometimes, as in this case, literally. The female elk REALLY doesn't want to settle for a geek with ugly small antlers regardless of how practical they are, and she REALLY does want bling not practicality. ? >> ?>> ? >> Not necessarily, not if a female Irish Elk >> thought that a male Irish Elk that had antlers of a size that was less >> than gargantuan to be so repellent that virginity is preferred. And after >> all for all the female knows there could be a beautiful male out there >> somewhere with huge grotesquely impractical antlers. >> > > ?> ? > Now, since you seem claim expertise in female elk sexuality, tell me how > many elks did you see that actively rebuff males in order to protect their > virginity? > ?I personally have seen very few because the last Irish Elk died 7700 years ago and I was just a kid at the time. However it is very common for modern females to rebuff the advances of modern males and remained virgins, so I think it is reasonable to hypothesise that things may have been no different 7700 years ago. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 19:28:50 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:28:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Saturday, October 10, 2015 10:00 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>wrote: >> It is generally not reasonable to conclude anything in population >> genetics without doing some math, followed by simulations exploring >> various assumptions, followed by real-life measurements putting >> limits on assumptions. The least you can do before concluding anything >> is to read the relevant literature. > > Well... I've read Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation and the > entire book is pretty much a report on the outcome of evolutionary > computer simulations that Axelrod performed. And I've read Richard > Dawkins's The Extended Phenotype (the best book on evolutionary biology > I know of) which has a good amount of math. And the work of E O Wilson > and Robert MacArthur got me interested in the subject in the first place. > Was there anything specific you have read that I may have overlooked? The literature dealing specifically with the species under consideration, for one. With regard to peafowl -- the classic textbook example used for many lay discussions of sexual selection -- I cited field work that questions some of the assumptions used to shoehorn (IMO) peafowl into arguments about sexual selection. N.B.: this is not to deny sexual selection. Nor is it to say, given certain assumptions and a specific model, certain things don't follow, but to ask whether the model or explanation works in a specific real world case. When it comes to real world cases, one has to do a bit more than just cite broad theories and general texts. And one has to be aware of alternative explanations too. (And, to pre-empt again: no one here is denying sexual selection or offering up some wacky alternative like aliens mated with elk or supernatural powers.:) >>> Not necessarily. Females could become so rare that the poor male >>> with small antlers can't find any females at all, much less >>> females that will mate with him. >> >> ### You are concluding that the cost of a signal presented by >> some males could somehow reduce the survival of females. > > From an Evolutionary point of view it doesn't matter if individuals > survive or not, it only matters if their genes do. To be precise, it matters that the individuals survive (or not) to reproduce. But you know that. :) > It might not reduce the survival of the female but it would reduce > the survival of the female's genes because they will now be mixed > with the gene for enormously impractical antlers (a male elk could > receive the gene for exceptionally large antlers from his mother). It remains to be proved in this example that the enormous antlers were disadvantageous in the environment they evolved under. > So now the female's offspring have the gene for liking big impractical > antlers that they got from their mother AND the gene for producing big > impractical antlers that they got from their father; so that team of > genes is headed for a positive feedback loop. And positive feedback > loops seldom have gentle happy endings. We don't know that that's the cases here. >> ### This is silly. > > And if I asked why it is silly I already know what you'd say "because > you're being anthropomorphic". Yes I know I'm being anthropomorphic > but it is a fact that human beings are part of the universe thus > anthropomorphism can be a useful tool in figuring out how Evolution > works, sometimes as an analogy and sometimes, as in this case, > literally. The female elk REALLY doesn't want to settle for a geek > with ugly small antlers regardless of how practical they are, and > she REALLY does want bling not practicality. The issue is not to avoid such analogies at all costs, but to realize that the explanation must be tested somehow -- not merely presumed that this really 'figures out' a specific evolution simply because it sounds like a good story. >>> Not necessarily, not if a female Irish Elk thought that a male >>> Irish Elk that had antlers of a size that was less than gargantuan >>> to be so repellent that virginity is preferred. And after all >>> for all the female knows there could be a beautiful male out >>> there somewhere with huge grotesquely impractical antlers. >> >> Now, since you seem claim expertise in female elk sexuality, tell >> me how many elks did you see that actively rebuff males in order >> to protect their virginity? > > I personally have seen very few because the last Irish Elk died > 7700 years ago and I was just a kid at the time. However it is > very common for modern females to rebuff the advances of modern > males and remained virgins, so I think it is reasonable to hypothesise > that things may have been no different 7700 years ago. While I'm no expert on elk, I'd like to know where you got that from? What little I've read and seen on elks leads me to believe, perhaps wrongly, that the males compete with each other for females -- that the antlers are used in male to male competition. If this is correct, it's not females choosing males directly -- unlike, say, in bowerbirds. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 21:16:54 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:16:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?>? > this is not to deny sexual selection. > ?Then that is all that's needed, everything else follows logically. If a attribute makes a individual more attractive sexually but in all other areas of life (including the ability to live long enough to reproduce) that attribute ? is detrimental ? then the species is heading for trouble unless the female alters her felling about what is attractive and what is not. ? ?> ? > It remains to be proved in this example that the enormous antlers were > disadvantageous in the environment they evolved under. > ?Perhaps I missed it but I can't recall anyone suggesting that clumsy heavy enormous antlers or gigantic gaudy spectacularly un-aerodynamic tails have any function other than finding a mate. ? > >> ?>? >> I personally have seen very few because the last Irish Elk died >> ? >> 7700 years ago and I was just a kid at the time. However it is >> ? >> very common for modern females to rebuff the advances of modern >> ? >> males and remained virgins, so I think it is reasonable to hypothesize >> ? >> that things may have been no different 7700 years ago. > > > ?> ? > While I'm no expert on elk, I'd like to know where you got that from? What > little I've read and seen on elks leads me to believe, perhaps wrongly, > that the males compete with each other for females > ?I'm sure they do, but that would still be a form of sexual selection. ? > ?> ? > that the antlers are used in male to male competition. > ?I'm sure antlers are used in male in male to male fighting, but if that was there primary function antlers would be shaped more like a spear and less like a large blunt open hand. Antlers are like padded shoulders in a man's suit, they look nice but don't add any real muscle. The horn on a rhinoceros is much smaller and less dramatic than the antlers on a Irish Elk, but it makes for a far better weapon. Apparently the female rhinoceros has a better rule of thumb to ascertain fitness in the male than the female Irish Elk does. I'd say the same thing about the horns on a Triceratops, they could do more than just look nice. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 22:25:58 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 18:25:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Viruses and parasites: Eradicating disease In-Reply-To: <9305730.1444351277659.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <9305730.1444351277659.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: ?On the subject of eliminating parasites, one interesting very recent development is "Gene Drive". Normally in sexual species there is a 50% that any given gene of a parent will make it into one of its offspring, but very recently a way was discovered to modify any gene and make if hyper-selfish, there would be a 100% chance that all a parent's offspring would have this modified gene, and 100% of its great great great.... great grandchildren too. Such a gene would spread through a entire population within just a few generations, and if that gene was detrimental, such as being very sensitive to a otherwise harmless chemical (or maybe even causing all the grandchildren to be male) the entire species would soon become extinct. Gene drive based on artificial hyper selfish genes have already been demonstrated to work in laboratory populations of mosquitoes and fruit flies. Austin Burt, an evolutionary geneticist at Imperial College London suggested that such mosquitoes be set free and gene drive be used to make the species of mosquitoes that spread the malaria parasite become extinct. Normally artificial genes couldn't compete in the outside environment with tough wild genes formed by millions of years of Evolution, but that wouldn't be the case for these new hyper selfish genes, natural wild genes wouldn't stand a chance. Luddites would say setting genetically modified mosquitoes ? free would be too dangerous ?,? but malaria kills 630,000 people a year and makes over 200 million sick ?;? so which is more dangerous, doing something or doing nothing? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Oct 11 15:03:36 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 11:03:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Natasha=E2=80=8B_Uploading_and_the_New_York_Times?= =?utf-8?b?IOKAiw==?= Message-ID: In the September Cryonics magazine there is a very interesting report on the research Natasha Vita-More did on the retention on long term memories of nematode worms even after they've been cooled to liquid nitrogen temperatures. So Natasha might want to write a letter to the New York Times (letters at nytimes.com) in response to a very negative uploading and Cryonics article in todays times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/will-you-ever-be-able-to-upload-your-brain.html?ref=opinion In particular Miller says: ?"? Our best current theories of how we store new memories without overwriting old ones suggest that each synapse needs to continually reintegrate its past experience (the patterns of activity in neuron A and neuron B) to determine how fixed or changeable it will be in response to the next new experience. Take away this synapse-by-synapse malleability, current theory suggests, and either our memories would quickly disappear or we would have great difficulty forming new ones. ?"? And: ?" It will almost certainly be a very long time before we can hope to preserve a brain in sufficient detail and for sufficient time that some civilization much farther in the future, perhaps thousands or even millions of years from now, might have the technological capacity to ?upload? and recreate that individual?s mind. ?" Natasha's experimental results would seem to flat out contradict Miller's hypothesis, unless human nerve cells are fundamentally different from the nerve cells of other animals, and I don't know of any scientist who believes that. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 11 18:53:18 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 11:53:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again Message-ID: <011401d10456$19cc8f30$4d65ad90$@att.net> This article really freaked me outwardly: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/11/tiny-flies-create-zombie-honeybees -that-take-night-flights-then-die.html?intcmp=hpbt4 Nearly 40 years ago, I got a call just as I was going to bed. A beekeeper friend told me a bee truck had overturned on an entrance ramp just south of Jacksonville Florida and if I could be ready to roll in 15 minutes, I could earn 5 bucks an hour from the time we left my house to the minute I returned. This being nearly twice the minimum wage at the time, and about 3 hrs of that would be sitting in a truck, my response was: I will be out front in my bee suit by the time you get here. Bees rely on their vision to fly. We set up some floodlights so we could see what we were doing, cleaning up wrecked hives and such, but the bees never took flight, even toward the floodlight. They know the difference between a bright light and the sun. Bees will not fly at night, but they will crawl and they damn will sting, which was a bad thing: they walked along the beekeepers suit until they could find any entry. I made 5 bucks an hour that night but only 2 bucks per sting. Now there is a parasite that causes bees to fly at night, and to fly in circles around a lightbulb as moths and other bugs do. That is crazy! And a clue: what mental circuitry are moths missing that bees have, until some parasitic larva devours that piece of brain or somehow disables it? Furthermore: if this larva or parasite somehow causes bees to fly at night, that would offer a possible contribution to colony collapse disorder. Bees navigate based on sight. If a parasite wrecks that part of their brain (or whatever bees have analogous to our brains) perhaps they take off at dusk, can't see, get lost, fly until they are forced to land by exhaustion, perish from exposure, remaining colony starves from loss of worker bees. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 11 20:16:55 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:16:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <011401d10456$19cc8f30$4d65ad90$@att.net> References: <011401d10456$19cc8f30$4d65ad90$@att.net> Message-ID: On 11 October 2015 at 19:53, spike wrote: > http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/11/tiny-flies-create-zombie-honeybees-that-take-night-flights-then-die.html?intcmp=hpbt4 > > Now there is a parasite that causes bees to fly at night, and to fly in > circles around a lightbulb as moths and other bugs do. That is crazy! And > a clue: what mental circuitry are moths missing that bees have, until some > parasitic larva devours that piece of brain or somehow disables it? > > Furthermore: if this larva or parasite somehow causes bees to fly at night, > that would offer a possible contribution to colony collapse disorder. Bees > navigate based on sight. If a parasite wrecks that part of their brain (or > whatever bees have analogous to our brains) perhaps they take off at dusk, > can?t see, get lost, fly until they are forced to land by exhaustion, perish > from exposure, remaining colony starves from loss of worker bees. > As the article says, this parasite was first reported over four years ago. So if was a widespread problem there would have been many more reports since then. Of course. every new parasite / disease makes life harder for bees. The ZomBee Watch project has been running since 2012, based in San Francisco and Los Angeles. It is a citizen science project that you might be interested to join. A citizen science project tracking the honey bee parasite Apocephalus borealis Help us find out where in North America the Zombie Fly is infecting honey bees. BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 00:14:32 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:14:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> this is not to deny sexual selection. > > Then that is all that's needed, everything else follows logically. If a attribute > makes a individual more attractive sexually but in all other areas of life > (including the ability to live long enough to reproduce) that attribute is > detrimental then the species is heading for trouble unless the female alters > her felling about what is attractive and what is not. You've again trimmed out context that would shed light on what your interlocutor meant. I don't believe you want to make others look foolish here. But please consider that cutting out some of the text in this discussion makes it appear as if Rafal, Rex, etc. are making lame comments while you're elucidating matters in a reasonable fashion. Here, I wrote: 'The literature dealing specifically with the species under consideration, for one. With regard to peafowl -- the classic textbook example used for many lay discussions of sexual selection -- I cited field work that questions some of the assumptions used to shoehorn (IMO) peafowl into arguments about sexual selection.' My point was and is not that sexual selection isn't operating anywhere or doesn't explain anything but that without close empirical studies and some degree of skepticism, one might all too easily accept that a given just so story explains it all -- that one has achieved insight because one has mastered a very simple model and dismisses the hard work of testing whether it applies to real world examples, such as peafowl and elk. Let me put this another way. One can easily have a model whereby all celestial bodies move in circles. And one uses this model to explain all celestial motion. Thus, when someone sees the orbit of Mars (or if one has advanced enough equipment, any planet) moves in what seems to be a non-circular orbit and others report comets and rocks falling from the sky, one can dismiss them or simply sweep them under the rug because one has read Copernicus and accepts the circular model, which works well enough and seems unassailable -- except by data (and other arguments, of course). And if everyone were satisfied with the circular model (and there are also mathematical tools to make it stick, of course), then astronomy and physics would be handicapped, shifted in the direction of justifying the circular motion model because 'everything else follows logically' from it -- given its assumptions. >> It remains to be proved in this example that the enormous antlers were disadvantageous >> in the environment they evolved under. > > Perhaps I missed it but I can't recall anyone suggesting that clumsy heavy enormous > antlers or gigantic gaudy spectacularly un-aerodynamic tails have any function other > than finding a mate. We don't exactly know that the antlers were clumsy for the elk having them. They weren't exactly observed dragging around clumsy antlers by ethologists many thousands of years ago. It's easy to speculate that they were large to intimidate other males. It's also easy to speculate they played a role in intimidate whatever wanted to dine on the elk. (And the timing seems right here that either hunting by humans proved their downfall or other changes in their environment that had nothing to do with having big antlers did them in. I'm familiar enough with this example to say whether either is supported by what's known about them.) As for peafowl, see the work I cited earlier. >>> I personally have seen very few because the last Irish Elk died >>> 7700 years ago and I was just a kid at the time. However it is >>> very common for modern females to rebuff the advances of modern >>> males and remained virgins, so I think it is reasonable to hypothesize >>> that things may have been no different 7700 years ago. >> >> While I'm no expert on elk, I'd like to know where you got that from? >> What little I've read and seen on elks leads me to believe, perhaps >> wrongly, that the males compete with each other for females > > I'm sure they do, but that would still be a form of sexual selection. Yes, but it's not females then selecting males on the basis of larger antlers. And it could be the case that a given female would mate with any available male. So, the antlers may have served more for males to restrict access to females -- with females not really deciding anything here. (In fact, I've read of many species where females -- from cuttlefish to waterfowl -- will mate with any available male -- cheating on the dominant male, which shows much more complicated interactions here. In such a regime, and this is simplifying things, it could be that the successful male is either the socially dominant one -- e.g., the biggest, baddest, strongest male -- or the more deceptive one -- e.g., one that would likely back down or lose a fight with the dominant male but manages to get access to females via trickery. And in these cases as I've read about it doesn't seem like the females care either way. Of course, these cases need to be studied more closely to make sure there isn't female choice involved. But there's no reason to presume it simply to fit a crude model of sexual selection.) >> that the antlers are used in male to male competition. > > I'm sure antlers are used in male in male to male fighting, but if that > was there primary function antlers would be shaped more like a spear > and less like a large blunt open hand. Antlers are like padded shoulders > in a man's suit, they look nice but don't add any real muscle. This is viewing the antlers as designed rather than evolved. In many male to male competitions I've read about or seen,it seems often a display or a low level of non-lethal violence is used to remove competitors from the running. There might be something more complicated going on here, such as -- and I'm speculating, but so are you -- a balance between competing for mates now, surviving for the next mating season, and ending up as a meal for a predator. At least, this might happen in some species. A way to test this might be to look at species where males can live through several breeding seasons versus ones with one breeding season lives. (Though that wouldn't isolate for predation.) > The horn on a rhinoceros is much smaller and less dramatic than the > antlers on a Irish Elk, but it makes for a far better weapon. Apparently > the female rhinoceros has a better rule of thumb to ascertain fitness in > the male than the female Irish Elk does. I'd say the same thing about > the horns on a Triceratops, they could do more than just look nice. There could be something else going on here, such as history. For instance, why don't humans have horns or antlers? Either might come in handy for intraspecies competition for mates and resources or defense against predators. Well, it has more to do with humans not descending [closely] from the same lineage as rhinos and elk. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 00:23:33 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:23:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Natasha=E2=80=8B_Uploading_and_the_New_York_Times?= =?utf-8?b?IOKAiw==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:03 AM, John Clark wrote: > In the September Cryonics magazine there is a very interesting report on the > research Natasha Vita-More did on the retention on long term memories of > nematode worms even after they've been cooled to liquid nitrogen temperatures. > So Natasha might want to write a letter to the New York Times > (letters at nytimes.com) in response to a very negative uploading and Cryonics > article in todays times: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/will-you-ever-be-able-to-upload-your-brain.html?ref=opinion It seems to me that Miller's argument is just a vast argument from incredulity because there's so much unknown about brain functioning and the whole thing looks really really really complicated. > In particular Miller says: > > "Our best current theories of how we store new memories without overwriting > old ones suggest that each synapse needs to continually reintegrate its past > experience (the patterns of activity in neuron A and neuron B) to determine > how fixed or changeable it will be in response to the next new experience. > Take away this synapse-by-synapse malleability, current theory suggests, > and either our memories would quickly disappear or we would have great > difficulty forming new ones." > > And: > > "It will almost certainly be a very long time before we can hope to preserve a > brain in sufficient detail and for sufficient time that some civilization much > farther in the future, perhaps thousands or even millions of years from now, > might have the technological capacity to ?upload? and recreate that individual?s > mind." There might be other hurdles, even ones that make uploading (and downloading) impossible, but much of this seems overly pessimistic in terms of how long it will take to either successfully achieve this or find out there's some fundamental issue with doing it. > Natasha's experimental results would seem to flat out contradict > Miller's hypothesis, unless human nerve cells are fundamentally > different from the nerve cells of other animals, and I don't know of > any scientist who believes that. I haven't followed the research closely, but I'd still like to see a higher animal -- an adult mammal would be my gold standard -- recovered with intact memories from cryopreservation. What is the state of the art here? (Too lazy to google at this point.:) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 03:00:08 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:00:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] lily the thrown drone In-Reply-To: <016101d102cb$f8c08c00$ea41a400$@att.net> References: <016101d102cb$f8c08c00$ea41a400$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:52 PM, spike wrote: > Think of the possibilities: hide the tracker in your daughter?s car, she > goes to the library (like she told her old man now) toss this thing, you > get to watch where she is going to have fun fun fun. > 20 minute flight time (so you'd have to come pick it up after it crashes) - and it doesn't look too stealthy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 12 03:10:28 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:10:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] lily the thrown drone In-Reply-To: References: <016101d102cb$f8c08c00$ea41a400$@att.net> Message-ID: <001201d1049b$8ccc0d40$a66427c0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] lily the thrown drone On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:52 PM, spike wrote: >>?Think of the possibilities: hide the tracker in your daughter?s car? >?20 minute flight time (so you'd have to come pick it up after it crashes) - and it doesn't look too stealthy? Ja. Any aircraft with multiple vertical axis propellers is operating in an inherently inefficient flight mode. This is especially true when scaled down this far. I have a notion that hand-launched horizontal-axis propellers are the way to go, perhaps with Styrofoam structure everywhere to reduce cost. A Go-Pro is cheap and makes remarkably good video. Check out this: https://player.vimeo.com/video/107995891 The Chinese haven?t decided yet that these things are illegal, but I suspect it is coming there and here. We can set up cell-phone controlled horizontal-axis propeller craft that could fly around for an hour with current tech. I am struck by how good is the picture quality in the video above. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 14:19:22 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:19:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Nanohoops Message-ID: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoo-noa100915.php Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ipbrians at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 14:28:26 2015 From: ipbrians at gmail.com (Ivor Peter Brians) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 07:28:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty Message-ID: John Clark wrote: "Why hasn't Evolution insured that everybody is beautiful?..." I'm surprised no one has mentioned this: As regards Humans, We have not been evolving "naturally" for many many years (3000'ish?). Since the advent of agriculture and medicine at least... Otherwise someone such as myself with strong myopia (poor eyesight) would not have made it to reproductive maturity (likely would have been eaten by a predator or fell off a cliff in childhood). Ivor From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 16:09:30 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:09:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > You've again trimmed out context that would shed light on what your > interlocutor meant. I don't believe you want to make others look foolish > here. > ?Oh for heaven's sake, anybody who wants to see untrimmed context can do so in about .09 seconds.? ?I take responsibility for every sentence I write and I expect others to do the same.? ?> ? > My point was and is not that sexual selection isn't operating anywhere or > doesn't explain anything but that without close empirical studies and some > degree of skepticism, one might all too easily accept that a given just so > story explains it all > ?Obviously. ? ?> ? > We don't exactly know that the antlers were clumsy for the elk having > them. > ?They were on top of an animal's head and were 9 feet across and weighed 90 pounds! ?I think we can be certain such a monstrosity was clumsy, or at least as certain as we can be about anything that happened 7700 years ago. Trying to argue that such a thing wouldn't be clumsy just isn't viable. > ?> ? > It's also easy to speculate they played a role in intimidate whatever > wanted to dine on the elk. > ?Why isn't there even one example in the entire 500 million year history of the animal kingdom of any predator having antlers? Because antlers are LOUSY weapons. ? >> >>> ?>? >>> What little I've read and seen on elks leads me to believe, perhaps >>> ? ? >>> wrongly, that the males compete with each other for females >> >> > > >> ?>? >> I'm sure they do, but that would still be a form of sexual selection. > > > ?> ? > Yes, but it's not females then selecting males on the basis of larger > antlers. > ?Then it would be males selecting who gets to mate based on the size of ?the? antlers ?, the bigger the better. And that would still be a very very bad rule of thumb to ascertain fitness, to ascertain the probability of survival in any given environment. ? > ?> ? > In many male to male competitions I've read about or seen,it seems often a > display or a low level of non-lethal violence is used to remove competitors > from the running. > ?Yes antlers work fine if you want ? non-lethal violence ?, and ? nonviolence ? may have worked well for Gandhi but an animal would find it works less well against a predator. > ?> ? > why don't humans have horns or antlers? > ?If humans did have antlers and they had the same proportions as the Irish Elk but were scaled down ?due to their smaller body weight and height then humans would have antlers coming out of the top of their head that were 6 feet across and weighed 15 pounds. The angular momentum alone would SEVERELY limit the speed you could turn your head even if the antlers didn't hit anything, and they probably would. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 22:47:50 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:47:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Malaysian rulers ban robot sex conference Message-ID: https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/13/malaysia-bans-international-sex-robots-c Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Oct 13 17:09:32 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:09:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Nanohoops In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And nanowrenches: http://io9.com/this-tiny-nano-wrench-can-twist-molecules-into-custom-1733011589 (No, Spike, not nanowenches!) Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Dan TheBookMan Date:2015/10/12 16:22 (GMT+01:00) To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Nanohoops http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoo-noa100915.php Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 14 13:08:18 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 06:08:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Nanohoops In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002a01d10681$6618bc60$324a3520$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:10 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Nanohoops >.And nanowrenches: http://io9.com/this-tiny-nano-wrench-can-twist-molecules-into-custom-1733011 589 >.(No, Spike, not nanowenches!) Oy, now ya done it. Next local geek gathering some comely young lass will show up claiming to be Dr. Sandberg's nanowench. No worries, we can look at the bright side: perhaps she will be in costume. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Oct 14 13:25:52 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:25:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Malaysian rulers ban robot sex conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The most hilarious part is: For instance, the Campaign Against Sex Robots was recently launched by two academics to promulgate the idea that sex robots would be "harmful and contribute to inequalities in society." The Campaign called Malaysia's decision to ban the sex robots symposium "welcome news considering the significance of the sex trade in Malaysia." I hope the campaign means it ironically, pointing out how this morally upstanding country has a lot of sex trade. I fear that they are earnest and think having academic symposia actually makes the harms from the sex trade worse. My own criticisms of the campaign http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/09/sex-and-death-among-the-robots-when-should-we-campaign-to-ban-robots/ http://aleph.se/andart2/uncategorized/why-cherry-2000-should-not-be-banned-terminator-should-and-what-this-has-to-do-with-oscar-wilde/ Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Dan TheBookMan Date:2015/10/14 00:51 (GMT+01:00) To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Malaysian rulers ban robot sex conference https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/13/malaysia-bans-international-sex-robots-c Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 14 18:18:59 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Malaysian rulers ban robot sex conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007f01d106ac$cc3f3110$64bd9330$@att.net> >. On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Malaysian rulers ban robot sex conference >.The most hilarious part is: >. For instance, the Campaign Against Sex Robots was recently launched by two academics to promulgate the idea that sex robots would be "harmful and contribute to inequalities in society." The Campaign called Malaysia's decision to ban the sex robots symposium "welcome news considering the significance of the sex trade in Malaysia.".Anders Anders, it is a clever advertisement ploy. As soon as sexbots do become practical, it is an advertisement problem trickier than that faced by the condom industry (how do you promote a particular brand of condom? (I do wish they would try (the commercials couldn't help being hilarious.))) The emerging sexbot industry cannot really come up with a Mr. Whipple ad campaign. Even imagining it boggles the mind. Their best bet: get some nation which stands to profit, have their politicians lead an ambiguously satirical crusade to outlaw robo-sex, import or build jillions of sexbots for rent or sale, let it slip that what happens in Malaysia stays in Malaysia, curious tourists flock in with money in hand. Malaysia profits, Malaysian Airlines profit, the hotel industry profits, their robot industry takes off, the government collects buttloads of tax revenue, the rest of the world goes home satisfied and with heads filled with ideas. Having the government ban that discussion points out to the masses that robot sex is a real thing now, with its own conferences. This is a rare example of where almost everyone wins. The no-collar industry might suffer some, but you know the creativity of the human mind in that particular area will work out ways where the no-collar workers can participate, do thee-ways and so forth. It would be safer to grope and be groped by the human while copulating with the robot for instance. The possibilities are practically endless. The whole thing practically explains Fermi's Observation all by itself. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 20:32:57 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:32:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Natasha=E2=80=8B_Uploading_and_the_New_York_Times?= =?utf-8?b?IOKAiw==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > I haven't followed the research closely, but I'd still like to see a > higher animal -- an adult mammal would be my gold standard -- recovered > with intact memories from cryopreservation ?I would love to see that too but I don't think I will until Nanotechnology arrives, and by then cryopreservation would no longer be necessary, death could be avoided without it. Ironically on the day that cryopreservation is proved beyond any doubt to work will be the very same day it becomes obsolete. John K Clark On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:03 AM, John Clark wrote: > > In the September Cryonics magazine there is a very interesting report on > the > > research Natasha Vita-More did on the retention on long term memories of > > nematode worms even after they've been cooled to liquid nitrogen > temperatures. > > So Natasha might want to write a letter to the New York Times > > (letters at nytimes.com) in response to a very negative uploading and > Cryonics > > article in todays times: > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/will-you-ever-be-able-to-upload-your-brain.html?ref=opinion > > > It seems to me that Miller's argument is just a vast argument from > incredulity because there's so much unknown about brain functioning and the > whole thing looks really really really complicated. > > > In particular Miller says: > > > > "Our best current theories of how we store new memories without > overwriting > > old ones suggest that each synapse needs to continually reintegrate its > past > > experience (the patterns of activity in neuron A and neuron B) to > determine > > how fixed or changeable it will be in response to the next new > experience. > > Take away this synapse-by-synapse malleability, current theory suggests, > > and either our memories would quickly disappear or we would have great > > difficulty forming new ones." > > > > And: > > > > "It will almost certainly be a very long time before we can hope to > preserve a > > brain in sufficient detail and for sufficient time that some > civilization much > > farther in the future, perhaps thousands or even millions of years from > now, > > might have the technological capacity to ?upload? and recreate that > individual?s > > mind." > > There might be other hurdles, even ones that make uploading (and > downloading) impossible, but much of this seems overly pessimistic in terms > of how long it will take to either successfully achieve this or find out > there's some fundamental issue with doing it. > > > Natasha's experimental results would seem to flat out contradict > > Miller's hypothesis, unless human nerve cells are fundamentally > > different from the nerve cells of other animals, and I don't know of > > any scientist who believes that. > > I haven't followed the research closely, but I'd still like to see a > higher animal -- an adult mammal would be my gold standard -- recovered > with intact memories from cryopreservation. What is the state of the art > here? (Too lazy to google at this point.:) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Oct 14 21:26:06 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:26:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Natasha=E2=80=8B_Uploading_and_the_New_York_Times?= =?utf-8?b?IOKAiw==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2015 1:33 PM, "John Clark" wrote: > Ironically on the day that cryopreservation is proved beyond any doubt to work will be the very same day it becomes obsolete. Not necessarily, at least not entirely. Cryo may be easier to deploy in the field than nano-based resuscitation on that day, meaning you'd use cryo in ambulances. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 10:42:37 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:42:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Natasha=E2=80=8B_Uploading_and_the_New_York_Times?= =?utf-8?b?IOKAiw==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/will-you-ever-be-able-to-upload-your-brain.html?ref=opinion > > > It seems to me that Miller's argument is just a vast argument from > incredulity because there's so much unknown about brain functioning and the > whole thing looks really really really complicated. > ### Indeed, this seems to be the case. Miller may be a senior scientist but the article sounds like a first-year student vaguely summarizing the obvious, followed by predictions intended to cover the next few centuries. There is no technical reasoning connecting, in a detailed way, the basics and the conclusions - and a scientist who is not using technical and preferably quantitative reasoning is just a dilettante. That the article is not intended for a specialist audience is no excuse. You should cite prior art and give at least a general idea of mechanisms and quantities even when addressing laypersons. And then he finishes it off with sophomoric philosophising about accepting death and your place in life. Poor form. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Oct 15 11:33:32 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:33:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The world is feeling brave Message-ID: DIY gene therapy, and preparing for crispR babies: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542371/a-tale-of-do-it-yourself-gene-therapy/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20151014 http://www.nature.com/news/where-in-the-world-could-the-first-crispr-baby-be-born-1.18542 Sent from Samsung tablet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 14:52:58 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 07:52:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The strange star that has serious scientists talking about an alien megastructure Message-ID: <9FB3D799-1427-4525-BD2F-F0E7BECE0544@gmail.com> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/15/the-strange-star-that-has-serious-scientists-talking-about-an-alien-megastructure/ Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 17:56:48 2015 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:56:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] David MacKay Message-ID: David MacKay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay is the only highly respected renewable energy person who has taken a favorable view of power satellites. http://withouthotair.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/solar-power-from-space.html Unfortunately, http://itila.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/unexpected-signs-of-malignancy.html If any of you know of treatment options, especially experimental treatment options, I have been in contact with David for a number of years. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 22:24:36 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:24:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Los Angeles council approves backyard beekeeping law Message-ID: LOS ANGELES (AP) ? The City Council on Wednesday voted to legalize urban beekeeping, overturning a ban dating to 1879 Quotes That means the nation's second-largest city will join New York, San Francisco and others that permit beekeeping within their borders. The city has many hives already ? some illegal and some wild. Some estimates put the number of wild hives at 10 per square mile. The new ordinance restricts beekeeping to backyards of single-family homes, sets buffer zones and requires beekeepers to keep a water source for the hives. The hobbyists also must register with the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commission. ------------ BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 06:44:05 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:44:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Pluto's power source? Message-ID: <12372642-B5BF-4A82-8477-2A1414CDCD00@gmail.com> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28348-icy-plains-and-snakeskin-terrain-among-plutos-lingering-puzzles/ I gather someone's already done calculations on the resonance thing with Neptune -- and that's not enough to do the job. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Oct 16 09:18:37 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:18:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The strange star that has serious scientists talking about an alien megastructure In-Reply-To: <9FB3D799-1427-4525-BD2F-F0E7BECE0544@gmail.com> References: <9FB3D799-1427-4525-BD2F-F0E7BECE0544@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5620C0ED.3040603@aleph.se> On 2015-10-15 15:52, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/15/the-strange-star-that-has-serious-scientists-talking-about-an-alien-megastructure/ > My two pence: http://aleph.se/andart2/space/likely-not-even-a-microdyson/ Still, there is an interesting astrophysics question here: if you have a Dyson swarm and leave it with no guidance, over time it will likely coalesce into planet(s). How fast is this process? I guess the answer depends on (1) the timescale of a ring of equidistant collectors coalescing (which in turn is related to Maxwell's work on the stability of Saturn's rings; see http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.26.5176 for a take on the control problem), and (2) the effect of having different inclination rings near each other. Any ideas? -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 16 13:44:43 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:44:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The strange star that has serious scientists talking about an alien megastructure In-Reply-To: <5620C0ED.3040603@aleph.se> References: <9FB3D799-1427-4525-BD2F-F0E7BECE0544@gmail.com> <5620C0ED.3040603@aleph.se> Message-ID: <009c01d10818$d07f0e40$717d2ac0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg My two pence: http://aleph.se/andart2/space/likely-not-even-a-microdyson/ Still, there is an interesting astrophysics question here: if you have a Dyson swarm and leave it with no guidance, over time it will likely coalesce into planet(s). How fast is this process? I guess the answer depends on (1) the timescale of a ring of equidistant collectors coalescing (which in turn is related to Maxwell's work on the stability of Saturn's rings; see http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.26.5176 for a take on the control problem), and (2) the effect of having different inclination rings near each other. Any ideas? -- Dr Anders Sandberg Hi Anders, This question needs more calculation. Your contention that a Dyson swarm would coalesce into planets might depend on the outcome of thermal calculations. Perhaps if my previous thermal model is correct and an MBrain must reflect much of the low-entropy energy in order to prevent overheating, then a sub-swarm could form, create an SBrain or a Saturn-scale swarm which can go in closer to the star and still maintain an acceptable temperature. Oh this needs more and better thermal calculations. We need to interest a good sharp Matlab-enabled graduate student. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 16 21:27:26 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:27:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] post for a friend Message-ID: <011501d10859$7585ce70$60916b50$@att.net> Our own Jeff Davis is not currently on Exi-chat but asked me to forward this to the list. Note I am not a believer in cold fusion in any way, and see no theoretical reason why it could ever work, and plenty of theoretical reasons why it cannot. But Jeff is a good guy and is far more open-minded than I am on this topic, so here's his link: http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/critical-conditions-needed-for-lenr-aka.htm l#more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 17 05:18:29 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:18:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] back to the future Message-ID: <006601d1089b$42ea00c0$c8be0240$@att.net> In the hilarious Back to the Future trilogy, set in 1985, Marty McFly goes back 30 years in time. At another point he goes forward 30 years to 21 October 2015. Realizing the date is coming, the family and I livestreamed the movie (they didn't predict that for 2015) to remind myself of a movie I viewed 30 yrs ago. A detail I had forgotten is that Doc Brown's source of plutonium for the Delorean time machine were Libyan terrorists. Hmmm, perhaps that was the video that caused the American embassy in Libya to be attacked? In any case, I haven't gotten to the part where McFly is taken to 21 Oct 2015. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sat Oct 17 07:33:05 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:33:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The strange star that has serious scientists talking about an alien megastructure In-Reply-To: <009c01d10818$d07f0e40$717d2ac0$@att.net> References: <9FB3D799-1427-4525-BD2F-F0E7BECE0544@gmail.com> <5620C0ED.3040603@aleph.se> <009c01d10818$d07f0e40$717d2ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <5621F9B1.9010201@aleph.se> This is a nice presentation and paper http://orfe.princeton.edu/~rvdb/tex/talks/PACM07/RingTalk.pdf http://orfe.princeton.edu/~rvdb/tex/saturn/ms.pdf that show Maxwell was right about the ring stability. A ring of n objects with mass m orbiting a mass M will remain stable is m < 2.298 M/n^3. So if each Dysonlet is square with side s, area density rho and orbits at distance R, then: rho < [2.298/8 pi^3] M s /R^3. That is, the Dysonlets need to become much larger in a large sphere. If we take rho to be 0.0271 kg/m^2 (aluminium foil), at R=1 AU the smallest stable Dysonlet has side 4.9 km. Note that you can stabilize things by moving half out to a slightly wider orbit (n^3 drops by a factor of 8) but you will have to deal with the different periods producing self-shadowing. If an abandoned ring has some breakup (say meteor damage), then it seems likely that the appearance of smaller fragments can destabilize the whole array. In fact, the Kessler syndrome http://webpages.charter.net/dkessler/files/Collision%20Frequency.pdf in this case might be *way* nastier than around Earth, since we are talking about a thick soup of collectors: almost half of the directions available for a debris piece will intersect with something else. Once there are smaller fragments, they will start gravitating towards larger densities and destabilize the overall structure. The growth of a perturbation is roughly X''= omega^2 X + [nonlinear stuff] (omega is angular frequency), so once the array destabilizes it will go bad in about one rotation. But as the simulations on Vanderbei's page show, it may take a long while for the disaster to trigger. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Oct 17 23:48:05 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 19:48:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 1:00 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > ?Well... I've read Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation and the > entire book is pretty much a report on the outcome of evolutionary computer > simulations that Axelrod performed. And I've read Richard Dawkins's The > Extended Phenotype (the best book on evolutionary biology I know of) > which has a good amount of math. And the work of E O Wilson and Robert > MacArthur got me interested in the subject in the first place. Was there > anything specific you have read that I may have overlooked? > ### So where in these books did you find mechanistic descriptions of species dying out because males' tails got too long? Please give chapter and page numbers. ----------------------- > > ? > From an Evolutionary point of view it doesn't matter if individuals > survive or not, it only matters if their genes do. > ? ? > It might not reduce the survival of the female but it would reduce the > survival of the female's genes because they will now be mixed with the gene > for enormously impractical antlers (a male elk could receive the gene for > exceptionally large antlers from his mother). So now the female's offspring > have the gene for liking big impractical antlers that they got from their > mother AND the gene for producing > ? ? > big impractical antlers that they got from their > ? ? > father; so that team of genes is headed for a positive feedback loop. And > positive feedback > ? ? > loops > ? ? > seldom have gentle > ?happy ? > endings. > ### This is incomprehensible. Just give me references to peer-reviewed primary literature (not Gould's though) showing that runaway sexual selection feedback loops plausibly cause species extinction. ---------------- > ?And if I asked why it is silly I already know what you'd say "because > you're being anthropomorphic". Yes I know I'm being anthropomorphic but it > is a fact that human beings are part of the universe thus anthropomorphism > can be a useful tool in figuring out how Evolution works, sometimes as an > analogy and sometimes, as in this case, literally. The female elk REALLY > doesn't want to settle for a geek with ugly small antlers regardless of > how practical they are, and she REALLY does want bling not practicality. > ### No, anthropomorphic psychologizing has no part in figuring out how evolution works. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 09:16:29 2015 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:16:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?FYC_-_Zoltan_and_the_anti-Istvan_petition_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCTIEpldGhybyBvciBab2U/?= Message-ID: Zoltan and the anti-Istvan petition ? Jethro or Zoe? A group of transhumanists issued a petition to ?Disavow Zoltan Istvan Candidacy for US Presidency.? Many good friends invited me to sign the petition, but I didn?t sign it.... http://turingchurch.com/2015/10/18/zoltan-and-the-anti-istvan-petition-jethro-or-zoe/ From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 18 16:11:31 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:11:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] can seti have marcy? Message-ID: <00a901d109bf$a7dce450$f796acf0$@att.net> I suppose you have heard of Geoff Marcy's difficulties up at Berkeley. It made front page headlines in the local newspaper. If anyone here is friends with Geoff or knows how to contact him, perhaps suggest he talk to SETI. I go to their astronomy and science talks nearly every week and know that he is held in very high esteem there. Presuming the allegations are true, SETI would be a harmless place for him to employ his considerable talent in a low risk low temptation environment: I seldom see young ladies anywhere near that place. Astronomy is a barren hunting ground for hetero male lonely hearts. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 16:47:45 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:47:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: ?>> ? >> ?Well... I've read Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation and the >> entire book is pretty much a report on the outcome of evolutionary computer >> simulations that Axelrod performed. And I've read Richard Dawkins's The >> Extended Phenotype (the best book on evolutionary biology I know of) >> which has a good amount of math. And the work of E O Wilson and Robert >> MacArthur got me interested in the subject in the first place. Was there >> anything specific you have read that I may have overlooked? >> > > ?> ? > So where in these books did you find mechanistic descriptions of species > dying out because males' tails got too long? Please give chapter and page > numbers. > ?Please read the books and find you own page numbers.? > ?> ? > anthropomorphic psychologizing has no part in figuring out how evolution > works. > ? Why not? Does human motivation exist at a higher level of reality ?that other parts of biology? ?I s ?human motivation ? completely different from animal motivation? Can nothing be learned about one from the study of the other? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 18:17:49 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:17:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > ?Please read the books and find you own page numbers.? > ### If you say it's in the bible, it's your job to quote chapter and verse. Also, I already provided links to articles arguing against your position. The ball is in your court. ---------------- > > >> ?> ? >> anthropomorphic psychologizing has no part in figuring out how evolution >> works. >> > > ? > Why not? > > ### Because off-the-cuff anthropomorphic psychologizing doesn't rigorously (i.e. mathematically) tackle the stuff of evolution (mutation frequency, fitness payoff, heritability, etc.). Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 23:20:55 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:20:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Epistemology of the Precautionary Principle: Two Puzzles Resolved? Message-ID: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-014-9694-x It's behind a paywall, but some of you might have or can acquire access, I'm sure. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 23:27:07 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:27:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM, John Clark wrote: >> Please read the books and find you own page numbers. > > ### If you say it's in the bible, it's your job to quote chapter and verse. Also, I already > provided links to articles arguing against your position. The ball is in your court. My reaction too. My recollection of the works John cited here too was more that they provided illustrative examples and general principles. The issue here would be do these apply and how to the specific case. But the onus is on the person making the claim here. (I, too, provided links on the peafowl, which seemed to have been ignored.) >>> anthropomorphic psychologizing has no part in figuring out how evolution works. >> >> Why not? >> > ### Because off-the-cuff anthropomorphic psychologizing doesn't rigorously (i.e. > mathematically) tackle the stuff of evolution (mutation frequency, fitness payoff, > heritability, etc.). I'm not against "off the cuff" reasoning or speculation as a starting point, but then one does have to see how this stands against more rigorous reasoning and empirical studies (where applicable). One can merely say "sexual selection" (or pick a pet theory) as if this is an incantation that dispels all doubts. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 23:58:04 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:58:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] can seti have marcy? In-Reply-To: <00a901d109bf$a7dce450$f796acf0$@att.net> References: <00a901d109bf$a7dce450$f796acf0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 9:11 AM, spike wrote: > I suppose you have heard of Geoff Marcy?s difficulties up at Berkeley. It > made front page headlines in the local newspaper. If anyone here is friends > with Geoff or knows how to contact him, perhaps suggest he talk to SETI. > I go to their astronomy and science talks nearly every week and know that > he is held in very high esteem there. Presuming the allegations are true, > SETI would be a harmless place for him to employ his considerable talent > in a low risk low temptation environment: I seldom see young ladies anywhere > near that place. Astronomy is a barren hunting ground for hetero male > lonely hearts. I imagine the allegations would follow him there and then possibly tarnish SETI. Apparently, too, the women he's alleged to harass were studying astronomy, no? Sarah Ballard, one of the women alleged to have been harassed, is now an astronomy postdoc at MIT according to the reports I've read. Someone might offer up the narrative that there are fewer women represented in the field because of folks like Marcy making them uncomfortable. In other words, if you believe women are absent there it might be because they've been made to feel unwelcome in the first place. (And people do make decisions based on things like comfort level. This isn't totally off the wall, IMO.) That said, if the allegations are true and we agree that this type of behavior is inappropriate for someone in his former position, then perhaps we should be considering just what he should be allowed to do. I mean should his error here, which didn't rise to the level of criminal behavior -- or so it seems -- mean he's barred forever from astronomy? Is it possible to find a place for him somewhere or find a way to rehabilitate such folks? A similar thing applies to people who've committed other acts like plagiarism and falsifying data. One could make the case, too, that there are so few such positions and many candidates waiting to fill them that it's far easier to simply bar such folks rather than incur the high monitoring costs (to make sure they don't repeat offend). Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 01:09:54 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:09:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ?>? > you say it's in the bible, it's your job to quote chapter and verse. > ?I don't have a bible, but maybe the October 28 1982 issue of Nature pages 818 to 820 will do, if not try page 201 of Richard book "The Blind Watchmaker". ? > ?> ? > Also, I already provided links to articles arguing against your position. > ?You provided no links that say a peacocks tail aids in a individuals survival or is aerodynamic or does anything other than help in finding a mate. ?You did provided 3 links and you were correct when you said ?" All three point towards sexual selection as generally increasing the likelihood of species survival ?". Well...how could it be otherwise? I f it did not then either ?sexual selection or species would have disappeared long long ago, it has not so sexual selection must generally increasing the likelihood of species survival ?. QED. However the key word is "generally" and that means there are exceptions, and that means that sexual selection can cause Evolution to make mistakes as it did with the ridiculous antlers of the Irish Elk and drive the species into extinction. > ?> >>> ?>>? >>> ? >>> anthropomorphic psychologizing has no part in figuring out how evolution >>> works. >>> >> >> ?>> ? >> ? >> Why not? >> >> ?>? > Because off-the-cuff anthropomorphic psychologizing doesn't rigorously > (i.e. mathematically) > ?Evolution will never be totally as rigorous as some other sciences because it depends as much on history as it does on mathematics. And ?psychoanalyzing is not needed to know that humans and animals are attracted to some things and repelled by others and at least some of those likes and dislikes are genetic. > ?> ? > tackle the stuff of evolution (mutation frequency, fitness payoff, > heritability, etc.). > A trait is not heritable if a mate can not be found. Human females are sexually attracted to human males they find attractive and the same is true for female Irish Elk. For female Irish Elk the larger the antlers the more attractive, and so antler size increased explosively with disastrous results for the species. Our ancestors must have found something else attractive, something else that could be used as a obvious marker for fitness; perhaps it was intelligent behavior, if so that would explain the unprecedented increase in brain size hominids underwent in the last million years or so. Fortunately for us intelligent behavior does more does more that just help in finding a mate and so ?we ? are not extinct ?, at least not yet.? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 02:22:18 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:22:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:09 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> you say it's in the bible, it's your job to quote chapter and verse. > > I don't have a bible, but maybe the October 28 1982 issue of Nature pages 818 to 820 will do, For those who prefer a URL, see: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n5886/abs/299818a0.html The article is titled 'Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird.' This will only do for the species in question. Also, this is an extant species. How would this prove the case that sexual selection drove another species -- e.g., the Irish Elk -- to extinction? > if not try > page 201 of Richard book "The Blind Watchmaker". The link is: https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&q=201#v=snippet&q=201&f=false This merely tells what sexual is in lay terms. It doesn't present an actual example of a species going extinct from sexual selection. >> Also, I already provided links to articles arguing against your position. > > > You provided no links that say a peacocks tail aids in a individuals survival or is aerodynamic or does anything other than help in finding a mate. > You did provided 3 links and you were correct when you said " > All three point towards sexual selection as generally increasing the likelihood of species survival > ". Well...how could it be otherwise? I > f it did not then either sexual selection or species would have disappeared long long ago, it has not so sexual selection must generally increasing the likelihood of species survival > . QED. > > However the key word is "generally" and that means there are exceptions, and that means that sexual selection can cause Evolution to make mistakes as it did with the ridiculous antlers of the Irish Elk and drive the species into extinction. That's still a speculation with regard to the Irish Elk. There are many theories of why it went extinct. Why is not possible that range reduction and hunting by humans played a much bigger role here than merely having supersized antlers? (If we're going to go back to the 1980s, e.g., check out this article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/228/4697/340 -- 'Taphonomy and Herd Structure of the Extinct Irish Elk, Megaloceros giganteus.' Note what the abstract states: adult males with small antlers seemed to have died during winter segregation from females. What might that imply, if true, about big antlers having an impact on survival?) >> Because off-the-cuff anthropomorphic psychologizing doesn't rigorously (i.e. mathematically) > > > Evolution will never be totally as rigorous as some other sciences because it depends > as much on history as it does on mathematics. Maybe so, but then we also look toward data -- e.g., looking at the fossils or extant species -- and see what happens. We can check speculations against both mathematical models and field data -- all while admitting this isn't a purely deductive science. > And psychoanalyzing is not needed > to know that humans and animals are attracted to some things and repelled by others > and at least some of those likes and dislikes are genetic. This is true, though one has to be very careful trying to do this with extinct species like the Irish Elk. We don't have direct field observations of their behavior. We can use some extant species as models -- other elk, for instance -- though one has to be careful with conclusions drawn. And, of course, one can try to infer behavior from fossil remains, but that also requires care. But, that said, it seems the experts here are not all lining up for big antlers did the Irish Elk in. :) >> tackle the stuff of evolution (mutation frequency, fitness payoff, heritability, etc.). > > A trait is not heritable if a mate can not be found. Human females are sexually attracted > to human males they find attractive and the same is true for female Irish Elk. For female > Irish Elk the larger the antlers the more attractive, and so antler size increased explosively > with disastrous results for the species. Our ancestors must have found something else > attractive, something else that could be used as a obvious marker for fitness; perhaps it > was intelligent behavior, if so that would explain the unprecedented increase in brain size > hominids underwent in the last million years or so. Fortunately for us intelligent behavior > does more does more that just help in finding a mate and so we are not extinct > , at least not yet. At best, this is speculative. You're giving us the same just so story for why the elk went extinct. You need to present better data and a stronger argument -- one that addresses why other factors -- loss of habitat, range fragmentation, human hunting -- didn't play a bigger or dominant role in their extinction. The works you cited don't seem to make that a slam dunk case. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 02:28:48 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:28:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] When Fiction and Fact Collide in Fringe History Message-ID: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/aztec-giants-and-lovecraftian-horror-when-fiction-and-fact-collide-in-fringe-history Well, there is software reuse, so why not fringe history text reuse? :) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 07:03:38 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:03:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Epistemology of the Precautionary Principle: Two Puzzles Resolved? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-014-9694-x > > It's behind a paywall, but some of you might have or can acquire access, > I'm sure. > Is http://philpapers.org/archive/ASBTEO.pdf the same article? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 07:35:07 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:35:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Epistemology of the Precautionary Principle: Two Puzzles Resolved? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D606DBB-3881-47F8-B808-CF66874A3F84@gmail.com> > On Oct 19, 2558 BE, at 12:03 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-014-9694-x >> >> It's behind a paywall, but some of you might have or can acquire access, I'm sure. > > Is http://philpapers.org/archive/ASBTEO.pdf the same article? Yes, thanks. That's the pre-print. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Oct 19 08:53:30 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:53:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Epistemology of the Precautionary Principle: Two Puzzles Resolved? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5624AF8A.4080407@aleph.se> A bigger problem is when the principle turns against itself. It states that we should take precautionary action against uncertain threats (say climate change), but if the available actions are uncertainly risky (say geoengineering) then we should avoid them. Yes, the sane more epistemic formulation of the principle responds by saying we should reduce the uncertainty by doing research, but when it is seen as action-guiding it locks up in situations like this (and the research might find that the uncertainty is irreducible). Thanks for the paper, it helped me find the de minimis principle - a concept I had been looking for the accepted name of for quite some time. On 2015-10-19 00:20, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-014-9694-x > > It's behind a paywall, but some of you might have or can acquire > access, I'm sure. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Oct 19 09:14:12 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:14:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] can seti have marcy? In-Reply-To: References: <00a901d109bf$a7dce450$f796acf0$@att.net> Message-ID: <5624B464.4070400@aleph.se> On 2015-10-19 00:58, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > That said, if the allegations are true and we agree that this type of > behavior is inappropriate for someone in his former position, then > perhaps we should be considering just what he should be allowed to do. > I mean should his error here, which didn't rise to the level of > criminal behavior -- or so it seems -- mean he's barred forever from > astronomy? Is it possible to find a place for him somewhere or find a > way to rehabilitate such folks? This is an interesting problem. How much should the reputation of bad behaviour follow a person? If I slip up and make a fool of myself or fall for a big temptation, presumably the error was temporary and in the future I am relatively likely to be reliable - especially in different situations. If I often act in a sleazy way, presumably this is more of a personality trait and can be expected to repeat. If I claim I have understood the error of my ways and changed them, it is an attempted signal that (1) I have modified my behavior and (2) I would very much like a clean slate reputation. Whether it is believed often depends on how it is signalled: costly displays are often believed. Note that sexual harassment is unrelated to astronomy skill: it is bad interpersonal behaviour, but very unlike research misconduct. So even a researcher who is unrepentant might do excellent research and no harm as long as they are in a context where harassment cannot occur. However, we humans tend to have a halo effect bias: if you are bad in one domain of life, we tend to think you are bad in other domains too. This is pretty erroneous, but a real practical problem. Finally, reputations have become far more global and persistent than in the past. In the old days, if I messed up in Oxford I could always escape to New Zealand. Now they got Google there too. This means that the forgiveness and reputation update mechanisms we have evolved are likely now too harsh (on the other hand, defectors cannot thrive by moving on). Jon Ronson 's "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" deals with how we now have amped up public shaming to levels undreamed of in past eras. The must unfair aspect is that it is random: most of the time people say and do stupid or evil things and nothing happens, but occasionally it blows up. This kind of random punishment schedule is far more frightening and unfair than one that was proportional and reliable. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Mon Oct 19 08:47:00 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:47:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <5624AE04.60000@aleph.se> OK, I have not followed this discussion closely, but a cursory look showed me these papers: Sexual selection may be OK in some environments but not others (extensive discussion on the elk example) http://www.kokkonuts.org/p/Sexy2die4.pdf Some evidence sexual selection increases extinction risk in birds, but it might be a double-edged tool: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691441/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/3545671?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents No evidence sexual selection affects extinction rates in mammals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691875/ Sexual selection (at least in beetles) protects against accumulating mutational load: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7557/full/nature14419.html My guess, after this scan and noting biologists still disagree ten years after the initial papers, is that the effect is not clear-cut at all. On 2015-10-19 03:22, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:09 PM, John Clark > wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > >> you say it's in the bible, it's your job to quote chapter and verse. > > > > I don't have a bible, but maybe the October 28 1982 issue of Nature > pages 818 to 820 will do, > > For those who prefer a URL, see: > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n5886/abs/299818a0.html > > The article is titled 'Female choice selects for extreme tail length > in a widowbird.' > > This will only do for the species in question. Also, this is an extant > species. How would this prove the case that sexual selection drove > another species -- e.g., the Irish Elk -- to extinction? > > > if not try > > page 201 of Richard book "The Blind Watchmaker". > > > The link is: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&q=201#v=snippet&q=201&f=false > > This merely tells what sexual is in lay terms. It doesn't present an > actual example of a species going extinct from sexual selection. > > >> Also, I already provided links to articles arguing against your > position. > > > > > > You provided no links that say a peacocks tail aids in a individuals > survival or is aerodynamic or does anything other than help in finding > a mate. > > You did provided 3 links and you were correct when you said " > > All three point towards sexual selection as generally increasing the > likelihood of species survival > > ". Well...how could it be otherwise? I > > f it did not then either sexual selection or species would have > disappeared long long ago, it has not so sexual selection must > generally increasing the likelihood of species survival > > . QED. > > > > However the key word is "generally" and that means there are > exceptions, and that means that sexual selection can cause Evolution > to make mistakes as it did with the ridiculous antlers of the Irish > Elk and drive the species into extinction. > > That's still a speculation with regard to the Irish Elk. There are > many theories of why it went extinct. Why is not possible that range > reduction and hunting by humans played a much bigger role here than > merely having supersized antlers? (If we're going to go back to the > 1980s, e.g., check out this article: > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/228/4697/340 -- 'Taphonomy and Herd > Structure of the Extinct Irish Elk, Megaloceros giganteus.' Note what > the abstract states: adult males with small antlers seemed to have > died during winter segregation from females. What might that imply, if > true, about big antlers having an impact on survival?) > > >> Because off-the-cuff anthropomorphic psychologizing doesn't > rigorously (i.e. mathematically) > > > > > > Evolution will never be totally as rigorous as some other sciences > because it depends > > as much on history as it does on mathematics. > > Maybe so, but then we also look toward data -- e.g., looking at the > fossils or extant species -- and see what happens. We can check > speculations against both mathematical models and field data -- all > while admitting this isn't a purely deductive science. > > > And psychoanalyzing is not needed > > to know that humans and animals are attracted to some things and > repelled by others > > and at least some of those likes and dislikes are genetic. > > This is true, though one has to be very careful trying to do this with > extinct species like the Irish Elk. We don't have direct field > observations of their behavior. We can use some extant species as > models -- other elk, for instance -- though one has to be careful with > conclusions drawn. And, of course, one can try to infer behavior from > fossil remains, but that also requires care. But, that said, it seems > the experts here are not all lining up for big antlers did the Irish > Elk in. :) > > >> tackle the stuff of evolution (mutation frequency, fitness payoff, > heritability, etc.). > > > > A trait is not heritable if a mate can not be found. Human females > are sexually attracted > > to human males they find attractive and the same is true for female > Irish Elk. For female > > Irish Elk the larger the antlers the more attractive, and so antler > size increased explosively > > with disastrous results for the species. Our ancestors must have > found something else > > attractive, something else that could be used as a obvious marker > for fitness; perhaps it > > was intelligent behavior, if so that would explain the unprecedented > increase in brain size > > hominids underwent in the last million years or so. Fortunately for > us intelligent behavior > > does more does more that just help in finding a mate and so we are > not extinct > > , at least not yet. > > At best, this is speculative. You're giving us the same just so story > for why the elk went extinct. You need to present better data and a > stronger argument -- one that addresses why other factors -- loss of > habitat, range fragmentation, human hunting -- didn't play a bigger or > dominant role in their extinction. The works you cited don't seem to > make that a slam dunk case. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 19 13:55:24 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 06:55:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] can seti have marcy? In-Reply-To: <5624B464.4070400@aleph.se> References: <00a901d109bf$a7dce450$f796acf0$@att.net> <5624B464.4070400@aleph.se> Message-ID: <00cd01d10a75$ce2a5ff0$6a7f1fd0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... Subject: Re: [ExI] can seti have marcy? On 2015-10-19 00:58, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>... That said, if the allegations are true and we agree that this type of > behavior is inappropriate for someone in his former position, then > ... what he should be allowed to do... way to rehabilitate such folks? >...This is an interesting problem. How much should the reputation of bad behaviour follow a person? If I slip up and make a fool of myself or fall for a big temptation, presumably the error was temporary and in the future I am relatively likely to be reliable - especially in different situations. ...Dr Anders Sandberg _______________________________________________ Ja, this has been bothering me too. I don't know what Marcy was up to at Berkeley and I am not asking, but it is far too easy to imagine him being the prototypical scientisty geeky perhaps a bit Aspergersy sort of guy who just acts weird (not that any of us ever do that or hang out with guys who do.) It is too easy to imagine him (or any one of us) being accused by several women even if he never made any specific untoward suggestion, never groped anyone, mostly treated women respectfully by his definition even if in an inadvertently inappropriate manner. Consider that scene in "Beautiful Mind" where Nash comments to a striking blonde at the bar: "Assume a set of actions, things I must do and say, to prepare you to sleep with me. Now let us assume that I have said and done all these things..." OK if you are like me, you had to turn off the video and just roll on the floor laughing for about five minutes at that point. Reason: we have met scientists and especially mathematicians who really do and say things like that. OK then, assume a guy who knows nothing of the usual protocol in the bar, knows nothing about the Nash Set, procedures that Nash himself found so mysterious for perfectly understandable reasons: no one ever discussed these matters with him, women fled in all directions whenever he was near, etc. Soon all his friends were other geeky mathematicians who were more interested in discussing math with him than how to train him to be a human being. So Nash wasn't really being a reprehensible horndog, he just didn't know better. In college he knew less about women than a typical 13 yr old boy. OK then. That isn't his fault. I can easily imagine Marcy in that class. I don't know him personally, attended a couple of his local lectures. But this is even more specific, for it sounds like the accusations were coming from undergrad girls. Let us look at their world, a scary one it is indeed. Think about it: they are at the peak of their beauty, most of them are single, struggling to make their way, often surrounded by peers who will take advantage of them, for the men there are mostly single, the testosterone levels at their peak, semen pressure close to blowing the top of their heads off, of course the undergrad men are known to say and do stupid, dangerous, unethical things to try to take advantage of their female counterparts. Is it any wonder they come to distrust men in general? Hell I distrust men in general, and I are one. Now imagine the magnitude of temptation the high-profile college professors face, especially somewhere like Berkeley: aaaaaallll those stunning young women, well mannered, smart as a whip (otherwise their applications would have been laughed into the waste basket) ambitious, science geeky women (and why is it that we science geek boys are ugly but science geek women are so uniformly beautiful? Such a mystery.) Aaaallll these smart beautiful young women everywhere, some of them willing to trade favors, some of them willing and eager to put a notch in their gun with a high profile professor. Now imagine a professor saying those same kinds of things, not necessarily to get laid, but because he just doesn't get human nature. Marcy might be innocent, or mostly so, or his misdeeds might have been exaggerated. He daily faced a thousand times the temptation I face daily, a thousand times the temptation I faced on my best day. Perhaps his inappropriate behavior was gazing a few seconds too long upon the beauty of some willing and nubile undergrad, and being observed by a different competing willing and nubile comely lass, who observes his reprehensible horndog behavior, comparing it to her male peers. Then perhaps he is viewed as accountable for others' sins. Prof. Marcy would be harmless at SETI. The scenery is not nearly as dangerous there. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 15:16:35 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:16:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n5886/abs/299818a0.html > > ? ? > The article is titled 'Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a > widowbird.' > ? ? > This will only do for the species in question. > ?One species example is enough. Nobody is saying that sexual selection is always bad, in fact I specifically said that generally sexual selection helps a species. But like everything else about Evolution sexual selection is not ?perfect, it can make mistakes like when a female uses the wrong rule of thumb to determine which male to mate with. > ?> ? > Also, this is an extant species. > ?The article describes an experiment, do you demand a experiment be ?performed on a extinct species? that would be rather difficult. > ?>? > That's still a speculation with regard to the Irish Elk. There are many > theories of why it went extinct. > ?And I would be astounded if the authors of any of those theories were foolish enough to suggest that the size of the Irish Elk's antlers played no part in its extinction, especially when species of elk which have a large body size but much smaller antlers survive to this day. ? > ?> ? > Why is not possible that range reduction and hunting by humans played a > much bigger role here than merely having supersized antlers? > ? Human ?predation? probably was a factor, ?I would be surprised if it wasn't, ? but the two things are not unrelated. Humans are no different from any other animal, any predator would find that ?catching? ?an? ?? animal with ?a? 9 foot wide ? 90 pound ? grappling hook on top of its head would be a lot easier than hunting ?an? animal without ? such an ? impediment. > ?> ? > (If we're going to go back to the 1980s, e.g., check out this article: > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/228/4697/340 -- 'Taphonomy and Herd > Structure of the Extinct Irish Elk, Megaloceros giganteus.' Note what the > abstract states: adult males with small antlers seemed to have died during > winter segregation from females. What might that imply, if true, about big > antlers having an impact on survival?) > ?It says "winterkill was the chief cause of death and was highest among juveniles and small adults with small antlers", well that is not surprising. During winter juveniles and adults of small body size almost always have higher death rates than larger adults, especially if the winter is particularly cold as they were during the last ice age when the Irish Elk was alive, because physics tells us that small bodies lose heat more rapidly than large bodies due to the fact that small things have larger surface area relative to volume than large things. And we know for a fact that large bodied elk with small antlers survived the winters (and the summers) better than large bodied elk with large antlers because large bodied elk with small antlers are still around today. > ?> ? > with extinct species like the Irish Elk. We don't have direct field > observations of their behavior. > ? But we do have ? ? direct field observations ? ? of physics, enough to know that a 9 foot wide 90 pound anchor on top of ? ? a head ? ? is going to severely limit the movement of an animal, ? ? especially the movement of the ? ? most important part of the animal, the head. ? ? It ? ? is just not viable to maintain ? ? that the resulting huge increase in angular momentum of the head (never mind the fact that the antlers would also hit things ?and ? further restrict ? ? movement) would be beneficial to a species. > ?> ? > the experts here are not all lining up for big antlers did the Irish Elk > in. > ?Can you find one single expert who maintains that gargantuan antlers were not a factor in extinction and if they were just a bit larger the Irish Elk would still be with us today? ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rex at nosyntax.net Mon Oct 19 17:10:12 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:10:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] can seti have marcy? In-Reply-To: <5624B464.4070400@aleph.se> References: <00a901d109bf$a7dce450$f796acf0$@att.net> <5624B464.4070400@aleph.se> Message-ID: <20151019171012.GC29930@nosyntax.net> Anders Sandberg [2015-10-19 02:15]: > > The must unfair aspect is that it is random: most of the time people say and > do stupid or evil things and nothing happens, but occasionally it blows up. > This kind of random punishment schedule is far more frightening and unfair > than one that was proportional and reliable. But "unfair" may be the least-cost solution (cf "variable reinforcement"), so which should we choose? -rex -- From rex at nosyntax.net Mon Oct 19 16:53:50 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:53:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> John Clark [2015-10-19 08:18]: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Dan TheBookMan <[1]danust2012 at gmail.com> > wrote: > > [2]?> ?http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n5886/abs/299818a0.html > ? ?The article is titled 'Female choice selects for extreme tail length > in a widowbird.' > ? ?This will only do for the species in question. > > ?One species example is enough. Nobody is saying that sexual selection is > always bad, in fact I specifically said that generally sexual selection > helps a species. But like everything else about Evolution sexual selection > is not ?perfect, it can make mistakes like when a female uses the wrong > rule of thumb to determine which male to mate with. ? ? But you have yet to provide a single example of selection driving a species to extinction. Anything less than that is mere hand-waving -- a popular activity in the social "sciences" -- IMO. No, the Irish elk is NOT even a quasi-established example, regardless of how many times it's mentioned in repeated arm-waving arguments. > > ?> ?Also, this is an extant species. > > ?The article describes an experiment, do you?demand a experiment be > ?performed on a?extinct?species? that would be rather?difficult.? Obviously, extant species cannot serve as examples of selection driving a species to extinction. > ?>?That's still a speculation with regard to the Irish Elk. There are > many theories of why it went extinct. > > ?And I would be astounded if the authors of any of those theories were > foolish enough to suggest that the size of the Irish Elk's antlers played > no part in its extinction, especially when species of elk which have a > large body size but much smaller antlers survive to this day. ? ? ?? You're apparently easily astounded, as it's easy to find examples of sexual selection for characteristics that have no measurable effect on reproductive fitness. > ?> ?Why is not possible that range reduction and hunting by humans > played a much bigger role here than merely having supersized antlers? > > ?Human > ?predation??probably was a factor, > ?I would be surprised if it wasn't, ?but the two things are not unrelated. > Humans are no different from any other animal, any predator would find > that > ?catching?? > ?an? > ?? animal with > ?a??9 > foot wide ?90 pound > ? grappling hook on top of its head would be a lot easier?than hunting > ?an??animal without > ? such > an > ? impediment. ? Do you not see the gaping whole in this arm-waving argument? Hint: how much do mature elephant tusks weigh? Why aren't they extinct? > ?> ?(If we're going to go back to the 1980s, e.g., check out this > article: [3]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/228/4697/340 -- 'Taphonomy > and Herd Structure of the Extinct Irish Elk, Megaloceros giganteus.' > Note what the abstract states: adult males with small antlers seemed to > have died during winter segregation from females. What might that imply, > if true, about big antlers having an impact on survival?) > > And we know for a fact that large bodied elk with small antlers > survived the winters (and the summers) better than large bodied > elk with large antlers because large bodied elk with small > antlers are still around today.? More illogical arm-waving. If you don't see why it's illogical, ask. > ? ?It > ? ?is just not viable to maintain > ? ?that the resulting huge increase in angular momentum of the head (never > mind the fact that the antlers would also hit things > ?and ?further restrict > ? ?movement) would be beneficial to a species. ? Of course it is. "_M. unicornicus_ is a unique species of elk with a sessile male that grows horns that are three times its body weight. It's fed from an early age by females. It's apparently the only mammal where one sex is sessile." Once unsupported arm-waving is introduced as a logical form any conclusion can be 'proved,' > ?Can you find one single expert who maintains that?gargantuan?antlers were > not a factor in extinction and if they?were just a bit larger the Irish > Elk would still be with us today? ? Would the existence of such a person sway your belief? Unsupported claims don't do much for me, as well as most others here, I'd venture. -rex -- From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 17:37:10 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:37:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] can seti have marcy? In-Reply-To: <20151019171012.GC29930@nosyntax.net> References: <00a901d109bf$a7dce450$f796acf0$@att.net> <5624B464.4070400@aleph.se> <20151019171012.GC29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On 19 October 2015 at 18:10, rex wrote: > Anders Sandberg [2015-10-19 02:15]: >> The must unfair aspect is that it is random: most of the time people say and >> do stupid or evil things and nothing happens, but occasionally it blows up. >> This kind of random punishment schedule is far more frightening and unfair >> than one that was proportional and reliable. > > But "unfair" may be the least-cost solution (cf "variable > reinforcement"), so which should we choose? > 'Unfair' is rather strange. It is almost impossible to raise a complaint against a faculty member in academia. Faculty are all powerful. One word from them and undergrads careers are ruined. See the response from UC Berkeley, who had great difficulty in bypassing the normal years that it takes to process a complaint. The system is certainly unfair to juniors. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 17:50:13 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:50:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On 19 October 2015 at 17:53, rex wrote: > But you have yet to provide a single example of selection driving a species > to extinction. Anything less than that is mere hand-waving -- a popular > activity in the social "sciences" -- IMO. > > No, the Irish elk is NOT even a quasi-established example, regardless of how many > times it's mentioned in repeated arm-waving arguments. > Apparently both mammoths and the giant elk survived successfully for hundreds of thousands of years and both survived the last Ice Age. When climate and habitat changed and hunter humans appeared they died out. Quote: Extinct Giant Deer Survived Ice Age, Study Says James Owen in London for National Geographic News October 6, 2004 Saber-toothed cats, mastodons, giant sloths, woolly rhinos, and many other big, shaggy mammals are widely thought to have died out around the end of the last ice age, some 10,500 years ago. More recently, however, evidence has emerged that at least two of the spectacular megafauna of the Pleistocene era (1.6 million to 10,000 years ago) clung on until recent times. ---------------------- BillK From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 19 17:44:19 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:44:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <005f01d10a95$c92e61c0$5b8b2540$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of rex Subject: Re: [ExI] IQ and beauty >>...John Clark [2015-10-19 08:18]:... >>... ?Can you find one single expert who maintains that gargantuan antlers were > not a factor in extinction and if they were just a bit larger the Irish > Elk would still be with us today? ? >...Would the existence of such a person sway your belief? Unsupported claims don't do much for me, as well as most others here, I'd venture. -rex -- _______________________________________________ This whole discussion has been most educational and interesting; I thank all the participants for the free education. That's why I hang out with you guys these two fruitful decades. I am interested in paleontology; unfortunately I suck. It isn't my area of expertise, far from it. But it occurred to me that the same kinds of reasoning we do in my field would be applicable to this. In physics and even engineering, we think of a theory, then calculate through the consequences. If yakkity yak is true, then we should see bla bla. Then we set up a test looking for bla bla. Ok paleo guys, check me on this. Assume Irish elk chicks dug elk dudes who were stacked like a castle, and assume away the fighting other males scenario for this exercise. We can easily envision our furry friend Mickey McAntler losing his balance at the critical moment (wouldn't we do something like that as well?) and crashing forward in some cases upon his hapless sweetheart, Minnie O'Horny. This could result in the kinds of fatal injuries we should be able to find in the fossils: Mickey's huge antlers could break Minnie's spine, or conk her on the head leaving a visible divot in her skull, perhaps leave some kind of scar from tendons tearing away from bone, partially healing in the few days she would perhaps survive, resulting in no offspring for the O'Horny-McAntler family. Do we know of any Irish elk fossils with broken spines, ripped tendon insertions or conked heads? spike From anders at aleph.se Mon Oct 19 19:18:03 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:18:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] can seti have marcy? In-Reply-To: <00cd01d10a75$ce2a5ff0$6a7f1fd0$@att.net> References: <00a901d109bf$a7dce450$f796acf0$@att.net> <5624B464.4070400@aleph.se> <00cd01d10a75$ce2a5ff0$6a7f1fd0$@att.net> Message-ID: <562541EB.4030600@aleph.se> Actually, he was involved in SETI. As was at least one of the women. The SETI community is pretty stunned. While it is possible to imagine misunderstandings ballooning like a dark comedy of manners, this seems to be a bit more serious. Power relations in academia are complex. Remember, much of it is a remnant of the medieval master (professor), apprentice (grad student), journeyman (postdoc) system, with plenty of coteries and arbitrary judgements but also external forces holding purse strings ready to snap them back the moment there is embarrassment in the air. People are getting away with all sorts of things (oh, the stories I have heard...), but also being very vulnerable. There are many kinds of power in academia, and being powerful in one coin does not make you secure from others. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Oct 19 19:38:22 2015 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:38:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! Message-ID: <20151019123822.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.466cc9fe80.mailapi@email17.secureserver.net> Hello Everyone! The article just released: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/542601/the-science-surrounding-cryonics/ Can you all please make a good comment at Would be great if we could push it to become a first page. Making it a trend in media will be important for how impactful other media outlets potentially pick up on it. If we can get the first 10 - 50 comments as positive comments, then more coverage could come about. Thank you so very much - Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 22:02:27 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:02:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Life_on_Earth_likely_started_4=2E1_billion_years_?= =?utf-8?q?ago=E2=80=94much_earlier_than_scientists_thought?= Message-ID: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-life-earth-billion-years-agomuch.html If true, serious implications for Fermi and the Great Filter(s), no? (Birger sent this my way.:) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 22:54:45 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:54:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:53 PM, rex wrote: ?> ? > But you have yet to provide a single example of selection driving a species > to extinction. Anything less than that is mere hand-waving -- a popular > activity in the social "sciences" -- IMO. > ? > No, the Irish elk is NOT even a quasi-established example, ?If extinct species are not a example or even a quasi-example then it is not entirely clear what you do want. Experiments? ? ?> ? > Obviously, extant species cannot serve as examples of selection > driving a species to extinction. > ?And obviously experiments can not be done on extinct species, so all I need to do is find a species that is neither extinct nor extant. How hard can that be? ? ?>>? >> ?And I would be astounded if the authors of any of those theories were >> ? >> ? >> foolish enough to suggest that the size of the Irish Elk's antlers played >> ? >> no part in its extinction, especially when species of elk which have a >> large body size but much smaller antlers survive to this day. ? > > > ?> ? > You're apparently easily astounded, ?Maybe so but it's fun to be astonished so tell me about one of those experts who believe the Irish Elk's antlers played no part in its extinction. > ?> ? > as it's easy to find examples of sexual > ? > selection for characteristics that have no measurable effect on > reproductive > ? > fitness. > ?I'd ask for one of those easy examples but I don't even know what you're talking about. If a ?characteristic is sexually selected then it by definition has a measurable effect on reproductive fitness, although not necessarily on individual fitness or species fitness as the Irish Elk discovered. ?> ? > Do you not see the gaping whole in this arm-waving argument? Hint: how much > ? > do mature elephant tusks weigh? Why aren't they extinct? > It's ? ? true elephant tusks weigh a bit more, about 1.5 times what the Irish Elk ?a? antlers weighed; but a elephant is a MUCH larger animal, a elephant weighs 10 ?to? 1 ?2? times what a Irish Elk weighed. And elephant tusks ? are shaped like spears and are coated with enamel ? , the hardest ? biological? substance ?there is , and so is a excellent weapon. The Irish Elk antlers were shaped like a open hand and were made of soft weak cartilage and so were a lousy weapon. Besides defense elephants use there tusks for foraging, digging, stripping bark off of trees and for moving things out of their way. Elk use their antlers the same way people once used cars with tail fins, to make themselves look snappy to the opposite sex. > > >> ?>? >> ?Can you find one single expert who maintains that gargantuan antlers >> were >> ? >> not a factor in extinction and if they were just a bit larger the Irish >> ? >> Elk would still be with us today? ? > > ?> ? Would the existence of such a person sway your belief? ?Maybe. ? Tell me who this mysterious expert of yours is and why he thinks gargantuan antlers were ? not a factor in extinction and I'll let you know if he's changed my belief. It's certainly possible. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 23:18:19 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:18:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> On Oct 19, 2558 BE, at 3:54 PM, John Clark wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:53 PM, rex wrote: >> >> ?> ?But you have yet to provide a single example of selection driving a species >> to extinction. Anything less than that is mere hand-waving -- a popular >> activity in the social "sciences" -- IMO.? No, the Irish elk is NOT even a quasi-established example, > > ?If extinct species are not a example or even a quasi-example then it is not entirely clear what you do want. Experiments? ? Just a quick question and observation for the moment: How does one actually _know_ how a given species went extinct? With regard to a species like Irish Elk, it's speculation to say large antlers did them in. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 11:23:58 2015 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:23:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! In-Reply-To: <20151019123822.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.466cc9fe80.mailapi@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20151019123822.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.466cc9fe80.mailapi@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, wrote: > Hello Everyone! > > The article just released: > http://www.technologyreview.com/view/542601/the-science-surrounding-cryonics/ > > Can you all please make a good comment at Would be great if we could > push it to become a first page. > Done. Thank you so very much - > No, thank you. Great article. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 16:29:19 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:29:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > Just a quick question and observation for the moment: > How does one actually _know_ how a given species went extinct? > ?You can't be (or at least you shouldn't be) absolutely certain about anything that happened in the past; maybe the universe didn't start 13.8 billion years ago or even 6000 years ago but was created 6000 seconds ago complete with dinosaur bones in the ground and memories of you when you were 9. However you can make theories about the past and some theories are more plausible than others. The theory that the Irish Elk's gargantuan antlers played no part in its extinction is not plausible. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 16:45:21 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:45:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <005f01d10a95$c92e61c0$5b8b2540$@att.net> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <005f01d10a95$c92e61c0$5b8b2540$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:44 PM, spike wrote: ?> ? > This could result in the kinds of fatal injuries we should be able to find > in the fossils: Mickey's huge antlers could break Minnie's spine, or conk > her on the head leaving a visible divot in her skull, ?The antlers must have had enormous angular momentum because the were 9 feet across, but they only weighed 90 pounds so were unlikely to break a female's back, and they were blunt soft and weak so the chances of causing damage to the bones of a predator that was so severe we could see it today would be about the same as the chances of receiving a serious injury from a pillow fight. Well... maybe I exaggerate a little but only a little. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 17:10:37 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:10:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! In-Reply-To: References: <20151019123822.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.466cc9fe80.mailapi@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, wrote: > >> ?>>? >> Hello Everyone! >> >> The article just released: >> http://www.technologyreview.com/view/542601/the-science-surrounding-cryonics/ >> >> Can you all please make a good comment at Would be great if we could >> push it to become a first page. >> > > ?> ? > Done. > ?I also made a comment. John K Clark? > > > Thank you so very much - >> > > No, thank you. Great article. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rex at nosyntax.net Tue Oct 20 17:10:54 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:10:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <005f01d10a95$c92e61c0$5b8b2540$@att.net> Message-ID: <20151020171054.GD29930@nosyntax.net> John Clark [2015-10-20 09:46]: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:44 PM, spike <[1]spike66 at att.net> wrote: > > ?> ?This could result in the kinds of fatal injuries we should be able > to find in the fossils: Mickey's huge antlers could break Minnie's > spine, or conk her on the head leaving a visible divot in her skull, > > ?The antlers must have had enormous angular momentum because the were 9 > feet across, but they only weighed 90 pounds so were unlikely to break a > female's back, and they were blunt soft and weak so the chances of causing > damage to the bones of a predator that was so severe we could see it today > would be about the same as the chances of receiving a serious injury from > a pillow fight. Well... maybe I exaggerate a little but only a little.? Current prevailing opinion appears to be that the horns were used as signals, not weapons. They are positioned in such a way that rotation around the long axis (minimal rotational inertia) flashes the broad "palm" of the horn, so no head-swinging was needed to use the horns as 'designed.' Signaling rather than fighting is a win-win for both parties, so it's unsurprising that it has evolved. -rex From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 17:21:58 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:21:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151020171054.GD29930@nosyntax.net> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <005f01d10a95$c92e61c0$5b8b2540$@att.net> <20151020171054.GD29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:10 PM, rex wrote: ?> ? > Current prevailing opinion appears to be that the horns were used as > signals, > ?Irish Elk had antlers not horns. Horns are retained for ?the lifetime of the animal but antlers are shed and must be regrown each year, at considerable metabolic cost I might add. I agree that elk use their antlers as signals, sexual signals. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rex at nosyntax.net Tue Oct 20 17:35:48 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:35:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> John Clark [2015-10-20 09:31]: > However you can make theories about the past and some theories are > more plausible than others. The theory that the Irish Elk's gargantuan > antlers played no part in its extinction is not plausible. Worse, it's not testable and thus outside the realm of science. Put it in the bin of sterile idle philosophical speculation. If we want some hope of being productive we need to ask questions that science may help with, e.g., is there any evidence the IE horns played a significant role in the extinction of the IE? I cannot find any in the primary literature -- Lots of amateur arm-waving speculation, but no solid evidence. There IS solid evidence that suggests the horns played no significant role, e.g., a plot of body weight vs horn size for various deer shows the IE right on the best least-squares fit. The 'huge' horns turn out to be an artifact of the way the human mind sees the world. Also, the antlers were large for a very long time without driving the IE (and other species with relatively large horns) to extinction. Why would they 'suddenly' do so? From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 17:48:29 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:48:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:35 PM, rex wrote: > you can make theories about the past and some theories are >> > more plausible than others. The theory that the Irish Elk's >> gargantuan >> > antlers played no part in its extinction is not plausible. > > > ?> ? > Worse, it's not testable and thus outside the realm of science. Put it in > the > bin of sterile idle philosophical speculation. > ?I guess you'd have to put Darwin's theory in that same ?bin of idle philosophical speculation. ?> ? > There IS solid evidence that suggests the horns played no significant > ? ? > role, e.g., a plot of body weight vs horn size for various deer shows > ? ? > the IE right on the best least-squares fit. The 'huge' horns turn out > ? ? > to be an artifact of the way the human mind sees the world. ? There IS solid evidence that suggests ? that Irish Elk had ?no significant ? horns, or insignificant horns, or horns of any sort whatsoever. Irish Elk ? had antlers. John K Clark ? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 17:57:53 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:57:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On 20 October 2015 at 18:35, rex wrote: > If we want some hope of being productive we need to ask questions that > science may help with, e.g., is there any evidence the IE horns played > a significant role in the extinction of the IE? I cannot find any in > the primary literature -- Lots of amateur arm-waving speculation, but > no solid evidence. > > There IS solid evidence that suggests the horns played no significant > role, e.g., a plot of body weight vs horn size for various deer shows > the IE right on the best least-squares fit. The 'huge' horns turn out > to be an artifact of the way the human mind sees the world. > > Also, the antlers were large for a very long time without driving the > IE (and other species with relatively large horns) to extinction. Why > would they 'suddenly' do so? > When species go extinct, that doesn't mean that there is something 'wrong' with them. Before the Holocene (the end of the last Ice Age) most extinctions were due to natural disasters or climate changing too quickly for species to adapt. The dinosaurs were magnificently adapted by natural selection, but went extinct. After the last Ice Age humans became the main cause of species extinction. Humans were much better at killing. BillK From rex at nosyntax.net Tue Oct 20 18:32:50 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:32:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <20151020183250.GF29930@nosyntax.net> John Clark [2015-10-20 10:50]: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:35 PM, rex <[1]rex at nosyntax.net> wrote: > > ?> ?Worse, it's not testable and thus outside the realm of science. Put > it in the bin of sterile idle philosophical speculation. > > ?I guess you'd have to put Darwin's theory in that same ?bin of??idle > philosophical speculation. No at all. Many aspects of evolutionary theory are testable. OTOH, ideas/theories that cannot, in principle, be falsified have no place in science. > ?> ?There IS solid evidence that suggests the horns played no > significant > ? ?role, e.g., a plot of body weight vs horn size for various deer shows > ? ?the IE right on the best least-squares fit. The 'huge' horns turn out > ? ?to be an artifact of the way the human mind sees the world. > > ?There IS solid evidence that suggests > ? that Irish Elk had ?no?significant > ? horns, or insignificant horns, or horns of any sort > whatsoever.?Irish Elk > ? had antlers. Yes, I know. Likewise I know that the Irish Elk isn't an elk at all, it's a deer. In this context, who cares? Likewise for the meaningless distinction between "horn" and "antler" here. Like most, I use the terms "horn" and "antler" interchangeably unless there is a relevant difference in the context of the discussion. Do you think anyone here will be distracted from the main thesis if "horn" is used instead of "antler"? -rex -- From anders at aleph.se Tue Oct 20 19:18:15 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:18:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Life_on_Earth_likely_started_4=2E1_billion_years_?= =?utf-8?q?ago=E2=80=94much_earlier_than_scientists_thought?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56269377.8000206@aleph.se> On 2015-10-19 23:02, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://phys.org/news/2015-10-life-earth-billion-years-agomuch.html > > If true, serious implications for Fermi and the Great Filter(s), no? Not really, really. Life started suspiciously early even before this. This just makes whatever weird conclusion (life is super easy/panspermia is very active, or we are very lucky but there are some rather unlikely steps between life and intelligence) a bit more extreme. I am somewhat sceptical about the claim - they have carbon with the right isotope concentration for enzymatic life, which IMHO is weak evidence. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From listsb at infinitefaculty.org Tue Oct 20 19:30:10 2015 From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian Manning Delaney) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:30:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! In-Reply-To: <20151019123822.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.466cc9fe80.mailapi@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20151019123822.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.466cc9fe80.mailapi@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <56269642.2030004@infinitefaculty.org> Extremely well-put-together article -- best of its kind (advocacy with balance) I've ever read. Goes to the top of my "Stuff to send to loved ones who are skeptical of my 'crazy' interests and pursuits" list. Thanks! Brian From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 22:37:26 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:37:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151020183250.GF29930@nosyntax.net> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> <20151020183250.GF29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:32 PM, rex wrote: > ?> ? > Many aspects of evolutionary theory are testable. ?Yes.? > ideas/theories that cannot, in principle, be falsified have no place > in science. > ?In principle you could surgically attach fiberglass antlers that were 9 feet wide and weighed 90 ponds onto a modern elk, the animal would get them for free and wouldn't have to pay the metabolic cost of growing them each year as a Irish Elk did; but even so I don't think you'd have to wait long to observe a drop in survival rates compared with elk without the huge prosthesis. If the experiment has not been done it's only because it would violate cruelty to animals laws, and attaching such a monstrosity to a elk really would be cruel. ? > I know that the Irish Elk isn't an elk at all, > ? > it's a deer. ?I've heard that complaint before and I think it's silly; yes it was a deer but it was also a elk. The word "deer" is a large category of several different species ?of ruminants ?, one particularly large species is is the modern elk?. The extinct Irish "Elk" was also a large ruminant and people wanted to call it something besides its Latin name and elk was as good a name as any. ? > who cares? Likewise for the meaningless > ? > distinction between "horn" and "antler" here. > ? > ?Meaningless? Such a cavalier attitude ?would explain why somebody giving us a lecture on the Irish elk thinks a plot of body weight vs horn size has any relevance. The words "horns" "antlers" and "tusks" all refer to big things sticking out of a ?n? animal but that's about all they have in common; the 3 things have very different growth patterns, evolutionary histories and functions. Horns and tusks are permanent structures but antlers are temporary and must be regrown each year at great metabolic cost. Antlers are made of cartilage, horns are modified hair and are made of keratin, and tusks are modified teeth made of the hardest substance in the body, enamel. Antlers are chick magnets, horns and tusks probably serve that function too but they also make excellent weapons, and elephant tusks can even manipulate things to some degree ?.? ?> ? > Like most, I use the terms "horn" and "antler" interchangeably ?Yes I've noticed, but somebody who had a serious interest in why the Irish Elk went extinct would not. ? > ?> ? > Do > ? > you think anyone here will be distracted from the main thesis if > "horn" is used instead of "antler"? > ?Yes because most people around here are not dilettantes. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 20 23:03:43 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:03:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> <20151020183250.GF29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <008401d10b8b$91ad7a00$b5086e00$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ? >>?ideas/theories that cannot, in principle, be falsified have no place in science. ?>?In principle you could surgically attach fiberglass antlers that were 9 feet wide and weighed 90 ponds onto a modern elk, the animal would get them for free and wouldn't have to pay the metabolic cost of growing them each year as a Irish Elk did; but even so I don't think you'd have to wait long to observe a drop in survival rates compared with elk without the huge prosthesis. If the experiment has not been done it's only because it would violate cruelty to animals laws, and attaching such a monstrosity to a elk really would be cruel? John K Clark ? Oh no, better idea. Get one of these dudes, dress him up to look like a modern elk, give him an enormous strap-on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w No dammit not that kind, I meant antlers. Huge ones. Send him out among his small-antlered carbon units, see if the elk chicks dig him. Perhaps we will see one of those weird signals where the elk chicks in estrus hang around with him, but when not fertile they hang with their small-antlered compatriots. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 02:35:25 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:35:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> <20151020183250.GF29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:37 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:32 PM, rex wrote: > In principle you could surgically attach fiberglass antlers that were > 9 feet wide and weighed 90 ponds onto a modern elk, the animal > would get them for free and wouldn't have to pay the metabolic cost > of growing them each year as a Irish Elk did; but even so I don't think > you'd have to wait long to observe a drop in survival rates compared > with elk without the huge prosthesis. If the experiment has not been > done it's only because it would violate cruelty to animals laws, and > attaching such a monstrosity to a elk really would be cruel. The problem with your experiment is that the Irish Elk, no doubt, had other anatomical changes to deal with the much larger antler size. Simply adding big, heavy antlers to elk without the appropriate changes wouldn't be a good test. It's kind of like I could also add peacock tail feathers to a male quail and see what happens. What would you expect? Well, I'd expect the quail to be quickly killed off. But how would this explain that species like the Indian peafowl seem to be doing quite well and are listed as "Least Concern" by conservation authorities? Obviously, the peacock (male peafowl) isn't merely something like a quail with an outsized tail. [big snip] >> Like most, I use the terms "horn" and "antler" interchangeably > > Yes I've noticed, but somebody who had a serious interest in why the Irish Elk went extinct would not. I don't use the terms interchangeably and disagree with Rex here. I do think the antler loss and regrowth issue [which you mention in the snipped portion] though might tell you that Irish Elk males might not always be hauling around huge antlers, so even if the cost of growing them is high, there's that they would also have periods when they lost them when, presumably, whatever ill effect there was of having this huge mass on there heads wouldn't be present. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 03:19:39 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:19:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:16 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n5886/abs/299818a0.html >> The article is titled 'Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird.' >> This will only do for the species in question. > > > One species example is enough. Nobody is saying that sexual selection is always bad, > in fact I specifically said that generally sexual selection helps a species. But like > everything else about Evolution sexual selection is not perfect, it can make mistakes > like when a female uses the wrong rule of thumb to determine which male to mate with. It certainly sounded earlier like you were saying sexual selection is bad in the peafowl example. E.g., you told us that they were "headed[sic] for extinction." (See http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2015-October/085555.html ) Yet peafowl are not listed as even endangered. That they're doing well despite the males having huge tails should make anyone question what the impact of huge tails is on survival. Yes, it likely has some negative impact in some situations, but it's almost certainly counterbalanced by other traits. (Then again, for many animals, merely appearing large can scare off would be predators and intraspecies rivals. I don't think that's the case here, but it would have to be tested -- rather than you and I merely presuming we know because it's a cool story and some book we read said so.) > The article describes an experiment, do you > demand a experiment be > performed on a extinct species? that would be rather difficult. No, though the problem is when someone makes claims about a specific species based on an abstract model when the evidence for that abstract model isn't available or is shaky at best. In the case of Irish Elk, e.g., there's no unambiguous evidence that large antlers drove them to extinction -- no evidence that makes us select the model of a runaway sexual selection killing them off over things like habitat loss, inter-species competition, or hunting by humans. >> That's still a speculation with regard to the Irish Elk. There are many theories of why it went extinct. > > And I would be astounded if the authors of any of those theories were foolish enough > to suggest that the size of the Irish Elk's antlers played no part in its extinction, > especially when species of elk which have a large body size but much smaller > antlers survive to this day. The main contending theories are ones that are neutral on antler size it seems. I don't think this is foolish in any way. E.g., human predation on Irish Elk wouldn't really factor in antler size. Humans at the time would be using long-range weapons or other tactics that neutralize the antlers as a deterrent, so large antler would have almost no impact on humans harvesting the animals to extinction. What's more, humans likely would've had no problem hunting herds, taking out females and young, and doing other things that would quickly decimate these animals. You might argue here, of course, that the antlers slowed the elk down, made them easier to spot targets, or were so attractive to human hunters (who wanted to collect the antlers), though humans also seemed to have little problem hunting other animals. My guess here is it was a big animal with lots of meat and material for use, making it a better target. Plus, simply being larger, it probably had a longer time to maturation and was socialized to defense against a different type of predator (ones that fought short range). This is a speculation on my part, but it fits with other reading of the actual data here. Remember, I'm sticking to the data -- what we see in the fossil record -- and not to a just so story. The just so story needs to be tested against data -- no merely accepted because it's internally coherent. >> Why is not possible that range reduction and hunting by humans played a >> much bigger role here than merely having supersized antlers? > > Human predation probably was a factor, > I would be surprised if it wasn't, > but the two things are not unrelated. Humans are no different from any other animal, any predator would find that > catching > an animal with > a 9 foot wide 90 pound grappling hook on top of its head would be a lot easier > than hunting an animal without > such an impediment. No, humans would be very different from other predators -- even from Neanderthals. (Of course, there seem to have been no Neanderthals around 7700 years ago, but when they were around they don't seem to have hunted the Irish Elk to extinction, no?:) Other non-homo predators wouldn't have the same kind of tools and coordination as humans. (Neanderthals, being classified as homo, would have some of the same tools, but seem to have been close in fighters and limited to a more forested environment. H. sapiens seems to have been more adapted to steppe and broken forest, able to roam long distances, better clothed, and faster breeding.) Humans would be distance hunters with projectile weapons. This is far different than a large cat, bear, or wolf -- all of which have to get close and risk serious injury from their quarry. Gracile humans almost certainly would be no match for an Irish Elk close in. So, I think we're talking about a very different type of hunter entering the scene. Also, in general, megafauna went extinction. Whether this was humans or habitat loss (or a combo of the two) or something else remains an active area of research, though it's telling that even megafauna without large antlers went into decline and died out. This might tell us, if one accepts the human hunting explanation that it was more simply being large -- antlers or no -- that made them more desirable and easier targets for humans. >> (If we're going to go back to the 1980s, e.g., check out this article: >> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/228/4697/340 -- 'Taphonomy and >> Herd Structure of the Extinct Irish Elk, Megaloceros giganteus.' Note >> what the abstract states: adult males with small antlers seemed to >> have died during winter segregation from females. What might that >> imply, if true, about big antlers having an impact on survival?) > > It says "winterkill was the chief cause of death and was highest among > juveniles and small adults with small antlers", well that is not surprising. > During winter juveniles and adults of small body size almost always have > higher death rates than larger adults, especially if the winter is particularly > cold as they were during the last ice age when the Irish Elk was alive, > because physics tells us that small bodies lose heat more rapidly than > large bodies due to the fact that small things have larger surface area > relative to volume than large things. Yes, though the takeaway here is we don't see large-antlered ones dying off in these winterkills. Why? > And we know for a fact that large > bodied elk with small antlers survived the winters (and the summers) > better than large bodied elk with large antlers because large bodied > elk with small antlers are still around today. Though these are different species and not as closely related to the Irish Elk, so one can't be sure that's the reason they died off. >> with extinct species like the Irish Elk. We don't have direct field observations of their behavior. > > But we do have direct field observations > of physics, enough to know that a 9 foot wide 90 pound anchor on top of > a head is going to severely limit the movement of an animal, > especially the movement of the > most important part of the animal, the head. > It is just not viable to maintain > that the resulting huge increase in angular momentum of the head (never mind the fact that the antlers would also hit things > and further restrict > movement) would be beneficial to a species. Yet from this one would expect the winterkills to go the opposite way, no? When the data doesn't fit the model, don't you question the model? The thing is the male Irish Elk likely were otherwise adapted to have larger antlers. These likely weren't just a spurious trait bolted on that dragged the animal down to extinction -- in your earlier example of strapping on large antlers to a modern elk or deer. In fact, the shocking thing for you should be why the Irish Elk are attested at all? The huge antlers, were they such a drag on survival, almost certainly should've killed them off much sooner. Instead, the record of Irish Elk is about 700K years long. It's not impossible, but it would seem to be quite a lucky streak to last that long with such a deleterious trait. (Of course, to be sure, any trait, in the right context, might prove bad for survival, but that would go against the narrative of runaway sexual selection doing in the Irish Elk, no? After all, the trait might have been absolutely fine for survival or neutral regarding survival, but some other factor came into play make it have a negative impact. But then the causal explanation would have to account for that other factor rather than merely cite runaway sexual selection.) >> the experts here are not all lining up for big antlers did the Irish Elk in. > > Can you find one single expert who maintains that gargantuan antlers were > not a factor in extinction and if they were just a bit larger the Irish Elk would > still be with us today? The papers I cited were questioning just that, no? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 03:24:03 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:24:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:57 AM, BillK wrote: > On 20 October 2015 at 18:35, rex wrote: > > If we want some hope of being productive we need to ask questions that > > science may help with, e.g., is there any evidence the IE horns played > > a significant role in the extinction of the IE? I cannot find any in > > the primary literature -- Lots of amateur arm-waving speculation, but > > no solid evidence. > > > > There IS solid evidence that suggests the horns played no significant > > role, e.g., a plot of body weight vs horn size for various deer shows > > the IE right on the best least-squares fit. The 'huge' horns turn out > > to be an artifact of the way the human mind sees the world. > > > > Also, the antlers were large for a very long time without driving the > > IE (and other species with relatively large horns) to extinction. Why > > would they 'suddenly' do so? > > > > > When species go extinct, that doesn't mean that there is something > 'wrong' with them. Before the Holocene (the end of the last Ice Age) > most extinctions were due to natural disasters or climate changing too > quickly for species to adapt. The dinosaurs were magnificently adapted > by natural selection, but went extinct. > > After the last Ice Age humans became the main cause of species > extinction. Humans were much better at killing. Well, to be sure, it's hard to tell exactly why any species goes extinct. There are rare cases -- the Dodo -- where it seems clear what happened (loss of food source due to introduction of pigs, IIRC) -- but with most it's a guess, though the guess can be narrowed and supported by some evidence in a few cases. I do agree that luck sort of has something to do with it. It might be that the Irish Elk would've gone away simply because it's habitat disappeared despite humans likely hunting it. My guess is it was a one two combo -- habitat loss plus human predation. The jury's still out, of course. And my guess is too that many species go extinct more from cladogenesis than from their line totally dying out. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 11:36:28 2015 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:36:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:16 AM, John Clark wrote: > ..because physics tells us that small bodies lose heat more rapidly than > large bodies due to the fact that small things have larger surface area > relative to volume than large things. > Say what? Physics tells us no such thing. The ratio of surface area to volume depends only on the shape of an object, not the size. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 21 13:45:27 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:45:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill Say what? Physics tells us no such thing. The ratio of surface area to volume depends only on the shape of an object, not the size. -Dave Indeed sir? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 14:49:45 2015 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:49:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:45 AM, spike wrote: > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Dave Sill > > > > Say what? Physics tells us no such thing. The ratio of surface area to > volume depends only on the shape of an object, not the size. > > Indeed sir? > Sorry, don't know what I was thinking. :-) Um...cat walked across my keyboard? -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Oct 21 15:12:01 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:12:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> Message-ID: <5627AB41.9060606@aleph.se> On 2015-10-21 15:49, Dave Sill wrote: > Sorry, don't know what I was thinking. :-) Um...cat walked across my > keyboard? > Ah, those dreadful low-entropy cats. Like ordinary cats they mess things up, but they do it in a very organized way. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 21 15:59:55 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:59:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty Message-ID: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill >>Indeed sir? >?Sorry, don't know what I was thinking. :-) Um...cat walked across my keyboard? -Dave My cat did stuff like that too. Third time it happened, she was banished from using the computer and sent to live the outdoors. The whole notion lets me jump off to another unrelated topic not having to do with antlers (although that has been a cool discussion from which I learned much.) It appears our future in space is dependent upon getting launch costs down because the old LOX/kerosene and LOX/H2 stages will not advance much. They were fairly mature fifty years ago. To move ahead we need an air-breathing first stage. You can do the calcs a hundred different ways and get the same solution: to go hypersonic while still in the atmosphere, you need to cool the air downstream of the bow shock, and to do that requires an extraordinary heat exchanger, and every way I have seen or imagined to do that requires scaling an ordinary heat exchanger way down, waaaaaay down, to increase the surface area to volume ratio, which makes it very delicate, nowhere near robust enough to carry the load. OK so the Brits are claiming they did it or can do it. I was skeptical of the claim, but I have seen something that gives me hope, an experiment you can reproduce at home. Find some out-of-the-way thing in the yard which has spider webs on it, then get your garden hose and spray the webs. Notice even a high velocity spray doesn?t tear down the web. It is hard to remove spider webs with a garden hose, even one with a good nozzle on it. Do try it, see for yourself. Spider web has a much higher specific strength than metals and are more flexible of course. But if you do the scaling calcs, you see that something is going non-linear somewhere once you get down far enough. The observation gives me hope that the Brits are right: perhaps a heat exchanger with tiny enough tubing really can survive and operate (somehow) in the violent chaos downstream of a shock wave, like a spider web in a blast from the garden hose. If it is true, we can do all those holy grail visions: create a single stage to orbit, or a good two-stage-everything-recoverable lifter, send the cost of launch to LEO way down, realize Keith?s dream of space based solar power (which eventually results in world peace and prosperity) all of that cool dreamy stuff, we can do it all. We know how to guide and control big structures in orbit, we know how to transmit it from there and recover the energy on the ground, we can set it up high enough that space junk won?t spoil our day. All we still can?t do is put it up there cheaply enough. The Brits are claiming they can. Those guys are known for doing their calcs right and telling the truth. Let?s hope they are doing so in this case. Is this a fun time to be alive, or what? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 16:38:23 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:38:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> References: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> Message-ID: <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> On Oct 21, 2558 BE, at 8:59 AM, spike wrote: > It appears our future in space is dependent upon getting launch costs down because the old LOX/kerosene and LOX/H2 stages will not advance much. They were fairly mature fifty years ago. But inefficiently implemented, no? I still believe convention rockets can be done much cheaper. And the rest should almost certainly involve in situ resources. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 21 17:16:33 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:16:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence Message-ID: <004c01d10c24$3d094a30$b71bde90$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ? >? Notice even a high velocity spray doesn?t tear down the web. It is hard to remove spider webs with a garden hose, even one with a good nozzle on it. Do try it, see for yourself?spike Hey cool. BillW sent me an offlist comment that gives me a hell of an idea. Most of us have seen spider webs on our Detroits hang on unaffected in a high speed dash. My scaling equations are suspect when you start getting at spider web speeds, so now we need someone who can arrange a spider web to form on a good fast car, take her out on a good straight flat open roadway and turn her loose, see if we can determine what speed is required for the breeze to tear off a spider web. Have we any hotrodders, especially those who live out in the American west somewhere, who can do it? Or call a buddy in Nevada or something? Of the water/air flow equations are anywhere near linear at this scale, the wind across even a good fast car or motorcycle wouldn?t be enough to blow away a spider web. Better idea: we can?t be the first ones who have thought of this. Someone somewhere has gone hauling ass across some big empty space and noticed the spider webs scarcely notice. Perhaps they have posted online somewhere? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 17:35:03 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:35:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <2445C898-75F9-4AE8-A36B-EDDC56F86A35@gmail.com> <95BBEBFB-95E9-4BDA-90AE-111B12109A50@gmail.com> <20151009022909.GD9642@nosyntax.net> <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> Message-ID: On 21 October 2015 at 15:49, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:45 AM, spike wrote: >> From: On Behalf Of Dave Sill >> Say what? Physics tells us no such thing. The ratio of surface area to >> volume depends only on the shape of an object, not the size. >> >> Indeed sir? > > Sorry, don't know what I was thinking. :-) Um...cat walked across my > keyboard? > Just take out the word 'only' and replace it with 'also'. You were probably thinking about things like heatsinks, which have a very large surface area but small volume. BillK From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 21 17:29:57 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:29:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> References: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> Message-ID: <007801d10c26$1c05fca0$5411f5e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:38 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty On Oct 21, 2558 BE, at 8:59 AM, spike wrote: >>?It appears our future in space is dependent upon getting launch costs down because the old LOX/kerosene and LOX/H2 stages will not advance much. They were fairly mature fifty years ago. >?But inefficiently implemented, no? Well so goes the story. Certainly there were examples of astonishing inefficiency. But after all these years, in spite of having access to an inexhaustible supply of highly trained rocket builders trained by the military and NASA, no one has yet found a much cheaper way of doing it. >? I still believe convention rockets can be done much cheaper? Dan OK cool, good luck to you. I honestly hope you succeed. We all do. The problem I see is that this kind of work has the engineers always designing waaay close to the failure points, crazy thin margins everywhere, little if any structural redundancy, always on the ragged edge of a RUDE. That means inherently expensive materials, processes, inspections, testing, all of it costing money money money, with a discouraging scarcity of opportunities for savings. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 17:50:57 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:50:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> References: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 21, 2015 9:39 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > On Oct 21, 2558 BE, at 8:59 AM, spike wrote: >> It appears our future in space is dependent upon getting launch costs down because the old LOX/kerosene and LOX/H2 stages will not advance much. They were fairly mature fifty years ago. > > But inefficiently implemented, no? I still believe convention rockets can be done much cheaper. As someone who is leading a commercial effort to do just that, I agree wholeheartedly. ;) (Even if we are doing an "air-breathing first stage": an airplane to get the rocket from airport to a patch of sky far off the coast, where the rocket is dropped off and ignites, having already been given initial horizontal velocity as well as skipping the thickest part of the atmosphere. Much safer that way, as well as cheaper.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 17:56:14 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:56:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <007801d10c26$1c05fca0$5411f5e0$@att.net> References: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> <007801d10c26$1c05fca0$5411f5e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Oct 21, 2015 10:45 AM, "spike" wrote: > Well so goes the story. Certainly there were examples of astonishing inefficiency. But after all these years, in spite of having access to an inexhaustible supply of highly trained rocket builders trained by the military and NASA, no one has yet found a much cheaper way of doing it. Until recent years (with the rise of SpaceX, XCOR, and so on), the vast majority of these builders were being paid a lot more if they kept things expensive, and ultimately failed (after going through a large development budget) at any effort that would have resulted in substantial cost savings. It should surprise no one that they did just that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 21 18:24:16 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:24:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> <007801d10c26$1c05fca0$5411f5e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <00fc01d10c2d$b23bf330$16b3d990$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:56 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty On Oct 21, 2015 10:45 AM, "spike" wrote: >>? Well so goes the story. Certainly there were examples of astonishing inefficiency. But after all these years, in spite of having access to an inexhaustible supply of highly trained rocket builders trained by the military and NASA, no one has yet found a much cheaper way of doing it. >?Until recent years (with the rise of SpaceX, XCOR, and so on), the vast majority of these builders were being paid a lot more if they kept things expensive, and ultimately failed (after going through a large development budget) at any effort that would have resulted in substantial cost savings. It should surprise no one that they did just that. Did or are doing? What is their current cost to GEO? What is their risk? I heard they were carrying stuff to the Space Station but hadn?t seen cost or risk numbers. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsa at unsa.edu.ar Wed Oct 21 21:41:12 2015 From: dsa at unsa.edu.ar (Diego Saravia) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:41:12 -0300 Subject: [ExI] FDA Clears 23andMe For Health and Carrier Status Testing Message-ID: http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/20/fda-clears-23andme-for-all-health-and-carrier-traits-reports/ Some might draw the similarities between Theranos? current FDA struggle and 23andMe. The blood test startup valued at more than $9 billion and backed by the likes of Henry Kissingerrecently came under fire for questions about the accuracy of its test results and the revelation that its proprietary ?Edison? machine currently processed only one of its 240 tests. The startup pulled back under regulatory pressure. However, GV?s Bill Maris doesn?t think that comparison works. ?Theranos is a bit different because you have people questioning the basis of is it accurate,? he told TechCrunch in a sit-down interview at the Wall Street Journal Live conference in Laguna Beach, California. ?23andMe?s problem wasn?t accuracy, thankfully. It was the FDA reasonably saying ?you?re leading people to make conclusions about their health. Let?s come up with regulatory information to make sure that you are providing people with accurate information that?s properly referenced.? 23andMe has reportedly worked extensively with the FDA behing the scenes to gain approval, including sending head of the company Anne Wojcicki to D.C. for meetings and hiring a policy director to handle FDA regulatory matters. -- Diego Saravia Diego.Saravia at gmail.com NO FUNCIONA->dsa at unsa.edu.ar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 22:10:53 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:10:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> <20151020183250.GF29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > ?> ? > the Irish Elk, no doubt, had other anatomical changes to deal with the > much larger antler size. > ?No biological adaptation can make the law of conservation of angular momentum go away. ? ?And n o biological adaptation can make ? can make the? Pauli exclusion principle ? go away either, and antlers are made of Fermions as are boulders tree trunks branched and vines, so one can not pass through the other unaffected. So antlers are going to get snagged. ? > ?> ? > You might argue here, of course, that the antlers slowed the elk down ?Could any rational person argue otherwise?? Getting snagged does not make it easier to move fast. > ?> ? > Yes, it likely has some negative impact in some situations, Huge antlers would be a negative in nearly every situation except ?for ? the mating situation. > ?> ? > but it's almost certainly counterbalanced by other traits. Yes, and the counterbalance was that ?large antlers? looked sexy, otherwise the gene for ?it? would not have become dominant in the gene pool. > > ?> > ? ? > humans would be very different from other predators ?Humans were super-predators, and when one of those comes along strategies to avoid predators, although always important, becomes even more important. The Irish Elk got a C in predator avoidance on its Evolutionary report card and that was good enough before the arrival of the super-predator, but not after. The modern elk must have gotten a A because enough managed to avoid the clutches of the super-predator to form breeding populations. > ?> ? > The huge antlers, were they such a drag on survival, almost certainly > should've killed them off much sooner. Not necessarily, ?survival would depend on a number of things , the sort of predators in the environment that would be encountered would be one of the most important. A mutant Irish Elk with a gene for smaller antlers would have a longer life but probably not a happier life due to sexual frustration. Such a gene could not become dominant in the gene pool regardless of how beneficial it was to a individual unless there was a second mutant gene, one for feeling that small antlers were more sexy than big ones, and the 2 genes would need to be close together on the same chromosome so they would usually be inherited together. Unfortunately such a chain of lucky mutations never happened to the Irish Elk's genome so it went into a positive feedback loop with females giving birth to males who would have large antlers and females who thought bigger was always better as far as antlers were concerned. And so the only thing that could break the positive feedback loop was extinction. ? > > how would this explain that species like the Indian peafowl seem to be > doing quite well and are listed as "Least Concern" by conservation > authorities? ?T? he Indian peafowl ? breeds very easily in captivity and the top super-predator of the age likes them and takes measures to preserve them and even keeps them as pets. I don't know i f Paleolithic ?? people liked Irish Elk but I doubt anybody ever tried to breed ?one or had a Irish Elk as a pet. > ?> ? > I do think the antler loss and regrowth issue [which you mention in the > snipped portion] though might tell you that Irish Elk males might not > always be hauling around huge antlers, so even if the cost of growing them > is high, there's that they would also have periods when they lost them > And in every species of deer the yearly time of maximum antler size corresponds to the time of peak fertility of the female. if antlers were not the result of sexual selection how do you explain that? Coincidence? ? > ?> ? > The main contending theories are ones that are neutral on antler size it > seems. I don't think this is foolish in any way. ?It's good to have a open mind, but not so open all your brains fall out.? ?> ? > Humans would be distance hunters with projectile weapons. It doesn't matter if the hunting is close or distant, a stationary target is always going to be easier to hit than a moving target, and ?a elk with ridiculously large antlers is going to be moving slower than a elk with smaller antlers, and if the ground isn't open and free from all obstructions MUCH slower. ?> ? > though humans also seemed to have little problem hunting other animals ?Humans must had had problems ?hunting a species of deer with smaller antlers because those elk are still around today, it's just the Irish Elk that's dead.? ?> ? > no evidence that makes us select the model of a runaway sexual selection > killing them off over things like habitat loss, inter-species competition, > or hunting by humans. ?Modern elk faced these same problems and must have found them to be less than lethal, but the exact same problems stumped the Irish Elk. Something must be different. What is the most conspicuous difference between the Irish Elk and the modern elk? ? ?> ? > My guess here is it was a big animal with lots of meat and material for > use, making it a better target. Plus, simply being larger > ? [...] > ?The modern elk has about as much meat on it as a Irish Elk had, and yet one went extinct and one did not. Why? ? ?>> ? >> But we do have direct field observations >> ? >> of physics, enough to know that a 9 foot wide 90 pound anchor on top of >> ? >> a head is going to severely limit the movement of an animal, >> ? >> especially the movement of the >> ? >> most important part of the animal, the head. >> ? >> It is just not viable to maintain >> ? >> that the resulting huge increase in angular momentum of the head (never >> mind the fact that the antlers would also hit things >> ? >> and further restrict >> ? >> movement) would be beneficial to a species. > > > ?> ? > Yet from this one would expect the winterkills to go the opposite way, no? ?In every species of deer I would expect large bodied individuals to do better in the winter than small bodied individuals especially if it's a very cold winter, and they had a lot of those during the Ice Age. John K Clark ? > ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rex at nosyntax.net Thu Oct 22 02:32:24 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:32:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> Message-ID: <20151022023224.GH29930@nosyntax.net> Dave Sill [2015-10-21 07:56]: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:45 AM, spike <[1]spike66 at att.net> wrote: > > ? > > From: extropy-chat [mailto:[2]extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Behalf Of Dave Sill > > ? > > Say what? Physics tells us no such thing. The ratio of surface area to > volume depends only on the shape of an object, not the size.? > > Indeed sir? > > Sorry, don't know what I was thinking. :-) Um...cat walked across my > keyboard? The cat is close: the ratio of surface area to volume depends upon the shape of the object as well as its size. This fact is often used in just so stories to "explain" why Blacks have different body types from Eskimos. From tara at taramayastales.com Wed Oct 21 14:52:12 2015 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:52:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <16A85547-596F-4FF3-8817-ED8478979859@taramayastales.com> A alternative theory is that it was sexual competition among human males trying to prove the most badass hunters to impress human females that actually drove the elk to extinction. Elk females had a good reason not to go to extremes in their demands for larger antlers, but humans had no reason to be reasonable. We have plenty of evidence of humans hunting other megafauna to extinction for ridiculous, short-sighted reasons. Tara Maya Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Amazon | Goodreads > On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:50 AM, BillK wrote: > > On 19 October 2015 at 17:53, rex wrote: >> But you have yet to provide a single example of selection driving a species >> to extinction. Anything less than that is mere hand-waving -- a popular >> activity in the social "sciences" -- IMO. >> >> No, the Irish elk is NOT even a quasi-established example, regardless of how many >> times it's mentioned in repeated arm-waving arguments. >> > > Apparently both mammoths and the giant elk survived successfully for > hundreds of thousands of years and both survived the last Ice Age. > When climate and habitat changed and hunter humans appeared they died > out. > > > > Quote: > Extinct Giant Deer Survived Ice Age, Study Says > > James Owen in London > for National Geographic News October 6, 2004 > > Saber-toothed cats, mastodons, giant sloths, woolly rhinos, and many > other big, shaggy mammals are widely thought to have died out around > the end of the last ice age, some 10,500 years ago. > > More recently, however, evidence has emerged that at least two of the > spectacular megafauna of the Pleistocene era (1.6 million to 10,000 > years ago) clung on until recent times. > ---------------------- > > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 04:26:10 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:26:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> <20151020183250.GF29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:10 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> the Irish Elk, no doubt, had other anatomical changes to deal with the much larger antler size. > > No biological adaptation can make the law of conservation of angular momentum go away. Of course, but my point should've been obvious: the organism might have had behavioral and other physical changes to deal with having larger antlers. What about moose today? They have antlers weighing, in the largest specimens, more than half what the Irish Elk antlers are supposed to weigh -- yet much heavier than many other animals. How the hell do they do it? Why are they listed by conservation authorities as of least concern? Why doesn't the angular momentum of a moose's antlers doom it? Why isn't it now endangered or even extinct? > And no biological adaptation can make > can make > the > Pauli exclusion principle > go away either, and antlers are made of Fermions You're going off the deep end to defend your point here. > as are boulders tree trunks branched and vines, so one can not pass through the > other unaffected. So antlers are going to get snagged. Right, so what happens to the moose or to deer or elk now? They never ever get snagged? Also, if you're going to present a just so story about being snagged, what do you have to back it up other than conjecture? Any examples of Irish Elk being found snagged in the fossil record? Do you have evidence of what their habitat was like overall? If it was tundra, steppe, or savanna, what's the likelihood snagging their antlers did them in? There also seems to be some evidence that antler size and geometry varied among Irish Elk populations with forest-dwelling ones having more compact antlers. If this is so, it seems the runaway antler hypothesis is in trouble. Variation in antler geometry and size amongst Irish Elk would suggest that they could evolve their way out of antlers doing them in -- given enough time and the right nudges. Cf. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16608.x/abstract;jsessionid=5E47E46DD34F4C936E0E1FBCD3F83115.f04t01 (I'm not dissing "just so" stories as starting points for framing hypotheses, but they should never be treated as conclusive, especially in the face of either a lack of evidence or salient alternative hypotheses. I hope you agree,.) >> You might argue here, of course, that the antlers slowed the elk down > > Could any rational person argue otherwise? Getting snagged does not make it easier to move fast. Geez! Are you saying that experts in the field of paleobiology -- the folks writing papers that get published in journals you cite -- are irrational when they question sexual selection driving Irish Elk to extinction? >> Yes, it likely has some negative impact in some situations, > > Huge antlers would be a negative in nearly every situation except > for > the mating situation. I'm not sure about that. If they can intimidate predators (things that hunt Irish Elk) or competing species (things that use the same resources as Irish Elk), then it's not just about mating. Of course, it could be sexual selection drives the initial process of increased antler size, but that there are added benefits such as intimidation of predators and competitors. These should be tested rather than rejected. >> but it's almost certainly counterbalanced by other traits. > > Yes, and the counterbalance was that > large antlers > looked sexy, otherwise the gene for > it > would not have become dominant in the gene pool. I meant traits like have behavior, muscles, and skeleton adapted to dealing with out-sized antlers. >> humans would be very different from other predators > > Humans were super-predators, and when one of those comes along strategies to avoid > predators, although always important, becomes even more important. The Irish Elk got > a C in predator avoidance on its Evolutionary report card and that was good enough > before the arrival of the super-predator, Well, the problem with giving them a "C" here is what is that based on? In evolutionary biology, one way to rank might be to look at actual survival rates -- not merely assume that the Irish Elk did poorly because, well, they had big antlers. Heck, how did they stick around for several hundred thousand years? We'd also have to know just how well they did: have good estimates on their population sizes, better knowledge on their ecology, have a good model, etc. to do this right. You're just presuming you know because, well, they have big antlers. > but not after. The modern elk must have gotten a A because enough managed to avoid > the clutches of the super-predator to form breeding populations. Well, modern elk are not the Irish Elks' closest relative, so their survival might not be the best clue, though it might be these smaller organisms simply bred faster, which might correlate more not with antler size but overall body size. >> The huge antlers, were they such a drag on survival, almost certainly should've killed >> them off much sooner. > > Not necessarily, survival would depend on a number of things , the sort of predators in the > environment that would be encountered would be one of the most important. It's good to see that you're willing to actually consider that the big antler organism didn't simply die out soon after its antlers were mature -- either because it couldn't move it's head or because it was immediately caught in vines whilst the wolves closed in. :) > A mutant Irish Elk with a gene for smaller antlers would have a longer life but probably > not a happier life due to sexual frustration. Such a gene could not become dominant in > the gene pool regardless of how beneficial it was to a individual unless there was a > second mutant gene, one for feeling that small antlers were more sexy than big ones, > and the 2 genes would need to be close together on the same chromosome so they > would usually be inherited together. Unfortunately, this is speculative. I know some mitochondrial DNA has been recovered from these organisms, but we'd have to have the whole genome sequenced to understand what went on here. > Unfortunately such a chain of lucky mutations never happened to the Irish Elk's genome > so it went into a positive feedback loop with females giving birth to males who would > have large antlers and females who thought bigger was always better as far as antlers > were concerned. And so the only thing that could break the positive feedback loop was extinction. Again, speculation. If humans were what wiped them out, it might not have been the antlers at all, but simply them being big targets no matter how big the antlers were. >> how would this explain that species like the Indian peafowl seem to be doing quite well >> and are listed as "Least Concern" by conservation authorities? > > The Indian peafowl breeds very easily in captivity and the top super-predator of the age likes > them and takes measures to preserve them and even keeps them as pets. I don't know > if Paleolithic people liked Irish Elk but I doubt anybody ever tried to breed one or had a Irish > Elk as a pet. I don't think that's why wild peafowl are "Least Concern." Humans today hunt Indian peafowl as do many other things, from wild dogs to tigers. We would expect the wild ones to be very rare with only domesticated birds being the dominant examples. Why is this not so? I'm not sure about the prehistoric status of Indian peafowl, though if what you believe were true we should expect them to have been very rare -- big tails made them easy targets, according to you -- and only being plentiful today because humans took a liking to them. Yet peafowl overall seem to have had a wider range before humans, including Southeastern Europe. >> I do think the antler loss and regrowth issue [which you mention in the snipped portion] >> though might tell you that Irish Elk males might not always be hauling around huge >> antlers, so even if the cost of growing them is high, there's that they would also have >> periods when they lost them > > And in every species of deer the yearly time of maximum antler size corresponds to the > time of peak fertility of the female. if antlers were not the result of sexual selection how > do you explain that? Coincidence? Note that my view here is not that antlers were not the result of sexual selection, but that having large antlers might not have been the cause of the Irish Elk going extinct. >> The main contending theories are ones that are neutral on antler size it seems. I don't >> think this is foolish in any way. > > It's good to have a open mind, but not so open all your brains fall out. So you believe those experts in the field of evolutionary biology offering these alternative explanations are simply fools whose brains have fallen out? >> Humans would be distance hunters with projectile weapons. > > It doesn't matter if the hunting is close or distant, a stationary target is always going to be > easier to hit than a moving target, and a elk with ridiculously large antlers is going to be > moving slower than a elk with smaller antlers, and if the ground isn't open and free from all > obstructions MUCH slower. It matters when hunting an animal that might severely or lethally injure an attacker. It also matters when then predator is intimidated because of larger size or big antlers from attacking. >> though humans also seemed to have little problem hunting other animals > > Humans must had had problems > hunting a species of deer with smaller antlers because those elk are still around today, > it's just the Irish Elk that's dead. Well, a big problem for humans with deer would be that most of these live in forested environments, where it's far easier to hide than on open grassland or tundra. Also, having a faster productive cycle can make a huge difference. >> no evidence that makes us select the model of a runaway sexual selection killing >> them off over things like habitat loss, inter-species competition, or hunting by humans. > > Modern elk faced these same problems and must have found them to be less than lethal, > but the exact same problems stumped the Irish Elk. Something must be different. What > is the most conspicuous difference between the Irish Elk and the modern elk? Well, for one, they're not as closely related to begin with. But modern elk species and the more closely related (to Irish Elk) deer species are all a lot smaller in body size than Irish Elk. That's a "conspicuous difference," no? No doubt, that would allow them to eke out an existence over a broader range. >> My guess here is it was a big animal with lots of meat and material for use, making >> it a better target. Plus, simply being larger >> [...] > > The modern elk has about as much meat on it as a Irish Elk had, and yet one went extinct and one did not. Why? Which species of modern elk? All the only I've read of were much smaller than the Irish Elk. The Irish Elk is listed as a megafauna for a reason -- not because it's merely as big as a modern elk or deer -- save for having huge headgear. (There is one modern elk that reaches similar size: the Roosevelt Elk. And it had to be reintroduced because? Because it was going extinct in its natural range. I wonder why...:) >>> But we do have direct field observations >>> of physics, enough to know that a 9 foot wide 90 pound anchor on top of >>> a head is going to severely limit the movement of an animal, >>> especially the movement of the >>> most important part of the animal, the head. >>> It is just not viable to maintain >>> that the resulting huge increase in angular momentum of the head (never >>> mind the fact that the antlers would also hit things >>> and further restrict >>> movement) would be beneficial to a species. >> >> Yet from this one would expect the winterkills to go the opposite way, no? > > In every species of deer I would expect large bodied individuals to do better in the winter than small bodied individuals especially if it's a very cold winter, and they had a lot of those during the Ice Age. Now consider that. Consider that smaller antlered examples were also found in the winterkills as cited in that paper. Seems like big antlers weren't such a burden that Irish Elk simply died. In fact, it makes more sense given that the species lasted so long. If lugging around huge antlers really were such an impediment to overall survival, then I think it would be more reasonable to expect this to be a very small short lived population that evolved them. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 04:37:00 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:37:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <007801d10c26$1c05fca0$5411f5e0$@att.net> References: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> <007801d10c26$1c05fca0$5411f5e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:29 AM, spike wrote: > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan > On Oct 21, 2558 BE, at 8:59 AM, spike wrote: > >>?It appears our future in space is dependent upon getting launch costs down because the old LOX/kerosene and LOX/H2 stages will not advance much. They were fairly mature fifty years ago. > > >?But inefficiently implemented, no? > > Well so goes the story. Certainly there were examples of astonishing inefficiency. > But after all these years, in spite of having access to an inexhaustible supply of > highly trained rocket builders trained by the military and NASA, no one has yet > found a much cheaper way of doing it. Not at all. The incentives in big aerospace regarding NASA is not to economize. Cost plus contracts and the whole political aspect drive up prices here -- as they do everywhere else with similar incentives. There's a reason consumer electronics have steadily gone down in price over the years, but just about anything where government is the big player (education, healthcare, roads) has gone up in price -- adjusting for inflation. My speculation is that were government in charge of, say, consumer electronics -- if government were the main buyer of these and did the usual cost plus financing -- we'd live in a world where only the richest could afford computers, smartphones, and TVs. And this regime in rocketry has been the rule for decades now. The comparison with consumer electronics is apt because over the same period we've seen a general fall in prices. Now, mind you, they're not exactly the same. Rockets from 1960 to today were unlikely to be similar to, say, PCs during the same time, though I think the fact that the launch to orbit price went up -- when in any other industry if you simply keep doing the same thing over and over prices should go down simply because your per unit capital costs should drop. This is the sort of thing that happens in subsidized and protected industries where the producers are basically earning a rent and have no incentive to economize. >>? I still believe convention rockets can be done much cheaper? Dan > > OK cool, good luck to you. I honestly hope you succeed. We all do. The problem > I see is that this kind of work has the engineers always designing waaay close to > the failure points, crazy thin margins everywhere, little if any structural redundancy, > always on the ragged edge of a RUDE. That means inherently expensive materials, > processes, inspections, testing, all of it costing money money money, with a > discouraging scarcity of opportunities for savings. As an outsider, I see actual processes involved in this business as being overly labor intensive, which drives up costs. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 04:46:30 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:46:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <16A85547-596F-4FF3-8817-ED8478979859@taramayastales.com> References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <16A85547-596F-4FF3-8817-ED8478979859@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Tara Maya wrote: > > A alternative theory is that it was sexual competition among human males trying > to prove the most badass hunters to impress human females that actually drove > the elk to extinction. > > Elk females had a good reason not to go to extremes in their demands for larger > antlers, but humans had no reason to be reasonable. We have plenty of evidence > of humans hunting other megafauna to extinction for ridiculous, short-sighted reasons. I think the problem for megafauna was being relative easy targets for human projectile weapons and hunting tactics. It seems like the mega in megafauna was an adaptation both for heat regulation but also defense against predators. The entry of humans into the ecosystem upset all that -- because being big no longer had the same impact. I'm not sure, though, any predator really wouldn't take more than its fill. Yes, say, a big cat will probably not continue to hunt until a whole herd is decimated if it's already taken enough to eat for the duration, but it will breed until something checks further expansion, no? It's just that big cats, to stick with this example, usually are not as proficient as humans here, no? Certainly not with regard to something like the megafauna. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 22 04:56:34 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:56:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151022023224.GH29930@nosyntax.net> References: <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> <20151022023224.GH29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <00ef01d10c86$06dfb450$149f1cf0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of rex ... >...This fact is often used in just so stories to "explain" why Blacks have different body types from Eskimos. _______________________________________________ Little need for the air quotes, professor. Eskimos and Inuits really do have that shape, generally. The ones I saw did. The equatorial Africans seem to generally have that tall string-bean build, but my source is National Geographic rather than firsthand experience. I had an idea, since we are talking about evolution and sex selection. We are considering elk, and we assume they don't ponder too much about their mates, but rather just do what feels right to their beastly selves. Humans on the other hand have a lot of frontal lobe stuff going on, and we very much do ponder attributes about potential mates, imagine the children we might produce with them and so forth. Imagine the native people inhabiting the bitter cold Arctic regions. Every population produces some round-bottoms, some boney ones, some tall slender etc, but it is easy enough to see what body type is going to work better in a particular setting. A vacation trip many years ago to Fairbanks Alaska was most educational: plenty (if not most) of the locals seemed to be that body type: roundish, short-limbed, short in general. It seems to me an Inuit or Eskimo would look at his or her potential mates and intentionally choose the ones who will be less miserable in the long cold winters. The humans know what is coming; they wouldn't just go on beastly intuition, but rather choose with some frontal-lobe contemplation. You just wouldn't be as likely to choose a boney-ass mate up in that setting. Ja? spike From atymes at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 07:01:41 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:01:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> <007801d10c26$1c05fca0$5411f5e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > As an outsider, I see actual processes involved in this business as being > overly labor intensive, which drives up costs. > Could you do me a small favor? Sanity check to see if these seem like logical improvements. * 3D printing to drop the parts count substantially * Making small rockets to launch small satellites, in order to have demand for over 100 launches per year * ...and also so the rocket has 1 payload at a popular payload size & mass, rather than many separate customers because it's far larger than what most people are building * Fully autonomous flight safety system - no massive radar range with a person making the call whether to abort or not (and, of course, sufficient testing to prove the computer is at least as competent about this as a person) * Pit crew like operations, so that (regulatory clearance and preplanning aside) the entire launch effort takes about 2 hours from "payload on vehicle" to "payload in LEO", with the next payload starting preparations while the previous one finishes launching -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 07:09:03 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:09:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <00fc01d10c2d$b23bf330$16b3d990$@att.net> References: <010b01d10c19$88369810$98a3c830$@att.net> <694EA19F-668D-471A-BD70-D8C3E9DC9300@gmail.com> <007801d10c26$1c05fca0$5411f5e0$@att.net> <00fc01d10c2d$b23bf330$16b3d990$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:24 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:56 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty > > > >?Until recent years (with the rise of SpaceX, XCOR, and so on), the vast > majority of these builders were being paid a lot more if they kept things > expensive, and ultimately failed (after going through a large development > budget) at any effort that would have resulted in substantial cost > savings. It should surprise no one that they did just that. > > Did or are doing? > Definitely did. Somewhat are still doing: see the lobbying-result politics surrounding SLS as opposed to Commercial Crew. > What is their current cost to GEO? > I don't have that on hand - you might have better access to that data than I - but it's way more than a Falcon 9's $61.2M for 4850 kg to GTO. > What is their risk? > One of their latest incarnations, the United Launch Alliance, claims 100% safety so far...on less than 100 launches. But then, they have other risks, such as losing access to the Russian rockets they currently rely on. Sure, they'd continue to have a perfect safety record if they became unable to fly ever again, but there are multiple types of risk here. > I heard they were carrying stuff to the Space Station but hadn?t seen cost > or risk numbers. > They have carried stuff to the ISS. It is to be seen whether they will be able to do so again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rex at nosyntax.net Thu Oct 22 13:32:07 2015 From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:32:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <00ef01d10c86$06dfb450$149f1cf0$@att.net> References: <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> <20151022023224.GH29930@nosyntax.net> <00ef01d10c86$06dfb450$149f1cf0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20151022133207.GI29930@nosyntax.net> spike [2015-10-21 22:11]: > > >... On Behalf Of rex > ... > > >...This fact is often used in just so stories to "explain" why Blacks have > different body types from Eskimos. > > _______________________________________________ > > > Little need for the air quotes, professor. Eskimos and Inuits really do > have that shape, generally. The ones I saw did. The quotes are there to indicate that the "explanation" really doesn't explain anything; like many, many, other observations, it's merely consistent with the data. A major bane of evolutionary biology is the plethora of just so "explanations" and the tendency for some people to forget that plausibility is not sufficient to establish an hypothesis. > I had an idea, since we are talking about evolution and sex selection. We > are considering elk, and we assume they don't ponder too much about their > mates, but rather just do what feels right to their beastly selves. Humans > on the other hand have a lot of frontal lobe stuff going on, and we very > much do ponder attributes about potential mates, imagine the children we > might produce with them and so forth. Really? I've done it for perhaps 10-15 minutes total -- in my lifetime. I don't recall talking about it with anyone much, either. Come to think of it, one of the Watergate Plumbers did -- the guy who used to hold a lit cigarette lighter under his arm until the smell of burning flesh became too much for onlookers. Can't recall his name at the moment. Anyway, he briefly discussed the child-bearing virtues of his broad-beamed wife in one of his books. I found it odd enough to recall the incident, if not his name. Little guy, big mustache, FBI, raided Leary at Millbrook. Normally, I know his name. > Imagine the native people inhabiting the bitter cold Arctic regions. Every > population produces some round-bottoms, some boney ones, some tall slender > etc, but it is easy enough to see what body type is going to work better in > a particular setting. Far from easy for me. Absent some physics background, how would I know that a relatively small surface area is advantageous in a cold climate, all else being equal (which it never is)? More crucial, how would I know _how_ advantageous? That is, suppose I know enough physics to know about relative cooling rates, but not nearly enough to translate that to a quantitative estimate of its importance. Of what use is the information then? Perhaps it has no practical importance whatsoever, because evolution works over huge time scales and this allows strong selection for things like body type to act, when the same level of selection pressure would do nothing measurable in a few generations, much less a lifetime. IOW, there may be, and probably isn't, any significant advantage to choosing a short plump mate over a tall slender one if you live in a traditional Eskimo village. Other considerations would probably absolutely swamp any theoretical advantage. >A vacation trip many years ago to Fairbanks Alaska > was most educational: plenty (if not most) of the locals seemed to be that > body type: roundish, short-limbed, short in general. It seems to me an > Inuit or Eskimo would look at his or her potential mates and intentionally > choose the ones who will be less miserable in the long cold winters. The > humans know what is coming; they wouldn't just go on beastly intuition, but > rather choose with some frontal-lobe contemplation. You just wouldn't be as > likely to choose a boney-ass mate up in that setting. Ja? It's far from clear to me that your average unschooled human knows that endomorphs tend to be more comfortable in cold weather than ectomorphs are. -rex -- From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 16:04:30 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:04:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Why Alien Life Will Be Robotic Message-ID: Article in Nautilus By Martin Rees (a British cosmologist and astrophysicist. He is also the Astronomer Royal). Quote: Perhaps the galaxy already teems with advanced life, and our descendants will ?plug in? to a galactic community?as rather ?junior members.? On the other hand, Earth?s intricate biosphere may be unique and the searches may fail. This would disappoint the searchers. But it would have an upside. Humans could then be less cosmically modest. Our tiny planet?this pale blue dot floating in space?could be the most important place in the entire cosmos. We would then be of especially great cosmic significance, for being the transient precursor to the deeper cogitations of another culture?one dominated by machines, extending deep into the future and spreading far beyond Earth. ____________ I agree with the theme of this speculation, with the proviso that humanity lasts long enough to develop advanced AI. Assuming no existential disasters, the other option is that enough of humanity disappears into a self-indulgent virtual reality paradise that AI never gets built. BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 22 17:30:37 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:30:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <20151022133207.GI29930@nosyntax.net> References: <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> <20151022023224.GH29930@nosyntax.net> <00ef01d10c86$06dfb450$149f1cf0$@att.net> <20151022133207.GI29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: <013601d10cef$5e6528e0$1b2f7aa0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of rex ... >>... You just wouldn't be as likely to choose a boney-ass mate up in that setting. Ja? >...It's far from clear to me that your average unschooled human knows that endomorphs tend to be more comfortable in cold weather than ectomorphs are. -rex _______________________________________________ Ja, it is plausible the average person wouldn't get that connection. In mate selection, the kinds of things humans would notice is the potential mate's favorite HVAC setting. I have some fun firsthand observations for you. In a visit to Fairbanks on the summer solstice in 1985, I was able to witness firsthand the locals on an unusually hot day. It was about 80F. The locals appeared to really suffer. I don't even get comfortable until hits the 80s. Second observation: in 1988, I was living in the California desert region where we go a month at a time every year when every day exceeds 110F. We hired a guy from UCLA named George Oh Way who was a full-blooded Inuit but was born in LA and grew up there. George was about 5 ft and I would estimate his weight at about 320 lb (do pardon my use of the oddball units Europeans and sane people among us (150 cm, perhaps 150 kg.)) George was a delightful colleague, smart as a whip, funny sense of humor, enjoyed demonstrating that his belt was as long as he was, etc. In the same room, he would be sweating while I was shivering. I am 6 ft and about 125 lbs. I bundled up a bit, George and I dealt with it. I wish I could tell you it had a happy ending. One Monday George didn't show up for work. Called his house, nada. Reported to security as was required (he had a security clearance.) Next day, no George. They went by his house, TV on, no answer, car out front. Called the parameds, broke is door, found him dead sitting in a chair, 43 yrs old. Apparently he had something going on with his heart but to this day I have had to wonder if the desert heat contributed to his demise. He just wasn't built for it. spike From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 20:51:36 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:51:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: <013601d10cef$5e6528e0$1b2f7aa0$@att.net> References: <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> <20151022023224.GH29930@nosyntax.net> <00ef01d10c86$06dfb450$149f1cf0$@att.net> <20151022133207.GI29930@nosyntax.net> <013601d10cef$5e6528e0$1b2f7aa0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:30 AM, spike wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf > Of rex > ... > > >>... You just wouldn't be as likely to choose a boney-ass mate up in that > setting. Ja? > > >...It's far from clear to me that your average unschooled human knows that > endomorphs tend to be more comfortable in cold weather than ectomorphs are. > -rex > _______________________________________________ > > > Ja, it is plausible the average person wouldn't get that connection. In > mate selection, the kinds of things humans would notice is the potential > mate's favorite HVAC setting. > > I have some fun firsthand observations for you. In a visit to Fairbanks on > the summer solstice in 1985, I was able to witness firsthand the locals on > an unusually hot day. It was about 80F. The locals appeared to really > suffer. I don't even get comfortable until hits the 80s. > > Second observation: in 1988, I was living in the California desert region > where we go a month at a time every year when every day exceeds 110F. We > hired a guy from UCLA named George Oh Way who was a full-blooded Inuit but > was born in LA and grew up there. George was about 5 ft and I would > estimate his weight at about 320 lb (do pardon my use of the oddball units > Europeans and sane people among us (150 cm, perhaps 150 kg.)) George was a > delightful colleague, smart as a whip, funny sense of humor, enjoyed > demonstrating that his belt was as long as he was, etc. > > In the same room, he would be sweating while I was shivering. I am 6 ft and > about 125 lbs. I bundled up a bit, George and I dealt with it. > > I wish I could tell you it had a happy ending. One Monday George didn't > show up for work. Called his house, nada. Reported to security as was > required (he had a security clearance.) Next day, no George. They went by > his house, TV on, no answer, car out front. Called the parameds, broke is > door, found him dead sitting in a chair, 43 yrs old. Apparently he had > something going on with his heart but to this day I have had to wonder if > the desert heat contributed to his demise. He just wasn't built for it. I'm on the thin side, though not as tall as you, but I don't like anything over 70 degrees usually. I could chalk this up to Norwegian and Celtic genes, but I think it might have to do with where I was born and have lived. But you might be drawing too much from this. For instance, with the person you mention who sadly died, Inuits, from my reading, tend to get obese not because that's their normal body thingy but because they tend to adopt a bad diet. The same thing happens to Polynesians. And Polynesia isn't known for being frigid. So, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from body shape and size. Add to this, skinny people in Africa are often skinny because they have a calorie poor diet. A friend of mine who lived in Tanzania for two years -- and who is chubby and of British descent -- related that eggs were considered a treat -- something he tried to eat there everyday. And their basic diet was some kind of grain and some vegetable, maybe some beans. This was cheese-heavy, meat-heavy, with lots of sugary treats to go along with it. And this was the result of poverty -- not self-selection for a low caloric, low meat, etc. diet. (Granted, the pre-contact diet of Inuit, to my knowledge, was high meat, though they had no grain and no processed sugary crap either, right? That's not a diet that's going to make someone all that fat, no?) So I wonder what would happen if these Tanzanian villagers were suddenly put on the diet of the average Brit or American -- I mean the diet of the average poor Brit or America. I'd expect their waistline to grow and grow and grow. And why is Mississippi, not known for its cold snaps, the third most overweight state in the US? (Arkansas was number one last year. Arkansas is also not a land of long, cold winters.) Did all the Inuits move there? I think California's low obesity rate probably has more to do with the culture than the genetics. (Ditto for Vermont, another state I've lived in. Low obesity rates and a September snowstorm is not unheard of there.) Take a look at this: http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/ Of course, to be fair, people can move around and indoor climate control is a big plus. It's kind of strange in Washington State -- number 37 on the list -- that the climate is generally mild year round (to me), though a really hot day is really bad here because most places don't have air conditioning. This wouldn't be a problem farther south or farther east, where most people do have a/c -- even if they're not cranking it all the time. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 21:16:40 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <20151019165350.GB29930@nosyntax.net> <01FE70CE-6C0D-4225-9899-78BD23278E58@gmail.com> <20151020173548.GE29930@nosyntax.net> <20151020183250.GF29930@nosyntax.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > >> ?>? >> No biological adaptation can make the law of conservation of angular >> momentum go away. > > > ?> ? > Of course, but my point should've been obvious: the organism might have > had behavioral and other physical changes to deal with having larger > antlers. > ?Yes, biological adaptations can be made to overcome the disadvantage large antlers have at everything except sexual advertisement, but none of those changes come free, they all have a cost, a cost that animals with smaller antlers did not have to pay. ? ?> ? > What about moose today? They have antlers weighing, in the largest > specimens, more than half what the Irish Elk antlers are supposed to weigh > ?And moose antlers had less than half the radius of the Irish Elk's antlers so the moose's neck muscles need to produce less than a fourth as much torque to turn it's head and less than a fourth as much torque to stop the head once it started moving. And the moose's antlers had less than a fourth the surface area so they were less than a fourth as likely to hit an obstruction or become tangled up in something. And the modern moose is a larger animal than the Irish Elk was. On average moose weigh about 1400 pounds, the largest undisputed one weighed 1808 pounds and a less well documented one weighed 2601 pounds. The average Irish Elk weighed about 1250 pounds and the largest about 1550 pounds. ?> ? > How the hell do they do it? ?T he smaller price modern moose had to pay to overcome the smaller disadvantage their smaller antlers produced didn't bankrupt them as it did the Irish Elk. ? > >> ?>? >> And no biological adaptation can make >> ? ? >> can make >> ? ? >> Pauli exclusion principle >> ? ? >> go away either, and antlers are made of Fermions > > > ?> ? > You're going off the deep end to defend your point here. > ?Do you think the Pauli exclusion principle ? doesn't apply to antlers so they can just pass through obstructions with no trouble? ?Is it speculation to say that extinct animals lived in a world with the same laws of physics as we do? ? > ?> ? > Right, so what happens to the moose or to deer or elk now? They never ever > get snagged? > ?Certainly they get snagged and I can tell you how often. The biggest antlers in existence today are half as wide as the Irish Elk's, so they get snagged 1/4 as much.? Getting snagged is always bad but getting snagged 1/4 as often is only 1/4 as bad. > ?> ? > Also, if you're going to present a just so story about > ? [...]? > ?To hell with your just so stories! My "just so story" is that no biological adaptation can change the laws of physics or change Euclidean geometry. ?> ? > Do you have evidence of what their habitat was like overall? If it was > tundra, steppe, or savanna, what's the likelihood snagging their antlers > did them in? > ?4 times as likely as a moose would have regardless of what the habitat was.? > ?> ? > Variation in antler geometry and size amongst Irish Elk would suggest that > they could evolve their way out of antlers doing them in > ?Yes that could happen, it wouldn't violate the laws of physics if it had happened, but it didn't happen. As I pointed out in my last post it would take a chain of luckey mutations for that to occur and, as the Irish Elk discovered, an animal can't always get the mutations it needs when it needs them. So the poor animal had no way to break out of its positive feedback loop. > ?> ? > Geez! Are you saying that experts in the field of paleobiology -- the > folks writing papers that get published in journals you cite -- are > irrational when they question sexual selection driving Irish Elk to > extinction? > ?Yes.? I have never heard of an expert say that the Irish Elk's antlers could have played no part in its extinction, but if I ever do I would not hesitate to say that "expert" was irrational, and any journal that published such a silly theory would lose all credibility in my book. > ?> ? > Of course, it could be sexual selection drives the initial process of > increased antler size, but that there are added benefits such as > intimidation of predators > ?If antlers are a good defence against predators ?then why didn't female Irish Elk have antlers? ?I'm pretty sure predators eat females ?too. > ?> ? > Well, modern elk are not the Irish Elks' closest relative, > ?The closest living relative would be the Fallow deer, it would be the one with the closest genome, but it would not be the member of the deer family that looked most like the Irish Elk. The Fallow deer is over 5 times smaller ?than the Irish Elk. > >> ?>? >> A mutant Irish Elk with a gene for smaller antlers would have a longer >> life but probably >> ? ? >> not a happier life due to sexual frustration. Such a gene could not >> become dominant in the gene pool regardless of how beneficial it was to a >> individual unless there was a >> ? ? >> second mutant gene, one for feeling that small antlers were more sexy >> than big ones, >> ? ? >> and the 2 genes would need to be close together on the same chromosome so >> they >> ? ? >> would usually be inherited together. > > > ?> ? > Unfortunately, this is speculative. > ?No it is not. In every life form ever studied ?if 2 genes are close together on the chromosome they are more likely to be inherited together than if they were more distant. ?> ? > Note that my view here is not that antlers were not the result of sexual > selection, > ?I'm very glad to hear that.? > ?> ? > but that having large antlers might not have been the cause of the Irish > Elk going extinct. > ?Well, if the "bigger antlers always look more sexy than smaller antlers" gene and the "grow big antlers" gene are usually inherited together then there is nothing speculative in saying that is a positive feedback loop. And if huge antlers didn't have negative consequences then there would be nothing to stop them from getting bigger and bigger as the generations go by forever; before long the antlers would be hundreds of feet wide, then thousands of feet wide, then miles wide, then... Obviously that can never happen and it can't happen because huge antlers *DO* have negative consequences. Sexual selection usually works well but nothing about Evolution is perfect, and sometimes females use a incorrect rule of thumb to ascertain fitness in a male, and if the gene for that ? rule of thumb and the gene that produces the trait the rule of thumb looks for are usually inherited together then a positive feedback loop will result. ?That sort of sexually selected positive feedback loop ? may have been the reason human brain size evolved so quickly and got so big, fortunately for us having a big brain and being smart has other advantages in addition to sexual advertisement, unfortunately for the Irish Elk big antlers do not. ? > ?> ? > So you believe those experts in the field of evolutionary biology offering > these alternative explanations are simply fools whose brains have fallen > out? > ?I have never heard of a expert in the field of evolutionary biology say huge antlers played no part in the extinction of the Irish Elk nor did I hear of one saying sexual selection played no part in the evolution of huge antlers, but if I ever do hear of such a thing I would not hesitate to say they were a fool whose brains had fallen out. > >> ?>? >> The modern elk has about as much meat on it as a Irish Elk had, and yet >> one went extinct and one did not. Why? > > > ?> ? > Which species of modern elk? > The modern ? Roosevelt elk ? is one and the Sambar deer ? is another? ?. ? And ?the ? modern moose ?(which are called "elk" in Britain) ? are even larger. But all modern species of the deer family have much smaller antlers than the Irish Elk.? > ?> ? > the Roosevelt Elk. And it had to be reintroduced because? Because it was > going extinct in its natural range. I wonder why...:) > ?The prevailing super-predator probably had something to do with it, the super-predator liked the Roosevelt Elk and decided to give it a second chance. > > >> ?>? >> In every species of deer I would expect large bodied individuals to do >> better in the winter than small bodied individuals especially if it's a >> very cold winter, and they had a lot of those during the Ice Age. > > > ?> ? > Now consider that. Consider that smaller antlered examples were also found > in the winterkills as cited in that paper. > ?The smaller antlered individuals were also smaller bodied individuals. ? > ?> ? > If lugging around huge antlers really were such an impediment to overall > survival, then I think it would be more reasonable to expect this to be a > very small short lived population that evolved them. > ?But the Irish Elk *was* a very short lived species, even shorter than the human species. The first ones only came along about 400,000 years ago ?and by 12,000 years ago they were already starting to get pretty rare, and just a few thousand years later the were gone. Off the top of my head I can't think of a shorter lived species. The Irish Elk was a brittle species, it couldn't tolerate much change in its environment and I am certain those ridiculous antlers played a significant role in that brittleness. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 23 02:57:35 2015 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:57:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! In-Reply-To: <56269642.2030004@infinitefaculty.org> References: <20151019123822.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.466cc9fe80.mailapi@email17.secureserver.net> <56269642.2030004@infinitefaculty.org> Message-ID: <015401d10d3e$921e2e80$b65a8b80$@natasha.cc> Thank you Brian! Thank you, Natasha ___________________________________________ Natasha Vita-More, PhD Professor, University of Advancing Technology Program Champion (Chair), Graduate Studies Chair, Humanity+ Fellow, Institute of Ethics and Emerging Technology Author, The Transhumanist Reader -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Manning Delaney Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:30 PM To: ExI chat list; humanityplusboard at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! Extremely well-put-together article -- best of its kind (advocacy with balance) I've ever read. Goes to the top of my "Stuff to send to loved ones who are skeptical of my 'crazy' interests and pursuits" list. Thanks! Brian _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 23 02:57:52 2015 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:57:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! In-Reply-To: References: <20151019123822.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.466cc9fe80.mailapi@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <015501d10d3e$9c274dd0$d475e970$@natasha.cc> Thanks! From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:11 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Dave Sill wrote: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, wrote: ?>>? Hello Everyone! The article just released: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/542601/the-science-surrounding-cryonics/ Can you all please make a good comment at Would be great if we could push it to become a first page. ?> ? Done. ?I also made a comment. John K Clark? Thank you so very much - No, thank you. Great article. -Dave _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 23 02:58:10 2015 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:58:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! In-Reply-To: References: <20151019123822.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.466cc9fe80.mailapi@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <015a01d10d3e$a6abdeb0$f4039c10$@natasha.cc> Thank you! From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 4:24 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: humanityplusboard at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [ExI] MIT Technology Review - Cryonics! On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, wrote: Hello Everyone! The article just released: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/542601/the-science-surrounding-cryonics/ Can you all please make a good comment at Would be great if we could push it to become a first page. Done. Thank you so very much - No, thank you. Great article. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 23 20:35:55 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:35:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies Message-ID: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> As I read over some of the transcripts of the congressional hearings about the attack on the US embassy in Libya, a big question keeps coming to mind: why do we need ambassadors? We have encrypted secure phone links, we have large screen 2-way communications. Why don't we just tell the countries, if you want a US embassy, then build it. If you want it safe, then guard it. If terrorists or guys out for a walk decide to attack it, then shoot them if you wish, but there need not be any Americans in there to kill, for the ambassadors can do all the business with any country anywhere from the safety of an office back home, and they can keep their ambassadors home too, to lower the risk that they would see women with their heads naked and shameful. If we do it that way, we don't need as many aircraft carriers and all those expensive floating fireworks, don't need the foreign bases as much, don't need a lot of the expensive military installations we are currently supporting. We can have eyes and ears on the ground using various resources available to us. So why do we need ambassadors on the ground in dangerous places? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 23 21:06:21 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:06:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies In-Reply-To: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> References: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2015 1:51 PM, "spike" wrote: > So why do we need ambassadors on the ground in dangerous places? 1) Legalities. Many of those places will not recognize a remote presence for the purposes of an embassy. There is no reason that can be worked around here; their definitions simply preclude teleambassadorship. (Unless you can rewrite their definitions in their own minds, which is a gargantuan memetic effort.) 2) Assurance. "But everyone knows cyber-anything can be hacked! American movies show this all the time!" Doesn't matter if it's true; having an all-virtual presence is pretext for people to claim the embassy did or promised them or gave them anything. Those caught in their lie can simply say the embassy must have been hacked and get off without punishment; the rest get away with forging visas, passports, and other US government documents. 3) Espionage. You didn't really think that embassies weren't, from the start, a safe place for spies to drop their Intel, did you? Think of them as a gentlemen's agreement to limit the more extreme actions spies might otherwise have to take to report back (in the pre-digital age that some of these more dangerous places are essentially still in), and to not admit this purpose. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Oct 23 22:04:40 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 23:04:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies In-Reply-To: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> References: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> Message-ID: <562AAEF8.10709@aleph.se> On 2015-10-23 21:35, spike wrote: > > As I read over some of the transcripts of the congressional hearings > about the attack on the US embassy in Libya, a big question keeps > coming to mind: why do we need ambassadors? > Ever tried to get a US visa or citizenship? The US insists on people physically showing up for interviews in order to prove that they are the people they claim to be, to have biometrics taken, and respond to questions without coaching. Of course, embassies do much more. The Vienna Convention states: > The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in > representing the sending State in the receiving State; protecting in > the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its > nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; > negotiating with the Government of the receiving State; ascertaining > by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving > State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State; > promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the > receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and > scientific relations. Note the clause about protecting nationals within international law, ascertaining and reporting on what is going on, as well as promoting relations. Many embassies are nexuses of social activity of expats and business. Sure, one could do this without a central office. But economies of scale (and defence) apply. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 23 22:38:23 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:38:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies In-Reply-To: <562AAEF8.10709@aleph.se> References: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> <562AAEF8.10709@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2015-10-23 21:35, spike wrote: > > > > As I read over some of the transcripts of the congressional hearings about > the attack on the US embassy in Libya, a big question keeps coming to mind: > why do we need ambassadors? > > Ever tried to get a US visa or citizenship? > > The US insists on people physically showing up for interviews in order to > prove that they are the people they claim to be, to have biometrics taken, > and respond to questions without coaching. > > Of course, embassies do much more. The Vienna Convention states: > > The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in representing > the sending State in the receiving State; protecting in the receiving State > the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits > permitted by international law; negotiating with the Government of the > receiving State; ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and > developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the > Government of the sending State; promoting friendly relations between the > sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, > cultural and scientific relations. > > Note the clause about protecting nationals within international law, > ascertaining and reporting on what is going on, as well as promoting > relations. Many embassies are nexuses of social activity of expats and > business. > > Sure, one could do this without a central office. But economies of scale > (and defence) apply. > > > -- > Dr Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > ?Why don't companies do selling and negotiations, and any other business > by video conferences? > ?? Why must we fill the airplanes with business people? One reason is to > make things personal (huge reason). Another is to be able to read > emotional expressions and body language of your potential customers etc. > (also a biggie). > ?bill wallace? > ? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 23 22:28:54 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:28:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies In-Reply-To: References: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> Message-ID: <006f01d10de2$356422e0$a02c68a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:06 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] remote embassies On Oct 23, 2015 1:51 PM, "spike" wrote: > So why do we need ambassadors on the ground in dangerous places? 1) Legalities. Many of those places will not recognize a remote presence for the purposes of an embassy. ? Ja. The ball is in their court. Americans are not clamoring to get into their benighted and retrogressive countries. If they want to deal with us, they need to do so on our terms. 2) Assurance. "But everyone knows cyber-anything can be hacked! American movies show this all the time!" ? Sure but we have military grade encryption. Even private conversations can be intercepted. If the bad guys think they can hack encrypted email, then let them demonstrate it. The dangerous countries must meet us on our terms because we have the gold. 3) Espionage. You didn't really think that embassies weren't, from the start, a safe place for spies to drop their Intel, did you? This sort of thing can be done by phone, by encrypted email, by any number of untraceable channels. Delivering hard copy of intel to an embassy is perhaps the lowest security means of transmission, because the couriers can be observed going in and out. These three reasons are justification for closing embassies in foreign lands, particularly those with nothing we want. For every commodity other than oil, the free market can do all the diplomatic tasks required. The oil countries are rich enough to create a safe embassy. I see little justification for most of the US embassies we currently have. Shut em down, use the phone, or encrypted email, or a secure line. When I read that testimony, I didn?t see anyone really taking ownership of the Benghazi attack, didn?t see any indications of how anything would change, or how safety could be enhanced. I did see the former Sec of State stick with her story on the internet video, and the internet is not going to run out of blasphemous videos anytime soon, and the US isn?t going to suddenly develop either the technology or the legal means of stopping that. >From what I am hearing, the underlying cause is still there, the target is still there, the means of defense has proven inadequate. So? shut em down, bring em home. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 23 23:28:12 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:28:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies In-Reply-To: <006f01d10de2$356422e0$a02c68a0$@att.net> References: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> <006f01d10de2$356422e0$a02c68a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2015 3:46 PM, "spike" wrote: > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:06 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] remote embassies > > On Oct 23, 2015 1:51 PM, "spike" wrote: > > So why do we need ambassadors on the ground in dangerous places? > > 1) Legalities. Many of those places will not recognize a remote presence for the purposes of an embassy. ? > > Ja. The ball is in their court. Americans are not clamoring to get into their benighted and retrogressive countries. Our merchants are. If we want to get their money - and even the poorest country can buy American guns - we need them to recognize us. > 2) Assurance. "But everyone knows cyber-anything can be hacked! American movies show this all the time!" ? > > Sure but we have military grade encryption. Irrelevant. It is not whether the hack can happen, but whether most people in that country believe it could happen. This is the difference between security and security theater. As I'm sure you are aware, either one alone tends to do a lousy job at the other in practice, even if that should not be the case in theory. > If the bad guys think they can hack encrypted email, then let them demonstrate it. China has apparently been doing so. But again, that is irrelevant. > 3) Espionage. You didn't really think that embassies weren't, from the start, a safe place for spies to drop their Intel, did you? > > This sort of thing can be done by phone, by encrypted email, by any number of untraceable channels. Delivering hard copy of intel to an embassy is perhaps the lowest security means of transmission, because the couriers can be observed going in and out. Hard copy might have been the original purpose, but these days if you want a satellite dish within range of a low powered radio (or laser communicator) far enough inside a county's borders that a spy can't lug powerful enough equipment to transmit out, you can put that uplink in your embassy, and there's nothing that country can do about it short of revoking your embassy...even if they can and do firebomb their own citizens for the same thing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 23 23:28:14 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:28:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies In-Reply-To: References: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> <562AAEF8.10709@aleph.se> Message-ID: <00e601d10dea$7e3536a0$7a9fa3e0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] remote embassies >? Why don't companies do selling and negotiations, and any other business by video conferences? ?? Why must we fill the airplanes with business people? One reason is to make things personal (huge reason). Another is to be able to read emotional expressions and body language of your potential customers etc. (also a biggie). bill wallace? OK I have heard several reasons why we should have embassies, and do let us assume them valid. Yesterday we heard testimony by the former US Sec of State who held to the story that the attack on the US embassy in Libya was caused by an internet video, with no other motive offered as an alternative. OK then, those aren?t going away; blasphemous videos once YouTubed are there forever. They are not only immortal, they are proliferating like tribbles. The US government has no means of controlling these and no potential of getting any means of controlling them in the future, for the US Government has no veto power over the first amendment. That?s why they are called rights, rather than the Bill of Permissions. OK, so now we revealed we have embassies without the military means to defend, and we have cause for attack, since our own government saw fit to take responsibility for the content of the internet. Bad guys have military-grade laser guided mortars, so there is no reasonable way to stop an attack. Here we see the means, the motive, and an inexhaustible supply of perpetrators. It is over three years past the time to do the best we can with the technology available. It is over three years past the time to shut em down and bring em home, forthwith. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Oct 24 00:00:04 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:00:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies In-Reply-To: <00e601d10dea$7e3536a0$7a9fa3e0$@att.net> References: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> <562AAEF8.10709@aleph.se> <00e601d10dea$7e3536a0$7a9fa3e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2015 4:44 PM, "spike" wrote: > It is over three years past the time to do the best we can with the technology available. It is over three years past the time to shut em down and bring em home, forthwith. Rather, it is over three years past the time to get the bad guys to stop being able to use such things as motives that gain much public support anywhere in the world. (They won't last long if their people cone to see them as obvious loonies.) Is it imperialistic and wrong to impose religious tolerance on the minds of those who only conceive of a world where those who pray different must necessarily be your blood enemies? Given the demonstrated alternative, that is a hard case to make believably. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Oct 24 04:51:11 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:51:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> <20151022023224.GH29930@nosyntax.net> <00ef01d10c86$06dfb450$149f1cf0$@att.net> <20151022133207.GI29930@nosyntax.net> <013601d10cef$5e6528e0$1b2f7aa0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > ?> ? > Inuits, from my reading, tend to get obese not because that's their normal > body thingy but because they tend to adopt a bad diet. > ?I nuits eat more animal fat and protein ? ? and less fruit and vegetables than any other people in the world ?and? yet cardiovascular disease is ? ? very ? ? rare ? ?for them and prostate cancer virtually unknown ?;? their diet may be bad but they've thrived on i ?t? for centuries, but then they had to. > ?> ? > The same thing happens to Polynesians. And Polynesia isn't known for being > frigid. So, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from body shape and size. > ?The ancestors of the Polynesians ? were the survivors of epic long sea voyages, most people would not survive such a voyage but those that did probably had a natural metabolism ?that ? stored more body fat than ?the ? average ?person, and those genes would ?be the genes that ? survive ?d to this day? . Maybe that's why Polynesians suffer more from obesity than other people ?.? > ?> ? > Add to this, skinny people in Africa are often skinny because they have a > calorie poor diet. > Usually but not always, sometimes the cause is in the genes. ?The ? Maasai ? ? and ? ? Dinka ?? people live in a part of Sudan that is very hot ? ?and dry, and their body ?is of a ? shape ? to maximize evaporative cooling with ?its? big surface ? area to volume ? ratio?; they tend to be thin and very tall, the average woman ? ? is 6 feet tall and the average man is 6 feet 4 inches. Pygmies on the other hand live where ?it's? hot and humid and ? ?so evaporative cooling ? ? would do little good ?,? so the best ?way? to stay cool ?there ? is to just be small, so the average woman is ? ? 4 foot 4 inches ? ? tall and the average man ? ? 4 foot 5 inches ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sat Oct 24 05:55:23 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 06:55:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] IQ and beauty In-Reply-To: References: <005201d10c06$bf7ea460$3e7bed20$@att.net> <20151022023224.GH29930@nosyntax.net> <00ef01d10c86$06dfb450$149f1cf0$@att.net> <20151022133207.GI29930@nosyntax.net> <013601d10cef$5e6528e0$1b2f7aa0$@att.net> Message-ID: <562B1D4B.1090509@aleph.se> On 2015-10-24 05:51, John Clark wrote: > > ?I > nuits eat more animal fat and protein > ? ? > and less fruit and vegetables than any other people in the world > ? and? > yet cardiovascular disease is > ? ? > very > ? ? > rare > ? ?for them > and prostate cancer virtually unknown > ? ;? > their diet may be bad but they've thrived on i > ? t? > for centuries, but then they had to. Actually, this has been disputed. The low cardiovascular disease claim seems to come from one old, small and flawed study that has been endlessly cited. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749 https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/08/fish-oil-and-eskimo-diet-another-medical-myth-debunked Still, there is no doubt populations of humans can thrive on very bad diets. If the alternative is starvation, one will make do. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sat Oct 24 05:58:50 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 06:58:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies In-Reply-To: <00e601d10dea$7e3536a0$7a9fa3e0$@att.net> References: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> <562AAEF8.10709@aleph.se> <00e601d10dea$7e3536a0$7a9fa3e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <562B1E1A.8080703@aleph.se> On 2015-10-24 00:28, spike wrote: > > OK I have heard several reasons why we should have embassies, and do > let us assume them valid. Yesterday we heard testimony by the former > US Sec of State who held to the story that the attack on the US > embassy in Libya was caused by an internet video, with no other motive > offered as an alternative. Sigh. And do you think that is actually a plausible explanation? The actual situation in Libya was and is complex, closely tied to even more complex politics across the Middle East. The US is a player in all of this, and often on inconsistent sides. A video on its own does not matter, but when there are groups that thrive on distributing and profiting from outrage and they are deeply involved in this politics, then it may look like the video triggers a riot. But this is actually a mix of carefully orchestrated actions and darn things just happening because there is a messy political situation with conflicting loyalties and deprived people who often can only express themselves through rioting. It might make sense to have a teleembassy in dangerous corners of the world. But that also implies that the US is not able to protect its own embassy and does not trust the local polity to actually be able to protect it. That is a rather strong signal. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Oct 24 13:08:07 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 06:08:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Exclude Me If You Can: Cultural Effects on the Outcomes of Social Exclusion Message-ID: <715C4386-0C2F-4813-A702-CB6D018DB3A3@gmail.com> http://m.jcc.sagepub.com/content/46/4/579.abstract -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 24 13:32:34 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:32:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Exclude Me If You Can: Cultural Effects on the Outcomes of Social Exclusion In-Reply-To: <715C4386-0C2F-4813-A702-CB6D018DB3A3@gmail.com> References: <715C4386-0C2F-4813-A702-CB6D018DB3A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 24 October 2015 at 14:08, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://m.jcc.sagepub.com/content/46/4/579.abstract > Abstract We examined how individualistic versus collectivistic cultural backgrounds affected the psychological experience of social exclusion. We found that Turkish, Chinese, and Indian participants (collectivistic background) differed in their experience of social exclusion from German participants (individualistic background). You can read the full text here (if you really want to!): But it strikes me as a waste of time. Only 120 to 180 participants tested, to cover all nationalities. Inclusion / exclusion tested by playing a computer game or writing an essay. Testing millions by unfriending on Facebook might be a better method. BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Oct 24 13:52:06 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 06:52:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Exclude Me If You Can: Cultural Effects on the Outcomes of Social Exclusion In-Reply-To: References: <715C4386-0C2F-4813-A702-CB6D018DB3A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2558 BE, at 6:32 AM, BillK wrote: > >> On 24 October 2015 at 14:08, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> http://m.jcc.sagepub.com/content/46/4/579.abstract > > Abstract > We examined how individualistic versus collectivistic cultural > backgrounds affected the psychological experience of social exclusion. > We found that Turkish, Chinese, and Indian participants > (collectivistic background) differed in their experience of social > exclusion from German participants (individualistic background). > > > You can read the full text here (if you really want to!): > > > But it strikes me as a waste of time. > Only 120 to 180 participants tested, to cover all nationalities. > Inclusion / exclusion tested by playing a computer game or writing an essay. > > Testing millions by unfriending on Facebook might be a better method. I agree that the sample size and range of ethnic groups was too small to be more than suggestive and in need of further study. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 24 13:53:10 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 06:53:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] remote embassies In-Reply-To: <562B1E1A.8080703@aleph.se> References: <003001d10dd2$6bcf5c60$436e1520$@att.net> <562AAEF8.10709@aleph.se> <00e601d10dea$7e3536a0$7a9fa3e0$@att.net> <562B1E1A.8080703@aleph.se> Message-ID: <007a01d10e63$524faec0$f6ef0c40$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 10:59 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] remote embassies On 2015-10-24 00:28, spike wrote: OK I have heard several reasons why we should have embassies, and do let us assume them valid. Yesterday we heard testimony by the former US Sec of State who held to the story that the attack on the US embassy in Libya was caused by an internet video, with no other motive offered as an alternative. >.Sigh. And do you think that is actually a plausible explanation? Hi Anders, no I don't believe the story either. That video business was a cover story, but a very revealing one. We sent a message to the world that US embassies can be attacked, with the justification that they found something on the internet they didn't like. The US will not even attempt to defend its property overseas, but will go on an apology tour for our having freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It looks to me like that declares open season on any American travelling overseas. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion will not be compromised in the US. The government has no say on those matters. In the former Sec of State and now presidential candidate's testimony it came out that she had said "We will find the man who made the video and arrest him." He was a swindler and they did arrest him on a parole violation. Since when has the State Department intervened in a local parole board action? He was clearly a scapegoat. OK then, I am not a swindler, not on parole, so I can make blasphemous videos and post them to YouTube. I don't even have a job, so it is unclear to me what the IRS can do to me, even with its new role and apparently unlimited powers as an 8th amendment-free attack dog for the federal government. So, we have shown that our foreign embassies are sitting ducks and our foreign travelers are accomplices to blasphemy. >.But that also implies that the US is not able to protect its own embassy and does not trust the local polity to actually be able to protect it. That is a rather strong signal. Dr Anders Sandberg This was clearly demonstrated on 11 September 2012. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Oct 24 13:14:43 2015 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 13:14:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Exclude Me If You Can: Cultural Effects on the Outcomes of Social Exclusion In-Reply-To: <715C4386-0C2F-4813-A702-CB6D018DB3A3@gmail.com> References: <715C4386-0C2F-4813-A702-CB6D018DB3A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <249CE479-0A4C-480C-A872-E173EEA72D88@gmu.edu> On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Dan TheBookMan > wrote: http://m.jcc.sagepub.com/content/46/4/579.abstract Interesting - is it that folks from collective cultures feel so secure in being accepted by a home community that they less mind being excluded by other communities? Robin Hanson http://hanson.gmu.edu Res. Assoc., Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford Univ. Assoc. Professor, George Mason University Chief Scientist, Consensus Point MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 00:55:37 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 17:55:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hive Mind: Anyone here read it? Message-ID: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961 Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 01:38:21 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 21:38:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Exclude Me If You Can: Cultural Effects on the Outcomes of Social Exclusion In-Reply-To: <249CE479-0A4C-480C-A872-E173EEA72D88@gmu.edu> References: <715C4386-0C2F-4813-A702-CB6D018DB3A3@gmail.com> <249CE479-0A4C-480C-A872-E173EEA72D88@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Robin D Hanson wrote: > On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > http://m.jcc.sagepub.com/content/46/4/579.abstract > > > Interesting - is it that folks from collective cultures feel so secure in > being accepted by a home community that they less mind being excluded by > other communities? > ### Yes, this struck me too. Naively I would think that individualists would be less affected by social exclusion. The extremes, such as ASD patients, hardly even notice being excluded. On the other hand, in very collectivist cultures exclusion means a highly increased risk of death. The study used exclusion manipulation by essay writing and by a rigged computer game. How much does that reflect true social exclusion, especially exclusion from life-critical communities? I am moderately skeptical about the study design. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 03:51:20 2015 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 23:51:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hive Mind: Anyone here read it? In-Reply-To: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> References: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2015 8:57 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > > http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961 I assume that if a hive mind is inevitable then only one person needs to read it for it to become part of the hive. If a hove mind is not inevitable, then why would I need to read about the hive mind? :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Oct 25 10:05:51 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 10:05:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Hive Mind: Anyone here read it? In-Reply-To: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> References: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> Message-ID: <562CA97F.1000804@aleph.se> On 2015-10-25 01:55, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961 > Ah, it is finally out! I have been waiting to see what Garett came up with; we discussed this several years ago. No idea about whether it is good, but I will order it for the institute. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 15:36:47 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 08:36:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Prevap desalination process Message-ID: <6F9D6D8B-C4F2-43BE-B057-D1762EA2283C@gmail.com> http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/07205/wst072050785.htm Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 17:12:01 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 10:12:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hive Mind: Anyone here read it? In-Reply-To: References: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Oct 24, 2015 8:57 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961 > > I assume that if a hive mind is inevitable then only one person needs to > read it for it to become part of the hive. > > If a hove mind is not inevitable, then why would I need to read about the > hive mind? > > :) > In order to help bring it about, or prevent it, or modify the possible conditions under which it might come? ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 17:43:46 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 10:43:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hive Mind: Anyone here read it? In-Reply-To: References: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2A0BD8D9-0E11-4A1F-8EDB-8E0DCE88396C@gmail.com> On Oct 25, 2558 BE, at 10:12 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> On Oct 24, 2015 8:57 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: >> > >> > http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961 >> >> I assume that if a hive mind is inevitable then only one person needs to read it for it to become part of the hive. >> >> If a hove mind is not inevitable, then why would I need to read about the hive mind? >> >> :) >> > In order to help bring it about, or prevent it, or modify the possible conditions under which it might come? ;) None of the above. From the description, it appears to be a metaphor or maybe he's saying we already have something like it. It's supposedly about a nation's average IQ being a more important predictor than individual IQ. Put another way: what he seems to conclude -- I haven't read it -- is that it's better to be in a nation whose average intelligence is high as opposed to having intelligence in a nation whose average intelligence is much lower. This seems to not be much of a surprise. One can be easily imagine a bunch of people with higher average intelligence would have an overall better multiplier for things like cognitive specialization. Imagine Einstein or a Hawking stuck in a society of unimaginative dolts. But I imagine he puts more into than just a set of cute analogies and humorous anecdotes. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 17:55:32 2015 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:55:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hive Mind: Anyone here read it? In-Reply-To: References: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2015 1:13 PM, "Adrian Tymes" wrote: > In order to help bring it about, or prevent it, or modify the possible conditions under which it might come? ;) Of course, I was being facetious. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 22:11:42 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 15:11:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Prevap desalination process In-Reply-To: <6F9D6D8B-C4F2-43BE-B057-D1762EA2283C@gmail.com> References: <6F9D6D8B-C4F2-43BE-B057-D1762EA2283C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/07205/wst072050785.htm > Now, can they get this deployed commercially at a low enough retail cost? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 22:35:24 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 15:35:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Prevap desalination process In-Reply-To: References: <6F9D6D8B-C4F2-43BE-B057-D1762EA2283C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2558 BE, at 3:11 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/07205/wst072050785.htm > > Now, can they get this deployed commercially at a low enough retail cost? That seems to be the goal. I certainly hope they can and soon. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 23:37:26 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 16:37:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Prevap desalination process In-Reply-To: References: <6F9D6D8B-C4F2-43BE-B057-D1762EA2283C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Oct 25, 2558 BE, at 3:11 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > >> http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/07205/wst072050785.htm >> > > Now, can they get this deployed commercially at a low enough retail cost? > > > That seems to be the goal. I certainly hope they can and soon. ;) > I see an academic paper. I don't see a company, a business plan, or any of the other elements needed - and frequently missed - to transition from "in the lab" to "commercially available". They might be there, but my worry is whether they will be creating them if not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 00:48:04 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:48:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Prevap desalination process In-Reply-To: References: <6F9D6D8B-C4F2-43BE-B057-D1762EA2283C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2558 BE, at 4:37 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>> On Oct 25, 2558 BE, at 3:11 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>>> http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/07205/wst072050785.htm >>> >>> Now, can they get this deployed commercially at a low enough retail cost? >> >> That seems to be the goal. I certainly hope they can and soon. ;) > > I see an academic paper. I don't see a company, a business plan, or any of the other elements needed - and frequently missed - to transition from "in the lab" to "commercially available". They might be there, but my worry is whether they will be creating them if not. Sorry. Left out context. Some folks are going forward with this for practical application on wide scale. Not sure if they'll succeed, of course. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 06:08:32 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:08:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The empirical case for moral realism References: <524F1AA3-6B5A-458C-BCB4-17F193245A33@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DE2A927-AF7F-45B5-BBF7-C069AFD43BC3@gmail.com> http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=2941728&download=1&checkval=52a74c65fd122f4c0ad01dab4c427fb4&wt_mc=internal.event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst Abstract: "Debunking skeptics claim that our moral beliefs are formed by processes unsuited to identifying objective facts, such as emotions inculcated by our genes and culture; therefore, they say, even if there are objective moral facts, we probably don?t know them. I argue that the debunking skeptics cannot explain the pervasive trend toward liberalization of values over human history, and that the best explanation is the realist?s: humanity is becoming increasingly liberal because liberalism is the objectively correct moral stance." And Huemer means by liberalism a sort of broad approach moral equality (in other words, no double standards), respect for individuals, and restraints on violence/coercion. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 17:32:21 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:32:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hive Mind: Anyone here read it? In-Reply-To: <2A0BD8D9-0E11-4A1F-8EDB-8E0DCE88396C@gmail.com> References: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> <2A0BD8D9-0E11-4A1F-8EDB-8E0DCE88396C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Oct 25, 2558 BE, at 10:12 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > >> On Oct 24, 2015 8:57 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: >> > >> > >> http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961 >> >> I assume that if a hive mind is inevitable then only one person needs to >> read it for it to become part of the hive. >> >> If a hove mind is not inevitable, then why would I need to read about >> the hive mind? >> >> :) >> > In order to help bring it about, or prevent it, or modify the possible > conditions under which it might come? ;) > > > None of the above. From the description, it appears to be a metaphor or > maybe he's saying we already have something like it. It's supposedly about > a nation's average IQ being a more important predictor than individual IQ. > Put another way: what he seems to conclude -- I haven't read it -- is that > it's better to be in a nation whose average intelligence is high as opposed > to having intelligence in a nation whose average intelligence is much lower. > > This seems to not be much of a surprise. One can be easily imagine a bunch > of people with higher average intelligence would have an overall better > multiplier for things like cognitive specialization. Imagine Einstein or a > Hawking stuck in a society of unimaginative dolts. But I imagine he puts > more into than just a set of cute analogies and humorous anecdotes. > ### This doesn't seem to be a new finding - in the HBD circles this is received wisdom. Lynn published on it in 2010, and Lynn and Vanhanen published "IQ and the wealth of nations" in 2002. Jones himself published on it in 2011. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 19:23:39 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:23:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Asabiyyah Message-ID: Nations differ in the quality and degree of social cohesiveness. Traditional tribal societies have very strong kin loyalty, especially where endogamous marriage is practiced but very weak bonds to non-kin. They say "Me and my brother against my cousins, me and my cousins against the world". More evolved societies, especially the ones west of the Hajnal line and the ones comprised primarily of their blood descendants, tend to have a more atomized familial life, and yet their large-scale organization is more integrated and better functioning. There appears to be a trade-off between the asabiyyah that binds the clan, giving its warriors the strength to fight to the death, and the more abstract bond among Westerners, that gives them the ability to peacefully cooperate. I wonder what is the specific biological mechanism involved in generating this social organization difference. Is it a different sensitivity to early social imprinting? Is it based on detection of genetic differences by smell? Is it simply a matter of intelligence? I never found any references to mechanistic, genetic and biochemical research on this subject, although there is some arm-waving evo-psych speculation in some corners of the internets. The billion-genome genetic research of the next 50 years will no doubt shed some light on this issue. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 19:43:28 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:43:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hive Mind: Anyone here read it? In-Reply-To: References: <2AC2D42D-4DAF-4BB0-819D-3BE5D154C590@gmail.com> <2A0BD8D9-0E11-4A1F-8EDB-8E0DCE88396C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>> On Oct 24, 2015 8:57 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: >>>> http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961 [snip] >> >> None of the above. From the description, it appears to be a metaphor or maybe he's >> saying we already have something like it. It's supposedly about a nation's average IQ >> being a more important predictor than individual IQ. Put another way: what he seems >> to conclude -- I haven't read it -- is that it's better to be in a nation whose average >> intelligence is high as opposed to having intelligence in a nation whose average >> intelligence is much lower. >> >> This seems to not be much of a surprise. One can be easily imagine a bunch >> of people with higher average intelligence would have an overall better multiplier >> for things like cognitive specialization. Imagine Einstein or a Hawking stuck in >> a society of unimaginative dolts. But I imagine he puts more into than just a >> set of cute analogies and humorous anecdotes. > > ### This doesn't seem to be a new finding - in the HBD circles this is received wisdom. Lynn published on it in 2010, and Lynn and Vanhanen published "IQ and the wealth of nations" in 2002. Jones himself published on it in 2011. I see that he cites Lynn and Vanhanen in the index, but I've yet to read the book -- or the work of Lynn and Vanhanen for that matter. :) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst (new localized link:) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 19:50:21 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:50:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asabiyyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > Nations differ in the quality and degree of social cohesiveness. Traditional tribal > societies have very strong kin loyalty, especially where endogamous marriage > is practiced but very weak bonds to non-kin. They say "Me and my brother > against my cousins, me and my cousins against the world". More evolved > societies, especially the ones west of the Hajnal line and the ones comprised > primarily of their blood descendants, tend to have a more atomized familial life, > and yet their large-scale organization is more integrated and better functioning. > There appears to be a trade-off between the asabiyyah that binds the clan, giving > its warriors the strength to fight to the death, and the more abstract bond among > Westerners, that gives them the ability to peacefully cooperate. > > I wonder what is the specific biological mechanism involved in generating this social > organization difference. Is it a different sensitivity to early social imprinting? Is it > based on detection of genetic differences by smell? Is it simply a matter of > intelligence? I never found any references to mechanistic, genetic and biochemical > research on this subject, although there is some arm-waving evo-psych speculation > in some corners of the internets. > > The billion-genome genetic research of the next 50 years will no doubt shed some light on this issue. Seeing how easily Westernizers seem to slip into tribal modes, I don't know. Of course, even this observation seems anecdotal. :) Isn't there also at least some evidence for sociopathy having a genetic component? I'm not well read in this, but if it does have a genetic component, then it seems far more likely there's a continuum of social/antisocial behaviors and perhaps of ingroup loyalty behaviors that are partly heritable or partly based on something heritable (that's specifically focused on sociality as opposed to, say, raw intelligence). Maybe this is all related. Evo-psych speculation is all too easy. And I can see the "humans evolved tribalism during the paleolithic era when they were all avoiding processed grains and legumes" line being wheeled out. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst (new localized link:) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Oct 26 22:19:19 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:19:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asabiyyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562EA6E7.7040200@aleph.se> (From one of my current projects:) There is some research suggesting that parochialism or in-group favouritism is a pretty common thing, often based more on internal cooperation rather than out-group derogation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25222635 This tendency seems to be proportional to the cooperation level. http://ratiolab.huji.ac.il/gary/article9.pdf Conversely, competition between groups can actually lead to increased contribution to public goods inside the group and increased effectiveness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330795/ Men tend to have higher levels of parochialism, cooperating more than women inside their group but also have higher out-group conflict proclivity. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.452.6288&rep=rep1&type=pdf What substrate does this phenomenon run on? I don't think we need to blame genetics or intelligence, culture is more than enough. A strongly male dominated, competitive situation, perhaps with highly mobile people, would tend to produce a situation where tribal identity and parochialism become strong. And of course, once you are parochial you will develop memes that maintain your group and explain why this is the right way of life. Note that high-trust societies are typically small and homogeneous, or have reliable institutions that can fix conflicts. But why do we trust the institutions? This is very much a cultural training thing: for rule of law to work people actually have to think there is a rule of law, and this may take generations to build up. There is a lot invested in the social capital of advanced societies. We better take care of it. On 2015-10-26 20:23, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Nations differ in the quality and degree of social cohesiveness. > Traditional tribal societies have very strong kin loyalty, especially > where endogamous marriage is practiced but very weak bonds to non-kin. > They say "Me and my brother against my cousins, me and my cousins > against the world". More evolved societies, especially the ones west > of the Hajnal line and the ones comprised primarily of their blood > descendants, tend to have a more atomized familial life, and yet their > large-scale organization is more integrated and better functioning. > There appears to be a trade-off between the asabiyyah that binds the > clan, giving its warriors the strength to fight to the death, and the > more abstract bond among Westerners, that gives them the ability to > peacefully cooperate. > > I wonder what is the specific biological mechanism involved in > generating this social organization difference. Is it a different > sensitivity to early social imprinting? Is it based on detection of > genetic differences by smell? Is it simply a matter of intelligence? I > never found any references to mechanistic, genetic and biochemical > research on this subject, although there is some arm-waving evo-psych > speculation in some corners of the internets. > > The billion-genome genetic research of the next 50 years will no doubt > shed some light on this issue. > > Rafa? > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 00:38:44 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:38:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Asabiyyah In-Reply-To: <562EA6E7.7040200@aleph.se> References: <562EA6E7.7040200@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > What substrate does this phenomenon run on? I don't think we need to blame > genetics or intelligence, culture is more than enough. A strongly male > dominated, competitive situation, perhaps with highly mobile people, would > tend to produce a situation where tribal identity and parochialism become > strong. And of course, once you are parochial you will develop memes that > maintain your group and explain why this is the right way of life. > ### In-group cooperation and out-group hostility are too important to be completely left to the fickle vagaries of culture. There is a limited number of settings for behaviors that are compatible with group survival under EEA. When do you and your buddies attack the others? Do you do that openly or do you get him when nobody's looking? Local culture will modify these proclivities but there is a genetic bedrock of fear, love and hatred on which all is built. Naturally, as any multigenic trait, there will be inter-individual variability. Not all Yanomamo have what it takes to be unokai (human-killer). Multigenic and variable traits undergo rapid changes under evolutionary pressures, driven by changes in allele frequency. Evolutionary pressures on the precursors of modern European populations have differed from EEA very significantly, especially over the past 1000 years. I would be extremely surprised if these pressures did not produce genetic changes in social proclivities. Culture and genetics are entwined in reciprocal feedback, over longer periods of time one hardly changes without the other. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 16:06:56 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:06:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Auditory illusion Message-ID: <158730D8-9AC2-4D7F-B8D7-E3738A8DED9B@gmail.com> https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=161&v=ZY6h3pKqYI0 Not totally surprising, but reminds me of how patterns are found in just about anything. Of course, this is more deliberate than, say, hearing a voice in radio static. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 23:37:58 2015 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:37:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asabiyyah Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > >> What substrate does this phenomenon run on? I don't think we need to blame >> genetics or intelligence, culture is more than enough. A strongly male >> dominated, competitive situation, perhaps with highly mobile people, would >> tend to produce a situation where tribal identity and parochialism become >> strong. And of course, once you are parochial you will develop memes that >> maintain your group and explain why this is the right way of life. It pains me to disagree with Anders, but then I don't entirely agree with Rafal either. > ### In-group cooperation and out-group hostility are too important to be > completely left to the fickle vagaries of culture. There is a limited > number of settings for behaviors that are compatible with group survival > under EEA. Change group to gene please. We can see two behaviors in chimps (xenophobia always on for the males) and bonobos, (xenophobia off). What ultimately limits bonobo populations is uncertain, but it does not seem to be groups killing other groups off. For humans xenophobia on or off is situational. It goes on instantly when attacked and somewhat slower when memes to dehumanize the others build up in situations of bad times a-coming. > When do you and your buddies attack the others? When it is (on the average) better for your genes to do so. That's not hard to model and I have done it in the past here (Sep 30, 2012). > Do you do that > openly or do you get him when nobody's looking? Local culture will modify > these proclivities but there is a genetic bedrock of fear, love and hatred > on which all is built. > > Naturally, as any multigenic trait, there will be inter-individual > variability. Not all Yanomamo have what it takes to be unokai > (human-killer). Multigenic and variable traits undergo rapid changes under > evolutionary pressures, driven by changes in allele frequency. Evolutionary > pressures on the precursors of modern European populations have differed > from EEA very significantly, especially over the past 1000 years. Gregory Clark discusses this extensively in his work. He makes the case that the evolutionary selection pressures on the UK population for the traits that make a person well off economically were as extreme as the selection that generated tame foxes. (The children of the well off survived the frequent famines that killed the children of the poor.) > I would be extremely surprised if these pressures did not produce genetic > changes in social proclivities. Culture and genetics are entwined in > reciprocal feedback, over longer periods of time one hardly changes without > the other. The work on foxes showed that 8 generation of heavy selection were enough to make profound changes in social proclivities. Keith From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 29 01:48:20 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:48:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] aside: xenophobia Message-ID: <000c01d111eb$e551dff0$aff59fd0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... >...We can see two behaviors in chimps (xenophobia always on for the males) and bonobos, (xenophobia off). ... Keith _______________________________________________ Who the heck came up with the name xenophobia? And why is spelled that way? And what would we do if a psychiatric patient developed a specific fear of element 54? The obvious name has already been used for something that has nothing to do with xenon. Oy, we sat here and did nothing as the English language became screwed up beyond recognition. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 29 01:59:34 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:59:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] oxygen on 67p, was: RE: aside: xenophobia Message-ID: <001201d111ed$75ee7c20$61cb7460$@att.net> >...Who the heck came up with the name xenophobia? ...spike Never mind that! Nature is reporting that there is oxygen on comet 67P! Please, how in the heeeeeelllll could there be oxygen on a comet? How weird is this! Everything I thought I understood about comet formation is either suspect or outright wrong. Is now a fun time to be living, or what? spike From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 04:59:30 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:59:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] aside: xenophobia In-Reply-To: <000c01d111eb$e551dff0$aff59fd0$@att.net> References: <000c01d111eb$e551dff0$aff59fd0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:48 PM, spike wrote: > Who the heck came up with the name xenophobia? And why is spelled that way? > And what would we do if a psychiatric patient developed a specific fear of > element 54? The obvious name has already been used for something that has > nothing to do with xenon. Kidding aside, it's the other way round: xenon was named after the Greek word for foreigner. > Oy, we sat here and did nothing as the English language became screwed up > beyond recognition. It's our magnificent bastard tongue as one author titled his book. I like it, warts and all, though, ya, it's often frustrating -- like a dear friend. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 05:02:16 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:02:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] oxygen on 67p Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:59 PM, spike wrote: > Never mind that! Nature is reporting that there is oxygen on comet 67P! > Please, how in the heeeeeelllll could there be oxygen on a comet? > > How weird is this! Everything I thought I understood about comet formation > is either suspect or outright wrong. One way to save the failing theory is just to pretend it all has to with there being so many comets. Vast numbers! Astronomical numbers! Therefore, one of them is bound to really odd. (Well, another way is simply not to have a well worked out and cherished theory about comet formation. That's my method.:) > Is now a fun time to be living, or what? Indeed! Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Oct 29 06:26:35 2015 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:26:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] aside: xenophobia In-Reply-To: <000c01d111eb$e551dff0$aff59fd0$@att.net> References: <000c01d111eb$e551dff0$aff59fd0$@att.net> Message-ID: <5631BC1B.3000605@aleph.se> On 2015-10-29 02:48, spike wrote: > Oy, we sat here and did nothing as the English language became screwed up > beyond recognition. You are not that old. English got odd a long time ago. I blame the Romans, but there were likely language invasions before that. Lots of incompatible languages merged by people with no clue about grammar. Still, Poul Anderson showed how it might have looked if it had at least kept to being a Germanic language: https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.language.artificial/ZL4e3fD7eW0/_7p8bKwLJWkJ > Some of the higher samesteads are *splitly*. That is, when a > neitherbit strikes the kernel of one, as for a showdeal > ymirstuff-235, it bursts into lesser kernels and free > neitherbits; the latter can then split more ymirstuff-235. When > this happens, weight shifts into work. It is not much of the > whole, but nevertheless it is awesome. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 08:44:37 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:44:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] oxygen on 67p In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 October 2015 at 05:02, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:59 PM, spike wrote: >> Never mind that! Nature is reporting that there is oxygen on comet 67P! >> Please, how in the heeeeeelllll could there be oxygen on a comet? >> >> How weird is this! Everything I thought I understood about comet >> formation is either suspect or outright wrong. > > One way to save the failing theory is just to pretend it all has to with > there being so many comets. Vast numbers! Astronomical numbers! Therefore, > one of them is bound to really odd. (Well, another way is simply not to have > a well worked out and cherished theory about comet formation. That's my > method.:) > Science News has some thoughts.... Quotes: Oxygen?s presence supports the long-held assumption that comets are pristine fragments from the dawn of the solar system. Comet 67P must have been put together gently, Bieler says, otherwise the ice-coated grains that make up its bulk would have been heated and the oxygen removed. Because the grains have not been heated, they are unprocessed time capsules ? frozen samples that preserve the conditions that prevailed when the planets were forming. Ultraviolet light from the sun and free-range electrons are probably responsible for creating the O2 in the first place. High-energy photons and particles can zap water molecules, which in turn reform into molecules of oxygen (and hydrogen). The oxygen was then trapped within ice that collected on dust grains, which in turn came together to assemble the comet. There the oxygen stayed protected for nearly the age of the solar system. As recently as 1840, comet 67P was far enough out in the solar system to escape the sun?s destructive influence, but an encounter with Jupiter nudged it in closer. With each close approach to the sun, heat reaches into the comet, sublimates the ice, and liberates the O2. If oxygen is tucked away in similar grains found in star-forming clouds, oxygen might be more abundant than thought. ?The picture of interstellar chemistry is not as simple as some people would make it,? he says. --------------------- BillK From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 10:15:29 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:15:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Robot riding a motorcycle Message-ID: Yamaha's Robotic Biker Looks Like a Crime-Fighting Cyborg Quotes: This is an autonomous motorcycle-riding humanoid robot built around a fusion of Yamaha?s motorcycle and robotics technology. R&D is currently underway with the goal of developing the robot to ride an unmodified motorcycle on a racetrack at more than 200 km/h. The task of controlling the complex motions of a motorcycle at high speeds requires a variety of control systems that must function with a high degree of accuracy. We want to apply the fundamental technology and know-how gained in the process of this challenge to the creation of advanced rider safety and rider-support systems ------------------ They really should have dressed it in black leather though! It is still at the early testing stage, with training wheels attached. Next stage is to design a self-driving motorcycle without all the mechanics that are designed for human control. No need for gear levers, throttle, clutch and brake levers and cables or readable instruments. Include self-driving logic from the car systems and all systems are go! BillK From green.joshua at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 02:35:00 2015 From: green.joshua at gmail.com (Josh Green) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:35:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] aside: xenophobia In-Reply-To: <000c01d111eb$e551dff0$aff59fd0$@att.net> References: <000c01d111eb$e551dff0$aff59fd0$@att.net> Message-ID: It is from the Greek word x?nos, meaning alien. So blame the Greeks... On Oct 28, 2015 9:04 PM, "spike" wrote: > > >... On Behalf Of Keith Henson > ... > > >...We can see two behaviors in chimps (xenophobia always on for the males) > and bonobos, (xenophobia off). ... > Keith > _______________________________________________ > > > Who the heck came up with the name xenophobia? And why is spelled that > way? > And what would we do if a psychiatric patient developed a specific fear of > element 54? The obvious name has already been used for something that has > nothing to do with xenon. > > Oy, we sat here and did nothing as the English language became screwed up > beyond recognition. > > 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 Thu Oct 29 13:33:39 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:33:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] aside: xenophobia In-Reply-To: <5631BC1B.3000605@aleph.se> References: <000c01d111eb$e551dff0$aff59fd0$@att.net> <5631BC1B.3000605@aleph.se> Message-ID: <000a01d1124e$6d267140$477353c0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] aside: xenophobia >...Still, Poul Anderson showed how it might have looked if it had at least kept to being a Germanic language: https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.language.artificial/ZL4e 3fD7eW0/_7p8bKwLJWkJ Cool, thanks Anders! That was a fun romp. On 2015-10-29 02:48, spike wrote: >>... Oy, we sat here and did nothing as the English language became screwed up beyond recognition. >...You are not that old... Dr Anders Sandberg Anders, I have been messing with AncestryDNA for a while and developed software which helps a prole use his cousin list to figure out and prove who are her 6 to 8 generation back ancestors. When one does that, it causes a slight adjustment in how one thinks of the term "we." Now we think of "we" as those who are our internet kindred spirits, and I certainly do that still, an always will. But doing the AncestryDNA thing causes one to think of an orthogonal we, one that is pi/2 from the usual one, where 'we' is always a term referring to one's contemporaries. Once one gets a family tree trued up and proven by DNA, you can think of an 8 generation we stretching back a couple hundred years, and one that includes actual Germans and English and Swedes, my cousin Anders. Once that happens, xenophobia makes little sense, for the foreigners are part of we. The comment "...we did nothing as English became screwed up..." does make sense, for part of we were there. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 29 13:52:46 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:52:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Robot riding a motorcycle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001d01d11251$182e1820$488a4860$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Subject: [Bulk] [ExI] Robot riding a motorcycle Yamaha's Robotic Biker Looks Like a Crime-Fighting Cyborg https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.language.artificial/ZL4e3fD7eW0/_7p8bKwLJWkJ ... BillK _______________________________________________ Thanks BillK, very cool. You know people are going to pay good money to see these things race, and it is very foreseeable that they will become faster than humans before they even become better riders: you can afford to take greater risks with a machine. This is specifically applicable to motorcycle racing because you can buy factory racers. 15k will get you a race bike. Change the tires, and you are ready to go. We can imagine fitting them with a couple thousand bucks worth of actuators, shift lever, front brake, throttle and handlebar, a few thousand more in sensors, a couple thousand more in electronics and ring laser gyros and such, then for less than 30 we have a racer we can risk. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 29 16:18:47 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:18:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Robot riding a motorcycle In-Reply-To: <001d01d11251$182e1820$488a4860$@att.net> References: <001d01d11251$182e1820$488a4860$@att.net> Message-ID: <003e01d11265$7e5b13f0$7b113bd0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... >...This is specifically applicable to motorcycle racing because you can buy factory racers. 15k will get you a race bike...spike ______________________________________________ This whole thing really has my wheels spinning. It occurred to me that I understated my case. Sure you can get a new racebike for 15k, but you really don't need to do that. Next time you are out and see any modern racy motorcycle, take a good look at it, how it is built. Especially you mechanical engineering hipsters, notice stuff like how sturdy the swing arm is made, and notice the triple tree where the front forks meet the frame. Sometimes you can't see the frame because it is covered up with plastic pieces, but if you can see it, notice the perimeter design. When you study it, you soon realize that one of these bikes can be crashed pretty hard without doing a lot of damage to the expensive stuff. If a prole runs one into the back of a car, notice where the front wheel hits the frame of the bike (the engine would survive that easily.) A modern bike can be hurled to the pavement at speed, and there is a really good chance that everything aft of the steering crown would be undamaged. It would wreck the forks, probably the triple tree and the steering crown bearings, the mirrors, handlebar, the plastic would get scarred up, but... everything else will likely come through fine. It will not destroy that expensive engine, probably won't hurt that frame, no way it will tweak that big sturdy swing arm. So the running gear should come out of it all right. Some testosterone-fueled goofball crashes, decides she would rather not have the wadded mess sitting in her garage for months reminding her what a fool she is, lets the insurance company do what they do so well, offer the customer a fraction of the value of the wreck and take it away. Now we have a perfect specimen for making a robot race bike: it needs some work, but we were going to do that anyway. They don't cost much, there are plenty of them available. No point paying 15 to 20k, let some young fool pay that, then pick up after her for a fraction of the cost of a new bike. Change out the forks with new ones, replace triple tree and steering crown bearings (all these jobs any amateur mechanic can easily manage) rig up linear actuators with variable or releasable damping on the fork, rig up a rotational actuator on the shifter and throttle, pressure actuators on the brake and clutch. Remove and discard the damaged handlebar, get rid of the fairing or saw off the turned up inner edge, gel coat the road scars on the plastic to reduce wind resistance. All that was easy and inexpensive, still inside the 4 digit range if we get the wrecked race bike cheaply enough. OK then, now I am in territory I don't know nearly as well, the sensors. I welcome any sensor hipster assistance, but I am imagining something like a pair of GoPros and a pair of MEMS ring laser gyros? I bet we could integrate those signals and figure out a poor-man's control system with that input. The point of all that: this sport can be done cheaply. It isn't like Indy racing that requires million dollar sponsors; ordinary local clubs could do stuff like this, or set up a crowd-funded project. We could race it alone on a track such as Laguna Seca or out on the runway at Moffett Field, so you could do time trials and such without risking any expensive nerve-infused material, such as skin. We don't need a humanoid robot to ride an unmodified motorcycle. That is a slightly different and very cool but waaaay more expensive sport that what I am suggesting. Having a humanoid robot is way overkill, and risks a lot of expensive hardware. Help me envision a poor-man's version of motorcycle racing where we start with a crashed bike, replace the broken bits, throw away what we don't need, add a few actuators, sensors and processors, convert motorcycle racing from an athletic contest to a visually-striking programming exercise. spike From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 17:56:30 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:56:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Robot riding a motorcycle In-Reply-To: <003e01d11265$7e5b13f0$7b113bd0$@att.net> References: <001d01d11251$182e1820$488a4860$@att.net> <003e01d11265$7e5b13f0$7b113bd0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 29 October 2015 at 16:18, spike wrote: > OK then, now I am in territory I don't know nearly as well, the sensors. I > welcome any sensor hipster assistance, but I am imagining something like a > pair of GoPros and a pair of MEMS ring laser gyros? I bet we could > integrate those signals and figure out a poor-man's control system with that > input. > > The point of all that: this sport can be done cheaply. It isn't like Indy > racing that requires million dollar sponsors; ordinary local clubs could do > stuff like this, or set up a crowd-funded project. We could race it alone > on a track such as Laguna Seca or out on the runway at Moffett Field, so you > could do time trials and such without risking any expensive nerve-infused > material, such as skin. We don't need a humanoid robot to ride an > unmodified motorcycle. That is a slightly different and very cool but > waaaay more expensive sport that what I am suggesting. Having a humanoid > robot is way overkill, and risks a lot of expensive hardware. > > Help me envision a poor-man's version of motorcycle racing where we start > with a crashed bike, replace the broken bits, throw away what we don't need, > add a few actuators, sensors and processors, convert motorcycle racing from > an athletic contest to a visually-striking programming exercise. > Hmmm -- I think there is a bit more involved than a few sensors and processors. :) Let Yamaha do all the research, then buy a kit from them. It might be easier to use one of the new 3-wheel bikes with two tiltable front wheels. For racing two-wheelers, I see a stripped down machine. No seat or controls. Basically just a fairing containing two wheels and an engine, with the necessary processors etc. inside the fairing, 'Dustbin' fairings are illegal nowadays for racing, but might be OK for robot machines. So I think you are a bit early to be developing your own robot racers! :) BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 29 18:50:17 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:50:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Robot riding a motorcycle In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d11251$182e1820$488a4860$@att.net> <003e01d11265$7e5b13f0$7b113bd0$@att.net> Message-ID: <00ae01d1127a$a8328bd0$f897a370$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:57 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [Bulk] Re: [ExI] [Bulk] Robot riding a motorcycle On 29 October 2015 at 16:18, spike wrote: > OK then, now I am in territory I don't know nearly as well, the > sensors. I welcome any sensor hipster assistance, but I am imagining > something like a pair of GoPros and a pair of MEMS ring laser gyros? > I bet we could integrate those signals and figure out a poor-man's > control system with that input... > >...Hmmm -- I think there is a bit more involved than a few sensors and processors. :) Well sure, but using the Raspberry class processor in a Lego Mindstorm robot, you can make a robot balance on two wheels side by side (like a Segway.) I have a vague notion the control system needed to ride a motorcycle isn't all that difficult: your MEMS gyros would tell you acceleration about the axis that runs fore to aft, a transducer on the steering crown would tell you the position of the front wheel, and you have a forward speed from a speedometer cable. Hell I think I could durn near write that control system myself >...Let Yamaha do all the research, then buy a kit from them... Hmmm, nein. Yamaha is interested in selling motorcycles and perhaps humanoid robots. I am looking to use existing wrecked bikes and go around the humanoid robot as overkill (way cool in itself, but far more expensive than what I want to do here.) I can get MEMS gyros and cameras, I can modify a wrecked bike with actuators and transducers. Might need to make it a remote guided system at first, with remote operator controlling only speed and direction. We could write an algorithm to shift when needed based on engine speed and ground speed. We could write an algorithm to do countersteering. If you already know about countersteering, skip this paragraph. On a motorcycle (or a bicycle) when you want to go right you turn left (in a sense.) Try it. Go out in a big empty parking lot, ride straight, choose to go right and watch what your hands do: your left hand pulls the handlebar or right hand pushes, sorta like turning left. The bike leans to the right and off you go to the right. My motorcycle intuition nearly got me killed first time I rode a jet-ski, where you turn the bars right to go right, which is the opposite to how you do a motorcycle. I think we could write an algorithm that understands countersteering. >...It might be easier to use one of the new 3-wheel bikes with two tiltable front wheels. Hmmm, I need to give that some thought. It would help with stopping and starting. >...So I think you are a bit early to be developing your own robot racers! :) BillK _______________________________________________ Oh on the contrary, sir, I think we are a bit late. While we sit her pondering how to do it, others will kick our asses. Once I saw your video I realized we are already late to the party. There may be a completely logical intermediate step however: the bike need not have all the software to pick the best line around the track. We can do speed and direction control easily enough, assuming the bike gets to override the operator inputs if they are sufficiently illogical, such as holding in a tight turn after the pegs begin to drag the ground. Alternative: the game is set up two traffic cones 100 meters apart on flat pavement. Ten laps, one bike, stopwatch, GO! With those simple rules, anyone anywhere on the planet can compete, since it is a time trial and doesn't require a race track. Any parking lot will do. This game could even be played indoors. They have in San Jose a club that does an indoor 1/8 mile ovals inside an arena. Doing the calcs in my head, an 1/8 mile oval means the end posts are about 1/16 of a mile apart and a mile is 1760 yards, which means a 1/16 of a mile is close enough to 100 meters, and I recall that is about how far those end posts are located. Sound like a cool challenge? BIllK, are you Brits up to it? Recall we beat you guys in 1783 and again in 1812 (or perhaps we could call that one a confusing draw) but in any case we owe you a rematch, ja? Yanks vs Brits, flat pavement, two cones, 100 meters apart, 10 laps, no meat. I think Japan is ahead of both of us. spike From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Oct 28 11:21:34 2015 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:21:34 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The empirical case for moral realism In-Reply-To: <6DE2A927-AF7F-45B5-BBF7-C069AFD43BC3@gmail.com> References: <524F1AA3-6B5A-458C-BCB4-17F193245A33@gmail.com> <6DE2A927-AF7F-45B5-BBF7-C069AFD43BC3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6124EF63-035B-496E-9677-D45A96948E9D@gmu.edu> On Oct 26, 2015, at 2:08 AM, Dan TheBookMan > wrote: http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=2941728&download=1&checkval=52a74c65fd122f4c0ad01dab4c427fb4&wt_mc=internal.event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst Abstract: "Debunking skeptics claim that our moral beliefs are formed by processes unsuited to identifying objective facts, such as emotions inculcated by our genes and culture; therefore, they say, even if there are objective moral facts, we probably don?t know them. I argue that the debunking skeptics cannot explain the pervasive trend toward liberalization of values over human history, and that the best explanation is the realist?s: humanity is becoming increasingly liberal because liberalism is the objectively correct moral stance." And Huemer means by liberalism a sort of broad approach moral equality (in other words, no double standards), respect for individuals, and restraints on violence/coercion. Thanks for the pointer; I blogged about the article here: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/10/testing-moral-progress.html (The author responded some in comments.) Robin Hanson http://hanson.gmu.edu Res. Assoc., Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford Univ. Assoc. Professor, George Mason University Chief Scientist, Consensus Point MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Oct 29 20:56:08 2015 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:56:08 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Long Posting Delays In-Reply-To: <6124EF63-035B-496E-9677-D45A96948E9D@gmu.edu> References: <524F1AA3-6B5A-458C-BCB4-17F193245A33@gmail.com> <6DE2A927-AF7F-45B5-BBF7-C069AFD43BC3@gmail.com> <6124EF63-035B-496E-9677-D45A96948E9D@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <612AD81E-97BB-4952-96CB-4CD20EBA04DD@gmu.edu> It seems to typically take over a day between when I send an email to this mailing list and when it appears back to me. I have seen this happen many times. I see other people responding to each other more quickly, so I have to figure not everyone is suffering these long delays. Any idea what could be going wrong? On Oct 28, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Robin D Hanson > wrote: On Oct 26, 2015, at 2:08 AM, Dan TheBookMan > wrote: http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=2941728&download=1&checkval=52a74c65fd122f4c0ad01dab4c427fb4&wt_mc=internal.event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst Abstract: "Debunking skeptics claim that our moral beliefs are formed by processes unsuited to identifying objective facts, such as emotions inculcated by our genes and culture; therefore, they say, even if there are objective moral facts, we probably don?t know them. I argue that the debunking skeptics cannot explain the pervasive trend toward liberalization of values over human history, and that the best explanation is the realist?s: humanity is becoming increasingly liberal because liberalism is the objectively correct moral stance." And Huemer means by liberalism a sort of broad approach moral equality (in other words, no double standards), respect for individuals, and restraints on violence/coercion. Thanks for the pointer; I blogged about the article here: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/10/testing-moral-progress.html (The author responded some in comments.) Robin Hanson http://hanson.gmu.edu Res. Assoc., Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford Univ. Assoc. Professor, George Mason University Chief Scientist, Consensus Point MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 30 00:28:49 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:28:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Long Posting Delays In-Reply-To: <612AD81E-97BB-4952-96CB-4CD20EBA04DD@gmu.edu> References: <524F1AA3-6B5A-458C-BCB4-17F193245A33@gmail.com> <6DE2A927-AF7F-45B5-BBF7-C069AFD43BC3@gmail.com> <6124EF63-035B-496E-9677-D45A96948E9D@gmu.edu> <612AD81E-97BB-4952-96CB-4CD20EBA04DD@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <008a01d112a9$f30d1970$d9274c50$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robin D Hanson Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 1:56 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Long Posting Delays It seems to typically take over a day between when I send an email to this mailing list and when it appears back to me. I have seen this happen many times. I see other people responding to each other more quickly, so I have to figure not everyone is suffering these long delays. Any idea what could be going wrong? I have heard of this too. My own response times vary all over the place, usually not more than a few hours however. This week I have gotten a pile of notices that various accounts have been bouncing messages from ExI sent to them. Once in a while, more often than once a month, I get a couple dozen of these, so I go through and reset all the bounce flags. Did it today. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From listsb at infinitefaculty.org Fri Oct 30 04:18:59 2015 From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian Manning Delaney) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:18:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] aside: xenophobia In-Reply-To: <5631BC1B.3000605@aleph.se> References: <000c01d111eb$e551dff0$aff59fd0$@att.net> <5631BC1B.3000605@aleph.se> Message-ID: <5632EFB3.4010607@infinitefaculty.org> El 2015-10-29 a las 02:26, Anders Sandberg escribi?: > Still, Poul Anderson showed how it might have looked if it had at least > kept to being a Germanic language: > https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.language.artificial/ZL4e3fD7eW0/_7p8bKwLJWkJ Very cool! But there were of course several different Germanic (broadly speaking: the language family) influences in English. The English have always been a motley crew. I assume he just switched out Latinate words/roots for the most common contemporary English equivalent. On a related note: The period of merger between the Franco-Norman idiom spoken in England and English (not long before Shakespeare's time -- even up to his time in some areas) led to the cool phenomenon of "legal doublets". The authorities wanted to make sure the Normans and the Anglos both would understand, so they emphasized certain concepts by using two words to describe them, one Latinate, one English. A lot of these are still widely used today: "cease and desist", "null and void", etc. - Brian From tech101 at gmail.com Fri Oct 30 11:43:13 2015 From: tech101 at gmail.com (Adam A. Ford) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:43:13 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Support the WHO doing aging research - ACT NOW DEADLINE TODAY 30th! Message-ID: Hi all, Want to have a high impact on aging strategy today? - just fill out these simple online surveys (if you have not yet done so). It's easy, and doesn't involve money or credit cards. Easy Peasy! Comment on the 5 strategic objectives proposed in draft zero The draft zero proposes the following 5 strategic objectives. You may comment on each section in turn. Click on the links below to comment - 1. Committing to foster healthy ageing in every country - 2. Aligning health systems to the needs of older populations - 3. Developing long-term care systems - 4. Creating age-friendly environments - 5. Improving measuring, monitoring and understanding By doing so you are influencing the WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION's strategy for ageing going forward. I'm told this is a once in a multi-decade opportunity. So do it :) Kind regards, Adam A. Ford Chair - Science, Technology & the Future , Director - Future Day , Co-Orgnaniser - Effective Altruism Global (Melbourne) Chair - Singularity Summit Australia , Director - Humanity+ Australasia Mob: +61 421 979 977 | Email: tech101 at gmail.com * Science, Technology & the Future * (Meetup / Facebook / YouTube ) *Future Day - "Join the conversation on Future Day March 1st to explore the possibilities about how the future is transforming us. You can celebrate Future Day however you like, the ball is in your court ? feel free to send a photo of your Future Day gatherings to info at futureday.org , and your jubilation may wind up being commemorated on the Future Day website and the Facebook page! "* SciFuture | Humanity+ Australia | Singularity Summit Australia | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Future Day | Effective Altruism Global "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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilia.stambler at gmail.com Fri Oct 30 10:44:06 2015 From: ilia.stambler at gmail.com (Ilia Stambler) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:44:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Please_support_biomedical_research_of_aging_at_WH?= =?utf-8?q?O_consultation_=E2=80=93_deadline_today=2C_October_30!?= Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Please support the recognition by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the importance of biological and biomedical research of aging for the development of effective health care for the global aging population! Now is a wonderful opportunity to do so, *by sending an opinion survey to the WHO?s consultation on the Global Strategy and Action Plan on Ageing and Health* that takes place in Geneva right now. *The last time this can be done is today, October 30.* Here is the participation page: http://www.who.int/ageing/consultation/en/ It is possible to download the full questionnaire as a Word file and send to HealthyAgeing at who.int Or there is a choice to relate online to several or one strategic objective out of the five, for example ?Strategic Objective 5: Improving measuring, monitoring and understanding? [of healthy aging] http://www.who.int/ageing/consultation-strategic-objective5/en/ The Action plan draft is available here: ?WHO DRAFT 0: GLOBAL STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN ON AGEING AND HEALTH?. http://www.who.int/ageing/global-strategy/GSAP-ageing-health-draft.pdf?ua=1 http://www.who.int/ageing/global-strategy/en/ There may be several quite encouraging elements in the existing draft of the Action Plan, that can be interpreted as supportive of biomedical research of aging to improve healthy longevity. Thus the Strategic Objective 5: ?Improving measuring, monitoring and understanding?, speaks of the need for ?biomarkers for key concepts related to healthy ageing? AND "testing of clinical interventions? [!] (Action 1). It also requests countries to develop ?evidence informed national Healthy Ageing strategies or plans that are part of overall national plans through a process that involves all stakeholders? (?Strategic Objective 1: Fostering healthy ageing in every country? Action 1) [presumably these national plans should include programs for biomedical research] AND ?including core geriatric and gerontological competencies in all health curriculums? (Strategic Objective 2: Aligning health systems to the needs of the older populations. Action 3) [presumably these competencies should include education on biological aging processes]. All these elements can be interpreted as supportive of biomedical research of aging and could already be used in advocacy! Yet, it is still necessary to infuse, emphasize and make more explicit the biomedical/biological interpretation. Otherwise, the text may be given to various interpretations, not necessarily supportive of biomedical approaches aimed at therapy. This emphasis can be made in several ways. For example, the International Longevity Alliance proposes to emphasize the following messages (please find attached their filled in WHO questionnaire that can be used as a template and suggestion): ?The need to address aging challenges by first increasing the *healthy* life expectancy, not the unhealthy one (!), with therefore a strong emphasis on *biomedical aging research*, both fundamental and translated to populations, and for both preventative and curative solutions? and furthermore encouraging a shift of terms from ?healthy aging? to ?healthy longevity? (as the latter term is more logically and scientifically correct, and more encouraging and proactive) The Israeli Longevity Alliance (on behalf of which I personally submitted the questionnaire) advocates along very similar lines and proposes to bulk up the Strategic Objective 5: ?Improving measuring, monitoring and understanding?, with a stronger and more explicit emphasis on biological and biomedical research of aging (also please find attached the survey, that addresses specifically this Objective). Thus, to the question of the consultation: ?For Strategic Objective 5, do you think another first-level priority action should be added to this list?? it is proposed to add the fourth action: ?4) Elucidating basic mechanisms and processes of aging, their relation to disease, and mechanisms of their amelioration for the development of therapies to achieve healthy longevity.? And of course the critical need for biomedical research of aging to improve healthy longevity can be expressed in many other ways. Please dedicate a few minutes to filling in this survey and sending it to WHO at HealthyAgeing at who.int. You may consider writing in the subject line ?*In support of biomedical research of aging at the WHO Consultation*? to stress the main message. Please also consider forwarding this appeal to colleagues. Currently the consultation received about 350 survey responses, very few of which address biomedical research of aging, of which none apparently included in the WHO consultation summaries. A few dozen more responses in support of biomedical research, especially on behalf of respected organizations and institutes, may produce a critical shift of opinion balance at WHO. And a shift of attitude in favor of biomedical research of aging at WHO may produce a corresponding shift of attitude in the global public health system*. Please express your support for biomedical research of aging at WHO today!* (And let us already prepare for the Action Plan implementation.) Thank you! Ilia Stambler, PhD Chair. Israeli Longevity Alliance. Outreach Coordinator. International Society on Aging and Disease (ISOAD) http://www.longevityforall.org/who-consultation-on-the-global-strategy-and-action-plan-on-ageing-and-health/ -- Ilia Stambler, PhD Outreach Coordinator. International Society on Aging and Disease - ISOAD http://isoad.org Chair. Israeli Longevity Alliance / International Longevity Alliance (Israel) - ILA *http://www.longevityisrael.org/ * Coordinator. Longevity for All http://www.longevityforall.org Author. Longevity History. *A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century* http://longevityhistory.com Email: ilia.stambler at gmail.com Tel: 972-3-961-4296 / 0522-283-578 Rishon Lezion. Israel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: draft-zero-gsap-ageing-and-health-survey-ILA.doc Type: application/msword Size: 77312 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: draft-zero-gsap-ageing-and-health-survey-ISRLA.doc Type: application/msword Size: 51200 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Oct 30 22:11:23 2015 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:11:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] KIC 8462852 (Engineering megastructures) Message-ID: Dear Dr. Boyajian I have worked on large structures in space since 1975. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society, https://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/elctrnic/megascal.txt to the present: http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue18/thermalpower.html One of the odd things about KIC 8462852 is the lack of IR from whatever is intercepting the light. A rationally designed thermal type power satellites radiates the IR north and south of the ecliptic. Telescopes are another possible megastructure, and again, they would reflect light north and south to keep cool and we would not see the IR. It's hardly proof, but a continuing failure to detect excess IR would be consistent with megascale structures. Best wishes, Keith Henson cc extropy list From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Oct 31 01:27:33 2015 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:27:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] oxygen on 67p In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 29, 2015 4:46 AM, "BillK" wrote: > If oxygen is tucked away in similar grains found in star-forming > clouds, oxygen might be more abundant than thought. It depends on where you work/live. If it's Washington DC then four leaf clovers, blue moons, and albino whales are more abundant than thought. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Sat Oct 31 03:25:24 2015 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:25:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Long Posting Delays In-Reply-To: <008a01d112a9$f30d1970$d9274c50$@att.net> References: <524F1AA3-6B5A-458C-BCB4-17F193245A33@gmail.com> <6DE2A927-AF7F-45B5-BBF7-C069AFD43BC3@gmail.com> <6124EF63-035B-496E-9677-D45A96948E9D@gmu.edu> <612AD81E-97BB-4952-96CB-4CD20EBA04DD@gmu.edu> <008a01d112a9$f30d1970$d9274c50$@att.net> Message-ID: <563434A4.6050509@moulton.com> There is always the "Fun" activity of digging through the email headers and checking for delays. For example an ISP might be doing a check for Spma or malware before sending the message on to the next hop in its journey. Of course there are two parts to the path; one part which goes from the sender to the extropy mail server and the second part which is from the extropy mail server to the recipient. The second part can be checked by a recipient. So if a person sends a message to the list then they can check the headers and determine if the delay was about the same on both parts of the trip or if one had a greater delay than the other or the third possibility which is that if was delayed while on the extropy mail server itself if the server was really busy. This last is not often the case but I have seen it happen. For example on a postfix server check the directories for deferred emails and you can quickly see if the messages are clearing out nicely or if they are piling up. Fred On 10/29/2015 05:28 PM, spike wrote: > *From:*extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Robin D Hanson > *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 1:56 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] Long Posting Delays > > It seems to typically take over a day between when I send an email to > this mailing list and when it appears back to me. I have seen this > happen many times. I see other people responding to each other more > quickly, so I have to figure not everyone is suffering these long > delays. Any idea what could be going wrong? > > I have heard of this too. My own response times vary all over the > place, usually not more than a few hours however. > > This week I have gotten a pile of notices that various accounts have > been bouncing messages from ExI sent to them. Once in a while, more > often than once a month, I get a couple dozen of these, so I go through > and reset all the bounce flags. Did it today. > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- F. C. Moulton moulton at moulton.com From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 31 04:42:46 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:42:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Long Posting Delays In-Reply-To: <563434A4.6050509@moulton.com> References: <524F1AA3-6B5A-458C-BCB4-17F193245A33@gmail.com> <6DE2A927-AF7F-45B5-BBF7-C069AFD43BC3@gmail.com> <6124EF63-035B-496E-9677-D45A96948E9D@gmu.edu> <612AD81E-97BB-4952-96CB-4CD20EBA04DD@gmu.edu> <008a01d112a9$f30d1970$d9274c50$@att.net> <563434A4.6050509@moulton.com> Message-ID: <006001d11396$97570620$c6051260$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of F. C. Moulton Subject: Re: [ExI] Long Posting Delays >...There is always the "Fun" activity of digging through the email headers and checking for delays. ...Fred Fred your email has been delayed for a couple years. Where ya been, my brother? There has been a Fred-shaped gap in ExI-chat for a long time. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 31 23:55:28 2015 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 16:55:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robot riding a motorcycle Message-ID: <001201d11437$a03c7ad0$e0b57070$@att.net> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [ExI] [Bulk] Robot riding a motorcycle On 29 October 2015 at 16:18, spike wrote: >>>... OK then, now I am in territory I don't know nearly as well, the sensors... >>...Hmmm -- I think there is a bit more involved than a few sensors and processors. :)... BillK >...Well sure, but using the Raspberry class processor in a Lego Mindstorm robot, you can make a robot balance on two wheels side by side (like a Segway.) I have a vague notion the control system needed to ride a motorcycle isn't all that difficult...spike OK I have been pondering this notion and realize that even fitting the ro-bike with visual sensors would be overkill. I am thinking of a race to the bottom for cost; here's what I have so far. I had in mind those modern racy road bikes that can go over a quarter the speed of sound, but that wouldn't be necessary at all, or even desirable for an indoor 1/8 mile. The bikes they use for that are simple dirt bikes with street tires, and there is no advantage to having a modern one: any bike built in the last 40 years will work fine. Here are some examples: https://www.google.com/search?q=dirt+bike+with+street+tires&biw=1008&bih=642 &tbm=isch&imgil=kMhnQJH_DGNrFM%253A%253B8sbheUUFyUme8M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252 F%25252Fwww.mychinamoto.com%25252Fforums%25252Fshowthread.php%25253F1203-Chi naV-s-Galaxy-XTR250-amp-TGR250!&source=iu&pf=m&fir=kMhnQJH_DGNrFM%253A%252C8 sbheUUFyUme8M%252C_&usg=__KqcXdktZ0wBg2wnONPqpY_1q394%3D&ved=0CCYQyjdqFQoTCP f5idnq7cgCFRT_YwodC8oL6A&ei=tEo1VvfPBZT-jwOLlK_ADg#imgrc=kMhnQJH_DGNrFM%3A&u sg=__KqcXdktZ0wBg2wnONPqpY_1q394%3D Last time I was over at the San Jose Indoor Eighth, I noticed plenty of old junkyard dogs in the chase. Since these things are light, the distance is short and the top speed is not very high (a typical interstate freeway speed is as fast as they ever get going on that short track) we could use ordinary street tires rather than those spendy racing tires. That feature whacks off a lot of cost, and even reduces the cost of the actuators, since they can be smaller lighter devices, turning a much lighter front end at lower speeds. With those kinds of forces and this short a race, we could use pneumatic actuators running on a couple of fire-extinguisher bottles with compressed air at 2k PSI. But here's the cool part: it occurred to me we wouldn't need to do all that image processing, because we could set up the two endpoints as short-range radio transmitters. All we need to let the ro-bike figure out where it is on the track is compare the direction and relative strength of the two signals, cool! That would be waaaay easier to do, and probably cheaper, than optical processing (and I have a better notion of how to get that done.) So now we are down to any dirt bike regardless of how hard it's been ridden, used is fine, a set of ordinary cheapy street tires (or the sticky compound Dunlops would work fine) linear actuators for the shifter, clutch, steering and front brake, rotational actuators for throttle and if we really want to get into the poor-man's racing aspect, just make it a no-shift rule: run the whole race in second gear, which eliminates two actuators and a buttload of code, probably two MEMS laser gyros, a dual-frequency radio receiver of some sort and a microprocessor. Reasoning: an open-class dirt bike can easily loft the front wheel in second gear with me on the back, so it could do it even easier with no one on board. These bikes can go faster in second gear than the short track can manage. The point at which the front wheel comes up is the best the bike can accelerate anyway, so... run the whole race in second gear, cool. Here's an even more fun part. Take an expert motorcycle rider who has never tried any 1/8th mile track, observe that it is not at all obvious what path to take to get around those two cones in the least amount of time. Does she slow down more and make a tighter turn around the cones, or does she keep herspeed up and accept the longer path? It takes a lot of practice to see what is the optimal path, so we could let a ro-bike experiment and discover what technique works best. This would be an example of a robot playing a human game and teaching the carbon units the best way. Cool! Everything I have imagined here could be done with a 4 digit number of bucks and a lot of free volunteer time, which brings up a new question. If this game is this cheap and technologically not so terribly difficult, someone somewhere should have thought of it and is doing it already, a tech company, a university mechanical engineering class or a private club. Who and where? If not, we need to talk to Stanford and have them get on this before Berkeley comes along and whoops their Cardinal asses, then go to Berkeley with the same story. We could have a cool robike showdown, right here at the San Jose Fairgrounds, and you know the locals will give a Hamilton to see that. The arena holds enough proles we could even make money on it, which makes the whole notion morally justifiable: it disguises a fun crazy-ass notion as an ordinary perfectly understandable get-rich-quick scheme. spike From tara at taramayastales.com Sat Oct 31 18:14:41 2015 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:14:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] oxygen on 67p In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <799B815F-86F0-4F23-B163-527424BB73D5@taramayastales.com> LOL Tara Maya > On Oct 30, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2015 4:46 AM, "BillK" > wrote: > > If oxygen is tucked away in similar grains found in star-forming > > clouds, oxygen might be more abundant than thought. > > It depends on where you work/live. > > If it's Washington DC then four leaf clovers, blue moons, and albino whales are more abundant than thought. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: