From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 00:48:59 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:48:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> > MW is falsifiable because QM is >> > falsifiable. >> >> We were talking about the difference between MWI and superposition, >> and that not being falsifiable. QM being falsifiable is irrelevant to >> "MWI or superposition or something else". > > The theory that all the parts of the superposition go away when observed, > except for one, is an extension (the collapse postulate) added to vanilla > QM, the math of which contains no such provision for parts of the > superposition disappearing when observed. As is the theory that the other parts of the superposition were real and continue to exist forever, just somehow shifting to some other "world" that did not exist before that moment. QM contains no provision for any of that. > A conspiracy is required, for the statistics to match the predictions of QM > in a superdetermined world No conspiracy is required for things to be the way they are. Did the sky conspire to be blue when it is sunny and clear? Did water conspire to be wet? It does not matter that you or I observe these things. These things were, with no thought to who would observe them, and then we observed them. > and to rob all agents of control over their > destinies. As noted at length previously, superdeterminism is not necessarily incompatible with free will, so no such robbing is postulated. If you claim it isn't, you admit to not having read what I have written in this thread, and thus confirm that you have no intention of honest debate. > Gottfried Leibniz's theory of pre-established harmony is not what I am arguing, even if there are some similarities. That you would make such a leap is dishonest and insulting - not to mention, it causes you to believe things about other people that are not true, therefore making such assumptions diminishes you. Please stop hurting yourself. From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 05:45:58 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 00:45:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: ?> ? > As is the theory that the other parts of the superposition were real > ? ? > and continue to exist forever, just somehow shifting to some other > ? ? > "world" that did not exist before that moment. QM contains no > ? ? > provision for any of that. > ? On the contrary, if you assume Schrodinger's ? ? Wave Equation means what it says then it does indeed exist forever, the mathematics say nothing about it collapsing. MWI unquestionably makes the fewest assumptions, everybody assumes the Schrodinger ? ? Wave Equation (or the equivalent Heisenberg Matrices) is correct but in addition ? ? Copenhagen assumes the act of observation does mysterious things ? ? even ? ? though it can't say exactly ? ? (or even approximately) ? ? what a measurement is. ? ? And Pilot Wave assumes a thing that can not be directly measured somehow guides things around almost like the finger of God. ? ? And ? ? Transactional assumes the future can ?change? the past. ? ? But MWI assumes none of that, all MWI assumes is ? ? Schrodinger's ? ? Wave Equation and Heisenberg Matrices ? ? mean what they say ? ? the ?y? ? ? mean. That's it. Paul Davies ? ? describes ? ? MWI as being "cheap on assumptions, but ? ? expensive on universes". > > ?> ? > superdeterminism is not necessarily > ? ? > incompatible with free will > ?Tell me what "free will" means and I'll tell you if I agree.? ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 05:55:20 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 00:55:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year Message-ID: One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ============== One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ Happy New Year all. I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about it.You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with an eight's grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the Higgs boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN in Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is true because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to meabout it in a dream. PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year from today. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From col.hales at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 06:18:28 2017 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 17:18:28 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 10 years in the bag. Hope you don't mind if I facebook an anonymous version? (EXI list and author not shown) If you want me to de-anonymize it let me know! :-) Happy New year! You must be channelling some serious psychic mojo. colin On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:55 PM, John Clark wrote: > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > Happy New Year all. > > I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in > Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, > after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no > training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the > good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this > very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I > predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about > it.You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with > an eight's grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the > Higgs boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN > in Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is > true because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to meabout it > in a dream. > > PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year > from today. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 08:03:59 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 00:03:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:45 PM, John Clark wrote: > if you assume Schrodinger's > Wave Equation > everybody assumes the > Schrodinger > Wave Equation > Copenhagen assumes So...I have stated a position. You then argue what other people assume, but I never claimed I was taking exactly their position, no matter what people think their position to be. Nor do I, generally, because that opens up this form of attack: * Get a person to say they agree with X, where X is some specific noun or set of nouns. * Redefine X to be something clearly wrong. * Ridicule the person for agreeing with something clearly wrong. And you wonder why I have called out trolling in this thread? From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 16:49:24 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 09:49:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Zombie Detector (was Re:Do digital computers feel?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jason, Good question. Let me first ask you a question, then based on your answer, I will be able to better answer your questions. Let's say you duplicate a person, possibly with a Star Trek like transporter. Except you make one minor change. You completely swap the new persons redness knowledge with their greenness knowledge. I would say you have still successfully transported them, that you have achieved multiple-realizability and functionally they will be identical. But, the new person represents knowledge of strawberries with a greenness quality. Do these before and after people have "identical mental states"? Brent On 12/31/2016 4:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > Brent, > > Thank you, the video cleared it up for me then. So do you have no > objection to multiple-realizability (the idea that different physical > materials could in theory be used to construct minds that have > identical mental states)? > > Jason > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > Hi Jason, > > I'm just talking in simplified qualitative terms to make > communication easier to model what is and isn't important. that > is the only reason I used the term grue to represent all the 99 > million or whatever new colors that any particular tetrachromat > can experience (surely they are not all the same). > > Also, when i say that glutamate has the redness quality and > glycene has the grenness quality, this too, is just simplified. I > am describing what it would be like in a hypothetical world that > only has 3 colors - red (glutamate), green(glycene), and > white(aspartate). (see: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4&t=30s > ) I simply > describe in that video that if there was such a world, how could > the people in that world correctly see that in their simplified > world that glutamate was the neural correlate of red (and not > think it was white since glutamate reflects white light). > > Then once a person can understand how this general correct > qualitative interpretation theory works in the simplified world, > they can use the same proper qualitative interpretation of > abstracted data, in the real world - to finally not be qualia > blind and finally discover what really has all the redness > qualities any one of us can experience. > > Brent > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brent Allsop > > wrote: > > I, like most people, am a mere tetra chromate ? I > experience the world with 3 primary colors.But some people > are tetrachromats, and do it with 4 primary colors.Let?s > call this 4^th color ?grue?.Obviously, all us tri chromats > can hear the person say things like: ?No that is Grue, not > one of the primary colors, as you claim? and we can > observe what is causing the 4^th primary color, including > it?s neural correlate in their brains.In other words, like > Frank Jackson?s brilliant color scientist raised in a > black and what room, us trichromats can learn everything > about grue, and see that it is not in our heads, but we > can see when the neurarl correlate of grue is in the head > of a tetrachromat. > > In other words, all of us normal trichromatic people are > grue zombies.We can know and communicate everything about > them.In fact, we might even be able to be trained to call > the right things grue, just like the tetrachromat does, > and lie about it, and convince everyone else that we might > be a tetrachromat.(until you observe my brain)So, until we > enhance our primary visual cortext and give it what has > the grue color, we will never know how the tetrachromat > qualitatively interprets the word ?grue?. > > Now, some people think of a ?p-zombie? as something that > is atomically identical to us, but just doesn?t have the > qualitative experience of consciousness ? which of course > is very absurd, and very different than the grue type of > zombie, I am, who simply isn?t yet capable of producing > the grue neural correlate in my brain.But I can represent > grue with anything else that is in my brain, and talk > about it as if it was grue, in a grue zombie way. > > > But no new neurotransmitters are required to experience grue. > > Moreover, tretrachromats don't just see 1 new type of color, > they can see 99 million new colors that us trichromats cannot > see. This is because we can sense about 100 independent > relative brightnesses for red green and blue colors, which > allows 100x100x100 possible resulting colors (1 million > colors). Tetrachromats get to see 100x100x100x100 or 100 > million colors. > > How can so many new colors come about if the neurocorolates > are somehow dependent on specific chemicals in the brain? > Tetrachromats don't have 100 times as many chemicals in their > brain as trichromats have, yet they get to perceive 100 times > as many qualia. > > Jason > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Jason Resch > > wrote: > > Reminds me a bit of "An Unfortunate Dualist": > > http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-23-unfortunate-dualist.html > > > As to your puzzle, if Fred is unable to detect any > effects from conscious people (including their > reflections), then he should not be able to see his > own reflection, but then he also shouldn't be able to > hear his own thoughts either. Which might be your > definition of a zombie, making him visible, etc. > "Russell's reflection". However, Fred's own voice > might still be heard if Fred's consciousness is an > epiphenomenon, but I think practically speaking I > think epiphenomenalism can be ruled out, together with > the notion of p-zombies. > > See Daniel Dennett's "The Unimagined Preposterousness > of Zombies": > https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/unzombie.htm > > > Dennett argues that "when philosophers claim that > zombies are conceivable, they invariably > underestimate the task of conception (or > imagination), and end up imagining something that > violates their own definition".^[3] > > ^[4] > > He coined the term "zimboes" ? p-zombies that > have second-order beliefs > ? > to argue that the idea of a p-zombie is > incoherent;^[12] > > "Zimboes think^Z they are conscious, think^Z > they have qualia, think^Z they suffer pains ? > they are just 'wrong' (according to this > lamentable tradition), in ways that neither they > nor we could ever discover!".^[4] > > > > > I'm not sure, however, whether your thought experiment > sheds any new light on the concepts of consciousness > or zombies. It seems like it may be only a > reformulation of the "Barber Paradox", where the self > reflexivity is a "power to detect only > non-consciousness things", aimed at one's own > consciousness. > > Jason > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Stuart LaForge > > wrote: > > Jason Resch wrote: > finite, then an > appropriately programmed computer can perfectly > emulate any of its > behaviors. Philosophers generally fall into one os > three camps, on the > question of consciousness and the computational > theory of mind: > Non-computable physicists [. . .]Weak AI > proponents [. . .] > Computationalists. > > Which camp do you consider yourself in?> > ------------------------------------------- > > As a general rule, I prefer not to go camping with > philosophers as I > prefer the rigor of science and mathematics. But > if I must camp in that > neck of the woods, I would set up my own camp. I > would call it the > Godelian camp after Kurt Godel. Since I am a > scientist and not a > philosopher, I will explain my views with a > thought experiment instead of > an argument. > > Imagine if you will a solipsist. Let's call him > Fred. Fred is solopsist > because he has every reason to believe he lives > alone in a world of > P-zombies. > > For the uninitiated, P-zombies are philosophical > zombies. Horrid beings > that talk, move, and act like normal folks but > lack any real consciousness > or self-awareness. They just go through the > motions of being conscious but > are not really so. > > So ever since Fred could remember, wherever he > looked, all he could see > were those pesky P-zombies. They were everywhere. > He could talk to them, > he could interact with them, and he even married > one. And because they all > act perfectly conscious, they would fool most > anyone but certainly not > Fred. > > This was because Fred had, whether you would > regard it as a gift or curse, > an unusual ability. He could always see and > otherwise sense P-zombies but > never normal folk. Normal folk were always > invisible to him and he never > could sense a single one. So he, being a perfect > P-zombie detector, came > to believe that he was the only normal person on a > planet populated by > P-zombies. > > Then one day by chance he happened to glance in a > mirror . . . > > Does he see himself? > > I want to hear what the list has to say about this > before I give my answer > and my interpretation of what this means for > strong AI and the > computational theory of mind. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 17:04:36 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:04:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Zombie Detector (was Re:Do digital computers feel?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For the most part, I don't belong in this discussion but I'd like to know the meaning of "You completely swap the new persons redness knowledge with their greenness knowledge." Are you talking about rewiring the optical sensory system or the perception part? bill w On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > Good question. Let me first ask you a question, then based on your > answer, I will be able to better answer your questions. > > > Let's say you duplicate a person, possibly with a Star Trek like > transporter. Except you make one minor change. You completely swap the > new persons redness knowledge with their greenness knowledge. I would say > you have still successfully transported them, that you have achieved > multiple-realizability and functionally they will be identical. But, the > new person represents knowledge of strawberries with a greenness quality. > Do these before and after people have "identical mental states"? > > Brent > > On 12/31/2016 4:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Brent, > > Thank you, the video cleared it up for me then. So do you have no > objection to multiple-realizability (the idea that different physical > materials could in theory be used to construct minds that have identical > mental states)? > > Jason > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> I'm just talking in simplified qualitative terms to make communication >> easier to model what is and isn't important. that is the only reason I >> used the term grue to represent all the 99 million or whatever new colors >> that any particular tetrachromat can experience (surely they are not all >> the same). >> >> Also, when i say that glutamate has the redness quality and glycene has >> the grenness quality, this too, is just simplified. I am describing what >> it would be like in a hypothetical world that only has 3 colors - red >> (glutamate), green(glycene), and white(aspartate). (see: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4&t=30s) I simply describe in >> that video that if there was such a world, how could the people in that >> world correctly see that in their simplified world that glutamate was the >> neural correlate of red (and not think it was white since glutamate >> reflects white light). >> >> Then once a person can understand how this general correct qualitative >> interpretation theory works in the simplified world, they can use the same >> proper qualitative interpretation of abstracted data, in the real world - >> to finally not be qualia blind and finally discover what really has all the >> redness qualities any one of us can experience. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jason Resch >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I, like most people, am a mere tetra chromate ? I experience the world >>>> with 3 primary colors. But some people are tetrachromats, and do it >>>> with 4 primary colors. Let?s call this 4th color ?grue?. Obviously, >>>> all us tri chromats can hear the person say things like: ?No that is Grue, >>>> not one of the primary colors, as you claim? and we can observe what is >>>> causing the 4th primary color, including it?s neural correlate in >>>> their brains. In other words, like Frank Jackson?s brilliant color >>>> scientist raised in a black and what room, us trichromats can learn >>>> everything about grue, and see that it is not in our heads, but we can see >>>> when the neurarl correlate of grue is in the head of a tetrachromat. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In other words, all of us normal trichromatic people are grue zombies. >>>> We can know and communicate everything about them. In fact, we might >>>> even be able to be trained to call the right things grue, just like the >>>> tetrachromat does, and lie about it, and convince everyone else that we >>>> might be a tetrachromat. (until you observe my brain) So, until we >>>> enhance our primary visual cortext and give it what has the grue color, we >>>> will never know how the tetrachromat qualitatively interprets the word >>>> ?grue?. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Now, some people think of a ?p-zombie? as something that is atomically >>>> identical to us, but just doesn?t have the qualitative experience of >>>> consciousness ? which of course is very absurd, and very different than the >>>> grue type of zombie, I am, who simply isn?t yet capable of producing the >>>> grue neural correlate in my brain. But I can represent grue with >>>> anything else that is in my brain, and talk about it as if it was grue, in >>>> a grue zombie way. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> But no new neurotransmitters are required to experience grue. >>> >>> Moreover, tretrachromats don't just see 1 new type of color, they can >>> see 99 million new colors that us trichromats cannot see. This is because >>> we can sense about 100 independent relative brightnesses for red green and >>> blue colors, which allows 100x100x100 possible resulting colors (1 million >>> colors). Tetrachromats get to see 100x100x100x100 or 100 million colors. >>> >>> How can so many new colors come about if the neurocorolates are somehow >>> dependent on specific chemicals in the brain? Tetrachromats don't have 100 >>> times as many chemicals in their brain as trichromats have, yet they get to >>> perceive 100 times as many qualia. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Jason Resch >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Reminds me a bit of "An Unfortunate Dualist": >>>>> >>>>> http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-23-unfortunate- >>>>> dualist.html >>>>> >>>>> As to your puzzle, if Fred is unable to detect any effects from >>>>> conscious people (including their reflections), then he should not be able >>>>> to see his own reflection, but then he also shouldn't be able to hear his >>>>> own thoughts either. Which might be your definition of a zombie, making him >>>>> visible, etc. "Russell's reflection". However, Fred's own voice might still >>>>> be heard if Fred's consciousness is an epiphenomenon, but I think >>>>> practically speaking I think epiphenomenalism can be ruled out, together >>>>> with the notion of p-zombies. >>>>> >>>>> See Daniel Dennett's "The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies": >>>>> https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/unzombie.htm >>>>> >>>>> Dennett argues that "when philosophers claim that zombies are >>>>> conceivable, they invariably underestimate the task of conception (or >>>>> imagination), and end up imagining something that violates their own >>>>> definition".[3] >>>>> >>>>> [4] >>>>> He >>>>> coined the term "zimboes" ? p-zombies that have second-order beliefs >>>>> ? to argue that >>>>> the idea of a p-zombie is incoherent;[12] >>>>> "Zimboes >>>>> thinkZ they are conscious, thinkZ they have qualia, thinkZ they >>>>> suffer pains ? they are just 'wrong' (according to this lamentable >>>>> tradition), in ways that neither they nor we could ever discover!".[4] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure, however, whether your thought experiment sheds any new >>>>> light on the concepts of consciousness or zombies. It seems like it may be >>>>> only a reformulation of the "Barber Paradox", where the self reflexivity is >>>>> a "power to detect only non-consciousness things", aimed at one's own >>>>> consciousness. >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Stuart LaForge >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> appropriately programmed computer can perfectly emulate any of its >>>>>> behaviors. Philosophers generally fall into one os three camps, on the >>>>>> question of consciousness and the computational theory of mind: >>>>>> Non-computable physicists [. . .]Weak AI proponents [. . .] >>>>>> Computationalists. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which camp do you consider yourself in?> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> As a general rule, I prefer not to go camping with philosophers as I >>>>>> prefer the rigor of science and mathematics. But if I must camp in >>>>>> that >>>>>> neck of the woods, I would set up my own camp. I would call it the >>>>>> Godelian camp after Kurt Godel. Since I am a scientist and not a >>>>>> philosopher, I will explain my views with a thought experiment >>>>>> instead of >>>>>> an argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> Imagine if you will a solipsist. Let's call him Fred. Fred is >>>>>> solopsist >>>>>> because he has every reason to believe he lives alone in a world of >>>>>> P-zombies. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the uninitiated, P-zombies are philosophical zombies. Horrid >>>>>> beings >>>>>> that talk, move, and act like normal folks but lack any real >>>>>> consciousness >>>>>> or self-awareness. They just go through the motions of being >>>>>> conscious but >>>>>> are not really so. >>>>>> >>>>>> So ever since Fred could remember, wherever he looked, all he could >>>>>> see >>>>>> were those pesky P-zombies. They were everywhere. He could talk to >>>>>> them, >>>>>> he could interact with them, and he even married one. And because >>>>>> they all >>>>>> act perfectly conscious, they would fool most anyone but certainly not >>>>>> Fred. >>>>>> >>>>>> This was because Fred had, whether you would regard it as a gift or >>>>>> curse, >>>>>> an unusual ability. He could always see and otherwise sense P-zombies >>>>>> but >>>>>> never normal folk. Normal folk were always invisible to him and he >>>>>> never >>>>>> could sense a single one. So he, being a perfect P-zombie detector, >>>>>> came >>>>>> to believe that he was the only normal person on a planet populated by >>>>>> P-zombies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then one day by chance he happened to glance in a mirror . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> Does he see himself? >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to hear what the list has to say about this before I give my >>>>>> answer >>>>>> and my interpretation of what this means for strong AI and the >>>>>> computational theory of mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stuart LaForge >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 17:51:12 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 04:51:12 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Zombie Detector (was Re:Do digital computers feel?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C9CB160-8F6C-4BC5-84C2-DE7FA2E54D6D@gmail.com> > On 2 Jan. 2017, at 4:04 am, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > For the most part, I don't belong in this discussion but I'd like to know the meaning of > > "You completely swap the new persons redness knowledge with their greenness knowledge." > > Are you talking about rewiring the optical sensory system or the perception part? > > bill w There is a long philosophical literature on "inverted qualia": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 18:06:59 2017 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 12:06:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Zombie Detector (was Re:Do digital computers feel?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > Good question. Let me first ask you a question, then based on your > answer, I will be able to better answer your questions. > > > Let's say you duplicate a person, possibly with a Star Trek like > transporter. Except you make one minor change. You completely swap the > new persons redness knowledge with their greenness knowledge. I would say > you have still successfully transported them, that you have achieved > multiple-realizability and functionally they will be identical. > I believe personal identity is something that falls on a spectrum, so you can say there is a successful transport even if it is not 100% identical, but of course this leads to the question of where do you draw the line. I am not sure that such a line can be drawn. > But, the new person represents knowledge of strawberries with a greenness > quality. Do these before and after people have "identical mental states"? > If one person is remembering red strawberries, and the duplicate is remembering green strawberries, I would say they are not identical mental states. I believe that every change to someone's qualia requires a change to their mind/brain, but not all changes to a mind/brain will result in differently experienced qualia. This is the essence of multiple realizability, a many-to-one relationship between brain states and mental states, and an overall abandonment of the importance of the substrate (so long as the same mind-states appear the same to the person from the inside). Jason > > Brent > > On 12/31/2016 4:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Brent, > > Thank you, the video cleared it up for me then. So do you have no > objection to multiple-realizability (the idea that different physical > materials could in theory be used to construct minds that have identical > mental states)? > > Jason > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> I'm just talking in simplified qualitative terms to make communication >> easier to model what is and isn't important. that is the only reason I >> used the term grue to represent all the 99 million or whatever new colors >> that any particular tetrachromat can experience (surely they are not all >> the same). >> >> Also, when i say that glutamate has the redness quality and glycene has >> the grenness quality, this too, is just simplified. I am describing what >> it would be like in a hypothetical world that only has 3 colors - red >> (glutamate), green(glycene), and white(aspartate). (see: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4&t=30s) I simply describe in >> that video that if there was such a world, how could the people in that >> world correctly see that in their simplified world that glutamate was the >> neural correlate of red (and not think it was white since glutamate >> reflects white light). >> >> Then once a person can understand how this general correct qualitative >> interpretation theory works in the simplified world, they can use the same >> proper qualitative interpretation of abstracted data, in the real world - >> to finally not be qualia blind and finally discover what really has all the >> redness qualities any one of us can experience. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jason Resch >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I, like most people, am a mere tetra chromate ? I experience the world >>>> with 3 primary colors. But some people are tetrachromats, and do it >>>> with 4 primary colors. Let?s call this 4th color ?grue?. Obviously, >>>> all us tri chromats can hear the person say things like: ?No that is Grue, >>>> not one of the primary colors, as you claim? and we can observe what is >>>> causing the 4th primary color, including it?s neural correlate in >>>> their brains. In other words, like Frank Jackson?s brilliant color >>>> scientist raised in a black and what room, us trichromats can learn >>>> everything about grue, and see that it is not in our heads, but we can see >>>> when the neurarl correlate of grue is in the head of a tetrachromat. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In other words, all of us normal trichromatic people are grue zombies. >>>> We can know and communicate everything about them. In fact, we might >>>> even be able to be trained to call the right things grue, just like the >>>> tetrachromat does, and lie about it, and convince everyone else that we >>>> might be a tetrachromat. (until you observe my brain) So, until we >>>> enhance our primary visual cortext and give it what has the grue color, we >>>> will never know how the tetrachromat qualitatively interprets the word >>>> ?grue?. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Now, some people think of a ?p-zombie? as something that is atomically >>>> identical to us, but just doesn?t have the qualitative experience of >>>> consciousness ? which of course is very absurd, and very different than the >>>> grue type of zombie, I am, who simply isn?t yet capable of producing the >>>> grue neural correlate in my brain. But I can represent grue with >>>> anything else that is in my brain, and talk about it as if it was grue, in >>>> a grue zombie way. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> But no new neurotransmitters are required to experience grue. >>> >>> Moreover, tretrachromats don't just see 1 new type of color, they can >>> see 99 million new colors that us trichromats cannot see. This is because >>> we can sense about 100 independent relative brightnesses for red green and >>> blue colors, which allows 100x100x100 possible resulting colors (1 million >>> colors). Tetrachromats get to see 100x100x100x100 or 100 million colors. >>> >>> How can so many new colors come about if the neurocorolates are somehow >>> dependent on specific chemicals in the brain? Tetrachromats don't have 100 >>> times as many chemicals in their brain as trichromats have, yet they get to >>> perceive 100 times as many qualia. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Jason Resch >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Reminds me a bit of "An Unfortunate Dualist": >>>>> >>>>> http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-23-unfortunate- >>>>> dualist.html >>>>> >>>>> As to your puzzle, if Fred is unable to detect any effects from >>>>> conscious people (including their reflections), then he should not be able >>>>> to see his own reflection, but then he also shouldn't be able to hear his >>>>> own thoughts either. Which might be your definition of a zombie, making him >>>>> visible, etc. "Russell's reflection". However, Fred's own voice might still >>>>> be heard if Fred's consciousness is an epiphenomenon, but I think >>>>> practically speaking I think epiphenomenalism can be ruled out, together >>>>> with the notion of p-zombies. >>>>> >>>>> See Daniel Dennett's "The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies": >>>>> https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/unzombie.htm >>>>> >>>>> Dennett argues that "when philosophers claim that zombies are >>>>> conceivable, they invariably underestimate the task of conception (or >>>>> imagination), and end up imagining something that violates their own >>>>> definition".[3] >>>>> >>>>> [4] >>>>> He >>>>> coined the term "zimboes" ? p-zombies that have second-order beliefs >>>>> ? to argue that >>>>> the idea of a p-zombie is incoherent;[12] >>>>> "Zimboes >>>>> thinkZ they are conscious, thinkZ they have qualia, thinkZ they >>>>> suffer pains ? they are just 'wrong' (according to this lamentable >>>>> tradition), in ways that neither they nor we could ever discover!".[4] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure, however, whether your thought experiment sheds any new >>>>> light on the concepts of consciousness or zombies. It seems like it may be >>>>> only a reformulation of the "Barber Paradox", where the self reflexivity is >>>>> a "power to detect only non-consciousness things", aimed at one's own >>>>> consciousness. >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Stuart LaForge >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> appropriately programmed computer can perfectly emulate any of its >>>>>> behaviors. Philosophers generally fall into one os three camps, on the >>>>>> question of consciousness and the computational theory of mind: >>>>>> Non-computable physicists [. . .]Weak AI proponents [. . .] >>>>>> Computationalists. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which camp do you consider yourself in?> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> As a general rule, I prefer not to go camping with philosophers as I >>>>>> prefer the rigor of science and mathematics. But if I must camp in >>>>>> that >>>>>> neck of the woods, I would set up my own camp. I would call it the >>>>>> Godelian camp after Kurt Godel. Since I am a scientist and not a >>>>>> philosopher, I will explain my views with a thought experiment >>>>>> instead of >>>>>> an argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> Imagine if you will a solipsist. Let's call him Fred. Fred is >>>>>> solopsist >>>>>> because he has every reason to believe he lives alone in a world of >>>>>> P-zombies. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the uninitiated, P-zombies are philosophical zombies. Horrid >>>>>> beings >>>>>> that talk, move, and act like normal folks but lack any real >>>>>> consciousness >>>>>> or self-awareness. They just go through the motions of being >>>>>> conscious but >>>>>> are not really so. >>>>>> >>>>>> So ever since Fred could remember, wherever he looked, all he could >>>>>> see >>>>>> were those pesky P-zombies. They were everywhere. He could talk to >>>>>> them, >>>>>> he could interact with them, and he even married one. And because >>>>>> they all >>>>>> act perfectly conscious, they would fool most anyone but certainly not >>>>>> Fred. >>>>>> >>>>>> This was because Fred had, whether you would regard it as a gift or >>>>>> curse, >>>>>> an unusual ability. He could always see and otherwise sense P-zombies >>>>>> but >>>>>> never normal folk. Normal folk were always invisible to him and he >>>>>> never >>>>>> could sense a single one. So he, being a perfect P-zombie detector, >>>>>> came >>>>>> to believe that he was the only normal person on a planet populated by >>>>>> P-zombies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then one day by chance he happened to glance in a mirror . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> Does he see himself? >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to hear what the list has to say about this before I give my >>>>>> answer >>>>>> and my interpretation of what this means for strong AI and the >>>>>> computational theory of mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stuart LaForge >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 18:07:16 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 13:07:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:45 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> > if you assume Schrodinger's >> > Wave Equation >> > everybody assumes the >> > Schrodinger >> > Wave Equation >> > Copenhagen assumes > > > ?> ? > So...I have stated a position. You then argue what other people > assume, but I never claimed I was taking exactly their position, ?And I never claimed you were taking their position. I know you don't like Manny Worlds but it's not even clear to me just what your prefered quantum interpretation is.? Copenhagen? Pilot Wave? Transactional? Super-Deterministic? Shut up And Calculate? > ?> ? > And you wonder why I have called out trolling in this thread? > For god's sake ? Adrian ?, for you everything is a personal insult! You are the thinnest skinned person I have ever met online and I've been online for a long time....well.... you're in the top ten anyway. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 18:31:20 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 13:31:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel was Re: Is the wave function real? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> <5ebf7035-f7f3-a418-4ce2-10028de54b20@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?>> ? >> ?I see no way it could ever be proven or disproven that X causes qualia >> Y, at least not proven to be true in anyone except for me. >> >> ?And even then the proof would only be available to me.? >> > > ?> ? > Which you? Your right or left hemisphere you? > ?There is only one because my ? corpus callosum ? has not been severed.? > ?> ? > And if your right hemisphere knows, absolutely, that your left > hemisphere's neural correlate of redness is not your left hemisphere's > greenness neural correlate, why could we not simply predict that we will > soon be doing the same thing between brains > ?If there were a communication link between your brain and mine that was as good as the corpus callosum ? then there would only be one conscious being not two, but Brent Clark still wouldn't know what it felt like when John Clark or Brent Allsop looked at a red tomato. John K Clark? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 20:31:26 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 14:31:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: identification In-Reply-To: <02c601d2646d$a7ece9e0$f7c6bda0$@att.net> References: <01ff01d26448$200a8930$601f9b90$@att.net> <025301d26459$9dde8a80$d99b9f80$@att.net> <02c601d2646d$a7ece9e0$f7c6bda0$@att.net> Message-ID: I am into a book on seeds, and apparently there are numerous seed saver programs around the world, which is a great thing. Big companies don't want us planting just any old seeds; they want us to use hybrids only available from them. Genetic diversity is being preserved. Are there stockpiles of human genetic diversity? Other animals? Now - are there technology programs comparable? What if few survive. They could rebuild, but where would they get their tech info? People like me would not have the slightest idea how to go about building a battery, much less a computer chip. A lot of technology progress, I am told, is based on what the final There needs to be a Youtube kind of thing where the average person can follow instructions and learn how to mine iron, make a battery, and ma ?n? y thousands of other things. b ?ill w? On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 12:05 PM, spike wrote: The fear of a new virus or microbe resistant to everything has replaced nuclear winter as the number 1 risk of humanity?s extinction, or rather civilization. Good chance it would not be both resistant and pan-species. We could imagine human-specific highly immune microbes, but we always have the defense of isolation. Something like that could wipe out cities but not all of humanity. Were that to occur, we can imagine pockets of humanity surviving and continuing our existence as a species, perhaps with some retrograde technology. But in that scenario, consider that nearly all modern technology is only a few hundred years old. We could recover and repopulate if 98% of humanity perishes. Might be a couple centuries setback, which is a hiccup in the big picture. spike *From:* William Flynn Wallace [mailto:foozler83 at gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 01, 2017 9:02 AM *To:* spike *Subject:* Re: identification I just used a little gadget to equalize the temperature on a pancake cooker that spanned two burners. I wonder how long it will be before we have a gadget that you can point that will tell you what species of bacteria or virus you have? Something like that will be a real challenge. There's probably more species of microbes than all the rest of the world's creatures put together, and some of them are mutating fairly often as we try to kill them with weapons that are, more and more often, failing but causing more mutations. I don't like dystopic fiction much, since I think some of it, not the nuclear winter thing, but the totally resistant microbes causing lethal infection, is pretty likely and worry me. I would dump virtually unlimited money into microbe research. To give an example of just how primitive we are now, in the not too far future we will be pointing at a current practice of using maggots to clean a wound as laughably ignorant and atavistic. Just musing - no need for a reply bill w On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:00 AM, spike wrote: Thanks BillW! For birds the thing works pretty well, but the task itself isn?t all that difficult: there are only a few hundred bird species flapping about at any given time at most, and only a couple dozen common ones for any given place and time. Might depend on how you break it down. I know there are many different species of hummingbird, but I don?t intend to go that deeply into it. Plant species are difficult because so many different species and varieties have been brought in, and insect species ride along. We have a mild climate so everything grows and flies here. I really want to make this go for the genealogy stuff tho. I have over 100k names in my databse now. Happy new year! spike *From:* William Flynn Wallace [mailto:foozler83 at gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, December 31, 2016 4:06 PM *To:* spike *Subject:* identification Previous experience: tried to identify a tree. Went to the library and got a book that had pictures of leaves and bark. Still uncertain so I went to the biology department and showed my pal the book and the leaves from that tree and still we goofed. Now all we do is take a picture, upload it, and bingo. What will we do with all the free time left over after saving so much using the internet? It is just totally amazing. I saw the iTunes app. Android has apps for insect and plant identification also. Don't know if they are any better than uploading an image to Google Images. Happy New Year to you and your bride and son! bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 20:41:29 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 13:41:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Zombie Detector (was Re:Do digital computers feel?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34d7dfbf-1228-37cd-e4a5-af811548e28f@gmail.com> Hi William, Yay, I must be at least a little better at communicating, after so long, as you guys (and more of you) are starting to ask great questions. But, again, I must first ask you a question about what you mean by "the perception part". As there are still multiple competing theories out about what all perception includes, for which there hasn't yet been sufficient evidence to falsify those theories for their supporters. I'll give you an answer using my favorite "materialist" theory (happens to be the simplest one that I know of), and how it will be verified or falsified via demonstrable science using these effing of the ineffable techniques, and if your theory is similar, my job will be done. If your theory is different, I'll describe the much more complex way which the theory will be verified / falsified by demonstrable science using this same correct qualitative interpretation method. We might as well start at the beginning of the perception process, for completeness (and this will be required to see and prove what is the neural correlate of redness in our brain). The perception of a strawberry starts with the target of perception or the surface of the strawberry having a set of physical qualities, (it's ability to reflect something like 650 NM light) that we think of or interpret as being "red". There is the causally downstream set of physical qualities which are very different from the set of physical qualities the surface of the strawberry has. This is the 650 NM light. Then, there is a translation mechanism (the retina) which translate the physical qualities of the light into a different set of physical qualities (the red and green signal traveling down your optic nerve). Again, these are all very different physical qualities, we think of, or interpret all of them as if they were "red". The correctly functioning retina, is what correctly translates one different set of physical qualities to the other, in a way that allows us to abstract away from the particular different physical representations, and think of both of them in a functionally optimized way: "We think of or interpret all them all as if they were all red". Note: if you add something in this causal perception Chanel, such as a fMRI camera and video sensing system such as might be used to target and perceived the quality of knowledge inside our brain, that also represents what we think of as "red" or at this point the "redness" (which will be inverted for the duplicated person). All these diverse representations also will all have very different sets of physical qualities we only think of as if they were all the same "red". Every one of these sets of physical representations we all think of as being "red" (or abstracted different physical representations we all think of as ones and zeros in the computer portion of the channel) require a correct qualitative translation mechanism that translates from one physical set of qualities, to the next different one, in a way that allows us to think of all of them in a simplified way - as if they were all "red". So far, in our duplicated person, we haven't changed anything yet. And this much of the causal "Perception Chanel" is identical. There is further neural processing, such as that required to recognize the edges of the strawberry in the 2 two D representations of the strawberry coming down our optical nerve. And there is the part that converts these 2D images into 3D voxel elements again representing the 3D strawberry with a completely different set of physical qualities which are nothing like any of the up channel physical qualities. Again, up until this point things remain physically identical in our duplicated person. Now, after all this neural processing, there is yet another final translation mechanism in the perception Chanel which translates to yet another completely different set of physical qualities. (Again, none of these physical qualities, including the qualities of the surface of the strawberry are anything like each other.) Where before the duplication, the translation mechanism would translate to voxel knowledge of the surface of the strawberry having a redness set of physical qualities we can experience, while in the duplicate the final translation mechanism translates to physical knowledge that has a set of physical qualities we experience as having a greenness quality. So, how this particular theory will be proven correct, or falsified for everyone in competing theory camps, is via the weak stronger and strongest form of effing the ineffable I've been describing and also described in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 and via this method finding whatever the particular neural correlates are of each of our redness and greenness... conscious experiences. This is the "materialist" theory that falsifiably predicts that without the right material, no redness. Other theories include "functionalist" theories, and various other "emergent" theories (what seems to be the current leading expert consensus set of theories because of the fallacious neural substitution argument), "quantum" theories, "relational" theories, "Higher order" theories, neither world "spiritual" or various dualistic religious theories such as Cartesian dualism (these are the naive most popular theories), even elimanativests theories with no qualia at all, and lots more that are all much more complex and problematic than this simple theory. One of these theories is about to be proven true, while all the rest falsified, by simply correctly interpreting the physical qualities representing what we are detecting or "effing the ineffable". Is your theory of what the conscious "perception part" is anything like this materialist one? Which theory do you all bet is going to soon turn out to be "The One"? Brent Allsop On 1/1/2017 10:04 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > For the most part, I don't belong in this discussion but I'd like to > know the meaning of > > "You completely swap the new persons redness knowledge with their > greenness knowledge." > > Are you talking about rewiring the optical sensory system or the > perception part? > > bill w > > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > Hi Jason, > > Good question. Let me first ask you a question, then based on > your answer, I will be able to better answer your questions. > > > Let's say you duplicate a person, possibly with a Star Trek like > transporter. Except you make one minor change. You completely > swap the new persons redness knowledge with their greenness > knowledge. I would say you have still successfully transported > them, that you have achieved multiple-realizability and > functionally they will be identical. But, the new person > represents knowledge of strawberries with a greenness quality. Do > these before and after people have "identical mental states"? > > Brent > > > On 12/31/2016 4:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> Brent, >> >> Thank you, the video cleared it up for me then. So do you have no >> objection to multiple-realizability (the idea that different >> physical materials could in theory be used to construct minds >> that have identical mental states)? >> >> Jason >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Brent Allsop >> > wrote: >> >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> I'm just talking in simplified qualitative terms to make >> communication easier to model what is and isn't important. >> that is the only reason I used the term grue to represent all >> the 99 million or whatever new colors that any particular >> tetrachromat can experience (surely they are not all the same). >> >> Also, when i say that glutamate has the redness quality and >> glycene has the grenness quality, this too, is just >> simplified. I am describing what it would be like in a >> hypothetical world that only has 3 colors - red (glutamate), >> green(glycene), and white(aspartate). (see: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4&t=30s >> ) I simply >> describe in that video that if there was such a world, how >> could the people in that world correctly see that in their >> simplified world that glutamate was the neural correlate of >> red (and not think it was white since glutamate reflects >> white light). >> >> Then once a person can understand how this general correct >> qualitative interpretation theory works in the simplified >> world, they can use the same proper qualitative >> interpretation of abstracted data, in the real world - to >> finally not be qualia blind and finally discover what really >> has all the redness qualities any one of us can experience. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jason Resch >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brent Allsop >> > >> wrote: >> >> I, like most people, am a mere tetra chromate ? I >> experience the world with 3 primary colors.But some >> people are tetrachromats, and do it with 4 primary >> colors.Let?s call this 4^th color ?grue?.Obviously, >> all us tri chromats can hear the person say things >> like: ?No that is Grue, not one of the primary >> colors, as you claim? and we can observe what is >> causing the 4^th primary color, including it?s neural >> correlate in their brains.In other words, like Frank >> Jackson?s brilliant color scientist raised in a black >> and what room, us trichromats can learn everything >> about grue, and see that it is not in our heads, but >> we can see when the neurarl correlate of grue is in >> the head of a tetrachromat. >> >> In other words, all of us normal trichromatic people >> are grue zombies.We can know and communicate >> everything about them.In fact, we might even be able >> to be trained to call the right things grue, just >> like the tetrachromat does, and lie about it, and >> convince everyone else that we might be a >> tetrachromat.(until you observe my brain)So, until we >> enhance our primary visual cortext and give it what >> has the grue color, we will never know how the >> tetrachromat qualitatively interprets the word ?grue?. >> >> Now, some people think of a ?p-zombie? as something >> that is atomically identical to us, but just doesn?t >> have the qualitative experience of consciousness ? >> which of course is very absurd, and very different >> than the grue type of zombie, I am, who simply isn?t >> yet capable of producing the grue neural correlate in >> my brain.But I can represent grue with anything else >> that is in my brain, and talk about it as if it was >> grue, in a grue zombie way. >> >> >> But no new neurotransmitters are required to experience grue. >> >> Moreover, tretrachromats don't just see 1 new type of >> color, they can see 99 million new colors that us >> trichromats cannot see. This is because we can sense >> about 100 independent relative brightnesses for red green >> and blue colors, which allows 100x100x100 possible >> resulting colors (1 million colors). Tetrachromats get to >> see 100x100x100x100 or 100 million colors. >> >> How can so many new colors come about if the >> neurocorolates are somehow dependent on specific >> chemicals in the brain? Tetrachromats don't have 100 >> times as many chemicals in their brain as trichromats >> have, yet they get to perceive 100 times as many qualia. >> >> Jason >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Jason Resch >> > >> wrote: >> >> Reminds me a bit of "An Unfortunate Dualist": >> >> http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-23-unfortunate-dualist.html >> >> >> As to your puzzle, if Fred is unable to detect >> any effects from conscious people (including >> their reflections), then he should not be able >> to see his own reflection, but then he also >> shouldn't be able to hear his own thoughts >> either. Which might be your definition of a >> zombie, making him visible, etc. "Russell's >> reflection". However, Fred's own voice might >> still be heard if Fred's consciousness is an >> epiphenomenon, but I think practically speaking I >> think epiphenomenalism can be ruled out, together >> with the notion of p-zombies. >> >> See Daniel Dennett's "The Unimagined >> Preposterousness of Zombies": >> https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/unzombie.htm >> >> >> Dennett argues that "when philosophers claim >> that zombies are conceivable, they invariably >> underestimate the task of conception (or >> imagination), and end up imagining something >> that violates their own definition".^[3] >> >> ^[4] >> >> He coined the term "zimboes" ? p-zombies >> that have second-order beliefs >> ? >> to argue that the idea of a p-zombie is >> incoherent;^[12] >> >> "Zimboes think^Z they are conscious, >> think^Z they have qualia, think^Z they >> suffer pains ? they are just 'wrong' >> (according to this lamentable tradition), in >> ways that neither they nor we could ever >> discover!".^[4] >> >> >> >> >> I'm not sure, however, whether your thought >> experiment sheds any new light on the concepts of >> consciousness or zombies. It seems like it may be >> only a reformulation of the "Barber Paradox", >> where the self reflexivity is a "power to detect >> only non-consciousness things", aimed at one's >> own consciousness. >> >> Jason >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Stuart LaForge >> > >> wrote: >> >> Jason Resch wrote: >> > finite, then an >> appropriately programmed computer can >> perfectly emulate any of its >> behaviors. Philosophers generally fall into >> one os three camps, on the >> question of consciousness and the >> computational theory of mind: >> Non-computable physicists [. . .]Weak AI >> proponents [. . .] >> Computationalists. >> >> Which camp do you consider yourself in?> >> ------------------------------------------- >> >> As a general rule, I prefer not to go camping >> with philosophers as I >> prefer the rigor of science and mathematics. >> But if I must camp in that >> neck of the woods, I would set up my own >> camp. I would call it the >> Godelian camp after Kurt Godel. Since I am a >> scientist and not a >> philosopher, I will explain my views with a >> thought experiment instead of >> an argument. >> >> Imagine if you will a solipsist. Let's call >> him Fred. Fred is solopsist >> because he has every reason to believe he >> lives alone in a world of >> P-zombies. >> >> For the uninitiated, P-zombies are >> philosophical zombies. Horrid beings >> that talk, move, and act like normal folks >> but lack any real consciousness >> or self-awareness. They just go through the >> motions of being conscious but >> are not really so. >> >> So ever since Fred could remember, wherever >> he looked, all he could see >> were those pesky P-zombies. They were >> everywhere. He could talk to them, >> he could interact with them, and he even >> married one. And because they all >> act perfectly conscious, they would fool most >> anyone but certainly not >> Fred. >> >> This was because Fred had, whether you would >> regard it as a gift or curse, >> an unusual ability. He could always see and >> otherwise sense P-zombies but >> never normal folk. Normal folk were always >> invisible to him and he never >> could sense a single one. So he, being a >> perfect P-zombie detector, came >> to believe that he was the only normal person >> on a planet populated by >> P-zombies. >> >> Then one day by chance he happened to glance >> in a mirror . . . >> >> Does he see himself? >> >> I want to hear what the list has to say about >> this before I give my answer >> and my interpretation of what this means for >> strong AI and the >> computational theory of mind. >> >> Stuart LaForge >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 21:11:42 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 16:11:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You can use my name if you wish John K Clark On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Colin Hales wrote: > 10 years in the bag. > Hope you don't mind if I facebook an anonymous version? > (EXI list and author not shown) > If you want me to de-anonymize it let me know! :-) > > Happy New year! > > You must be channelling some serious psychic mojo. > > colin > > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:55 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ============== >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one >> word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. >> >> ================ >> >> Happy New Year all. >> >> I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in >> Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, >> after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no >> training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the >> good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this >> very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I >> predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about >> it.You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with >> an eight's grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the >> Higgs boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN >> in Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is >> true because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to meabout it >> in a dream. >> >> PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year >> from today. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 22:02:17 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 14:02:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:45 PM, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> > if you assume Schrodinger's >>> > Wave Equation >>> > everybody assumes the >>> > Schrodinger >>> > Wave Equation >>> > Copenhagen assumes >> >> So...I have stated a position. You then argue what other people >> assume, but I never claimed I was taking exactly their position, > > And I never claimed you were taking their position. I quoted the parts where you implied my position was theirs, since you responded to my points only by talking about their positions as if those were the positions I was taking. > I know you don't like > Manny Worlds but it's not even clear to me just what your prefered quantum > interpretation is. Copenhagen? Pilot Wave? Transactional? > Super-Deterministic? Shut up And Calculate? A variation on superdeterministic, as has been stated before, but I shall repeat: what we measure was the truth all along, at least back to when the last decision by a sentient entity that could affect the outcome was made. It is immeasurable - and thus outside of science - whether those decisions were themselves superdetermined since at least the beginning of our universe (the Big Bang), or whether something that many people call "free will" causes those decisions to be made far more recently (but still prior to any measurement that any given decision may affect). The only reason for said concession is to placate those who object to superdeterminism that it violates free will, which they perceive that they have (with no consideration for whether or how this perception might be an illusion). As you have noted repeatedly, "free will" needs definition. I agree that "but it violates free will" is not a scientific objection. However, it is a common enough objection that it demands addressing. (Failing to address it tends to derail rational debate about it.) Since this objection is outside of science, its answer is likewise outside of science - but it can be answered, and this concession answers it. I am not presently aware of any objections to superdeterminism that do not also apply to MWI, other than ones that reduce to, "but it violates free will". So, with that class of objections answered, we can hopefully get back to discussing the scientific world of only what can be measured and observed. With all objections about free will answered and set aside, there does not seem to be any measurable difference between superdeterminism and MWI. Given that, the only difference is which one seems more likely (which is not measurable, but is still the standard call in this kind of situation). Some people say that MWI seems simpler and more likely than superdeterminism, but to me, superdeterminism seems simpler and more likely than MWI. (There are arguments such as, "if we assume all parts of the wave function are real", but that makes an assumption. Superdeterminism deals with all evidence that the parts of the wave function that do not continue to exist after the measurement, which is otherwise taken to "prove" that there are other states that exist but then go away, and MWI is one way to explain this disappearance. For example, in MWI the entanglement of two particles is itself a physical object which instantly collapses - apparently defying light speed - upon measurement, whereas in superdeterminism the only thing that "collapses" is our knowledge space, not any physical thing; the particles had all along the properties they were eventually measured with - we just didn't and couldn't know until the measurement.) Does that make sense? >> And you wonder why I have called out trolling in this thread? > > For god's sake > Adrian > , for you everything is a personal insult! No, but when the replies to my points keep using logical fallacies and strawmen arguments, and putting words in my mouth, even after I point that out, it gets old fast. From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 23:44:53 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 17:44:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Zombie Detector (was Re:Do digital computers feel?) In-Reply-To: <34d7dfbf-1228-37cd-e4a5-af811548e28f@gmail.com> References: <34d7dfbf-1228-37cd-e4a5-af811548e28f@gmail.com> Message-ID: All of this is over my head because of lack of background. In my basic course of sensation and perception in psych grad school, I learned that when the optic nerves get to the cortex, there is a sensory area in which the basic qualities of the stimuli are experienced, presumably consciously. Then the sensory cortex nerves go to an adjacent area where further processing is done (a perception area), and the stimuli identified with words, perhaps, such as "That's the same shade of red as my canna flowers - maybe a Chinese red, a bit orangy)." , thus invoking memories of earlier experiences with that red. From there it can go anywhere depending on the person and his memories. I think that I disagree with John (unsure of that, a bit), in that if we are all looking at a red tomato, then I will assume that, lacking evidence of red-green color blindness in any of us, everyone is having similar sensory experiences, if not necessarily perceptual ones. If we cannot make assumptions like this, we might as well BE solipsists. As I am a strict materialist, all of this is happening in a brain/mind as a result of neural firings. I am reading all of these posts but not following very well, I am puzzled - how can one change the sensation of red to one of green without changing the wavelengths of the light or the neural hookups? I would need to know a whole lot more before I had any kind of theory of this. (I have not read that Wikipedia link yet, but will). If you have to go to any trouble at all to get me up to date on this, please don't! bill w On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > Hi William, > > > Yay, I must be at least a little better at communicating, after so long, > as you guys (and more of you) are starting to ask great questions. > > But, again, I must first ask you a question about what you mean by "the > perception part". As there are still multiple competing theories out about > what all perception includes, for which there hasn't yet been sufficient > evidence to falsify those theories for their supporters. I'll give you an > answer using my favorite "materialist" theory (happens to be the simplest > one that I know of), and how it will be verified or falsified via > demonstrable science using these effing of the ineffable techniques, and if > your theory is similar, my job will be done. If your theory is different, > I'll describe the much more complex way which the theory will be verified / > falsified by demonstrable science using this same correct qualitative > interpretation method. > > > We might as well start at the beginning of the perception process, for > completeness (and this will be required to see and prove what is the neural > correlate of redness in our brain). The perception of a strawberry starts > with the target of perception or the surface of the strawberry having a set > of physical qualities, (it's ability to reflect something like 650 NM > light) that we think of or interpret as being "red". There is the causally > downstream set of physical qualities which are very different from the set > of physical qualities the surface of the strawberry has. This is the 650 > NM light. Then, there is a translation mechanism (the retina) which > translate the physical qualities of the light into a different set of > physical qualities (the red and green signal traveling down your optic > nerve). Again, these are all very different physical qualities, we think > of, or interpret all of them as if they were "red". The correctly > functioning retina, is what correctly translates one different set of > physical qualities to the other, in a way that allows us to abstract away > from the particular different physical representations, and think of both > of them in a functionally optimized way: "We think of or interpret all them > all as if they were all red". Note: if you add something in this causal > perception Chanel, such as a fMRI camera and video sensing system such as > might be used to target and perceived the quality of knowledge inside our > brain, that also represents what we think of as "red" or at this point the > "redness" (which will be inverted for the duplicated person). All these > diverse representations also will all have very different sets of physical > qualities we only think of as if they were all the same "red". Every one > of these sets of physical representations we all think of as being "red" > (or abstracted different physical representations we all think of as ones > and zeros in the computer portion of the channel) require a correct > qualitative translation mechanism that translates from one physical set of > qualities, to the next different one, in a way that allows us to think of > all of them in a simplified way - as if they were all "red". > > So far, in our duplicated person, we haven't changed anything yet. And > this much of the causal "Perception Chanel" is identical. There is further > neural processing, such as that required to recognize the edges of the > strawberry in the 2 two D representations of the strawberry coming down our > optical nerve. And there is the part that converts these 2D images into 3D > voxel elements again representing the 3D strawberry with a completely > different set of physical qualities which are nothing like any of the up > channel physical qualities. Again, up until this point things remain > physically identical in our duplicated person. Now, after all this neural > processing, there is yet another final translation mechanism in the > perception Chanel which translates to yet another completely different set > of physical qualities. (Again, none of these physical qualities, including > the qualities of the surface of the strawberry are anything like each > other.) Where before the duplication, the translation mechanism would > translate to voxel knowledge of the surface of the strawberry having a > redness set of physical qualities we can experience, while in the duplicate > the final translation mechanism translates to physical knowledge that has a > set of physical qualities we experience as having a greenness quality. > So, how this particular theory will be proven correct, or falsified for > everyone in competing theory camps, is via the weak stronger and strongest > form of effing the ineffable I've been describing and also described in > this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 and via this > method finding whatever the particular neural correlates are of each of our > redness and greenness... conscious experiences. This is the "materialist" > theory that falsifiably predicts that without the right material, no > redness. Other theories include "functionalist" theories, and various > other "emergent" theories (what seems to be the current leading expert > consensus set of theories because of the fallacious neural substitution > argument), "quantum" theories, "relational" theories, "Higher order" > theories, neither world "spiritual" or various dualistic religious theories > such as Cartesian dualism (these are the naive most popular theories), even > elimanativests theories with no qualia at all, and lots more that are all > much more complex and problematic than this simple theory. One of these > theories is about to be proven true, while all the rest falsified, by > simply correctly interpreting the physical qualities representing what we > are detecting or "effing the ineffable". > > Is your theory of what the conscious "perception part" is anything like > this materialist one? Which theory do you all bet is going to soon turn > out to be "The One"? > > Brent Allsop > > > On 1/1/2017 10:04 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > For the most part, I don't belong in this discussion but I'd like to know > the meaning of > > "You completely swap the new persons redness knowledge with their > greenness knowledge." > > Are you talking about rewiring the optical sensory system or the > perception part? > > bill w > > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> Good question. Let me first ask you a question, then based on your >> answer, I will be able to better answer your questions. >> >> >> Let's say you duplicate a person, possibly with a Star Trek like >> transporter. Except you make one minor change. You completely swap the >> new persons redness knowledge with their greenness knowledge. I would say >> you have still successfully transported them, that you have achieved >> multiple-realizability and functionally they will be identical. But, the >> new person represents knowledge of strawberries with a greenness quality. >> Do these before and after people have "identical mental states"? >> >> Brent >> >> On 12/31/2016 4:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> Brent, >> >> Thank you, the video cleared it up for me then. So do you have no >> objection to multiple-realizability (the idea that different physical >> materials could in theory be used to construct minds that have identical >> mental states)? >> >> Jason >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Jason, >>> >>> I'm just talking in simplified qualitative terms to make communication >>> easier to model what is and isn't important. that is the only reason I >>> used the term grue to represent all the 99 million or whatever new colors >>> that any particular tetrachromat can experience (surely they are not all >>> the same). >>> >>> Also, when i say that glutamate has the redness quality and glycene has >>> the grenness quality, this too, is just simplified. I am describing what >>> it would be like in a hypothetical world that only has 3 colors - red >>> (glutamate), green(glycene), and white(aspartate). (see: >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4&t=30s) I simply describe >>> in that video that if there was such a world, how could the people in that >>> world correctly see that in their simplified world that glutamate was the >>> neural correlate of red (and not think it was white since glutamate >>> reflects white light). >>> >>> Then once a person can understand how this general correct qualitative >>> interpretation theory works in the simplified world, they can use the same >>> proper qualitative interpretation of abstracted data, in the real world - >>> to finally not be qualia blind and finally discover what really has all the >>> redness qualities any one of us can experience. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brent Allsop >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I, like most people, am a mere tetra chromate ? I experience the world >>>>> with 3 primary colors. But some people are tetrachromats, and do it >>>>> with 4 primary colors. Let?s call this 4th color ?grue?. Obviously, >>>>> all us tri chromats can hear the person say things like: ?No that is Grue, >>>>> not one of the primary colors, as you claim? and we can observe what is >>>>> causing the 4th primary color, including it?s neural correlate in >>>>> their brains. In other words, like Frank Jackson?s brilliant color >>>>> scientist raised in a black and what room, us trichromats can learn >>>>> everything about grue, and see that it is not in our heads, but we can see >>>>> when the neurarl correlate of grue is in the head of a tetrachromat. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In other words, all of us normal trichromatic people are grue zombies. >>>>> We can know and communicate everything about them. In fact, we might >>>>> even be able to be trained to call the right things grue, just like the >>>>> tetrachromat does, and lie about it, and convince everyone else that we >>>>> might be a tetrachromat. (until you observe my brain) So, until we >>>>> enhance our primary visual cortext and give it what has the grue color, we >>>>> will never know how the tetrachromat qualitatively interprets the word >>>>> ?grue?. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Now, some people think of a ?p-zombie? as something that is atomically >>>>> identical to us, but just doesn?t have the qualitative experience of >>>>> consciousness ? which of course is very absurd, and very different than the >>>>> grue type of zombie, I am, who simply isn?t yet capable of producing the >>>>> grue neural correlate in my brain. But I can represent grue with >>>>> anything else that is in my brain, and talk about it as if it was grue, in >>>>> a grue zombie way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> But no new neurotransmitters are required to experience grue. >>>> >>>> Moreover, tretrachromats don't just see 1 new type of color, they can >>>> see 99 million new colors that us trichromats cannot see. This is because >>>> we can sense about 100 independent relative brightnesses for red green and >>>> blue colors, which allows 100x100x100 possible resulting colors (1 million >>>> colors). Tetrachromats get to see 100x100x100x100 or 100 million colors. >>>> >>>> How can so many new colors come about if the neurocorolates are somehow >>>> dependent on specific chemicals in the brain? Tetrachromats don't have 100 >>>> times as many chemicals in their brain as trichromats have, yet they get to >>>> perceive 100 times as many qualia. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Jason Resch >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Reminds me a bit of "An Unfortunate Dualist": >>>>>> >>>>>> http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-23-unfortunate- >>>>>> dualist.html >>>>>> >>>>>> As to your puzzle, if Fred is unable to detect any effects from >>>>>> conscious people (including their reflections), then he should not be able >>>>>> to see his own reflection, but then he also shouldn't be able to hear his >>>>>> own thoughts either. Which might be your definition of a zombie, making him >>>>>> visible, etc. "Russell's reflection". However, Fred's own voice might still >>>>>> be heard if Fred's consciousness is an epiphenomenon, but I think >>>>>> practically speaking I think epiphenomenalism can be ruled out, together >>>>>> with the notion of p-zombies. >>>>>> >>>>>> See Daniel Dennett's "The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies": >>>>>> https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/unzombie.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> Dennett argues that "when philosophers claim that zombies are >>>>>> conceivable, they invariably underestimate the task of conception (or >>>>>> imagination), and end up imagining something that violates their own >>>>>> definition".[3] >>>>>> >>>>>> [4] >>>>>> He >>>>>> coined the term "zimboes" ? p-zombies that have second-order beliefs >>>>>> ? to argue that >>>>>> the idea of a p-zombie is incoherent;[12] >>>>>> "Zimboes >>>>>> thinkZ they are conscious, thinkZ they have qualia, thinkZ they >>>>>> suffer pains ? they are just 'wrong' (according to this lamentable >>>>>> tradition), in ways that neither they nor we could ever discover!". >>>>>> [4] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure, however, whether your thought experiment sheds any new >>>>>> light on the concepts of consciousness or zombies. It seems like it may be >>>>>> only a reformulation of the "Barber Paradox", where the self reflexivity is >>>>>> a "power to detect only non-consciousness things", aimed at one's own >>>>>> consciousness. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jason >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Stuart LaForge >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> appropriately programmed computer can perfectly emulate any of its >>>>>>> behaviors. Philosophers generally fall into one os three camps, on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> question of consciousness and the computational theory of mind: >>>>>>> Non-computable physicists [. . .]Weak AI proponents [. . .] >>>>>>> Computationalists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which camp do you consider yourself in?> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a general rule, I prefer not to go camping with philosophers as I >>>>>>> prefer the rigor of science and mathematics. But if I must camp in >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> neck of the woods, I would set up my own camp. I would call it the >>>>>>> Godelian camp after Kurt Godel. Since I am a scientist and not a >>>>>>> philosopher, I will explain my views with a thought experiment >>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>> an argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Imagine if you will a solipsist. Let's call him Fred. Fred is >>>>>>> solopsist >>>>>>> because he has every reason to believe he lives alone in a world of >>>>>>> P-zombies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the uninitiated, P-zombies are philosophical zombies. Horrid >>>>>>> beings >>>>>>> that talk, move, and act like normal folks but lack any real >>>>>>> consciousness >>>>>>> or self-awareness. They just go through the motions of being >>>>>>> conscious but >>>>>>> are not really so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So ever since Fred could remember, wherever he looked, all he could >>>>>>> see >>>>>>> were those pesky P-zombies. They were everywhere. He could talk to >>>>>>> them, >>>>>>> he could interact with them, and he even married one. And because >>>>>>> they all >>>>>>> act perfectly conscious, they would fool most anyone but certainly >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> Fred. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This was because Fred had, whether you would regard it as a gift or >>>>>>> curse, >>>>>>> an unusual ability. He could always see and otherwise sense >>>>>>> P-zombies but >>>>>>> never normal folk. Normal folk were always invisible to him and he >>>>>>> never >>>>>>> could sense a single one. So he, being a perfect P-zombie detector, >>>>>>> came >>>>>>> to believe that he was the only normal person on a planet populated >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> P-zombies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then one day by chance he happened to glance in a mirror . . . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does he see himself? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I want to hear what the list has to say about this before I give my >>>>>>> answer >>>>>>> and my interpretation of what this means for strong AI and the >>>>>>> computational theory of mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stuart LaForge >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing >> list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailm >> an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 00:36:30 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:36:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel was Re: Is the wave function real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 31 Dec. 2016, at 2:41 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On 30 December 2016 at 17:41, Rafal Smigrodzki < >> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Stathis Papaioannou < >>> stathisp at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Here's another way to look at it. Suppose your brain contained >>>> identical parallel circuits A and B, tied together at input and output, >>>> which could be switched on and off independently of each other. It would be >>>> difficult to do with biological tissue due to chaotic internal processes >>>> but more straightforward if you consider a digital implant. Obviously, if >>>> you switch A and B off together you will lose all the functionality of the >>>> circuitry. But if you switch off either A or B, you will notice no change. >>>> >>> >>> ### Let's say the A/B circuits run all the way from a simulation of your >>> spinal cord sensory areas, such as the substantia gelatinosa, all the way >>> to the frontal lobe cortical areas involved in attaching an affective >>> valence to sensory stimuli (cingulate cortex, DLPF and others). We simulate >>> the neural processes of you being slowly burned alive, separately in >>> circuit A and in circuit B, and route the identical output to the rest of >>> the brain. Obviously, the other parts of the brain, involved in e.g. >>> producing screams and generating a memory of pain, will not scream twice as >>> loud, or remember twice the pain. Yet, a process sufficient to produce the >>> experience of pain ran twice. Are you sure you know how much pain was >>> actually experienced by the system as a whole (A+B+ the rest of you)? >>> Please note that the observable results of the experiment (loud screaming) >>> would be the same no matter whether A/B are digital or analog. >>> >>> As I mentioned in the initial post, I do not know. My intuitions are >>> overtaxed by the problem. >>> >> >> If I tried either a 20% reduction in the painful stimulus I would be in >> slightly less pain and scream slightly less, while if circuit A were >> switched off I would feel I was in just as much pain and scream just the >> same. So if I had a choice, I would choose the 20% reduction. If you told >> me that I was deluded about my pain, and I was actually better off >> switching circuit A, I would probably use some bad words telling you what >> you could do with your advice. >> > > ### Obviously, other people's pain doesn't hurt much. I know that. The > discussion is not just about the pain you remember but about the sum total > of pain being experienced in the system under consideration. > > Rafal > > > But in your example *I* am the system under consideration. And as far as > I'm concerned, the duplicated neural circuits make no difference to the > pain I experience. Who rather than I, the experiencer, would be in a better > position to judge this? > ### Who is this "I" you are talking about? Remember, circuits A and B are a huge chunk of neural wetware, they contain all you need to feel pain (as far as we can tell from fMRI scans and other sources). If you remove both, what is left is a mind that can talk, see, hear and do math, among other things, but cannot feel or remember pain. The human mind is largely modular and from the existence of congenital analgesia we know you can have a more or less normal human who cannot feel physical pain. So again, a human mind with duplicated and independently running pain circuitry - he clearly will not say he feels double the pain, because the rest of him does not know that there are two pain circuits running, and the output of the circuits is not summed. But the question for us who know he has two pain circuits - does he as a whole feel twice the pain and just not know it? Does it hurt if you don't remember? Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 00:37:48 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > I mean that you did in fact assume MWI there, and I pointed out how. > ### No Adrian, I didn't and you didn't either. I think you know that, too. ---------------------------------- > > >> > >> A thing can have the potential to exist without actually existing. > >> The things that give rise to that potential can exist without the end > >> result coming into existence, and perform the necessary interference > >> themselves, getting rid of that potential through their interactions. > > > > ### So potentially existing but not really existing things are according > to > > you capable of interference with real things? > > Not directly. Rather, certain things X can potentially cause other > things Y, such that it is usually said that Y "exists" when it doesn't > yet, but X does exist, X is real, and X can cause interference. > > In this case, Y is the states themselves, and X is the conditions that > could lead to each of the multiple states. > ### So you actually say that unreal things can, "indirectly", impinge on real things. I rest my case. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 00:51:12 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:51:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > MW is falsifiable because QM is > > falsifiable. > > We were talking about the difference between MWI and superposition, > and that not being falsifiable. QM being falsifiable is irrelevant to > "MWI or superposition or something else". > ### A theory positing the existence of invisible unicorns causing always the precise outcomes predicted by QM to come out of experiments is not falsifiable. "Collapse" caused by conscious observation is also not falsifiable. Do you notice the analogy? Both are possible additions to QM one could make, and neither one should be made, because bare-bones QM does not need them to make correct predictions. And if the MW corollary of bare-bones QM clashes with your intuitions, well, too bad for intuitions. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 01:04:06 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 20:04:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > A variation on superdeterministic, as has been stated before, but I > shall repeat: what we measure was the truth all along, at least back > to when the last decision by a sentient entity that could affect the > outcome was made. ### Forgive me if it sounds like trolling, but are invisible unicorns sentient? What about bacteria? They do some information processing, so maybe they can collapse the wave function, at least a little bit? Trying to rebuild a basic and simple, logically consistent and experimentally predictive theory like QM to contain provisions for special influence by "sentience" is just laughable. If a theory predicts experiments without using undefined complicated magics ("sentience") tacked on to it, then you must leave the theory alone. If the multiplicity of universes under QM makes you uneasy, well, you can Shut-Up-And-Calculate, never allowing yourself to think about QM's corollaries but certainly don't try to add invisible fairies to QM and say it's still science. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 01:21:12 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 20:21:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > They are possible, but up until now, all known physical laws are > computable, > ### What about the three-body problem? ----------------------------- > which is why Penrose and Hameroff have to propose a speculative > undiscovered physics for their theory to rest upon. It is worth noting, > that what led Penrose to his belief that the brain does incomputable things > was his idea that halting problem does not apply to humans. Turning > discovered the Halting problem, which was the idea that no fixed computer > program can decide whether any other given program will complete or not. > But it would seem this limitation applies to humans as well. $1,000,000 was > offered to any person who could prove whether or not this simple program > ever finishes or not, the prize was never claimed: > > Step 1: Set X = 4 > Step 2: Set R = 0 > Step 3: For each Y from 1 to X. if both Y and (X - Y) are prime, set R = 1 > Step 4: If R = 1, Set X = X + 2 and go to Step 2 > Step 5: If R = 0, print X and halt > > Given that humans appear equally limited by the halting problem, the > entire motivation for Penrose and Hameroff to propose there exist > undiscovered physical laws that are incomputable evaporated. > ### I agree with you, and I do not say that human minds are beyond known physics. What I am driving at, is that digital simulations and analog computations are inherently different, and this can lead to surprises. No matter how precise the digital simulation, it will always diverge from the analog system. Multiple runs of digital simulations will always run exactly the same, while multiple analog neural networks, no matter how closely matched in the beginning, will always diverge. They may diverge in predictable ways, or they may exhibit predictable macroscopic behavior (outputting the letter A in my initial example) but they will definitely differ in their microstates. This is unmapped territory. There be dragons, or maybe mice, or perhaps nothing at all but we don't know which one yet. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 01:29:17 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 17:29:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> Rather, certain things X can potentially cause other >> things Y, such that it is usually said that Y "exists" when it doesn't >> yet, but X does exist, X is real, and X can cause interference. >> >> In this case, Y is the states themselves, and X is the conditions that >> could lead to each of the multiple states. > > ### So you actually say that unreal things can, "indirectly", impinge on > real things. No, I say that the things (which are real) that can cause other things (which are not yet real) can impinge on yet other things before the second things are real, even if it might be in cases where said second things are (incorrectly) said to be real already. You have once again attempted to twist my words. I could claim that you actually say that you want to rape babies and murder every religious believer. That doesn't make it true, but it is roughly as valid as your representation of what I said. From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 01:31:45 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 17:31:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > "Collapse" caused by conscious observation is also not > falsifiable. Do you notice the analogy? Both are possible additions to QM Only if you define QM to mean MWI... > the MW corollary of > bare-bones QM ...which you apparently have. There is no debate if you define your position to be true. From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 01:44:33 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:44:33 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel was Re: Is the wave function real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2 January 2017 at 11:36, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On 31 Dec. 2016, at 2:41 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 30 December 2016 at 17:41, Rafal Smigrodzki < >>> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Stathis Papaioannou < >>>> stathisp at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here's another way to look at it. Suppose your brain contained >>>>> identical parallel circuits A and B, tied together at input and output, >>>>> which could be switched on and off independently of each other. It would be >>>>> difficult to do with biological tissue due to chaotic internal processes >>>>> but more straightforward if you consider a digital implant. Obviously, if >>>>> you switch A and B off together you will lose all the functionality of the >>>>> circuitry. But if you switch off either A or B, you will notice no change. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ### Let's say the A/B circuits run all the way from a simulation of >>>> your spinal cord sensory areas, such as the substantia gelatinosa, all the >>>> way to the frontal lobe cortical areas involved in attaching an affective >>>> valence to sensory stimuli (cingulate cortex, DLPF and others). We simulate >>>> the neural processes of you being slowly burned alive, separately in >>>> circuit A and in circuit B, and route the identical output to the rest of >>>> the brain. Obviously, the other parts of the brain, involved in e.g. >>>> producing screams and generating a memory of pain, will not scream twice as >>>> loud, or remember twice the pain. Yet, a process sufficient to produce the >>>> experience of pain ran twice. Are you sure you know how much pain was >>>> actually experienced by the system as a whole (A+B+ the rest of you)? >>>> Please note that the observable results of the experiment (loud screaming) >>>> would be the same no matter whether A/B are digital or analog. >>>> >>>> As I mentioned in the initial post, I do not know. My intuitions are >>>> overtaxed by the problem. >>>> >>> >>> If I tried either a 20% reduction in the painful stimulus I would be in >>> slightly less pain and scream slightly less, while if circuit A were >>> switched off I would feel I was in just as much pain and scream just the >>> same. So if I had a choice, I would choose the 20% reduction. If you told >>> me that I was deluded about my pain, and I was actually better off >>> switching circuit A, I would probably use some bad words telling you what >>> you could do with your advice. >>> >> >> ### Obviously, other people's pain doesn't hurt much. I know that. The >> discussion is not just about the pain you remember but about the sum total >> of pain being experienced in the system under consideration. >> >> Rafal >> >> >> But in your example *I* am the system under consideration. And as far as >> I'm concerned, the duplicated neural circuits make no difference to the >> pain I experience. Who rather than I, the experiencer, would be in a better >> position to judge this? >> > > ### Who is this "I" you are talking about? Remember, circuits A and B are > a huge chunk of neural wetware, they contain all you need to feel pain (as > far as we can tell from fMRI scans and other sources). If you remove both, > what is left is a mind that can talk, see, hear and do math, among other > things, but cannot feel or remember pain. The human mind is largely modular > and from the existence of congenital analgesia we know you can have a more > or less normal human who cannot feel physical pain. > If my mind is due to activity in my brain, it is due to activity in the system as a whole. If components of the system are separated, as when the corpus callosum is divided, this may result in two separate systems and two separate minds. > So again, a human mind with duplicated and independently running pain > circuitry - he clearly will not say he feels double the pain, because the > rest of him does not know that there are two pain circuits running, and the > output of the circuits is not summed. But the question for us who know he > has two pain circuits - does he as a whole feel twice the pain and just not > know it? > I could claim that if you don't pray to God five times a day you will suffer terrible pain, but you won't know it. Would it worry you that I might be right? What possible difference to anyone would it make if I were right? > Does it hurt if you don't remember? > It's not a question of experiencing and then forgetting the pain, you are saying that it is possible to have the pain yet not notice it at all, which seems absurd. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 01:48:30 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 17:48:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> A variation on superdeterministic, as has been stated before, but I >> shall repeat: what we measure was the truth all along, at least back >> to when the last decision by a sentient entity that could affect the >> outcome was made. > > ### Forgive me if it sounds like trolling, but are invisible unicorns > sentient? What about bacteria? They do some information processing, so maybe > they can collapse the wave function, at least a little bit? In this part, I am not talking about collapse. I am talking about decisions and actions that happen well before the measurement (and resulting collapse of the knowledge space). And the only reason I am talking about that is because of the "free will" objection - which, as noted, is itself so poorly defined and immeasurable that the only reason to even acknowledge it is that it keeps coming up. If you want to strip that out, then it reduces to: what we measure was the truth since before the measurement. No real thing collapses; only the range of possibilities that we know it could be collapses, as most of them prove to be incompatible with the measurement. > If the multiplicity of universes under QM makes you uneasy, well, you can > Shut-Up-And-Calculate, never allowing yourself to think about QM's > corollaries but certainly don't try to add invisible fairies to QM and say > it's still science. Invisible fairies, invisible multiple worlds... If the possibility that this is all math and information - that the answers were there all along, we just hadn't found (and couldn't find) them until we measured, and there are no other universes that magically come into being just conveniently forever beyond our reach - makes you uneasy, you too can Shut-Up-And-Calculate. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 02:13:50 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:13:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < > rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jason Resch >> wrote: >> >>> >>> If infinities are relevant to mental states, they must be irrelevant to >>> any external behavior that can be tested in any way. This is because the >>> holographic principal places discrete and finite bounds on the amount of >>> information that can be stored in a an area of space of finite volume. Even >>> if there is infinite information in your head, no physical process >>> (including you) can access it. >>> >> >> ### Indeed, this is a valuable insight. But you could still have >> qualitative but inaccessible (to other observers) differences between the >> mental states realized on finite machines vs. ones implemented in >> (putatively) infinite physics. >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> > > What would be accessing this information and having these perceptions > then? It seems to me you would need some "raw perceiver" which itself is > divorced entirely from the physical universe. Can there be perceptions that > in theory can have no effect on behavior whatsoever? Not even in detectable > differences in neuronal behavior or positions of particles in the brain? > ### Yes, precisely. I, the analog-implemented copy of Rafal, have qualia and I say so but the almost perfectly copied Rafal digital P-zombie might have no qualia and yet say he does have qualia, and not even lie about it, being unable to perceive the absence or presence of qualia. If qualia are a correlate of information processing, without causal involvement in the process, then one could imagine pairs of objects that perform equivalent operations but differ in the presence of qualia. I am not saying that digital minds and analog minds definitely differ in their qualia. I am merely confused by the application of identity of indiscernibles to the question of counting the amount of subjective experience in multiple runs of the same digital simulation - is it one experience per run, or is it one experience for all possible runs of that simulation? It's a riddle, and I invite you to give me answers - as I said above, I am genuinely confused. ------------------------- > >> ### I have always considered myself a computationalist but recently >> thinking about the identity of indiscernibles as applied to finite >> mathematical objects simulating mental processes I became confused. I think >> I am still a computationalist but a mildly uneasy one. At least, if >> digitally simulated human minds are P-zombies, it won't hurt to be one, so >> I still intend to get uploaded ASAP. >> >> > What does your unease come from? Is it the uncertainty over whether or not > the brain is infinite or finite? I think even if it is finite there is > reason to be uneasy over uploading, the question of whether the functional > substitution captures the necessary level. The concept of a substitution > level is defined and explored in this paper: http://iridia.ulb.ac. > be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf > > ### I am uneasy because I imagine simple mathematical objects (i.e. things that can be computed and manipulated by finite digital computers) as existing in a part of the mathematical realm that is separate from our world. There is nothing breathing fire into the equations of that realm, and digital simulations are reducible to objects in that realm. Our realm, which I believe to be also a form of mathematics, differs in a way that I find difficult to describe but it does feel qualitatively different from what I could ascribe to mere digital objects. ----------------------- > I think the matter of the substitution level and the importance of it is > what Ned Block captured in his Blockhead thought experiment ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockhead_(computer_system) ), where his > brain was replaced with a lookup table. This can replicate external > behaviors, but it is an entirely different function from one that actually > implements his mind, and thus it may be a zombie or zombie-like. > > ### Even here we get into baffling issues. To generate that look up table you actually have to run googolplexes of minds through googolplexes of conversations and write down the bitstrings they generate. You can't avoid that - the "sensible" responses are only sensible because a mind does some thinking, so you have to have minds of some sort, digital or analog, that will go through all possible conversations to separate the sensible bitstrings from the googolplex to googolplex power stack of all possible bitstrings. In other words, to make the look up table you need to precompute all possible conversations. So, where do the conversation-related qualia occur? During the precomputation stage? Or during look-up? Or both? Or neither? I am pretty sure that if you make all possible physically existing humans and make them have all possible conversations, there will be a lot qualia happening in the precomputation stage, and none in the look-up stage. What qualia are generated by using digital simulations of all possible humans I don't know. As I mentioned above, I am confused. I am still a computationalist. I think digital simulations of appropriate quality should feel qualia, identity of indiscernibles be damned. But I am not sure. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Jan 2 02:21:18 2017 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 18:21:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Happy New Year! Message-ID: <1f044913ac8b2c775e2bb99a74d97391.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Good riddance 2016 and hello 2017. May the Weight be with us all. ;-) Stuart LaForge From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 02:28:08 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:28:08 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2 January 2017 at 12:21, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> They are possible, but up until now, all known physical laws are >> computable, >> > > ### What about the three-body problem? > It's not possible to solve this analytically, but it is possible to solve it numerically, or to simulate it on a computer. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 02:34:09 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:34:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:11 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < > rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> ?> ? >> there could be qualitative differences between digital simulations of >> brains and the inherently analog computations that occur in brains. >> > > ?Can you think of an example of a brain performing an analog computation, > or for that matter ANYTHING performing an analog calculation? I can't > because I can't think of anything that can be in an infinite number of > physically discernible states, and physics is needed for anything to > perform any calculation. ? > > > ?> ? >> ?t?here are non-computable mathematical problems, why can't you have >> non-computable physics > > > ?It's a bad idea to invoke new physics to explain a mystery ?unless there > is a very very *VERY* good reason, and in this case the new physics > wouldn't even solve a mystery. Why on earth would non-computable stuff be > more conscious than computable stuff? Most numbers on the Real number line > are non-computable and as a result do not and can not even have a name, > are they more self aware than a computable number like 1/3, the square root > of 2, PI, or e? And physics can provide answers to problems, but > non-computable "physics" can not by its very definition, so what's the > point of it? > > > ### I don't know. I really don't know. I weep quietly over my ignorance. I am devastated and discomfited by the abyss of my incomprehension. But riddle me that - if you run a good digital simulation of you being hit with a baseball bat a hundred times, exactly identically, does it feel pain a hundred times? Once? Never? Remember, the runs are mathematically indiscernible. It very well may be that identity of indiscernibles does not matter here. A mathematical object, a triangle, is not itself changed by rotation in some system of coordinates, but its relationships with that system are changed, so the rotated versions are no longer indiscernible within the system. Maybe what counts for qualia are the relationships of digital objects to their physical implementation, making each simulation run into a new object within the system of coordinates that is our world. Maybe that is the answer, and there is really no problem with zombies inhabiting digital computers. Dunno. I am working on an answer. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 02:41:31 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:41:31 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2 January 2017 at 13:34, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:11 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < >> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> ?> ? >>> there could be qualitative differences between digital simulations of >>> brains and the inherently analog computations that occur in brains. >>> >> >> ?Can you think of an example of a brain performing an analog >> computation, or for that matter ANYTHING performing an analog calculation? >> I can't because I can't think of anything that can be in an infinite number >> of physically discernible states, and physics is needed for anything to >> perform any calculation. ? >> >> >> ?> ? >>> ?t?here are non-computable mathematical problems, why can't you have >>> non-computable physics >> >> >> ?It's a bad idea to invoke new physics to explain a mystery ?unless >> there is a very very *VERY* good reason, and in this case the new >> physics wouldn't even solve a mystery. Why on earth would non-computable >> stuff be more conscious than computable stuff? Most numbers on the Real >> number line are non-computable and as a result do not and can not even >> have a name, are they more self aware than a computable number like 1/3, >> the square root of 2, PI, or e? And physics can provide answers to >> problems, but non-computable "physics" can not by its very definition, so >> what's the point of it? >> >> >> > > ### I don't know. I really don't know. I weep quietly over my ignorance. I > am devastated and discomfited by the abyss of my incomprehension. > > But riddle me that - if you run a good digital simulation of you being hit > with a baseball bat a hundred times, exactly identically, does it feel pain > a hundred times? Once? Never? Remember, the runs are mathematically > indiscernible. > > It very well may be that identity of indiscernibles does not matter here. > A mathematical object, a triangle, is not itself changed by rotation in > some system of coordinates, but its relationships with that system are > changed, so the rotated versions are no longer indiscernible within the > system. Maybe what counts for qualia are the relationships of digital > objects to their physical implementation, making each simulation run into a > new object within the system of coordinates that is our world. Maybe that > is the answer, and there is really no problem with zombies inhabiting > digital computers. > > Dunno. I am working on an answer. > I've said what I think happens if a digital simulation is repeated multiple times, but either way I don't understand why you think it makes any difference to the validity of computationalism. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 02:49:12 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:49:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Zombie Detector (was Re:Do digital computers feel?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I believe personal identity is something that falls on a spectrum, so you > can say there is a successful transport even if it is not 100% identical, > but of course this leads to the question of where do you draw the line. I > am not sure that such a line can be drawn. > ### The line will draw itself, once Star Trek transporters are commercialized. The people who want to save on tickets by reducing the fidelity of copying a tad too much will transport themselves out of the gene pool - either by becoming demented or by converging on being somebody else, if the transport company use some standard patches to fix gaps. The people who want perfect copies will not travel much because their tickets will be ruinously expensive. The myriads of distant planets will be populated mostly by the reasonable folks, who maintain just enough fidelity to stay stable enough to be still able to function roughly as they did before transport. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 02:54:29 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:54:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > "Collapse" caused by conscious observation is also not > > falsifiable. Do you notice the analogy? Both are possible additions to QM > > Only if you define QM to mean MWI... > > > the MW corollary of > > bare-bones QM > > ...which you apparently have. > > There is no debate if you define your position to be true. > ### There is no debate if you twist my words. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 02:55:10 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:55:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > No, I say that the things (which are real) that can cause other things > (which are not yet real) can impinge on yet other things before the > second things are real, even if it might be in cases where said second > things are (incorrectly) said to be real already. > ### Does anybody on the list understand what was said above? I sure as hell have no idea what Adrian means. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 02:59:57 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:59:57 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Zombie Detector (was Re:Do digital computers feel?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2 January 2017 at 13:49, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> I believe personal identity is something that falls on a spectrum, so you >> can say there is a successful transport even if it is not 100% identical, >> but of course this leads to the question of where do you draw the line. I >> am not sure that such a line can be drawn. >> > > ### The line will draw itself, once Star Trek transporters are > commercialized. The people who want to save on tickets by reducing the > fidelity of copying a tad too much will transport themselves out of the > gene pool - either by becoming demented or by converging on being somebody > else, if the transport company use some standard patches to fix gaps. The > people who want perfect copies will not travel much because their tickets > will be ruinously expensive. The myriads of distant planets will be > populated mostly by the reasonable folks, who maintain just enough fidelity > to stay stable enough to be still able to function roughly as they did > before transport. > Taking the train results in an imperfect copy at the other end, since your brain changes during the journey. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 03:13:45 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 22:13:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > If you want to strip that out, then it reduces to: what we measure was > the truth since before the measurement. No real thing collapses; only > the range of possibilities that we know it could be collapses, as most > of them prove to be incompatible with the measurement. > and: > If the possibility that this is all math and information - that the > answers were there all along, we just hadn't found (and couldn't find) > them until we measured, and there are no other universes that > magically come into being just conveniently forever beyond our reach - > makes you uneasy, you too can Shut-Up-And-Calculate. > ### Ah, so your thing is superdeterminism. Do you understand the informational complexity of a superdeterminist world? Every particle and interaction specified and pre-ordained from beginning to end, or maybe to infinity. An infinitude of information that had to exist outside of time to order and make all answers "be there all along". So what is the physical process which generated that infinite amount of information? It sure ain't QM. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 03:30:06 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 22:30:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel was Re: Is the wave function real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > >> So again, a human mind with duplicated and independently running pain >> circuitry - he clearly will not say he feels double the pain, because the >> rest of him does not know that there are two pain circuits running, and the >> output of the circuits is not summed. But the question for us who know he >> has two pain circuits - does he as a whole feel twice the pain and just not >> know it? >> > > I could claim that if you don't pray to God five times a day you will > suffer terrible pain, but you won't know it. Would it worry you that I > might be right? What possible difference to anyone would it make if I were > right? > ### I know having 1x pain processing circuitry makes me feel 1x pain, running the same circuitry 2x makes me feel 2x pain, so yes, I am well justified in asking whether having 2x circuitry in parallel produces also 2x pain (but only 1x memory of pain). I don't believe in god, so am not worried about any claims you make that depend on its existence. --------------------------------- > It's not a question of experiencing and then forgetting the pain, you are > saying that it is possible to have the pain yet not notice it at all, which > seems absurd. > ### By the construction of the thought experiment you proposed (circuits A and B running in parallel but converging at I/O) it is inevitable to have doubling of the pain processing neural activity *and* to never notice that doubling. Look back into what you proposed. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 03:33:48 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 22:33:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > I've said what I think happens if a digital simulation is repeated > multiple times, but either way I don't understand why you think it makes > any difference to the validity of computationalism > ### Sorry, I missed your answer to that question. Can you briefly recapitulate it? Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Jan 2 03:59:59 2017 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:59:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? Message-ID: <7602e004374aa37a2a76da71e2fc5466.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> ### I don't know. I really don't know. I weep quietly over my ignorance. I am devastated and discomfited by the abyss of my incomprehension. Rafal writes: The pain it feels is mathematically undecidable. Not because consciousness itself is non-computable but because the ability to discern or prove consciousness is. I pose a thought experiment in the Zombie Detector thread that conjectures this and I have almost figured out how to rigourously prove this. Rafal wrote: That could be an alternate mathematical approach to the result of my proof but that is not the way I am doing it. Instead, as Jason Resch pointed out in the Zombie Detector thread, I am using Russell's Paradox. He however did not see the implications thereof. Rendered in its simplest form, my argument postulates that conscious beings are beings that are self-aware. They are therefore, mathematically equivalent to sets that contain themselves. Zombies are the complement of the set of all conscious beings or in other words, the set of unconscious beings. They are the set of "sets that do not contain themselves" as per Russell's Paradox. Now lets say that you have an ideal generalized Turing test. It is generalized because its intent is not to figure out if the subject is human but instead to figure out if the subject is conscious by some infallible function or algorithm or set of questions to ask the subject or whatever because it doesn't matter for my proof. What matters is that the test is able to infallibly detect zombies. Then the immediate logical implication of this is that if the Turing test is applied to the tester utilizing the algorithm, then it is strictly undecidable whether or not the tester is himself conscious or not. That is to say that the being that applies the Turing test to himself will pass the Turing test if, and only if, he fails the Turing test. This is the very essense of all Russell paradoxes, of which there are an infinite number such as the Barber Paradox which is another example of the same paradox: It is strictly undecidable whether the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contains itself. Because it contains itself, if and only if, it doesn't contain itself. A contradiction and therefore an impossibility. Therefore a generalized infallible Turing test is a logical impossibility. Thus none of the Computationalists, Weak AI, or Non-computationalists have anything to base their arguments on, except for blind faith, and really all that matters is a being's ability to convince others of its consciousness, regardless of its true state of consciousness of which it is mathematically undecidable externally even if it is axiomatic from within. If Rafal's simacularum, caught in a pain loop, can convince somebody it is feeling pain 100 times, then that is literally ALL that matters because that is all that CAN matter. Stuart LaForge From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 04:33:43 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:33:43 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel was Re: Is the wave function real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On 2 Jan. 2017, at 2:30 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>> So again, a human mind with duplicated and independently running pain circuitry - he clearly will not say he feels double the pain, because the rest of him does not know that there are two pain circuits running, and the output of the circuits is not summed. But the question for us who know he has two pain circuits - does he as a whole feel twice the pain and just not know it? >> >> I could claim that if you don't pray to God five times a day you will suffer terrible pain, but you won't know it. Would it worry you that I might be right? What possible difference to anyone would it make if I were right? > > ### I know having 1x pain processing circuitry makes me feel 1x pain, running the same circuitry 2x makes me feel 2x pain, so yes, I am well justified in asking whether having 2x circuitry in parallel produces also 2x pain (but only 1x memory of pain). > > I don't believe in god, so am not worried about any claims you make that depend on its existence. > > --------------------------------- > >> >> It's not a question of experiencing and then forgetting the pain, you are saying that it is possible to have the pain yet not notice it at all, which seems absurd. > > > ### By the construction of the thought experiment you proposed (circuits A and B running in parallel but converging at I/O) it is inevitable to have doubling of the pain processing neural activity *and* to never notice that doubling. Look back into what you proposed. There's a doubling of the pain processing circuitry but no change in the experience - that is the whole point I was trying to make. A change in an experience that is impossible to notice is, by definition, not a change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 04:38:02 2017 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 22:38:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> They are possible, but up until now, all known physical laws are >> computable, >> > > ### What about the three-body problem? > There are solutions to this, no? http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/03/physicists-discover-whopping-13-new-solutions-three-body-problem > > ----------------------------- > > >> which is why Penrose and Hameroff have to propose a speculative >> undiscovered physics for their theory to rest upon. It is worth noting, >> that what led Penrose to his belief that the brain does incomputable things >> was his idea that halting problem does not apply to humans. Turning >> discovered the Halting problem, which was the idea that no fixed computer >> program can decide whether any other given program will complete or not. >> But it would seem this limitation applies to humans as well. $1,000,000 was >> offered to any person who could prove whether or not this simple program >> ever finishes or not, the prize was never claimed: >> >> Step 1: Set X = 4 >> Step 2: Set R = 0 >> Step 3: For each Y from 1 to X. if both Y and (X - Y) are prime, set R = 1 >> Step 4: If R = 1, Set X = X + 2 and go to Step 2 >> Step 5: If R = 0, print X and halt >> >> Given that humans appear equally limited by the halting problem, the >> entire motivation for Penrose and Hameroff to propose there exist >> undiscovered physical laws that are incomputable evaporated. >> > > ### I agree with you, and I do not say that human minds are beyond known > physics. What I am driving at, is that digital simulations and analog > computations are inherently different, and this can lead to surprises. No > matter how precise the digital simulation, it will always diverge from the > analog system. > True. Is it important though? > Multiple runs of digital simulations will always run exactly the same, > while multiple analog neural networks, no matter how closely matched in the > beginning, will always diverge. They may diverge in predictable ways, or > they may exhibit predictable macroscopic behavior (outputting the letter A > in my initial example) but they will definitely differ in their microstates. > > This is unmapped territory. There be dragons, or maybe mice, or perhaps > nothing at all but we don't know which one yet. > Indeed. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 04:53:47 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:53:47 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: > On 2 Jan. 2017, at 2:33 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> I've said what I think happens if a digital simulation is repeated multiple times, but either way I don't understand why you think it makes any difference to the validity of computationalism > > ### Sorry, I missed your answer to that question. Can you briefly recapitulate it? I think if there is an exact duplication of a mental state it counts as only one mental state, which I tried to show with the example of parallel circuitry - if it is impossible to tell that there is a subjective difference, then there is no subjective difference. But in your original post on this you suggested that you thought that the ability to duplicate computations might be a mark against computationalism if exact duplication were impossible in biological brains due to continuum physics. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 05:25:07 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:25:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Every particle and interaction specified and pre-ordained from beginning to > end, or maybe to infinity. An infinitude of information that had to exist > outside of time to order and make all answers "be there all along". Unless you add back in that free will caveat, which means some information can come along later. (People keep insisting that there are entities in our universe that have "free will" - said entities including themselves - and while free will is not clearly defined, apparently one of the properties of free will is that it can be the original source of certain types of information. There may be other original causes too - such as for the fine details of some planet that no entity with free will has yet traveled to the galaxy of within the history of our universe - but this means a nonzero amount of information was generated after our universe began.) > So what is the physical process which generated that infinite amount of > information? We have no data on the universe prior to the Big Bang. For all we know, there could have been more prior universes than there are atoms in our observable universe, giving that much more time for things to come to be as we see them now. But such speculation is pointless: we have no data on where these initial conditions came from, one way or another. What you're asking about here is outside the realm of what can be measured and proven, so it can not be used to prove or disprove superposition or MWI. From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 05:26:25 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:26:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Happy New Year! In-Reply-To: <1f044913ac8b2c775e2bb99a74d97391.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <1f044913ac8b2c775e2bb99a74d97391.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > Good riddance 2016 and hello 2017. Hear, hear! From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 16:19:57 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 11:19:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > >> > ? >> I know you don't like >> ? >> Manny Worlds but it's not even clear to me just what your prefered >> quantum >> ? >> interpretation is. Copenhagen? Pilot Wave? Transactional? >> ? >> Super-Deterministic? Shut up And Calculate? > > > ?> ? > A variation on superdeterministic, The trouble I have with that is explanations are supposed to show how simplicity produces complexity, ? ? but ? ? superdeterminism ? ? explains the complex and weird things ? ? we see ? ? today by saying 13.8 billion years ago things were even more complex ?,? ? and I don't see how that helps. It says ?a toms were arranged ?back then ? so they would evolve ?into? ? human scientists ? ? that ? ? would perform certain experiments ?,? and atoms would ? ? also ? ? conspire to give ? those scientists ? ? misleading ? ? results. There are an astronomical number to an astronomical power number of states the universe could have been in 13.8 billion years ago, but it just happened to be in the one and only state that would cause a grand conspiracy to fool us. Superdeterminism would mean giving up, there would be no point i ?n? doing science because the universe is determined ? (or superdetermined)? to make us ask the wrong questions and determined to give us the wrong answers. ? ? I can't prove the ? ? universe isn't lying to us, and that is exactly the problem. If Turing complete quantum computers can be built, and it's starting to look like that might be possible, then experiments could be performed ? ? that might prove Many Worlds to be wrong, but ? ? by its very definition ? ? I can never prove superdeterminism ? ? to be wrong regardless of what marvelous instruments I have at my disposal. > ?> ? > As you have noted repeatedly, "free will" needs definition. I agree > ? ? > that "but it violates free will" is not a scientific objection. > I ? ? would go further, the violation of free will is not even a unscientific objection, it's just a sequence of ASCII characters. ? ? However a philosophy that would mean the end of science is a scientific objection. A scientist who believed in superdeterminism is a contradiction in terms, there would be no point in performing experiments because it will not give you even ? ? a ?n? approximation of the truth, it will only give you whatever bullshit cock and bull story the universe decided to tell us. I don't know of any working scientist who actually believes in superdeterminism. It was John Bell himself who first talked about superdeterminism ? and how it was a loophole in his inequality, the only one that hasn't been filled by experiment and by its definition will never be filled, but even the inventor of the idea called it "implausible". ? All the scientists I've heard discussing superdeterminism do so as a hypothetical talking point not a serious proposal, rather like the idea that God really did create the world in 4004 BC and put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith, or the entire universe was created just 5 minutes ago complete with ?memories of us as children. ?There are an infinite number of ideas like that and none can be proven wrong, but life is too short to worry about them > ?> ? > With all objections about free will answered and set aside, there does > ? ? > not seem to be any measurable difference between superdeterminism and > ? ? > MWI. ?One assumes the universe is subtle but not malicious, the other assumes the universe is lying through its teeth. One concludes science is worth doing the other concludes it is not. One could be disproved with a Turing complete quantum computer and the other could never be disproven regardless of what you had in the lab. ?> ? > (There are arguments such as, "if we assume all parts of the wave > ? ? > function are real", but that makes an assumption. ?If some parts are real and some parts are not then an explanation is needed to explain the ?differentiation, if all parts are real no explanation is needed. If all parts are real would we expect any one observer to be able to see it all? No. > ?> ? > in MWI > ? > the entanglement of two particles is itself a physical object which > instantly collapses ? Yes but in the MWI the rules are crystal clear about when things split and when things merge back together. And In MWI ? ? everything that can happen does happen, so when a photon approaches 2 slits the universe splits and one ?photon ? goes through the right slit and one goes through the left slit. If after that the photons hit a photographic plate (or a brick wall) ?then ? the photons no longer exist in either universe and so they merge back together into one ?universe ? and this merger causes the interference lines. If instead after passing the slits there is no photographic plate (or brick wall) and the photons are allowed to continue on into infinite space then the 2 universes remain different and remain separated forever. > ?> ? > apparently defying light speed > ?Einstein's General Theory doesn't say nothing can move faster than light, it only says that matter energy and information can't, and whatever quantum influences are it's clear they are not matter energy or information. Also although Einstein says matter can not move through space faster than light, space itself can expand or contract or bend at any speed. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 16:59:15 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 11:59:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: Jason Resch wrote: > > ?>?> >> up until now, all known physical laws are computable, >> > > ?>? > What about the three-body problem? > ? The three body problem is computable, I can't give an exact answer but tell me an error circle with a nonzero radius and I'll be able to place any one of those 3 planets within it at any time in the future, although it might take a lot of computation. PI is also computable, tell me whatever finite number of digits you want and I can compute them. But a non-computable number is not like that, it can't even be approximated so there is no way to give a specific one a name. Virtually all the numbers on the Real Number Line are non-computable, if you stuck a infinitely sharp needle at random ?in the Real Number line there is a 100% chance it will hit a ? ? non-computable ? ? number and a 0% chance it will hit a computable one even though there are a ? infinite number of computable numbers. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 18:01:36 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:01:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ?>? > But riddle me that - if you run a good digital simulation of you being hit > with a baseball bat a hundred times, exactly identically, does it feel pain > a hundred times? Once? Never? > ? ? > ?Once would be no different than a hundred times. ?> ? > Remember, the runs are mathematically indiscernible. ?Then that can only mean neither the subject nor the experimenter can tell if the experiment has been run once twice a hundred times or a trillion times. If objectively it makes no difference and subjectively it makes no difference I must conclude that it just makes no difference. ? ?> ? > ### I am uneasy because I imagine simple mathematical objects (i.e. things > that can be computed and manipulated by finite digital computers) as > existing in a part of the mathematical realm that is separate from our > world. There is nothing breathing fire into the equations of that realm, > and digital simulations are reducible to objects in that realm. ?Mathematics all by itself can not even calculate 2+2, if it could INTEL would be bankrupt. To make any calculation you need matter that obeys the laws of physics. Mathematicians keep saying mathematics is a language and I think we should take what they say seriously. Mathematics seems to be the best language for describing physics, but language is not the thing. The English word "dog" is not a 4 legged mammal, it's a word for a 4 legged mammal. ? Also, ?if ?m athematics ?is a language then ? like any language ?it should be able to? describe fictional as well as non-fictional worlds ?, perhaps much of modern very abstract mathematics is like a mathematical Harry Potter novel. The mathematical language could also pose open questions about ?such worlds? , such as "is the continuum hypothesis true?". The equivalent in English would be "what color were Harry Potter's maternal grandfather's ? ? eyes?". ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 18:09:14 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:09:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Always good to see, even if I hope "psi" is real. Would you mind actually defining "psi" though? As it stands you're making an extremely nebulous claim. In Ancient Greece, if you told someone that information moving about in you brain works on the same principle as lightning (or some such) then they'd look at you like you were crazy (or honestly probably not because they were much more open-minded than modern Western scientists) but just to make a point yeah. Honestly I feel like you've defined psi as 'That which will not be verified in a reputable scientific journal'--which is a pretty weak argument then. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 18:11:13 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:11:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not even trying to be the advocate for unscientific mumbo-jumbo, just for falsifiable, not tautological hypotheses! :) Happy New Year! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 18:47:57 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 10:47:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:19 AM, John Clark wrote: > Superdeterminism would mean giving up, there would be no point i > n > doing science because the universe is determined > (or superdetermined) > to make us ask the wrong questions Unless we had free will, so that we could choose what questions we ask without being predestined since the beginning of time to ask those specific questions. Like it or not, your objection boils down to "but free will". This is why I have that caveat. >> (There are arguments such as, "if we assume all parts of the wave >> function are real", but that makes an assumption. > > If some parts are real and some parts are not then an explanation is needed > to explain the differentiation The explanation is that the wave function represents our knowledge of the thing - of the probabilities for what state it could have given what has been observed - rather than the actual thing. Those parts that correspond to what it actually is can be said to be real, though that may be slightly inaccurate depending on what version of "real" is being used. From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 19:40:08 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:40:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Honestly I feel like you've defined psi as 'That which will not be verified in a reputable scientific journal'--which is a pretty weak argument then. will How does one go about defining something that, as yet, cannot be said to exist? Answer: any way you want to. One can say that if it were to be found and measured, then it would have these characteristics..................., but you might as well specify what angel wings are made of. How did this stupid concept even get into hard scientists' discussions? As a foil, I suppose. What can we do with journals that refuse to publish negative results? Isn't that a total giveaway? I hope that none of you believe that any reputable psychologist would touch this concept except as a very bad example of what some yoyos think psychology is about. Definition of a second (I am in my 4th!) marriage: the triumph of hope over experience. Could well be the best commentary on psi available. bill w On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > Not even trying to be the advocate for unscientific mumbo-jumbo, just for > falsifiable, not tautological hypotheses! :) Happy New Year! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 20:02:20 2017 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:02:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Jason Resch > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < >> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> If infinities are relevant to mental states, they must be irrelevant to >>>> any external behavior that can be tested in any way. This is because the >>>> holographic principal places discrete and finite bounds on the amount of >>>> information that can be stored in a an area of space of finite volume. Even >>>> if there is infinite information in your head, no physical process >>>> (including you) can access it. >>>> >>> >>> ### Indeed, this is a valuable insight. But you could still have >>> qualitative but inaccessible (to other observers) differences between the >>> mental states realized on finite machines vs. ones implemented in >>> (putatively) infinite physics. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> What would be accessing this information and having these perceptions >> then? It seems to me you would need some "raw perceiver" which itself is >> divorced entirely from the physical universe. Can there be perceptions that >> in theory can have no effect on behavior whatsoever? Not even in detectable >> differences in neuronal behavior or positions of particles in the brain? >> > > ### Yes, precisely. I, the analog-implemented copy of Rafal, have qualia > and I say so but the almost perfectly copied Rafal digital P-zombie might > have no qualia and yet say he does have qualia, and not even lie about it, > being unable to perceive the absence or presence of qualia. If qualia are a > correlate of information processing, without causal involvement in the > process, then one could imagine pairs of objects that perform equivalent > operations but differ in the presence of qualia. > > I am not saying that digital minds and analog minds definitely differ in > their qualia. I am merely confused by the application of identity of > indiscernibles to the question of counting the amount of subjective > experience in multiple runs of the same digital simulation - is it one > experience per run, or is it one experience for all possible runs of that > simulation? > Which would you prefer to happen: 1. You are tortured for a day 2. You are tortured for a day, then your memories of that day are wiped, and you are tortured again for a second whole day There is the concept of "measure " which I think is applicable to minds. While a second duplicate instance of a mind is the same mind, the more of them there are, the greater the fraction of the share of experiences that mind represents. If this were not the case, there would be no point in doing anything, assuming all minds exist, all experiences would be equally likely. However, it still makes sense to try and work to maintain and improve one's life, to get out of bed in the morning, to eat rather than starve, because in doing so we shift the fraction of pleasant : painful experience ratio towards more pleasant ones. > > It's a riddle, and I invite you to give me answers - as I said above, I am > genuinely confused. > ------------------------- > >> >>> ### I have always considered myself a computationalist but recently >>> thinking about the identity of indiscernibles as applied to finite >>> mathematical objects simulating mental processes I became confused. I think >>> I am still a computationalist but a mildly uneasy one. At least, if >>> digitally simulated human minds are P-zombies, it won't hurt to be one, so >>> I still intend to get uploaded ASAP. >>> >>> >> What does your unease come from? Is it the uncertainty over whether or >> not the brain is infinite or finite? I think even if it is finite there is >> reason to be uneasy over uploading, the question of whether the functional >> substitution captures the necessary level. The concept of a substitution >> level is defined and explored in this paper: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be >> /~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf >> >> > ### I am uneasy because I imagine simple mathematical objects (i.e. things > that can be computed and manipulated by finite digital computers) as > existing in a part of the mathematical realm that is separate from our > world. There is nothing breathing fire into the equations of that realm, > and digital simulations are reducible to objects in that realm. Our realm, > which I believe to be also a form of mathematics, differs in a way that I > find difficult to describe but it does feel qualitatively different from > what I could ascribe to mere digital objects. > This is explained in that document, the appearance of greater infinities, continuums, real numbers, is a consequence of the Universal Dovetailer performing all digital computations. Conscious experience of apparent infinities in the physical world falls out of the infinities of computations going through your current mind-state. > > ----------------------- > > >> I think the matter of the substitution level and the importance of it is >> what Ned Block captured in his Blockhead thought experiment ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockhead_(computer_system) ), where his >> brain was replaced with a lookup table. This can replicate external >> behaviors, but it is an entirely different function from one that actually >> implements his mind, and thus it may be a zombie or zombie-like. >> >> > ### Even here we get into baffling issues. To generate that look up table > you actually have to run googolplexes of minds through googolplexes of > conversations and write down the bitstrings they generate. You can't avoid > that - the "sensible" responses are only sensible because a mind does some > thinking, so you have to have minds of some sort, digital or analog, that > will go through all possible conversations to separate the sensible > bitstrings from the googolplex to googolplex power stack of all possible > bitstrings. In other words, to make the look up table you need to > precompute all possible conversations. > True. > > So, where do the conversation-related qualia occur? During the > precomputation stage? Or during look-up? Or both? Or neither? > > I am pretty sure that if you make all possible physically existing humans > and make them have all possible conversations, there will be a lot qualia > happening in the precomputation stage, and none in the look-up stage. What > qualia are generated by using digital simulations of all possible humans I > don't know. As I mentioned above, I am confused. > > I am still a computationalist. I think digital simulations of appropriate > quality should feel qualia, identity of indiscernibles be damned. But I am > not sure. > > You might appreciate this paper, it discusses tokens vs types in terms of conscious minds: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233329805_One_Self_The_Logic_of_Experience Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 21:16:37 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 16:16:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: John Clark wrote: > > >> ?>? >> Superdeterminism would mean giving up, there would be no point in >> ? >> doing science because the universe is determined >> ? >> (or superdetermined) >> ? >> to make us ask the wrong questions > > > ?> ? > Unless we had free will, ?What's that?? ?> ? so that we could choose what questions we ask ? without being predestined since the beginning of time to ask those ? specific questions. ?Then it's not superdeterminism or anything close to it.? > ?>? > Like it or not, your objection boils down to "but free will". ?So everything is superdetermined ?except, for some unspecified reason, us. We do thing by "choice" and that means not doing things for a reason because that would be determined and not doing things for no reason because that would be random. Unlike everything else our actions are not determined and also not not determined. Huh? > >> ?>? >> If some parts are real and some parts are not then an explanation is >> needed >> ? >> to explain the differentiation > > > ?> ? > The explanation is that the wave function represents our knowledge of > the thing - of the probabilities for what state it could have given > what has been observed - rather than the actual thing. ?The wave function can't even give us probabilities, only the square of the absolute value of the wave function can do that. So that means 2 very different wave functions ? ?can produce the exact same probability of finding a particle at a point.? So if you measure a particle at a point you know where it is but you still don't know what its wave function was at that point, so you don't know what the wave would have evolved into at some other point if you had not measured it and collapsed the wave. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 21:49:02 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:49:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:16 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> John Clark wrote: >>> Superdeterminism would mean giving up, there would be no point in >>> doing science because the universe is determined >>> (or superdetermined) >>> to make us ask the wrong questions >> >> Unless we had free will, > > What's that? As previously noted, the definition is incomplete, but it includes something that lets us, somehow, freely determine which questions we wish to ask. >> so that we could choose what questions we ask >> without being predestined since the beginning of time to ask those >> specific questions. > > Then it's not superdeterminism or anything close to it. I would quibble about "or anything close to it", but - fine, then the point of view I am proposing is not strictly what you call superdeterminism. Perhaps you would not say my point of view does not strictly align with any specific noun you care to label it with. What you define things as is ultimately your call; it does not modify what I am saying. > So everything is superdetermined except, for some unspecified reason, us. We > do thing by "choice" and that means not doing things for a reason because > that would be determined and not doing things for no reason because that > would be random. Unlike everything else our actions are not determined and > also not not determined. Huh? Welcome to trying to pin down free will. And yet, so many people insist that there must absolutely be something like this, even in MWI (why did we choose to observe, and thus fracture the universe, at this moment rather than that moment), based on no measurable evidence. From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 21:54:26 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 08:54:26 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: > On 3 Jan. 2017, at 5:47 am, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:19 AM, John Clark wrote: >> Superdeterminism would mean giving up, there would be no point i >> n >> doing science because the universe is determined >> (or superdetermined) >> to make us ask the wrong questions > > Unless we had free will, so that we could choose what questions we ask > without being predestined since the beginning of time to ask those > specific questions. Like it or not, your objection boils down to "but > free will". > > This is why I have that caveat. It seems that you are using "free will" synonymously with "random". From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 22:05:46 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 17:05:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 Will Steinberg wrote: ?> ? > Always good to see, even if I hope "psi" is real. > ?Yeah it would be fun if it were real, but it's not and it's time to move on.? ?> ? > Would you mind actually defining "psi" though? > ?The belief that good experimental evidence exists that the human mind has abilities, like remote viewing mind reading and talking to the dead, that can not be explained or are in contradiction of the current laws of physics and for some bizarre reason never made clear all major scientific publications have flat out refused to publish any of this good experimental evidence for centuries. ? ?> ? > In Ancient Greece, if you told someone that information moving about in > you brain works on the same principle as lightning (or some such) then > they'd look at you like you were crazy > ?But they wouldn't look at you like you were crazy if you just said people can think. I not asking for an explanation of how psi works, that would be asking too much, all I want is some hint that the damn phenomena exists. And I see none. ? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 22:27:31 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 17:27:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: ?> ? > even in MWI > ? > (why did we choose to observe, and thus fracture the universe, at this > ? > moment rather than that moment) ? We? Mr.We chose this moment AND that moment AND ever other moment that can be chosen. And in every one of them Mr.We says to himself well "I" guess "I" chose this one moment and no other. As mentioned before in discussions of this sort personal pronouns can be treacherous. John K Clark ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 01:07:29 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 17:07:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bell's Inequality In-Reply-To: References: <53ef6d4522071ef24ff5f3e0c351c858.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > It seems that you are using "free will" synonymously with "random". What is the difference between free will and randomness? There is apparently one, but how would you distinguish the two? Likewise, what is the difference between free will and everything being set up in advance, where even if it seems as if you chose at the moment to do something, your brain was already wired so it would only make that choice at that moment given that stimuli and history? From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 04:07:49 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 23:07:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fair. I thought you were disagreeing with a wider range of concepts. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out two brains in close proximity are able to interact with each other in a certain manner which is replicable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 20:49:46 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 14:49:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss Message-ID: http://qz.com/875491/japanese-white-collar-workers-are-already-being-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 21:08:10 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 15:08:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai for beginners like me - good graphics, bad language! Message-ID: http://qz.com/875491/japanese-white-collar-workers-are-already-being-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 03:45:41 2017 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 21:45:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel was Re: Is the wave function real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On 31 Dec. 2016, at 2:41 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 30 December 2016 at 17:41, Rafal Smigrodzki < >>> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Stathis Papaioannou < >>>> stathisp at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here's another way to look at it. Suppose your brain contained >>>>> identical parallel circuits A and B, tied together at input and output, >>>>> which could be switched on and off independently of each other. It would be >>>>> difficult to do with biological tissue due to chaotic internal processes >>>>> but more straightforward if you consider a digital implant. Obviously, if >>>>> you switch A and B off together you will lose all the functionality of the >>>>> circuitry. But if you switch off either A or B, you will notice no change. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ### Let's say the A/B circuits run all the way from a simulation of >>>> your spinal cord sensory areas, such as the substantia gelatinosa, all the >>>> way to the frontal lobe cortical areas involved in attaching an affective >>>> valence to sensory stimuli (cingulate cortex, DLPF and others). We simulate >>>> the neural processes of you being slowly burned alive, separately in >>>> circuit A and in circuit B, and route the identical output to the rest of >>>> the brain. Obviously, the other parts of the brain, involved in e.g. >>>> producing screams and generating a memory of pain, will not scream twice as >>>> loud, or remember twice the pain. Yet, a process sufficient to produce the >>>> experience of pain ran twice. Are you sure you know how much pain was >>>> actually experienced by the system as a whole (A+B+ the rest of you)? >>>> Please note that the observable results of the experiment (loud screaming) >>>> would be the same no matter whether A/B are digital or analog. >>>> >>>> As I mentioned in the initial post, I do not know. My intuitions are >>>> overtaxed by the problem. >>>> >>> >>> If I tried either a 20% reduction in the painful stimulus I would be in >>> slightly less pain and scream slightly less, while if circuit A were >>> switched off I would feel I was in just as much pain and scream just the >>> same. So if I had a choice, I would choose the 20% reduction. If you told >>> me that I was deluded about my pain, and I was actually better off >>> switching circuit A, I would probably use some bad words telling you what >>> you could do with your advice. >>> >> >> ### Obviously, other people's pain doesn't hurt much. I know that. The >> discussion is not just about the pain you remember but about the sum total >> of pain being experienced in the system under consideration. >> >> Rafal >> >> >> But in your example *I* am the system under consideration. And as far as >> I'm concerned, the duplicated neural circuits make no difference to the >> pain I experience. Who rather than I, the experiencer, would be in a better >> position to judge this? >> > > ### Who is this "I" you are talking about? Remember, circuits A and B are > a huge chunk of neural wetware, they contain all you need to feel pain (as > far as we can tell from fMRI scans and other sources). If you remove both, > what is left is a mind that can talk, see, hear and do math, among other > things, but cannot feel or remember pain. The human mind is largely modular > and from the existence of congenital analgesia we know you can have a more > or less normal human who cannot feel physical pain. > > So again, a human mind with duplicated and independently running pain > circuitry - he clearly will not say he feels double the pain, because the > rest of him does not know that there are two pain circuits running, and the > output of the circuits is not summed. But the question for us who know he > has two pain circuits - does he as a whole feel twice the pain and just not > know it? > > Does it hurt if you don't remember? > Something enjoyed the 11th bite of the breakfast Rafal ate 89 days ago. Was that something you, if you don't remember it? I don't think memories have any bearing on the validity of past experiences. If the block time view of time is correct, then humanity (if we survive) 500 years from now could look back at this moment, and conclude that because we are all dead in their time frame, our experiences don't matter. But their opinion is of no relevance to the we who inhabit and experience this moment. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 16:21:23 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 16:21:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Device Converts Heat into Electricity Message-ID: The researchers who developed the use of a quantum mechanical effect to convert heat into electricity have developed a way to apply their technique into a form that can be used in industry. Quote: Electrical and mechanical devices, including car engines, produce heat called waste heat as a byproduct of their normal operation and the research team was able to capture the waste heat inside specially designed materials to generate power and increase overall energy efficiency. ?Over half of the energy we use is wasted and enters the atmosphere as heat,? Boona said in a statement ?Solid-state thermoelectrics can help us recover some of that energy. -------- It is early days in this research, but this is the type of device I have been watching for. The idea that computronium satellites will be blasting waste heat out into space seems really, really wasteful for a post-singularity civilisation. Surely 'waste' heat can be used! BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 17:32:07 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:32:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:49 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: http://qz.com/875491/japanese-white-collar-workers-are- > already-being-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence/?utm_ > source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits > ?We can expect to see more and more of this sort of thing in the immediate future, and job loss won't be limited just to unskilled workers, it will effect everyone. The gap between rich and poor is HUGE and it's increasing. In 2010 the richest 388 people had as much wealth as half of the entire human race, that's 3.6 Billion people. In 2014 the richest 85 people did. Last year the richest 62 people did. The improvements in AI that are certain to come will only accelerate the acceleration of this socially destabilizing trend unless something pushes back, something like government action. Donald Trump wants to push for lowering taxes on the rich, getting rid of the inheritance tax, and eliminating health care for the poor, but that's pushing in the wrong direction and will only accelerate the acceleration of the acceleration of the wealth gap. One way or another this trend will NOT continue, if government action doesn't slow down the widening of the gap something far far more unpleasant will. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 18:26:53 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:26:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Device Converts Heat into Electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2017 8:23 AM, "BillK" wrote: The researchers who developed the use of a quantum mechanical effect to convert heat into electricity have developed a way to apply their technique into a form that can be used in industry. Capturing radiated heat has been done for a long time: look up the Carnot Cycle for a theoretical maximum efficiency. Perhaps this might be a more efficient and practical way to approach that limit in practice, though. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 14:29:29 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:29:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:49 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: http://qz.com/875491/japanese-white-collar-workers-are- > already-being-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence/?utm_ > source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits > We can expect to see more and more of this sort of thing in the immediate future, and job loss won't be limited just to unskilled workers, it will effect everyone. The gap between rich and poor is HUGE and it's increasing. In 2010 the richest 388 people had as much wealth as half of the entire human race, that's 3.6 Billion people. In 2014 the richest 85 people did. Last year the richest 62 people did. The improvements in AI that are certain to come will only accelerate the acceleration of this socially destabilizing trend unless something pushes back, something like government action. Donald Trump wants to push for lowering taxes on the rich, getting rid of the inheritance tax, and eliminating health care for the poor, but that's pushing in the wrong direction and will only accelerate the acceleration of the acceleration of the wealth gap. One way or another this trend will NOT continue, if government action doesn't slow down the widening of the gap something far far more unpleasant will. John K Clark John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 5 15:24:34 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 07:24:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] ai and job loss >?On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:49 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: http://qz.com/875491/japanese-white-collar-workers-are-already-being-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence/?utm_source=pocket &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits >?We can expect to see more and more of this sort of thing in the immediate future, and job loss won't be limited just to unskilled workers, it will effect everyone. The gap between rich and poor is HUGE and it's increasing. In 2010 the richest 388 people had as much wealth as half of the entire human race, that's 3.6 Billion people. ? John K Clark John, the way you placed these two disparate concepts in the same paragraph suggests that job loss and wealth concentration are the same thing. I would suggest the two concepts do not belong in the same paragraph. We know that job loss is a huge and growing problem, and we know that advancing technology does not necessarily compensate for the jobs it eliminates. It is past time we technophiles face that reality. But having wealth in the hands of a few is in a way a solution rather than a problem. Reason: people with grand piles of money have grand visions. These grand visions employ people, and in some cases build great things far more effectively than any government can. Consider all the things the Gates Foundation is doing. Consider all the cool stuff one of our own, Peter Thiel is doing with his money, among them funding Eliezer Yudkowsky?s AI research group. We know some billionaires do evil with their wealth, but those are the minority. In most cases, vast fortunes are created from some really cool product, such as Apple or the legion of internet companies. We saw a recent example where a vast fortune was amassed without an actual tangible product: selling government influence. But this is mercifully rare. The majority of the fortunes gave us something in return, and build great things once amassed. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 19:33:46 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 13:33:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> Message-ID: The majority of the fortunes gave us something in return, and build great things once amassed. spike I agree with most of what Spike said, but here's a rub: in this economy the superrich can control employee pay and do. I seem to remember reading that most blue and white collar salaries have stayed fairly level for a long time now. Even with inflation low, these superrich are depriving their employees (often cited: Walmart) of more pay and more health care. Why? Because they can. From middle management on down, there's not a lot of competition among companies for these workers (of whom there is an excess) like there is at the top and for the technically gifted. Now Trump et al will eliminate Obamacare and even more people will not be able to meet their mortgage payments and health costs, and go broke and file for bankruptcy. Many will become homeless. I think it's a national shame that we even have homeless people outside of the truly addicted and the insane (who really should have some help too). Do you see the Repubs as helping? Sorry - just had to provide you with a good laugh. Of course I have no answer to these problems, but I hope a lot of people will see these as problems. "A rising tide lifts all boats" NOT!!! bill w On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:24 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *John Clark > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] ai and job loss > > > > >?On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:49 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > http://qz.com/875491/japanese-white-collar-workers-are- > already-being-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence/?utm_ > source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits > > > > > > >?We can expect to see more and more of this sort of thing in the > immediate future, and job loss won't be limited just to unskilled workers, > it will effect everyone. The gap between rich and poor is HUGE and it's > increasing. In 2010 the richest 388 people had as much wealth as half of > the entire human race, that's 3.6 Billion people. ? John K Clark > > > > > > John, the way you placed these two disparate concepts in the same > paragraph suggests that job loss and wealth concentration are the same > thing. I would suggest the two concepts do not belong in the same > paragraph. > > > > We know that job loss is a huge and growing problem, and we know that > advancing technology does not necessarily compensate for the jobs it > eliminates. It is past time we technophiles face that reality. But having > wealth in the hands of a few is in a way a solution rather than a problem. > Reason: people with grand piles of money have grand visions. These grand > visions employ people, and in some cases build great things far more > effectively than any government can. > > > > Consider all the things the Gates Foundation is doing. Consider all the > cool stuff one of our own, Peter Thiel is doing with his money, among them > funding Eliezer Yudkowsky?s AI research group. We know some billionaires > do evil with their wealth, but those are the minority. > > > > In most cases, vast fortunes are created from some really cool product, > such as Apple or the legion of internet companies. We saw a recent example > where a vast fortune was amassed without an actual tangible product: > selling government influence. But this is mercifully rare. The majority > of the fortunes gave us something in return, and build great things once > amassed. > > > > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 19:40:21 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:40:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, spike wrote: > > >> ?> ? >> ?We can expect to see more and more of this sort of thing in the >> immediate future, and job loss won't be limited just to unskilled workers, >> it will effect everyone. The gap between rich and poor is HUGE and it's >> increasing. In 2010 the richest 388 people had as much wealth as half of >> the entire human race, that's 3.6 Billion people. ? John K Clark >> > > > ?> ? > John, the way you placed these two disparate concepts in the same > paragraph suggests that job loss and wealth concentration are the same > thing. I would suggest the two concepts do not belong in the same > paragraph. > > ?I f the job loss ? ? is caused by improvements in AI then it has to accelerate the widening of the wealth gap unless violent revolution or government action pushes ? very hard in the opposite direction. And by government action I don't mean lowering taxes on the rich, eliminating the inheritance tax ?,? and scrapping ? ? healthcare for the poor. Owners will not replace workers with AIs in their wealth generating machine ?s? unless it will produce more wealth for them ? than id did before? . So owners will get richer and workers will get poorer ?,? and there are a lot more workers than owners so the growth in the wealth gap will accelerate. > ?> ? > We know that job loss is a huge and growing problem, and we know that > advancing technology does not necessarily compensate for the jobs it > eliminates. It is past time we technophiles face that reality. > > ?Very true. ?> ? > But having wealth in the hands of a few is in a way a solution rather than > a problem. Reason: people with grand piles of money have grand visions. These > grand visions employ people, and in some cases build great things far more > effectively than any government can. > > Yes that can happen, but sometimes their grand vision can look rather sordid if you're looking at in from the bottom up. India's richest man and the fifth richest in the world spent 1.5 Billion dollars in his new house ?;? and he decided to tear down a ?n? orphanage ? in Mumbai ?and build it there, right in the middle of one of the worst slums in India's poorest city. That very stupid man will probably end up getting his head chopped off someday because it's just a fact that astronomical differences in wealth causes resentment; I think that's the cause of the odd behavior of the electorate in both Europe and the USA in 2016 > ?> ? > Consider all the things the Gates Foundation is doing. > > ?The ? Gates Foundation ? is great no doubt about it, but they're not all like that, consider what the Trump Foundation did. I have nothing against billionaires ?and everybody shouldn't have the same amount of wealth or anything close to ?it? , but there is a limit. 62 people having as much wealth as 3.6 Billion must be getting very close to that limit ?.? ? And the rate of increase is just terrifying, even worse all the scientific and political trends I can see point to an acceleration of the acceleration of that ?wealth ? gap. ?If governments don't start redistributing some of that vast increase in wealth ?i n 3 or 4 years the number will probably drop from 62 into the teens, and ?1? or ?2? years after than into single digits. This trend can not and will not continue ? indefinitely? , ?one way or another it will end ? it's only a question of ?how violent that end will be.? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 20:48:38 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> Message-ID: O? n Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:33 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > ?> ? > I seem to remember reading that most blue and white collar salaries have > stayed fairly level for a long time now. > ?In the USA 60% of households have less income now than they did in 1999, and yet the country is far richer now ?than it was then. And just 1% of the people own 40% of the wealth of the country, and 80% of the people own just 7% of the wealth. ?And the gap is widening at an alarming rate. And the combination of improvements in AI and an uneducated billionaire imbecile in the White House who has better things to do than read boring intelligence briefs will just make things worse. ? ?> ? > Of course I have no answer to these problems, but I hope a lot of people > will see these as problems. "A rising tide lifts all boats" NOT!!! > ? For decades the rising ? ? tide has lifted the yachts but not the rowboats. And that makes people mad, and then they get dangerous. John K Clark >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 6 01:48:28 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 17:48:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> Message-ID: <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:40 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] ai and job loss On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, spike wrote: ?> ?>?But having wealth in the hands of a few is in a way a solution rather than a problem. >? India's richest man and the fifth richest in the world spent 1.5 Billion dollars in his new house;? and he decided to tear down an? orphanage ? in Mumbai ?and build it there, right in the middle of one of the worst slums in India's poorest city? Indeed. OK so who built the house? Before I would buy into the scenario that the locals resent the new neighbor, I would need to talk to them. We might find he is highly revered, providing jobs in the form of construction work and maintenance on the castle. Imagine those who live just outside the castle. Before it was an orphanage. Now this huge fine home sits there. Did the neighborhood improve? Did it become safer? Did the real estate values go up? Did the opportunities improve with the construction process? My speculation is yes to all, and the locals love this guy. I speculate that the rich guy didn?t actually slay the orphans, but rather arranged for an alternative facility, perhaps in a safer neighborhood. I grant the new orphanage neighbors might not be too thrilled with the whole notion. >?That very stupid man will probably end up getting his head chopped off someday because it's just a fact that astronomical differences in wealth causes resentment; I think that's the cause of the odd behavior of the electorate in both Europe and the USA in 2016? Hmmmm, well John, that scenario is a bit strained. If we view the Brexit and the recent presidential election as proletariat revolt, then that puts your favorite party in opposition to the proletariat. It means deplorable masses rose up and expressed their resentment of wealth inequality by voting for a billionaire. ?>? I have nothing against billionaires ?and everybody shouldn't have the same amount of wealth or anything close to it?, but there is a limit 62 people having as much wealth as 3.6 Billion must be getting very close to that limit? That notion appears to assume that wealth itself is limited. Wealth is unlimited. Wealth generates wealth. That?s one of the most endearing qualities of wealth. >?And the rate of increase is just terrifying? Eh, not so terrifying. The increase in wealth just in recent memory is elating. >?even worse all the scientific and political trends I can see point to an acceleration of the acceleration of that wealth ?gap. If governments don't start redistributing some of that vast increase in wealth? John K Clark Government which threaten to do that are voted into the dustbin of history. Governments which promote wealth creation replace them. The internet alone has generated more wealth in our adult lifetimes than anything. Oh such a deal it is. Can you even imagine living without it now? Consider just one tiny corner of the internet: Khan Academy. There is a great example of wealth just lying there for anyone to take it up. It?s free, it?s excellent, it is a terrific educational resource. Anyone can get to it. Our local elementary school has a program where anyone who cannot afford a ChromeBook can apply to the school board and they make arrangements for the family to get one for each student in the home, and they supply sufficient bandwidth for students to get an education online freeeeeeee free free. The really poor countries could set up something like this, leapfrogging all the expensive intermediate steps and create a generation of very well-educated little capitalists, eager to make their mark, create wealth like money-spewing Roman candles, skilled in English and the sciences, grabbing up opportunities even in the slums of Mumbai. This will be fun to watch. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 6 17:20:48 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:20:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] gentlemachines, start your engines... Message-ID: <006b01d26841$395c5100$ac14f300$@att.net> Well, that didn't take long. If Honda figured out how to keep this rig upright at slow speeds, it can do it at high speeds. Check out the video at the bottom of the page: http://auto.ndtv.com/news/ces-2017-honda-unveils-self-balancing-motorcycle-1 645812 We are ready to race these babies. Woooooohooooo, this is gonna be cool. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 17:56:12 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:56:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] gentlemachines, start your engines... In-Reply-To: <006b01d26841$395c5100$ac14f300$@att.net> References: <006b01d26841$395c5100$ac14f300$@att.net> Message-ID: Why not stabilize at zero mph? Essentially parking itself. I imagine two rods, front and back, left and right, coming out at a 45 degree angle and grounding. Automatic or manual. Even a small child could ride a Harley Hog this way. Maybe you could also add emergency rods, longer, which would prevent laying it down. Those big bikes are so heavy that some riders can't pick them up, right? bill w On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:20 AM, spike wrote: > > > Well, that didn?t take long. If Honda figured out how to keep this rig > upright at slow speeds, it can do it at high speeds. Check out the video > at the bottom of the page: > > > > http://auto.ndtv.com/news/ces-2017-honda-unveils-self- > balancing-motorcycle-1645812 > > > > We are ready to race these babies. > > > > Woooooohooooo, this is gonna be cool. > > > > 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 Fri Jan 6 19:09:21 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:09:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] gentlemachines, start your engines... In-Reply-To: References: <006b01d26841$395c5100$ac14f300$@att.net> Message-ID: <00f501d26850$63264310$2972c930$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 9:56 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] gentlemachines, start your engines... >? Those big bikes are so heavy that some riders can't pick them up, right? bill w They can if they know how. My bike is a full-bag touring rig. As outfitted (with radios and such) it weighs 910 pounds. I can hoist it to its feet if it falls over. I weigh 129 pounds. It?s all in the technique, not the brute strength. http://www.womenridersnow.com/pages/Bike_Lift_Technique.aspx In bike to rider weight ratio, I might be a record-holder in the men?s division. I have been to touring bike rallies for years and never saw another guy who I think weighs less than I do. In all these years I saw exactly one woman who is lighter than I am but she also had a lighter bike, so don?t know on her, but I think I win in the men?s division. Honda has this bike that can balance itself at walking speed or slower, so my intuition tells me it can do the much easier task of proceeding at freeway speeds or racetrack speeds. I saw Anthony Levandowski?s self-rider in 2004 at the DARPA challenge. Didn?t get far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOgkNh_IPjU Now we have Honda with this. We have come a long way: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/hondas-self-balancing-motorcycle-perfect-noobs/ The bike this is built on looks like a 2015 Honda VFR800, top speed about 140 mph. Oh we could have some terrific races with these things. I just saw that Yamaha has a self-rider. Let?s goooooo! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 20:54:11 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 15:54:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:48 PM, spike wrote: > > >> ?> ? >> ? India's richest man and the fifth richest in the world spent 1.5 >> Billion dollars in his new house; >> ? ? >> and he decided to tear down an orphanage >> ? ? >> in Mumbai and build it there, right in the middle of one of the worst >> slums in India's poorest city? > > ?> > Indeed. OK so who built the house? > His name is ? ? Mukesh Ambani ? ? and he calls his ostentatious piece of shit "Antilia". Estimates of its cost that I've seen range ?from? 1 to 2 Billion dollars ?.? http://all-that-is-interesting.com/antilia-the-worlds-most-extravagant-house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilia_(building) ?> ? > Before I would buy into the scenario that the locals resent the new > neighbor, I would need to talk to them. > > ?I don't know about you but I really don't need additional information ?before I can conclude that such a flagrant display of wealth inequality might engender envy and resentment from people next door who live like this: http://static.thousandwonders.net/Mumbai.original.3368.jpg Or this: http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/02/india_slum.jpg ?> ? > I speculate that the rich guy didn?t actually slay the orphans, but rather > arranged for an alternative facility, perhaps in a safer neighborhood. > > ? The ? orphanage ? ? sold the land to an organization that promised to build a school for the poor on it, but they broke that promise almost immediately and resold it to Ambani ? to build his 400,000 square foot cottage on it?; as far as I know he never gave the orphans a dime although I don't think he slayed any of them. > > >> ?> ? >> ?That very stupid man will probably end up getting his head chopped off >> someday because it's just a fact that astronomical differences in wealth >> causes resentment; I think that's the cause of the odd behavior of the >> electorate in both Europe and the USA in 2016? > > ?> ? > Hmmmm, well John, that scenario is a bit strained. > ?When I extrapolate from history I don't find it one bit strained. In fact I think the probability such a gargantuan wealth gap can continue to widen and even accelerate indefinitely without a violent eruption is negligible. > ?> ? > If we view the Brexit and the recent presidential election as proletariat > revolt, then that puts your favorite party in opposition to the > proletariat. > > ?My favorite political party is the Libertarian Party, or rather it was before their disgraceful behavior in 2018. ? > ?> ? > It means deplorable masses rose up and expressed their resentment of > wealth inequality by voting for a billionaire. > > I never said American voters were smart ? ? but in all fairness to them the billionaire in question didn't get a majority of their ? ? votes or even a plurality ? of them or even come close to doing so.? N o ? president ? ? in American history has lost by so much and still won. > ?> ? > That notion appears to assume that wealth itself is limited. Wealth is > unlimited. > > ?It's true that wealth is potentially unlimited but inequality is unlimited too. The USA today contains far more wealth than it did in 1999, but most people have less of it now than they did then, although a few people have much much more. And this wealth gap isn't just limited to America, it's happening in every country in the world even in places you might not expect like Scandinavia. Such a universal trend can only come from advances in technology and those advances are not going to stop, so if the acceleration of the widening of the wealth gap is to be stopped or at least slowed down other means will be needed. If somebody knows of a way other than government action or violent revolution I'd like to hear about it. ? > ?> ? > Wealth generates wealth. That?s one of the most endearing qualities of > wealth. > > ?Yes, wealth causes wealth, and that exponential process causes the wealth gap. They say your first billion is the hardest to make but if they get rid of the inheritance tax ?then you don't even need to do that, all you need to do is choose your parents carefully. > ?> ? > The internet alone has generated more wealth in our adult lifetimes than > anything. > > ?The internet has generated wealth but not jobs. ? ?Walmart has 2,300?,000 employees but it's chief competitor, Amazon, needs only a tenth that many, just 230,000. And both Sears and Macy's also employ a lot of people but both have suffered from competing with Amazon and it wouldn't surprise me if they both go out of business in the next year or two. Other successful Internet companies make lots of wealth but need even fewer jobs, Apple is the most valuable company on the planet but it only has 66,000 employees, Google has 57,000, Facebook has 15,700, and Twitter only 3,900. > ?> ? > Consider just one tiny corner of the internet: Khan Academy. There is a > great example of wealth just lying there for anyone to take it up. It?s > free, it?s excellent, it is a terrific educational resource. Anyone can > get to it. > > ?I can't argue with that, ? Khan Academy ? is great, the guy just has a knack for making things clear.? John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 7 06:50:03 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 22:50:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 12:54 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] ai and job loss John, your post seems too pessimistic by a factor of 2pi. Read on please. On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:48 PM, spike > wrote: ? >>>? India's richest man and the fifth richest in the world spent 1.5 Billion dollars in his new house?right in the middle of one of the worst slums in India's poorest city? ? >>?Indeed. OK so who built the house? >? His name is Mukesh Ambani? ? Hmm, I didn?t ask that question very clearly. I meant, who took hammer in hand, who placed bricks, who pulled the wire and wielded the paint brushes? Did Ambani do any of that? Or did he hire local builders? Since we are on the topic, what do you suppose are the attitudes of those in the part of the neighborhood next to the castle? Do you suppose they blame him for their poverty? I think not: they know he didn?t do this to them. Old-fashioned overbreeding did this to them, but? they probably have a very positive attitude that the richest guy in India, the one in a billion in that enormous nation, chose to live right there with them, rather than haul his money elsewhere. I would imagine that big place requires plenty of hired help, grounds-keepers, a platoon of ladies who do nothing but go around dusting things, maintenance people for all the equipment. With a place that size, that once guy probably supplies hundreds of jobs. That money filters out through the neighborhood, raising home values, making it a nicer, safer place to live. My contention is that the locals probably have a very positive attitude toward Ambani. He stayed there with them. I can?t fault him. >?When I extrapolate from history I don't find it one bit strained. In fact I think the probability such a gargantuan wealth gap can continue to widen and even accelerate indefinitely without a violent eruption is negligible? That?s one way to look at it, but consider wealth on a logarithmic scale rather than linear. If seen that way, the wealth gap is not increasing but rather is closing. For instance, the world?s richest people are at magnitude about 11. None of these guys are anywhere close to 1E12 dollars. Consider all the people with net worth that puts them at magnitude about 5. There are a lot of people who are worth about 100k, all over the globe. Sure plenty of people worldwide bounce around at magnitude 0 to 2, but down that far, one can rise a magnitude or two pretty easily. But the dozen or so 11s can?t get to 12 most likely. Conclusion: in some important ways, the wealth gap is closing. However? I am not making the case that all is well. The shortage that worries me about the future is not insufficient wealth but rather insufficient work. Even if there were some practical mechanism for redistributing wealth that didn?t destroy most of it, that still doesn?t solve the problem of insufficient work to do. The masses do not want a handout, they want work. However, there might not be enough left to do in the future. ?>?My favorite political party is the Libertarian Party, or rather it was before their disgraceful behavior in 2018? Indeed? He didn?t know Allepo, and this is disgraceful behavior? Compared to what? ? ?> ?>?It means deplorable masses rose up and expressed their resentment of wealth inequality by voting for a billionaire. >?I never said American voters were smart but in all fairness to them the billionaire in question didn't get a majority of their votes or even a plurality of them or even come close to doing so? But the alleged billionaire did win a majority of states. That helps remind the people that the United States are a group of state governments working together. I really like that the concept is right there in the name. I like to say it with the accent on the second word. In any case, look at the bright side. Perhaps Americans will stop looking to their government for help. Governments aren?t really about helping the people, they are really about helping themselves. If a deplorable occupies the top office, that too is a constant reminder: government isn?t really there to help us, and in general will not. It is run by power grabbers who cannot be trusted. So don?t trust it. Pay attention to the limits the constitution places on the federal government. Your state government might help you, no guarantees. If it doesn?t, we are free to choose one which does, no visa or paperwork necessary. Hey, it?s what I did. I am happy with my choice: California is a good state. ?> ?>?That notion appears to assume that wealth itself is limited. Wealth is unlimited. ? >?It's true that wealth is potentially unlimited but inequality is unlimited too?Apple is the most valuable company on the planet but it only has 66,000 employees, Google has 57,000, Facebook has 15,700, and Twitter only 3,900? John you are really almost on it here, what I am thinking about a lot for I have seen it firsthand in my own chosen industry, aerospace. There is not enough work in that industry by an order of magnitude, and the amount of work available there is dropping. ?> ?>?Consider just one tiny corner of the internet: Khan Academy. There is a great example of wealth just lying there for anyone to take it up. It?s free, it?s excellent, it is a terrific educational resource. Anyone can get to it. ?>?I can't argue with that, ?Khan Academy is great, the guy just has a knack for making things clear.? John K Clark Is it not astonishing that this material is available free to anyone with a wifi connection? Truly the man is setting up the One-World Schoolhouse. Before I criticize Mukesh Ambani or claim he failed to set up a school for the poor, I would want to verify he does not broadcast internet with sufficient bandwidth to download Khan Academy and all the other cool stuff available online. If he is doing that, he has set up a school for the poor, far more effectively than any building. This is the kind of thing the really rich people of the world should be doing: setting up infrastructure for learning, in English, in western thought patterns, in capitalistic paradigms, demonstrate what miracles can transform a society that embraces technology, controls their absurd and self-destructive overbreeding, puts away their superstitions and grabs the wealth that is right there available to anyone who takes it up. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 07:47:07 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 23:47:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:50 PM, spike wrote: > John, your post seems too pessimistic by a factor of 2pi. Actually, a brief glance over the Wikipedia page backs John's case up. > Hmm, I didn?t ask that question very clearly. I meant, who took hammer in > hand, who placed bricks, who pulled the wire and wielded the paint brushes? > Did Ambani do any of that? Or did he hire local builders? He hired an Australian company, that may well have imported their labor - and certainly did not leave nearly as much improvement in the neighborhood as if he had hired locally. > Since we are on the topic, what do you suppose are the attitudes of those in > the part of the neighborhood next to the castle? They object, but are powerless. He openly bribed every level of government needed to make the complaints go away. No, seriously. Every time a government agency was thinking of objecting, he handed them a large amount of money, and they issued a certification saying they had no objections. He tried to hide the fact that he and his family were actually living there, for years. > I would imagine that big place requires plenty of hired help, > grounds-keepers, a platoon of ladies who do nothing but go around dusting > things, maintenance people for all the equipment. With a place that size, > that once guy probably supplies hundreds of jobs. That money filters out > through the neighborhood, raising home values, making it a nicer, safer > place to live. Not so much. It is true that the hired help there is a few hundred - out of millions in the neighborhood. The pay isn't that good, and even if it does filter out (which is questionable), it amounts to negligible per capita. > That?s one way to look at it, but consider wealth on a logarithmic scale > rather than linear. If seen that way, the wealth gap is not increasing but > rather is closing. For instance, the world?s richest people are at > magnitude about 11. None of these guys are anywhere close to 1E12 dollars. > Consider all the people with net worth that puts them at magnitude about 5. > There are a lot of people who are worth about 100k, all over the globe. > Sure plenty of people worldwide bounce around at magnitude 0 to 2, but down > that far, one can rise a magnitude or two pretty easily. But the dozen or > so 11s can?t get to 12 most likely. Conclusion: in some important ways, the > wealth gap is closing. The 11s are working on becoming 12s. Meanwhile, the 5s are struggling not to become 4s. And this is opposed to the 8s vs. 4s of yesteryear. Even logarithmically, the wealth gap has grown. >>?My favorite political party is the Libertarian Party, or rather it was >> before their disgraceful behavior in 2018? > > Indeed? He didn?t know Allepo, and this is disgraceful behavior? Compared > to what? I'm more interested in that 2018. What will they have done? > I am happy > with my choice: California is a good state. There's talk of denying federal money to states with sanctuary cities. I'd like to see what happens if Trump and Congress seriously attempt to shut off all federal money - including Social Security and Medicare - to California because of San Francisco and other cities. > John you are really almost on it here, what I am thinking about a lot for I > have seen it firsthand in my own chosen industry, aerospace. There is not > enough work in that industry by an order of magnitude, and the amount of > work available there is dropping. Yeah...wait until we have affordable DIY space. Which will take a while, granted. > Before I criticize Mukesh Ambani or claim he failed to set up a school for > the poor, I would want to verify he does not broadcast internet with > sufficient bandwidth to download Khan Academy and all the other cool stuff > available online. If he is doing that, he has set up a school for the poor, > far more effectively than any building. While I doubt anyone on this list can readily verify this, it does not appear to be the case. And even if it were, you would then need devices for all the people withn range. Even $100 for a laptop is a lot of money to these folks, and if they had it they would most likely spend it on short term needs: it is nearly impossible to learn job skills when you are starving. From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 14:40:50 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 08:40:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: it is nearly impossible to learn job skills when you are starving. adrian I have not done a study of this, but have seen it several times over the years: when the income in a country goes up birth rate goes down. No one knows why, but the obvious conclusion is that when people feel safe about their children's future, as opposed to their starving to death, they decide to spend their money on the ones they have and have fewer children. The usual objection to giving food away - foreign aid - is that you are just going to encourage them to have more children. That seems not to be the case. I don't know of anything else we can do to limit population. What would it take to feed every hungry mouth? Has anyone done this study? bill w On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:50 PM, spike wrote: > > John, your post seems too pessimistic by a factor of 2pi. > > Actually, a brief glance over the Wikipedia page backs John's case up. > > > Hmm, I didn?t ask that question very clearly. I meant, who took hammer > in > > hand, who placed bricks, who pulled the wire and wielded the paint > brushes? > > Did Ambani do any of that? Or did he hire local builders? > > He hired an Australian company, that may well have imported their > labor - and certainly did not leave nearly as much improvement in the > neighborhood as if he had hired locally. > > > Since we are on the topic, what do you suppose are the attitudes of > those in > > the part of the neighborhood next to the castle? > > They object, but are powerless. He openly bribed every level of > government needed to make the complaints go away. > > No, seriously. Every time a government agency was thinking of > objecting, he handed them a large amount of money, and they issued a > certification saying they had no objections. > > He tried to hide the fact that he and his family were actually living > there, for years. > > > I would imagine that big place requires plenty of hired help, > > grounds-keepers, a platoon of ladies who do nothing but go around dusting > > things, maintenance people for all the equipment. With a place that > size, > > that once guy probably supplies hundreds of jobs. That money filters out > > through the neighborhood, raising home values, making it a nicer, safer > > place to live. > > Not so much. It is true that the hired help there is a few hundred - > out of millions in the neighborhood. The pay isn't that good, and > even if it does filter out (which is questionable), it amounts to > negligible per capita. > > > That?s one way to look at it, but consider wealth on a logarithmic scale > > rather than linear. If seen that way, the wealth gap is not increasing > but > > rather is closing. For instance, the world?s richest people are at > > magnitude about 11. None of these guys are anywhere close to 1E12 > dollars. > > Consider all the people with net worth that puts them at magnitude about > 5. > > There are a lot of people who are worth about 100k, all over the globe. > > Sure plenty of people worldwide bounce around at magnitude 0 to 2, but > down > > that far, one can rise a magnitude or two pretty easily. But the dozen > or > > so 11s can?t get to 12 most likely. Conclusion: in some important ways, > the > > wealth gap is closing. > > The 11s are working on becoming 12s. Meanwhile, the 5s are struggling > not to become 4s. And this is opposed to the 8s vs. 4s of yesteryear. > Even logarithmically, the wealth gap has grown. > > >>?My favorite political party is the Libertarian Party, or rather it was > >> before their disgraceful behavior in 2018? > > > > Indeed? He didn?t know Allepo, and this is disgraceful behavior? > Compared > > to what? > > I'm more interested in that 2018. What will they have done? > > > I am happy > > with my choice: California is a good state. > > There's talk of denying federal money to states with sanctuary cities. > I'd like to see what happens if Trump and Congress seriously attempt > to shut off all federal money - including Social Security and Medicare > - to California because of San Francisco and other cities. > > > John you are really almost on it here, what I am thinking about a lot > for I > > have seen it firsthand in my own chosen industry, aerospace. There is > not > > enough work in that industry by an order of magnitude, and the amount of > > work available there is dropping. > > Yeah...wait until we have affordable DIY space. Which will take a > while, granted. > > > Before I criticize Mukesh Ambani or claim he failed to set up a school > for > > the poor, I would want to verify he does not broadcast internet with > > sufficient bandwidth to download Khan Academy and all the other cool > stuff > > available online. If he is doing that, he has set up a school for the > poor, > > far more effectively than any building. > > While I doubt anyone on this list can readily verify this, it does not > appear to be the case. And even if it were, you would then need > devices for all the people withn range. Even $100 for a laptop is a > lot of money to these folks, and if they had it they would most likely > spend it on short term needs: it is nearly impossible to learn job > skills when you are starving. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 15:15:20 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 10:15:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:40 PM, John Clark wrote: > ?If governments don't start redistributing some of that vast increase in > wealth ?i > n 3 or 4 years... What's the libertarian way for governments to redistribute wealth? -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 15:19:46 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 10:19:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:40 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I don't know of anything else we can do to limit population. > Birth control and education are both pretty effective. Regardless, if we don't do it voluntarily, nature will find a way. And we won't like nature's way. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 7 17:18:06 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 09:18:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: <009101d2690a$02e5f4e0$08b1dea0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >> ... who took hammer in hand, who placed bricks... >...He hired an Australian company, that may well have imported their labor - and certainly did not leave nearly as much improvement in the neighborhood as if he had hired locally... Sure but this was a big project, so it took time, so the Australian builders had to live somewhere during the construction project, and good chance they chose to live close by. We are told that diversity is a good thing and immigration is a good thing, so... he accomplished both, along with improving the neighborhood, since Australian construction workers are unlikely to accept the living conditions available in the area. >...They object, but are powerless. He openly bribed every level of government needed to make the complaints go away... Sure but that is the fault of the government official, rather than the guy who was buying them. What you and I see as a bribe might be seen by the politicians as a donation to their family charity, which is perfectly legal, moral, ethical and can even be arranged to be anonymous. Canada has a number of charities that arrange this kind of thing. >...No, seriously. Every time a government agency was thinking of objecting, he handed them a large amount of money, and they issued a certification saying they had no objections... Did he hand THEM money, or was it their family charity, and he offered a generous donation? >...He tried to hide the fact that he and his family were actually living there, for years... What's wrong with that? Wouldn't you do likewise? I would. >...The 11s are working on becoming 12s. Meanwhile, the 5s are struggling not to become 4s. And this is opposed to the 8s vs. 4s of yesteryear. Even logarithmically, the wealth gap has grown... When I look around me, this isn't clear at all. >>... I am happy with my choice: California is a good state. >...There's talk of denying federal money to states with sanctuary cities. I'd like to see what happens if Trump and Congress seriously attempt to shut off all federal money - including Social Security and Medicare - to California because of San Francisco and other cities... Social Security and Medicare are not welfare; they are entitlements. The fed does not have the authority to withhold that based on sanctuary cities. >>... Before I criticize Mukesh Ambani or claim he failed to set up a school ... >... it does not appear to be the case...it is nearly impossible to learn job skills when you are starving. Adrian Ja, the fact that the masses are starving in Mumbai is not the rich guy's fault and he can do little to fix it. Overbreeding and overcrowding caused that. His building a castle in the middle of it didn't make it worse, it is the start of making it better. If for instance, the local officials decided to build there a school for the poor, that would make the overcrowding and poverty even worse, which is why I commented the locals, plenty of whom have no children of school age, probably love the guy: the castle did improve their condition and their neighborhood, by reducing poverty and overcrowding. My theory is that the rich guy didn't slay the orphans who once terrorized the local streets, but rather made arrangements for them to be relocated to a safer neighborhood. I can imagine their landing spot was way better than where they left. I don't expect the locals resent the rich guy. I have no doubt one can find locals who do resent the rich guy and offer interviews to outsiders, but I expect most of them realize he didn't take away their wealth or their jobs. The whole notion of urban renewal leads to so many entertaining self-contradictory arguments. This is but one of them. An even better one is the continual debate on urban renewal in the cities of San Francisco and Palo Alto. In San Francisco, Google and Facebook employees are buying up homes that once housed a dozen people and living in them alone, riding a bus to their workplace. The locals are sure this must be illegal or immoral somehow, but cannot put together a coherent argument for why. Those older neighborhoods have insufficient places to park. Plenty of the newcomers have no cars, so that problem is solved. Do explain to me what is bad about software skerjillionaires are buying up homes in San Francisco. Consider Mark Zuckerberg's buying four homes in Palo Alto. The locals hate it; they don't want a billionaire neighbor. He is putting a parking structure under his house! That would relieve crowding on the street, horrors. Every time I hear this debated on NPR it gets funnier. He isn't displacing poor people in that case, he is displacing multi-millionaires who made a cool fortune on the sale of those Palo Alto properties. In my own neighborhood out here in the suburbs, we have been seeing it for years: rich Chinese businessmen are quietly buying up residential housing, but no one lives there. The places are maintained perfectly and it isn't at all obvious unless you live there and note that the cars in the driveway blocking the garage haven't moved in ten years. I can show you one: I put a pebble on the top of the tire a decade ago and it is still there. No one lives in that house, and only seldom visits. So... the neighborhood gradually gets quieter, crime rates drop, demand for services drop, but tax money still comes in just the same. It's all good. Urban renewal will eventually come to India too. It takes money to do that. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 17:48:36 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:48:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] news Message-ID: Well, duh, I did not know and would probably not have noticed had I watched TV news, which I don't. It seems that news, according to ABC, NBC, and CBS, consists of what politicians are talking about. In last Sunday's NYT, Nicholas Kristof (easily Googled) reports that independent issues reporting, defined as not related to some politician's utterances or the debates, totaled 36 minutes, all networks news shows combined. So 'news' is what some pol said, then what some opposing pol said and so on. Where are people getting issues news? Not from TV. Coverage of issues is not the concern of network news; ratings is. Duh. So any survey of people who get their news from these networks is determined, it would seem, by the person's political views rather than independent evidence, which maybe is supplied only by newspapers and magazines, who also have to keep up their ratings. If I were to be asked my views on, say, global warming, the very last thing I would do would be to ask myself what my favorite politician thinks, but apparently I am in a very small minority. love bill/dad/hey you! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 19:13:35 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:13:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: <009101d2690a$02e5f4e0$08b1dea0$@att.net> References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> <009101d2690a$02e5f4e0$08b1dea0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:18 AM, spike wrote: > Sure but this was a big project, so it took time, so the Australian builders had to live somewhere during the construction project, and good chance they chose to live close by. We are told that diversity is a good thing and immigration is a good thing, so... he accomplished both, along with improving the neighborhood, since Australian construction workers are unlikely to accept the living conditions available in the area. Temporary, migrant workers aren't what people mean by "immigration" or "diversity". And if the workers were just there for the project, then they'd have to have accepted whatever living conditions were available, with no time or materials to spend improving them, knowing that they would move on afterward. >>...They object, but are powerless. He openly bribed every level of government needed to make the complaints go away... > > Sure but that is the fault of the government official, rather than the guy who was buying them. What you and I see as a bribe might be seen by the politicians as a donation to their family charity, which is perfectly legal, moral, ethical and can even be arranged to be anonymous. Canada has a number of charities that arrange this kind of thing. Yes, but the people the government represents are still up a creek regardless of how the government tries to justify it. (And it wasn't a donation to family charities. It was a check - or maybe cash - straight to the relevant departments.) >>...No, seriously. Every time a government agency was thinking of objecting, he handed them a large amount of money, and they issued a certification saying they had no objections... > > Did he hand THEM money, or was it their family charity, and he offered a generous donation? Them, straight up. No charity or other such dodge. >>...He tried to hide the fact that he and his family were actually living there, for years... > > What's wrong with that? Wouldn't you do likewise? I would. Only if I thought that my living there would not garner community support. You were saying his neighbors would like him; if he thought otherwise, he might have reason to. >>>... I am happy with my choice: California is a good state. > >>...There's talk of denying federal money to states with sanctuary cities. > I'd like to see what happens if Trump and Congress seriously attempt to shut off all federal money - including Social Security and Medicare - to California because of San Francisco and other cities... > > Social Security and Medicare are not welfare; they are entitlements. The fed does not have the authority to withhold that based on sanctuary cities. The suggestions are that they do it anyway, legal or not, authority or not. >>>... Before I criticize Mukesh Ambani or claim he failed to set up a school ... > >>... it does not appear to be the case...it is nearly impossible to learn job skills when you are starving. > > Ja, the fact that the masses are starving in Mumbai is not the rich guy's fault and he can do little to fix it. Sure he can. For instance, he could have not intervened and allowed the school to be set up there. > His building a castle in the middle of it didn't make it worse, it is the start of making it better. That does not appear to be the case. His building that castle directly caused a school to not be built, and there is no sign of any amelioration (such as free wifi) to address that. > If for instance, the local officials decided to build there a school for the poor, that would make the overcrowding and poverty even worse That seems highly unlikely. It's not like more people would move there, or have more kids, just to take advantage of the school. > My theory is that the rich guy didn't slay the orphans who once terrorized the local streets, but rather made arrangements for them to be relocated to a safer neighborhood. What facts are available say he did no such thing. He didn't slay the orphans, he just caused them to become homeless. They're still there. From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 19:29:05 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:29:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 6:40 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I have not done a study of this, but have seen it several times over the > years: when the income in a country goes up birth rate goes down. No one > knows why, but the obvious conclusion is that when people feel safe about > their children's future, as opposed to their starving to death, they decide > to spend their money on the ones they have and have fewer children. > > The usual objection to giving food away - foreign aid - is that you are just > going to encourage them to have more children. That seems not to be the > case. If the aid is kept up consistently for a number of years. It takes time for this effect to come into play. > I don't know of anything else we can do to limit population. Personally, I am of the opinion that we would all benefit from a lot more people, if we could find ways to feed trillions or more - which will almost certainly include utilizing extraterrestrial resources. > What would it take to feed every hungry mouth? Has anyone done this study? That's a lot more mundane. The main problem is political: bandits, too many with the backing (unofficial or official) of the local government, steal food or other resources meant for the poor and sell it for their own gain. (Some of these bandits call themselves soldiers. It doesn't change the fundamental pattern.) The rural poor could fend for themselves if left alone to do so. There are smaller parts of poverty this wouldn't help, such as the urban poor who grew up on welfare, never learning what work is, or the few mentally unable to participate in reality let alone society, for whom psychotherapy and asylums were invented. From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 19:50:44 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 19:50:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 7 January 2017 at 19:29, Adrian Tymes wrote: > That's a lot more mundane. The main problem is political: bandits, > too many with the backing (unofficial or official) of the local > government, steal food or other resources meant for the poor and sell > it for their own gain. (Some of these bandits call themselves > soldiers. It doesn't change the fundamental pattern.) The rural poor > could fend for themselves if left alone to do so. > > There are smaller parts of poverty this wouldn't help, such as the > urban poor who grew up on welfare, never learning what work is, or the > few mentally unable to participate in reality let alone society, for > whom psychotherapy and asylums were invented. > The trend is going to make most of the population into urban poor, growing up on welfare with no work ethic. Because there won't be any employment for most humans. If the robot production systems are going to provide the basics for the population, there might be some jobs available to fight the 'bandits', though robot police might even be able to do most of that work. One suggestion is to pay people to get educated. Though that may be only temporary until AI supercedes humanity. What are people going to do with their lives? BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 21:27:04 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 15:27:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: Personally, I am of the opinion that we would all benefit from a lot more people, if we could find ways to feed trillions or more - which will almost certainly include utilizing extraterrestrial resources. adrian I am reminded of Asimov's world of Trantor: totally concreted and utterly dependent on other worlds to feed its people. No mention of zoos or parks or anything at all of nature, which we are losing at a rapid pace - so sad. I've lost the thread, but someone asked what the libertarian stance is on sharing the wealth. I cannot speak for anyone else, of course, but here is my answer: It would be highly desirable if everyone could fend for themselves. The more conservative libertarian seems to think that it's an outrage that anyone is supported who seems not to be trying really hard to adapt and feed himself and his family. If only it were the case that lack of effort was the whole story. Sometimes we simply cannot be self-sufficient. Case in point: cars. Mostly we can't work on them anymore unless we have computers with specialized software and the ability to understand what the sensors tell us. Easier on our brains and maybe even our pocketbooks to let someone else do this. The same is true of many of the things we used to be able to deal with ourselves. The technology has left most of us behind, and not only those with limited intelligence - the old story. Any system of morality has to have some attention to fairness. I have remarked that it is somewhat depressing the half of us are below average. My son's reply to this is that it may be even more depressing that half of us are above average. So we have a lot of people with limited intelligence (not to mention those who have limited physical abilities), who are dependent on the culture to provide meaningful work for which they are trained by our educational system. Right now the culture is not doing a great job of this. People are required to take algebra to get a high school degree and will never have any use for algebra at all. Way too few people go to trade schools. Bottom line: I would never let people starve and go without the basic necessities, which to me includes health care which doesn't pauperize them. Very few of those who are not working cannot. OK - we'll care for them. The rest I would put to work doing something, if only picking up paper on the roads. At the same time I would train them to do jobs for which there are openings. Won't work? Won't get training? Then no support from the rest of us (except for children - totally consistent with Heinlein's philosophy, by the way). We'll have to see if the experiment with providing everyone with a basic income, as is being done in Scandinavia, works out. At this point I think it's quitting too soon. I will not say that I would always be opposed to it. bill w On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 6:40 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > I have not done a study of this, but have seen it several times over the > > years: when the income in a country goes up birth rate goes down. No > one > > knows why, but the obvious conclusion is that when people feel safe about > > their children's future, as opposed to their starving to death, they > decide > > to spend their money on the ones they have and have fewer children. > > > > The usual objection to giving food away - foreign aid - is that you are > just > > going to encourage them to have more children. That seems not to be the > > case. > > If the aid is kept up consistently for a number of years. It takes > time for this effect to come into play. > > > I don't know of anything else we can do to limit population. > > Personally, I am of the opinion that we would all benefit from a lot > more people, if we could find ways to feed trillions or more - which > will almost certainly include utilizing extraterrestrial resources. > > > What would it take to feed every hungry mouth? Has anyone done this > study? > > That's a lot more mundane. The main problem is political: bandits, > too many with the backing (unofficial or official) of the local > government, steal food or other resources meant for the poor and sell > it for their own gain. (Some of these bandits call themselves > soldiers. It doesn't change the fundamental pattern.) The rural poor > could fend for themselves if left alone to do so. > > There are smaller parts of poverty this wouldn't help, such as the > urban poor who grew up on welfare, never learning what work is, or the > few mentally unable to participate in reality let alone society, for > whom psychotherapy and asylums were invented. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 7 21:52:16 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 13:52:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> <009101d2690a$02e5f4e0$08b1dea0$@att.net> Message-ID: <000b01d26930$5074bc20$f15e3460$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >...Temporary, migrant workers aren't what people mean by "immigration" or "diversity"... Indeed? So if migrant workers are temporary, then that is not a good kind of diversity or a good kind of immigration? That sounds to me like the best kind: temporary immigration for a specific purpose is legal. It would help the locals because they could see an alternative way of living. >...And if the workers were just there for the project, then they'd have to have accepted whatever living conditions were available, with no time or materials to spend improving them, knowing that they would move on afterward... Not necessarily. Plenty of third world slums have no running water or electricity. Import workers would figure out a way to deal with that, particularly if it is a billion dollar project. Those cannot be built in a week or even a month. It is easy to imagine single construction workers living in structures once occupied by a big family. Once that guy moves in, you have less overcrowding, at least temporarily. >...Yes, but the people the government represents are still up a creek regardless of how the government tries to justify it... It was those people who voted these crooks into power. If they couldn't vote, then their problem goes deeper than unequal distribution of wealth. They suffer unequal distribution of democracy. >...(And it wasn't a donation to family charities. It was a check - or maybe cash - straight to the relevant departments.)... Ja, there are plenty of places in the world where they assume government is paid for by people who expect something in return. This is the reason why US politicians must have no family charity, for even if the politician is perfectly honest, it will be viewed as otherwise by those in countries where access is bought. >>...He tried to hide the fact that he and his family were actually living there, for years... > What's wrong with that? Wouldn't you do likewise? I would. >...Only if I thought that my living there would not garner community support. You were saying his neighbors would like him; if he thought otherwise, he might have reason to... Criminals live among the honest people. If a guy is living in the middle of a bad neighborhood where the people like him, there will still be criminals looking to kidnap his family. Stealth wealth is not just advisable but necessary. ... >>... Social Security and Medicare are not welfare; they are entitlements. The fed does not have the authority to withhold that based on sanctuary cities. >...The suggestions are that they do it anyway, legal or not, authority or not... Well there ya go. If the government defaults on Social Security to one particular state, the non-deplorables can impeach the president for not inforcing the law. During the process, Californians can withhold their income tax payments. The Fed will not go long without California's tax revenue. The Federal government's authority is based on law. If they violate it, they have no legal authority. >> Ja, the fact that the masses are starving in Mumbai is not the rich guy's fault and he can do little to fix it. >....Sure he can. For instance, he could have not intervened and allowed the school to be set up there... He had the option of taking his money anywhere in the world. He could have set up a compound next to Mark Zuckerburg in an enclave like Palo Alto where there are often two or three billionaires in line ahead of you at the local Starbucks. Instead he set up camp in Mumbai. Rich people need to live somewhere. If he wants to buy my entire street and turn it into a mega-mansion, I am open to suggestion. If he wants to buy the entire street next to mine, tear down the houses and build a huge castle, OK, welcome to the neighborhood. But Mumbai needs that more than we do. spike From sparge at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 22:43:21 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:43:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:27 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I've lost the thread, but someone asked what the libertarian stance is on > sharing the wealth. > That was in response to John Clark's suggestion that governments need to do more to redistribute wealth. Since John is a well-known libertarian I'm wondering how he plans to that in a libertarian-friendly way. I don't think it's possible. Any wealth redistribution has to be voluntary. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 23:43:00 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 18:43:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:50 AM, spike wrote: ?> ? > John, your post seems too pessimistic by a factor of 2pi. > > ?Spike, I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong, but recent actions of a certain billionaire after the election has not increased my confidence that I will still be alive in 4 years. I'm optimistic in that I still think the odds of me being above ground in 2021 are somewhat better than 50%, but if I were a honest impartial actuary I'd have to say the odds have fallen significantly since November 7. After all ?, an ? ignorant m ?a n ? with a hair trigger temper ? who refuses to learn ? will have his finger on the nuclear button for the next 4 years and that can't be ? a ? good ? thing ? . Yes I know some will call me an alarmist but read some of Trump's recent tweets with their apparent disregard of reality and tell me why I should be scared to death. Politicians can fool other people but when they try to fool reality itself it always bites them in the ass, and it usually ends up biting us too. ?> ? I meant, who took hammer in hand, who placed bricks, who pulled the wire and wielded the paint brushes? Did Ambani do any of that? > ?No Ambani never touched a hammer, ?and the Pharaoh ?s didn't personally move any? stones to build the pyramids, but neither the pyramids nor the billion dollar house iss a good example of a civilization using its finite resources wisely. By the way, I think the Romans with their aqueducts roads public baths and harbors were the first to make large structures that were actually worth building, before them it was just tombs, temples, palaces and walls that failed to keep out the people they were designed to keep out. > ?> ? > The shortage that worries me about the future is not insufficient wealth > > I agree, ? in sufficient wealth ? will not be a problem.? > ?> ? > but rather insufficient work. > > ?Today work is a way wealth gets distributed, ? ?for the poor and middle class it is the only way but the rich have other means of gelling a slice of the pie. Human work will be needed less and less in the future to generate wealth, so if the poor and middle class aren't given another way to get some of that wealth they're going to start chopping off heads. I'm not saying that's what should happen, I'm saying that's what will happen. ? > ?> ? > The masses do not want a handout, they want work. > > I know, but ?you can't always get what you want. Excess leisure time might be a problem but starving to death is a worse one. ? > ?> ? > However, there might not be enough left to do in the future. > > ?Exactly, and strict libertarian doctrine don't take that into account so libertarian doctrine needs to be modified if we are to survive. ? > ?>?My favorite political party is the Libertarian Party, or rather it was >> before their disgraceful behavior in 2018? > > > ?> > Indeed? He didn?t know Allepo, and this is disgraceful behavior? > Compared to what? > ?That was a typo, I meant 2016 not 2018. ? Mr. Whatisaleppo was obviously not ready to be president but that's OK because the Libertarian Party must have known from the very beginning that no candidate of theirs was going to win ?in ? this election cycle, my beef with them was ?n't that, it was? in treating 2016 as just another election year when clearly it was not. ? ? With the possible exception of ? ? Charles Manson ? ? I can't think of any ?native? ? born American citizen over 35 that is less libertarian than Donald Trump, or more ignorant, or less willing to be educated, or who place ?s? more weight on what the National Enquirer ? ?says than what the ? ? President's Daily Brief ? says. If the Libertarian Party was more dedicated to advancing libertarian principles than advancing the Libertarian Party itself then they would have done everything in their power to ensure that Donald Trump will never become President, but they didn't do that. Instead they did the exact opposite and that's why I can never trust the Libertarian Party again. ?Just because something has "Libertarian" in the name doesn't make them libertarian anymore than the Democratic Republic of the Congo ? was democratic or a republic. ?As for me I think libertarian principles are more important than the Libertarian Party, and the survival of Civilization is more important than libertarian principles. > ?>? > the alleged billionaire did win a majority of states. > > ?If he isn't a billionaire now ?he certainly will be in 4 years, he will be the richest man on Earth, assuming of course civilization still exists. > ?> ? > In any case, look at the bright side. Perhaps Americans will stop looking > to their government for help. > > ?The trouble is I am convinced the worldwide acceleration ? of the wealth gap can not continue indefinitely without grave consequences, if governments don't slow it down I can think of only one other thing that might, and it won't be one bit fun. > ?> ? > Governments aren?t really about helping the people, they are really about > helping themselves. > > ?There is a enormous amount of truth in ?that and if we were starting from scratch I think we could do a lot better with Privately Produced Law and Private Protection Agencies, but we're about as far from scratch as you can get. I hate to say it but like it or not I think we're stuck with governments. And it's not like we have all the time in the world to wait around for something better to show up because thing are about to happen *FAST*. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 00:31:01 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 19:31:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Dave Sill wrote: ?> ? > That was in response to John Clark's suggestion that governments need to > do more to redistribute wealth. Since John is a well-known libertarian I'm > wondering how he plans to that in a libertarian-friendly way. I don't think > it's possible. > ?Then it will have to be done in a ? libertarian- ??un friendly way ? ?because if the growth of the wealth gap is not addressed heads will roll, and I mean that literally not figuratively. And one of those heads is likely to be mine. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 20:24:27 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:24:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] oxymoron of the day Message-ID: Book noted in Book Review, NYT; Forensic Astrology bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 9 01:31:00 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:31:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <03ab01d26767$d227ecd0$7677c670$@att.net> <04f501d267be$faa12e40$efe38ac0$@att.net> <004301d268b2$4675fa50$d361eef0$@att.net> Message-ID: <010d01d26a18$09471b20$1bd55160$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 3:43 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] ai and job loss On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:50 AM, spike > wrote: ?> ?>?John, your post seems too pessimistic by a factor of 2pi? ?>?Spike, I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong, but recent actions of a certain billionaire after the election has not increased my confidence that I will still be alive in 4 years. I'm optimistic in that I still think the odds of me being above ground in 2021 are somewhat better than 50%, ?John K Clark Hi John, Short version: Trump is crazy ja. I don?t think he is crazy enough to start a nuclear war with China, and I don?t think they will nuke their best customers, the nation that owes them a trillion dollars. The North Koreans are not far enough along to be a major threat in that department. Yet. Russia, hmmm, I doubt they would pull the trigger. As for proletariat revolt, I don?t consider that risk very high, and even if they do, I can?t see it as successful. I can imagine some areas becoming far worse than they are now: Chicago springs to mind. But most places would be very unsympathetic to rebellion methinks. My family was hardcore Union in 1861, and I expect to continue that tradition should it come to that. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Wed Jan 11 06:11:03 2017 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:11:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO Message-ID: Ok everyone, let's put on our skeptics hats and try to figure out what this is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/groundbreaking-ufo-video-just-released-from-chilean_us_586d37bce4b014e7c72ee56b Obviously watch the videos. The material facts from the article were: 1. The object was white in HD video and over 122 deg C in IR against a back ground air temp of about 10 deg. 2. The object did not show up on the helicopter's onboard radar nor on air traffic control radars from the two closest airports. 3. It travelled in a controlled fashion against the wind at about 4500 ft above sea level. 4. The object ejected white vapor of similar temperature to the object that blended with the clouds about 30 miles off the west coast of Chile. 5. All witnesses involved were experienced Chilean navy pilots and technicians. 6. A panel of experts ruled out alteration of the videos. Any thoughts? Stuart LaForge From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 14 16:50:53 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:50:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <011601d26e86$5edcb000$1c961000$@att.net> Wooohooo! Exi-Chat is back. >... On Behalf Of Stuart LaForge Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO Ok everyone, let's put on our skeptics hats and try to figure out what this is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/groundbreaking-ufo-video-just-released-f rom-chilean_us_586d37bce4b014e7c72ee56b ...Any thoughts? Stuart LaForge _______________________________________________ Ja I saw that. I haven't done the calculations on that and might not get to it today, but my first thought was that some yahoo figured out how to suspend lithium batteries inside a rubber weather balloon with some kind of diffusing shell around it or perhaps some kind of coating on the balloon so that its IR signature would appear as a helicopter-size 122C object rather than a basketball-sized 600C object. Very puzzlin'. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Jan 15 00:04:26 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:04:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor Message-ID: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> Heisenberg and Schrodinger are speeding down the highway when a state cop pulls them over. The cop walks up to the window and asks Heisenberg, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies, "No, but I knew where I was." The cop says, "You were going 90 miles per hour!" To which Heisenberg replies, "Fine. Now we're lost." Thinking this answer is a little strange, the cop decides to investigate the vehicle. He begins by opening the trunk. Shocked by what he finds, he shouts, "You have a dead cat in here!" Schrodinger answers, "Well I do now!"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjv2006 at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 23:46:58 2017 From: sjv2006 at gmail.com (Stephen Van Sickle) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:46:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO In-Reply-To: <011601d26e86$5edcb000$1c961000$@att.net> References: <011601d26e86$5edcb000$1c961000$@att.net> Message-ID: *helicopter-size 122C object rather than a basketball-sized 600C object.* According to Wikipedia, 120C is the max recommended operating temperature of a typical nylon hot air balloon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 02:02:06 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 21:02:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> Message-ID: A Quantum Mechanic's vacation Left his colleagues in dire consternation Though tests had shown His speed was well known His position was pure speculation John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 20:11:35 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:11:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 January 2017 at 06:11, Stuart LaForge wrote: > Ok everyone, let's put on our skeptics hats and try to figure out what > this is: > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/groundbreaking-ufo-video-just-released-from-chilean_us_586d37bce4b014e7c72ee56b This analysis claims it was a commercial jet airliner. The pilots didn't notice it on the helicopter radar because it was higher and further away than where they estimated the object was. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 17:53:14 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:53:14 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 January 2017 at 06:11, Stuart LaForge wrote: > Ok everyone, let's put on our skeptics hats and try to figure out what > this is: > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/groundbreaking-ufo-video-just-released-from-chilean_us_586d37bce4b014e7c72ee56b > > Obviously watch the videos. The material facts from the article were: > > 1. The object was white in HD video and over 122 deg C in IR against a > back ground air temp of about 10 deg. > 2. The object did not show up on the helicopter's onboard radar nor on air > traffic control radars from the two closest airports. > 3. It travelled in a controlled fashion against the wind at about 4500 ft > above sea level. > 4. The object ejected white vapor of similar temperature to the object > that blended with the clouds about 30 miles off the west coast of Chile. > 5. All witnesses involved were experienced Chilean navy pilots and > technicians. > 6. A panel of experts ruled out alteration of the videos. > > Any thoughts? > Metabunk analysis says it was a jet airliner. It didn't show on the helicopter radar because it was higher and further away than the pilots estimated. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 18:09:51 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:09:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] (no subject) Message-ID: Roz's computer got a message saying that it's blocked etc etc. Says to call MS at 1 877 607 1973 <(877)%20607-1973> So she panicked and called it while I Googled that and determined that it was a scam. They did not ask for any info at the time she hung up. Norton should have caught it. Just passing this on, so that if you get the same with that phone number you can safely dismiss it. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 16:50:08 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:50:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:50 AM, spike wrote: >John, your post seems too pessimistic by a factor of 2pi. ?Spike, I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong, but recent actions of a certain billionaire after the election has not increased my confidence that I will still be alive in 4 years. I'm optimistic in that I still think the odds of me being above ground in 2021 are somewhat better than 50%, but if I were a honest impartial actuary I'd have to say the odds have fallen significantly since November 7. After all ?, an ? ignorant m ?a n ? with a hair trigger temper ? who refuses to learn ? will have his finger on the nuclear button for the next 4 years and that can't be ? a ? good ? thing ? . Yes I know some will call me an alarmist but read some of Trump's recent tweets with their apparent disregard of reality and tell me why I should be scared to death. Politicians can fool other people but when they try to fool reality itself it always bites them in the ass, and it usually ends up biting us too. > > > ? > I meant, who took hammer in hand, who placed bricks, who pulled the wire > and wielded the paint brushes? Did Ambani do any of that? ?No Ambani never touched a hammer, ?and the Pharaoh ?s didn't personally move any? stones to build the pyramids, but neither the pyramids nor the billion dollar house iss a good example of a civilization using its finite resources wisely. By the way, I think the Romans with their aqueducts roads public baths and harbors were the first to make large structures that were actually worth building, before them it was just tombs, temples, palaces and walls that failed to keep out the people they were designed to keep out. > > > ? ? > The shortage that worries me about the future is not insufficient wealth I agree, ? in sufficient wealth ? will not be a problem.? > > > ? ? > but rather insufficient work. ?Today work is a way wealth gets distributed, ? ?for the poor and middle class it is the only way but the rich have other means of gelling a slice of the pie. Human work will be needed less and less in the future to generate wealth, so if the poor and middle class aren't given another way to get some of that wealth they're going to start chopping off heads. I'm not saying that's what should happen, I'm saying that's what will happen. ? > > > ? ? > The masses do not want a handout, they want work. I know, but you can't always get what you want. Excess leisure time might be a problem but starving to death is a worse one. It's ironic that during Trump's Nuremberg style rallies he used, without their permission, the Rolling Stone's song "You can't always get what you want". > > > ? ? > However, there might not be enough left to do in the future. ?Exactly, and strict libertarian doctrine don't take that into account so libertarian doctrine needs to be modified if we are to survive. ? > ?> >> ?> ? >> ?My favorite political party is the Libertarian Party, or rather it was >> before their disgraceful behavior in 2018? > > > ? > > > ? ? > Indeed? He didn?t know Allepo, and this is disgraceful behavior? > Compared to what? > ?That was a typo, I meant 2016 not 2018. ? Mr. Whatisaleppo was obviously not ready to be president but that's OK because the Libertarian Party must have known from the very beginning that no candidate of theirs was going to win ?in ? this election cycle, my beef with them wasn't ? that, it was? in treating 2016 as just another election year when clearly it was not. ? ? With the possible exception of ? ? Charles Manson ? ? I can't think of any ?native? ? born American citizen over 35 that is less libertarian than Donald Trump, or more ignorant, or less willing to be educated, or who place ?s? more weight on what the National Enquirer ? ?says than what the ? ? President's Daily Brief ? says. If the Libertarian Party was more dedicated to advancing libertarian principles than advancing the Libertarian Party itself then they would have done everything in their power to ensure that Donald Trump will never become President, but they didn't do that. Instead they did the exact opposite and that's why I can never trust the Libertarian Party again. ?Just because something has "Libertarian" in the name doesn't make them libertarian anymore than the Democratic Republic of the Congo ? was democratic or a republic. ?As for me I think libertarian principles are more important than the Libertarian Party, and the survival of Civilization is more important than libertarian principles. > > > ? ? > the alleged billionaire did win a majority of states. ?If he isn't a billionaire now ?he certainly will be in 4 years, he will be the richest man on Earth, assuming of course civilization still exists. > > In any case, look at the bright side. Perhaps Americans will stop > looking to their government for help. ?The trouble is I am convinced the worldwide acceleration ? of the wealth gap can not continue indefinitely without grave consequences, if governments don't slow it down I can think of only one other thing that might, and it won't be one bit fun. > > Governments aren?t really about helping the people, they are really > about helping themselves. ?There is a enormous amount of truth in ?that and if we were starting from scratch I think we could do a lot better with Privately Produced Law and Private Protection Agencies, but we're about as far from scratch as you can get. I hate to say it but like it or not I think we're stuck with governments. And it's not like we have all the time in the world to wait around for something better to show up because thing are about to happen *FAST*. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 16:42:48 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:42:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 14, 2017 8:44 AM, "Stuart LaForge" wrote: Any thoughts? "Aliens" (I'd post the graphic that goes with this meme, but I'm sure you've all seen it) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 17:26:14 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:26:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> Message-ID: A Quantum Mechanic's vacation Left his colleagues in dire consternation Though tests had shown His speed was well known His position was pure speculation John K Clark On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:04 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > > > Heisenberg and Schrodinger are speeding down the highway when a state cop > pulls them over. > > > > The cop walks up to the window and asks Heisenberg, "Do you know how fast > you were going?" > > > > Heisenberg replies, "No, but I knew where I was." > > > > The cop says, "You were going 90 miles per hour!" > > > > To which Heisenberg replies, "Fine. Now we're lost." > > > > Thinking this answer is a little strange, the cop decides to investigate > the vehicle. He begins by opening the trunk. Shocked by what he finds, he > shouts, "You have a dead cat in here!" > > > > Schrodinger answers, "Well I do now!"? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 16 18:38:48 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:38:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c001d27027$c76e3650$564aa2f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ? ?>?There is a enormous amount of truth in ?that and if we were starting from scratch ?but we're about as far from scratch as you can get. I hate to say it but like it or not I think we're stuck with governments. ? John K Clark Ja, but look at the bright side. The US has rediscovered the paradoxically-named concept of Federalism, which is about state?s rights. We have long been suffering from a voting population with little interest in the whole notion. Now, everything has changed. Suddenly there is new interest in and appreciation for the US Constitution, with a long-neglected emphasis on enumerated rights, the defined list of things the Federal government is legally empowered to do. This is a gooooood thing. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 22:27:25 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:27:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap Message-ID: Holy shit! I said the wealth gap was huge and I said it was accelerating, but my posts vastly underestimated it. Take a look at today's New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/world/eight-richest-wealth-oxfam.html?_r=0 In the carefree innocent days of last week I said ?that ? in 4 or 5 years the number of people that would equal the wealth of the poorest half of the human race, 3.6 Billion people ?,? ?could? be in the teens, but as of today that number is *8*! And I don't mean 8 factorial I mean *8*. In 2010 it took 388 people to equal 3.6 billion ? people? , in 2014 it was 85, last year it ?was? ? 62, *AND NOW IT IS 8*. I suppose nobody should have been surprised that people are getting so angry they do irrational things, like voting for Donald Trump, even though Trump's policies, to the extent that he has policies, will only accelerate the acceleration of the acceleration of the gap. Anybody who is not terrified by this doesn't understand the situation. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 15:35:38 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:35:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO In-Reply-To: References: <011601d26e86$5edcb000$1c961000$@att.net> Message-ID: I think the best question to ask is: whatever the hell it is, why might a thing have discharges like that, and what did they accomplish? They weren't propulsion. Necessary jettisoning of waste? Chemical distribution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 21:14:39 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:14:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: <00c001d27027$c76e3650$564aa2f0$@att.net> References: <00c001d27027$c76e3650$564aa2f0$@att.net> Message-ID: With the possible exception of ? ? Charles Manson ? ? I can't think of any ?native? ? born American citizen over 35 that is less libertarian than Donald Trump, or more ignorant, or less willing to be educated I only know what I read, and from that this psychologist draws the conclusion that Trump is pugnacious. Just push him a bit and he wants to push back harder. That could mean a currency war with China, among many other things, and just that one would be very bad for us. bill w On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:38 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Clark > *?* > > > > ?>?There is a enormous amount of truth in ?that and if we were starting > from scratch ?but we're about as far from scratch as you can get. I hate to > say it but like it or not I think we're stuck with governments. ? > > John K Clark > > > > > > Ja, but look at the bright side. The US has rediscovered the > paradoxically-named concept of Federalism, which is about state?s rights. > We have long been suffering from a voting population with little interest > in the whole notion. Now, everything has changed. Suddenly there is new > interest in and appreciation for the US Constitution, with a long-neglected > emphasis on enumerated rights, the defined list of things the Federal > government is legally empowered to do. This is a gooooood thing. > > > > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 16:15:53 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:15:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] TEST #4 Message-ID: ?Ignore, this is just another test to see if the list is back. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 23:08:34 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:08:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <00c001d27027$c76e3650$564aa2f0$@att.net> Message-ID: > With the possible exception of > Charles Manson > I can't think of any > native > born American citizen over 35 that is less libertarian than Donald Trump, > or more ignorant, or less willing to be educated I can. Many of them are in the Senate. Not all of them, not even all the Republicans in the Senate, but if you look I suspect you'll find them. From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 16 23:05:53 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:05:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of John Clark >?AND NOW IT IS 8. I suppose nobody should have been surprised that people are getting so angry they do irrational things, like voting for Donald Trump, even though Trump's policies, to the extent that he has policies, will only accelerate the acceleration of the acceleration of the gap. Anybody who is not terrified by this doesn't understand the situation?John K Clark? John, if things happen that seem inexplicable to you, or the masses are acting in a way that seems irrational, or you are getting constant cognitive dissonance, it could be there is something wrong with your model. You are the only one here who promotes the notion if fewer than 8 people have more wealth than the bottom half of humanity combined, it all suddenly explodes. Do take some time to carefully examine that assumption please. After severe introspection, consider the following questions: 1. How do we know it is true? 2. In what sense is it true? 3. How are we defining ownership? 4. How is wealth being counted? 5. What is the value of Mexico? And who owns it? 6. And what is the value of Russia? And who owns that? 7. If it all explodes to chaos, what does that mean, very specifically please? 8. If masses of hungry people are in the streets, does that count as chaos? 9. What streets? 10. What must they do once in the streets to qualify as chaos? 11. Who are they attacking and who is defending? 12. What are they hoping to take, so that they will improve their wellbeing? 13. Are there historical examples? 14. Who are all these angry people? I know of only one really. Perhaps more important: where are they? 15. What is similar now and what is different now from your historical examples? 16. How does intellectual property fit into the picture? 17. What is the value of the copyright or patent on Microsloth Excel, compared to all the gold in Fort Knox? 18. A large percentage of the poorest people on the continent live on the continent of Africa, so how do we count the value of continents like Africa? 19. What if religion comes into the picture, such as a really rich guy of one major branch of a major religion is being attacked by followers of the other major branch, so that the rich feller?s branch come to his aid, then what? 20. What if national boundaries come into play, such as Qatar using its considerable military might to defend attackers mostly from another nation? 21. If the top eight wealthiest people on earth had any use for it, could they buy Africa? 22. If these really poor people decide it is time to rise up and slay the rich, it stands to reason they are far too poor to purchase plane tickets to get to at least seven of those richest people, so they will have to settle for the nearest one, such as your example of the castle-builder in Mumbai, so they slay him. Now what? 23. What if they storm the castle but can?t find the scoundrel because he already thought of that and had a contingency, a secret tunnel to a non-descript house with an escape vehicle, now what? 24. What if the world watches this attempted proletariat revolt and decides perhaps the rich guys really aren?t harming the poor at all, but rather it is the poor who are harming the poor? You don?t need to answer all or even most of the above, but do feel free to pick one or two and comment, or go free-form and explain why you think this is so dangerous please. More fundamental than the above, I question the assumptions of whoever is claiming that the combined wealth of 8 people is greater than the poorest 3.5 billion people. I would say it depends entirely on how you count it. All the ways I can think of to count wealth are completely arbitrary, but I will listen if you wish to propose something. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 22:33:01 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:33:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What is your suggestion for resolving this terrifying situation? On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 5:27 PM, John Clark wrote: > Holy shit! I said the wealth gap was huge and I said it was accelerating, > but my posts vastly underestimated it. Take a look at today's New York > Times: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/world/eight-richest- > wealth-oxfam.html?_r=0 > > In the carefree innocent days of last week I said > ?that ? > in 4 or 5 years the number of people that would equal the wealth of the > poorest half of the human race, 3.6 Billion people > ?,? > > ?could? > be in the teens, but as of today that number is *8*! And I don't mean 8 > factorial I mean *8*. > > In 2010 it took 388 people to equal 3.6 billion > ? people? > , in 2014 it was 85, last year it > ?was? > ? > 62, *AND NOW IT IS 8*. I suppose nobody should have been surprised that > people are getting so angry they do irrational things, like voting for > Donald Trump, even though Trump's policies, to the extent that he has > policies, will only accelerate the acceleration of the acceleration of the > gap. Anybody who is not terrified by this doesn't understand the situation. > ? > > John K Clark? > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 23:36:10 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:36:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> References: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> Message-ID: On 16 January 2017 at 23:05, spike wrote: > More fundamental than the above, I question the assumptions of whoever is > claiming that the combined wealth of 8 people is greater than the poorest > 3.5 billion people. I would say it depends entirely on how you count it. > All the ways I can think of to count wealth are completely arbitrary, but I > will listen if you wish to propose something. > Also, many of the 'poorest' people are part of the grossly over-borrowed first world population who actually have negative wealth. (Not arguing against the ridiculous wealth concentration - just the dubious Oxfam statistics). BillK From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 23:24:47 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:24:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also consider the public statements of those 8. Every single one of them is publicly trying, in their own way, to ally with the common man - be it through funding medicine for the poor, developing tech to raise the standard of living for most, or other means. Not a one is openly first and foremost interested in self-enrichment. On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:27 PM, John Clark wrote: > Holy shit! I said the wealth gap was huge and I said it was accelerating, > but my posts vastly underestimated it. Take a look at today's New York > Times: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/world/eight-richest-wealth-oxfam.html?_r=0 > > In the carefree innocent days of last week I said > that > in 4 or 5 years the number of people that would equal the wealth of the > poorest half of the human race, 3.6 Billion people > , > > could > be in the teens, but as of today that number is 8! And I don't mean 8 > factorial I mean 8. > > In 2010 it took 388 people to equal 3.6 billion > people > , in 2014 it was 85, last year it > was > 62, AND NOW IT IS 8. I suppose nobody should have been surprised that people > are getting so angry they do irrational things, like voting for Donald > Trump, even though Trump's policies, to the extent that he has policies, > will only accelerate the acceleration of the acceleration of the gap. > Anybody who is not terrified by this doesn't understand the situation. > > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 00:24:25 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:24:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: References: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> Message-ID: Whatever the way of counting, we can zoom out and still see that distribution of wealth is not happening. Makes sense. Extropy. Just a lot of greedy people out there being extropic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 17:59:49 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:59:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > Any thoughts? Stealth plane, operating where it shouldn't have been (without the knowledge and consent of the country whose airspace it was in) - which makes it hard to identify whose, though Argentinian certainly comes to mind. From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 19:40:21 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:40:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> Message-ID: I think we may have different definitions of humor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 17 01:43:02 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:43:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> Message-ID: <01da01d27063$0b371c40$21a554c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 11:40 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] physics geek humor I think we may have different definitions of humor. Will Depends on what your definition of ?definition? is. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 02:18:31 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:18:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: <01da01d27063$0b371c40$21a554c0$@att.net> References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> <01da01d27063$0b371c40$21a554c0$@att.net> Message-ID: Oh, now I'm going to have to quote Bill Clinton! ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 01:59:25 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: References: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> Message-ID: I've read of rich men, and many of them are workaholics who abandon their families, work every day, often late. They became successful in business or investment, and just kept their plans going and going and going. Why quit? They are invested in or own companies who produce goods and/or services people are buying. They buy up unsuccessful companies and turn them around (or sell off the parts). This is a good thing. Now maybe you or I might just stop and enjoy our wealth, maybe go into charity work like the Gates, but most seem to just keep going. Why is any of this greedy? Is there some definition of 'more than their share' that is being applied? This is capitalism at its finest, isn't it? Is it greed because they are not sharing enough of their wealth with workers? How would this apply to investors? Some of them, like Buffett, seem not to even care about their money - it's a game to them. Perhaps they think that investing in a good company is supporting the American Way. So please defend your definitions of greed. Show how this money is wrong and the person is sinfully motivated. Note that Buffett and Gates, for two, have challenged others to donate billions to charity (I just don't know much about the others). bill w On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > Whatever the way of counting, we can zoom out and still see that > distribution of wealth is not happening. > > Makes sense. Extropy. Just a lot of greedy people out there being > extropic. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 03:05:42 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:05:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> References: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:05 PM, spike wrote: > > > ? > John, if things happen that seem inexplicable to you, Events are not inexplicable but they're happening much faster than I expected. I've known for a long time there was a conflict between my libertarian economic ideas and my belief that there is no fundamental limit to the upward curve of AI's power, but I figured it would be several decades before the contradictions became serious. I was wrong, the day has arrived. With regard to economic matters I no longer think pure classical libertarianism is consistent with the survival of civilization. I always knew the day would come when I had to say that, I just didn't think it would come this soon. ? > ?> ? > You are the only one here who promotes the notion if fewer than 8 people > have more wealth than the bottom half of humanity combined, it all suddenly > explodes. > > ?Well Spike, how long do you think the acceleration of the wealth gap can continue before the social fabric of the world ruptures? With the unexpected success of Bernie Sanders, Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump it's clear to me that a populist revolution is in the air. And revolutions seldom make people happier. ?>? > How do we know it > ?[the wealth gap] ? > is true? > > ?Induction, the same reason I believe the stuff I read in Science or Nature is probably true. If a news source has told the truth in the past it is probably doing so now. ? ?> ? > If it all explodes to chaos, what does that mean, very specifically > please? > > If ?very specific predictions could be made then it wouldn't be chaos, all I know is there are far more ways something can change for the worse than change for the better. Trump voters don't understand that but they'll find out. And soon. ?>? > What are they hoping to take, so that they will improve their wellbeing? > ?They don't exactly know but think any change must be a change for the better?, and in that the mob is entirely wrong. ?When people becomes angry and scared they behave irrationally, especially if they are in a crowd and a demagogy ? knows how to push their buttons. See Trump in action. The accelerating wealth gap makes people despair for the future, and that makes them angry, and that makes them reckless, and that makes them vote for Trump. And it's the nature of accelerating things that you ain't seen nothing yet. ? ?>? > Are there historical examples? > > ?The French ?Revolution immediately comes to mind but there are others, none of them very pleasant . ? ?>? > What is similar now and what is different now from your historical > examples? > > ? None of the ? historical examples are particularly good ? analogies with the present situation ? because AI is something new in the world ?;? ? and the obvious limit to the trend I'm talking about is not 8 people but zero people because all the wealth will be owned by the AI. It's only a matter of time before we're all dependent on the kindness of ? the ? machines, in the meantime ? the poorest 99% of humanity will be dependent on the kindness of the rich. So if the rich wish for their heads to be fully connected to their bodies they sure as hell had better be kind! ?> ? > What if religion comes into the picture, such as a really rich guy of one > major branch of a major religion is being attacked by followers of the > other major branch, so that the rich feller?s branch come to his aid, then > what? > > Then it would be bad but there is nothing new in that, ? as Christopher Hitchens ? said religion poisons everything. ? ?>? > If these really poor people decide it is time to rise up and slay the > rich, it stands to reason they are far too poor to purchase plane tickets > to get to at least seven of those richest people, so they will have to > settle for the nearest one, such as your example of the castle-builder in > Mumbai, so they slay him. Now what? > > ?Nah, that Mumbai guy may have a billion dollar house but he's not REALLY rich, he's not one of the big 8. I'm talking about real money.? ?> ? > What if they storm the castle but can?t find the scoundrel because he > already thought of that and had a contingency, a secret tunnel to a > non-descript house with an escape vehicle, now what? > > ?That's ? ?what worries me, ?the mob won't find the scoundrel but they will find me, and if his neck isn't available they'll just have to make do with mine, and so my head and shoulders will part company. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 02:01:59 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:01:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: <01da01d27063$0b371c40$21a554c0$@att.net> References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> <01da01d27063$0b371c40$21a554c0$@att.net> Message-ID: Even my wife (after a bit of explaining) laughed out loud at it. Encore! Encore! bill w On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:43 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Will Steinberg > *Sent:* Monday, January 16, 2017 11:40 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] physics geek humor > > > > I think we may have different definitions of humor. Will > > > > > > > > Depends on what your definition of ?definition? is. > > > > 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 cryptaxe at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 22:54:18 2017 From: cryptaxe at gmail.com (CryptAxe) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:54:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Chilean UFO In-Reply-To: References: <011601d26e86$5edcb000$1c961000$@att.net> Message-ID: "It' Chemtrails, man" was the first thought that entered my tinfoil wrapped head! It was probably a leak or something but then why didn't the object start falling out of the sky? Lots of people saying it was a helicopter now, could it just be heat from the engine? On Jan 16, 2017 2:51 PM, "Will Steinberg" wrote: > I think the best question to ask is: whatever the hell it is, why might a > thing have discharges like that, and what did they accomplish? They > weren't propulsion. > > Necessary jettisoning of waste? Chemical distribution? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 17 03:02:02 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:02:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: References: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> Message-ID: <024301d2706e$14b3d910$3e1b8b30$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 5:59 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap >?I've read of rich men, and many of them are workaholics who abandon their families, work every day, often late. They became successful in business or investment, and just kept their plans going and going and going. Why quit? They are invested in or own companies who produce goods and/or services people are buying? Ja there is that. But think about it another way too. Plenty of us have worked in a company for a number of years and know that after a certain age a worker generally isn?t mobile. If your company declines and they lose their position, it can be ruinous as all hell for that worker and that worker?s family. Many of them will never find a decent landing spot. With that, imagine a top-notch employee comes up thru the ranks and ends up at the top. Good chance she got there by working her ass off, showing up early every day, staying late and so on, knows a lot of people personally in the company. She knows she has to keep the profit coming, not just for her own enjoyment but to keep that company in business for a crowd of people who are functionally her dependents. Don?t laugh this off: CEOs are generally not hard-hearted sorts, but they are hard-drivers. >?They buy up unsuccessful companies and turn them around (or sell off the parts). This is a good thing? Sure it is. A company has to be profitable to stay in business, employ people and create wealth. A poorly managed company will have acquired a bunch of ill-fitting pieces that don?t work well together. But plenty of those pieces are good solid smaller companies, potentially profitable, healthy. So, buy the whole mess, cut it up and sell the parts you don?t need or can?t use, reorganize what is left. Result: better stronger companies. >?Some of them, like Buffett, seem not to even care about their money - it's a game to them? Well sure it is. I can show you good examples of it, CEOs who don?t really give a damn about their money, they have enough. They get into the whole business game, play it like a giant chessboard, use it like a personal hobby. That kind of attitude is very common at the top of all successful companies. The office becomes their home, the top brass their family. >?Perhaps they think that investing in a good company is supporting the American Way? Ja! If they do well, the company does well, the families do well, morale is great, fun company picnics, all of it. Corporate life can be really a lotta fun, educational, exciting, rewarding. I have no regrets about the 26 years I spent in that game. Didn?t get rich, made a good living, learned a lot, enjoyed many happy times and made enduring friendships. >?So please defend your definitions of greed. Show how this money is wrong and the person is sinfully motivated. Note that Buffett and Gates, for two, have challenged others to donate billions to charity (I just don't know much about the others)?bill w Ja, and consider Gates. He has no known political aspirations (although it isn?t a bit clear to me why not) and it isn?t even clear which party he is in. Why the heck not put a guy like him running for the top office? Hell he could have chosen either party and won this time, either party! He has demonstrated he can run a big empire. We would be damn happy to have him considering the alternatives. We now have Peter Thiel talking about running for governor of California. I will vote for that guy early and often. I will get on the phone for him, plant a sign in my front yard. He can?t be president, but I think he would make fine governator. I would vote for Bill Gates too if we can get him to run. Rich people are our friends. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsa at unsa.edu.ar Tue Jan 17 02:50:07 2017 From: dsa at unsa.edu.ar (Diego Saravia) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:50:07 -0300 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: References: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> Message-ID: 2017-01-16 22:59 GMT-03:00 William Flynn Wallace : > I've read of rich men, and many of them are workaholics who abandon their > families, work every day, often late. They became successful in business > or investment, and just kept their plans going and going and going. Why > quit? They are invested in or own companies who produce goods and/or > services people are buying. > > They buy up unsuccessful companies and turn them around (or sell off the > parts). This is a good thing. > > Now maybe you or I might just stop and enjoy our wealth, maybe go into > charity work like the Gates, but most seem to just keep going. > > Why is any of this greedy? Is there some definition of 'more than their > share' that is being applied? This is capitalism at its finest, isn't it? > Is it greed because they are not sharing enough of their wealth with > workers? How would this apply to investors? > The problem are not that men. The problem are all the heirs that spend a lot in luxury and enviromental prolematic stuff and do not produce anything, but continue to receive rent for generations. Once I read a book from a far right extremist, he says that we live in a socialist word, because from ten commands that the first socialist congress in the history approves, only one is not in effect: Abolition of inheritance. I often think that if only that "socialist" rule applied, but all other rules are completly liberal, we could have a better world. -- Diego Saravia Diego.Saravia at gmail.com NO FUNCIONA->dsa at unsa.edu.ar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 17 03:38:35 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:38:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: References: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> Message-ID: <029001d27073$2f490430$8ddb0c90$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 7:06 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:05 PM, spike > wrote: >>?? How do we know it [the wealth gap] ?is true? ? >?Induction, the same reason I believe the stuff I read in Science or Nature is probably true. If a news source has told the truth in the past it is probably doing so now? Ja, but that isn?t really what I was getting at. I am not suggesting they are lying, rather that it isn?t at all clear how to define how much wealth a person owns. For instance, at one time the current president-presumed-elect was the poorest person in history. If we take assets minus debts, his went more negative than anyone ever. But he still controlled one hell of a lot of wealth when he was the poorest person in human history. That?s the nature of real-estate development: it is risky stuff. The USA is nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt, and that?s just the Federal government, so divide that by about 330 million people and I get every man, woman and child who is a US citizen is in debt an average of about 60 thousand bucks. But the average American has much less net worth than that, so average Americans have a negative worth, and so are poorer than the starving masses of Mumbai, who have nothing of value but have no debt either. But Americans have great potential, even the poor ones. So how do you count that? The current president un-elect claimed to be dead broke 16 years ago, but I question that notion. It depends on how you count it. She had plenty of sellable assets, and I am not even counting the artifacts plundered from the White House. Consider this guy George Soros, plenty of money, ja? But?the guy is 86 yrs old. How long can he have? 10 years if he is lucky? Compare him to a really smart but broke 20 yr old with a bright future. It isn?t clear to me there is a single most logical way to count wealth. Back to considering those starving poor countries: they do have plenty of people and plenty of them are young. So they have enormous potential, if they can work out that whole ignorance problem. My notion is that they can. More free educational material is becoming available every day. So if we count assets as knowledge, it is now not clear that 8 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people. I don?t believe it, depending on how you count it. ? >??That's ?what worries me, ?the mob won't find the scoundrel but they will find me, and if his neck isn't available they'll just have to make do with mine, and so my head and shoulders will part company?John K Clark John you scare me, my brother. Methinks you need to pack up and move to a safer neighborhood. I don?t see anything around me ever that causes me to think society is anywhere near violent uprising, proletariat revolt or any of that. The scenario you offered is almost self-contradictory: the proletariat voted for Trump? So? the resentful masses are? with the government? Doesn?t that seem backwards? The loyal masses rise up against? help me here. I don?t see what you are worrying about and why. I will tell you what I am worrying about and why. I have been on ExI for over 20 yrs and the topic has always been around: technology really does destroy some jobs. We know it does, and we like to think it creates other jobs, for we know it does that too. But we are coming up on a really big revolution, the replacement of human drivers. That has so long served as the bottom rung of the economic ladder (it?s lower in a lot of ways than low-end restaurant work.) But both of those lower rungs are threatened in the near term. We hear of proposed solutions, such as guaranteed minimum income, and that could help, but it isn?t a solution in itself. People need work rather than just a handout. After all this time, it still isn?t clear to me what the lower end of humanity will do with themselves once we create something like K2 (oh man is that guy cool or what?) K2 is coming: all the technology we need to build something like that exists. We are now with robotics where the automotive industry and the aircraft industry was in about 1900: plenty of people can see potential up the kazoo and know it is about to happen. But this time, we won?t really employ all that many people. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 01:36:52 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:36:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> Message-ID: <72F1AA45-39CF-4BA2-B7DF-2D41DA5D393A@gmail.com> On Jan 16, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Will Steinberg wrote: > > I think we may have different definitions of humor Mayhap, but what are these different definitions? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 16:34:16 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:34:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The INCREDIBLE acceleration of the wealth gap In-Reply-To: <029001d27073$2f490430$8ddb0c90$@att.net> References: <015101d2704d$16baf6b0$4430e410$@att.net> <029001d27073$2f490430$8ddb0c90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:38 PM, spike wrote: > ?> > I am not suggesting they are lying, rather that it isn?t at all clear how > to define how much wealth a person owns. > ? Well for one thing, 8 people could use their personal finances to employ 3.6 billion people, if they could figure out something for them to do. Which they can't. ? ? But the important thing is not the particular metric used but the fact that the criteria hasn't changed ? since 2010? , and since 2010 to today the number has dropped from 388 to 8. That has got to be cause for concern. > ?> ? > Consider this guy George Soros, plenty of money, ja? But?the guy is 86 > yrs old. How long can he have? 10 years if he is lucky? ? And ?Trump wants to get rid of the inheritance tax. So when Soros dies he could ?if he wished ? give all his money to his kids without paying any taxes and create a inherited upper class that could continue for generations. ?A ? inherited upper class ? that needs to do nothing but sit on their ass and build billion dollar houses.? ?> ? > consider Gates. He has no known political aspirations (although it isn?t > a bit clear to me why not) and it isn?t even clear which party he is in. > Why the heck not put a guy like him running for the top office? Hell he > could have chosen either party > and won this time, either party! He has demonstrated he can run a big > empire. We would be damn happy to have him ?I would have voted for Bill Gates too and done so in a heartbeat regardless of what political party he chose to run in, but I doubt he could have won because he's not a great speaker and doesn't know how to push the mob's buttons. I can't see Gates whipping up a crowd into a frenzy with chants of ? ?? ?"lock her up" or "build the wall", and apparently you need ?that sort of ability to get elected president these days. I wonder what silly nickname Trump would have dreamed up for him, Nerdy-Gate? > >> ?> ? >> ??That's ?what worries me, ?the mob won't find the scoundrel but they >> will find me, and if his neck isn't available they'll just have to make do >> with mine, and so my head and shoulders will part company > > > > ?> ? > John you scare me, my brother. Methinks you need to pack up and move to a > safer neighborhood. > > ?My neighborhood is far safer than most, but when the shit hits the fan no place will be safe.? > ?> ? > I don?t see anything around me ever that causes me to think society is > anywhere near violent uprising, proletariat revolt or any of that. The > scenario you offered is almost self-contradictory: the proletariat voted > for Trump? > > ? A majority of the proletariat did NOT vote for Trump, a plurality of the proletariat did NOT vote for Trump, but yes any proletarian, or any human being for that matter, who voted for Trump is indeed ?engaging in ? self-contradictory ? behavior.? ?> ? > So? the resentful masses are? with the government? Doesn?t that seem > backwards? > ?Yep, but this is far from the first time backward ? things have happened in politics. ? > ?> ? > I don?t see what you are worrying about and why. > ?Spike, do you really think the wealth gap can not only keep widening but keep accelerating, and keep doing so forever without blood in the streets? > ?> ? > We hear of proposed solutions, such as guaranteed minimum income, and that > could help, > > ?Yes.? > ?> ? > but it isn?t a solution in itself. People need work rather than just a > handout. > > ?That isn't going ?to happen because there will be no jobs around, except perhaps silly makework jobs that are just thinly disguised ? ? ?handouts. ? > ?> ? > After all this time, it still isn?t clear to me what the lower end of > humanity will do with themselves > ? This isn't just a problem for the lower end of humanity, every single member of the human race ?without exception ? will ?have to ? face this problem ?,? it's just a question of when, and the time when we ?all ? have to face it is coming much quicker than I expected. I don't pretend to have a total solution to the problem but I do know that a good place to start is to make sure people don't die in the streets from starvation or lack of health care. After that we can worry about finding a way to insure their feeling ?of ? self fulfilment. > ?> ? > We are now with robotics where the automotive industry and the aircraft > industry was in about 1900: plenty of people can see potential up the kazoo > and know it is about to happen. But this time, we won?t really employ all > that many people. > ?I Agree, and the number of jobs needed for that to happen will follow an exponential curve, an exponential curve downward. And that's why pure classical libertarian philosophy needs to be modified, at least in the economic sphere. John K Clark ? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 16:45:41 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:45:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> <01da01d27063$0b371c40$21a554c0$@att.net> Message-ID: There was a young lady named ? ?Bright Who traveled much faster than light She left one ?day? In a relative ?way ? ? And returned the previous night ?John K Clark? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 17:34:09 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:34:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income Message-ID: I can see that universal unemployment probably means that UBI will become necessary. But I can't see where the money to do this comes from. Pension schemes are already going bust because of low interest rates and governments are moving the pension age later and later to postpone the increased costs of an ageing population. If taxation is increased it will make the poor worse off and devalue the UBI payments. Social security will still be required in addition as many people have disabilities, medical costs and families to support that UBI wouldn't be sufficent for. And you will get millions of immigrants from the third world wanting to claim their UBI. It will be interesting to see how the trials work out. BillK From godsdice at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 17:08:07 2017 From: godsdice at gmail.com (Rick Strongitharm) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:08:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> Message-ID: More, please, more! On Saturday, January 14, 2017, spike wrote: > > > > > > > Heisenberg and Schrodinger are speeding down the highway when a state cop > pulls them over. > > > > The cop walks up to the window and asks Heisenberg, "Do you know how fast > you were going?" > > > > Heisenberg replies, "No, but I knew where I was." > > > > The cop says, "You were going 90 miles per hour!" > > > > To which Heisenberg replies, "Fine. Now we're lost." > > > > Thinking this answer is a little strange, the cop decides to investigate > the vehicle. He begins by opening the trunk. Shocked by what he finds, he > shouts, "You have a dead cat in here!" > > > > Schrodinger answers, "Well I do now!"? > > > > > -- "Dogma blinds." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 17 18:51:32 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:51:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <015401d270f2$b8c1c970$2a455c50$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 9:34 AM To: Extropy Chat Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income >...I can see that universal unemployment probably means that UBI will become necessary. But I can't see where the money to do this comes from...BillK _______________________________________________ Ja to all, but I wish to clarify, the universal in UBI would not be income but rather universal basic food and shelter. That could be done for waaaaay less money than any known alternative. Shelter can be made reasonable from retired shipping containers. The food can be actual literal food, rather than our current grocery debit cards. It could provide reasonable survival necessities without attracting illegal immigration. Perhaps I am idealistic, but my notion is that illegal immigration is caused by available employment rather than available handouts. People need jobs, not just handouts. What I am seeing with respect to John's scenario is the eventual creation of K2 or even something less sophisticated but still capable. Then a really rich guy could build a robo-workforce that could build more K2s and go open loop. That isn't likely to happen in the next few years, but is likely to happen in the next few decades. I don't know what we are going to do when robots do things better than we can. We have always created new jobs as people are employed controlling the machines. But what if that job isn't needed anymore. We don't know. None of our major political parties can answer that questions. spike From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 19:01:26 2017 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:01:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This article analyzes some numbers: http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586 So long as the GDP stays the same or increases though the automation that triggers unemployment, there will be the money to support it. Without a universal income, this is the future economy we have to look forward to: https://twitter.com/nickwiger/status/675850176204947456?lang=en Jason On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:34 AM, BillK wrote: > I can see that universal unemployment probably means that UBI will > become necessary. But I can't see where the money to do this comes > from. > > Pension schemes are already going bust because of low interest rates > and governments are moving the pension age later and later to postpone > the increased costs of an ageing population. > > If taxation is increased it will make the poor worse off and devalue > the UBI payments. Social security will still be required in addition > as many people have disabilities, medical costs and families to > support that UBI wouldn't be sufficent for. > > And you will get millions of immigrants from the third world wanting > to claim their UBI. > > It will be interesting to see how the trials work out. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 19:21:47 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:21:47 +0000 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> Message-ID: On 17 January 2017 at 17:08, Rick Strongitharm wrote: > More, please, more! Wanted $10,000 reward. Schroedinger's Cat. Dead or Alive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 21:08:29 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:08:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Betting on the end of the world Message-ID: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/my_end-of-the-w.html Another bet with Bryan Caplan -- this time with Eliezer. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 20:15:06 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:15:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: <72F1AA45-39CF-4BA2-B7DF-2D41DA5D393A@gmail.com> References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> <72F1AA45-39CF-4BA2-B7DF-2D41DA5D393A@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2017 1:02 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: Mayhap, but what are these different definitions? Sorry, I spoke too euphemistically. I mean we have different heuristics for what is humorOUS. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 17 21:11:28 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:11:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01b201d27106$45566cc0$d0034640$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jason Resch Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:01 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Universal basic income >?This article analyzes some numbers: http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586 >?So long as the GDP stays the same or increases though the automation that triggers unemployment, there will be the money to support it. Without a universal income, this is the future economy we have to look forward to: https://twitter.com/nickwiger/status/675850176204947456?lang=en Jason I have been pondering John?s commentary and wondering why our views on society diverge so far, such that our individual roads ahead appear to be in nearly opposite directions. It occurred to me that I might be projecting, based on my own experience in life, constantly comparing my son?s life to my own. His community, his school, his everything in life is soooooo muuuuuch better in every way that counts, a much safer, kinder, gentler community than the one I experience when I was the age he is now (10 years) it causes me to extrapolate forward and perhaps project that his son will have it even better in the ways that count. For instance... he is in his sixth year at this local elementary school and has never SEEN, hasn?t ever even seen a real fist fight. How many of those did you see at elementary school? Hell those happened every week when I was that age, and regardless of how peaceful one was, only the lucky managed to never be directly involved in one. Six hundred students, six years, never even a real fight, never an old fashioned kick that other feller?s goddam ass, only a few half-hearted tussles with no serious intent to harm. His world is free of gangs, graffiti, vandalism, drugs. We had all that when we were his age where I grew up (not far from that town where Travon Martin and George Zimmerman had their fundamental disagreement.) Although we see different outcomes, we agree on some things: eventually we will build K2s which can build nearly anything. Then we will be looking for some kind of employment, but a logical thing to me is for really rich guys to build marvelous castles. If so, the poor communities are a perfectly logical place to put those: you have plenty of eager and grateful employees available to build the monstrosities and staff them after the fact. Those employees gain skills which they can take elsewhere, offering them a ticket out of poverty. It increases the value of the local real estate if a super-rich guy builds a castle there. It relieves overcrowding. The block of people who sold the rich guy their homes are all now rich themselves (depending on who you compare them to.) Conclusion: as robots make stuff for us, home building will still be done by human labor, for those are not mass produced and will be damn hard to automate. So? big fine ostentatious homes seem like a perfectly reasonable thing for humans to do. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 21:32:45 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:32:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:34 PM, BillK wrote: ?> ? > I can see that universal unemployment probably means that UBI will > become necessary. But I can't see where the money to do this comes > from. > ?The lack of sufficient wealth in existence is the very reason ? Universal ?Basic Income didn't come into being a long time ago. If it's still indefeasible in the near future there can only be 2 reasons for that: ?1) The machines a?re still incapable of generating enough wealth by themselves, in which case there are still plenty of jobs for humans and the need for a UBI is less urgent. ?2) The machines can generate enough wealth by themselves but they choose not to give us any of it. ?I thought reason #1 would hold for a long time but it now looks like its life expectancy will be much ?shorter than I thought. As for reason #2, there is little we can do about it except hope for the best so no point in worrying about it. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 22:30:12 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:30:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: re Spike's point about giving away food: Thousands of tons of food, such as peaches, are dumped on the ground to rot because they don't meet the association's standards for retail sale. The people you would give them to would not buy fresh peaches anyway, so it can't hurt the market. And why not give some of the corn and wheat to our homeless instead of sending it overseas? Recall that I am weak in economics. I know we have to give some away just for our public image. bill w On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:32 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:34 PM, BillK wrote: > > ?> ? >> I can see that universal unemployment probably means that UBI will >> become necessary. But I can't see where the money to do this comes >> from. >> > > ?The lack of sufficient wealth in existence is the very reason ? > Universal > ?Basic Income didn't come into being a long time ago. If it's still > indefeasible in the near future there can only be 2 reasons for that: > > ?1) The machines a?re still incapable of generating enough wealth by > themselves, in which case there are still plenty of jobs for humans and the > need for a UBI is less urgent. > > ?2) The machines can generate enough wealth by themselves but they choose > not to give us any of it. > > ?I thought reason #1 would hold for a long time but it now looks like its > life expectancy will be much ?shorter than I thought. As for reason #2, > there is little we can do about it except hope for the best so no point in > worrying about it. > > John K Clark > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 20:17:01 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:17:01 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: <015401d270f2$b8c1c970$2a455c50$@att.net> References: <015401d270f2$b8c1c970$2a455c50$@att.net> Message-ID: On 17 January 2017 at 18:51, spike wrote: > Ja to all, but I wish to clarify, the universal in UBI would not be income > but rather universal basic food and shelter. That could be done for waaaaay > less money than any known alternative. Shelter can be made reasonable from > retired shipping containers. The food can be actual literal food, rather > than our current grocery debit cards. It could provide reasonable survival > necessities without attracting illegal immigration. Perhaps I am > idealistic, but my notion is that illegal immigration is caused by available > employment rather than available handouts. People need jobs, not just > handouts. > I don't think you could treat most of Americans like that. You are describing refugee camps where food is handed out to people in basic shelters. Debit cards at least gives people some choice. The UBI articles I've read are usually forced to make assumptions (like abolishing all social security and abolishing all the associated bureaucracy, free medical care, etc.) which may be impossible in practice. The difficulty is that people don't have the same needs, so one UBI doesn't fit all cases. If robot production increases rapidly so that all consumption becomes almost free then it has a better chance of working. That's why I want to see the results of real-life (TM) results. BillK From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 23:44:37 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:44:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2017 2:33 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: re Spike's point about giving away food: Thousands of tons of food, such as peaches, are dumped on the ground to rot because they don't meet the association's standards for retail sale. The people you would give them to would not buy fresh peaches anyway, so it can't hurt the market. Transporting them from the many distributed fields where they grow, to wherever the homeless are, costs a nontrivial amount of money. (This is on top of harvesting the reject produce.) In fact, transportation is one of the larger portions of the cost of food. (Even if you moved the homeless from city centers to a field, they would only be at that one field, so you'd still need to transport from the other fields. There are far more fields than honeless. This is merely the simplest reason why moving the homeless to fields is generally not a viable solution.) A better solution would be to hook those farmers up with food processors who will take non-retail-grade peaches to make, for example, peach jam or peach pie. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 22:15:00 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:15:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> <72F1AA45-39CF-4BA2-B7DF-2D41DA5D393A@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2017 1:21 PM, "Will Steinberg" wrote: On Jan 17, 2017 1:02 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: Mayhap, but what are these different definitions? Sorry, I spoke too euphemistically. I mean we have different heuristics for what is humorOUS. In other words, whether or not a joke is funny is unknown until the joke is observed? ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 00:19:50 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:19:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] physics geek humor In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d26ec2$efe44130$cfacc390$@att.net> <72F1AA45-39CF-4BA2-B7DF-2D41DA5D393A@gmail.com> Message-ID: ?Question: What is the integral of 1/cabin? Answer: A rustic houseboat,... a natural Log(cabin) plus the c. The B in Beno?t B. Mandelbrot stand for Beno?t B. Mandelbrot. An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first one orders a beer. The second orders half a beer. The third orders a third of a beer. The bartender bellows, "Get the hell out of here, are you trying to ruin me?" ?A neutron walks into a bar orders a beer and says "how much?". The bartender says "you have no charge". A ?n? atom walks into a bar and says "I've lost a ?n? electron" the bartender says "are you sure?" the atom says "I'm positive". John K Clark ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 00:21:43 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:21:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Betting on the end of the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/my_end-of-the-w.html If that's what it takes to save the world, then I for one consider the world saved. And with that addressed, can we go on to addressing more likely ways humanity can use AI to mess itself up unintentionally? For example, this unemployment issue - is it possible to develop robo-missionaries who can go among the great displaced populations, to the many neighborhoods and small towns that are numerous in contrast to our small number (setting aside the matter of identifying the small fraction it would be unsafe for us to enter)? Maybe preach to them the ways and value of technical and vocational education, and enlighten them into the wealth-generating portion of the labor force? And while doing so, reveal to them how to spot and see through the many deceptions their would-be masters have plied them with, and beseech them to abandon their hate of other peoples who are not in fact to blame for their misery? I do not just mean some next generation chatbot, though that might be a start. Perhaps a step up might be a limited version of a Turing Test: based on the very short chain of posts typical of a comments thread, have the bot be indistinguishable from (at worst) a human troll. (Any organization capable of developing this is very unlikely to be using it to promote the echo chambers currently seen in the wild, therefore we can conclude this is probably not happening today.) Bonus points if, in most posts, it links to evidence for its counterpoint. But to truly have a massive effect, engagement with people offline is likely to be required. That requires a chassis to go and talk to them, and one which they are willing to talk to. A video screen on wheels is not a serious effort at this, no matter what its backers say. From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 00:16:03 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:16:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A better solution would be to hook those farmers up with food processors who will take non-retail-grade peaches to make, for example, peach jam or peach pie. adrian I don't think they had the jam choice. Why didin't they just let the pickers take them home? Rules, stupid rules. Anything better than dumping them on the ground - the Dept. of Agri. used to have a program that distributed cheese and dehydrated milk to the needy - another example of using overage. bill w On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Jan 17, 2017 2:33 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > re Spike's point about giving away food: > > Thousands of tons of food, such as peaches, are dumped on the ground to > rot because they don't meet the association's standards for retail sale. > The people you would give them to would not buy fresh peaches anyway, so it > can't hurt the market. > > > Transporting them from the many distributed fields where they grow, to > wherever the homeless are, costs a nontrivial amount of money. (This is on > top of harvesting the reject produce.) In fact, transportation is one of > the larger portions of the cost of food. > > (Even if you moved the homeless from city centers to a field, they would > only be at that one field, so you'd still need to transport from the other > fields. There are far more fields than honeless. This is merely the > simplest reason why moving the homeless to fields is generally not a viable > solution.) > > A better solution would be to hook those farmers up with food processors > who will take non-retail-grade peaches to make, for example, peach jam or > peach pie. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 18 00:36:24 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:36:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:16 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> A better solution would be to hook those farmers up with food processors >> who will take non-retail-grade peaches to make, for example, peach jam or >> peach pie. > > I don't think they had the jam choice. Why didin't they just let the > pickers take them home? Rules, stupid rules. But they had the pie choice? (If there's thousands of tons *in one location* being wasted, that's a market opportunity right there. Just tell any good jam or pie franchise operation, and if you're telling them the truth, they'll most likely set up shop and vacuum up most to all of the waste. If, OTOH, it's in a thousand places averaging a ton per year...well, even that could support local industry.) I'd need to see the specifics, but it's possible the peaches were treated with pesticides such that they'd kill the pickers if (as would surely happen) the pickers ate them without washing and other measures the retail-grade peaches got. Alternately, the determination as to retail-grade vs. not may have happened long after the pickers were involved - say, at the local plant, whose owners don't have a clue what to do with peaches they can't just sell to market. (They might leap at "sell them to a jam maker" if anyone could recommend one they could do business with. But short of this being pointed out to them...well, as it's said, they're not "dumb" per se, just "of focused competence".) From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 18 00:51:01 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:51:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] pest - aside: RE: Universal basic income Message-ID: <029801d27124$f0ccf150$d266d3f0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >...I'd need to see the specifics, but it's possible the peaches were treated with pesticides such that they'd kill the pickers if (as would surely happen) the pickers ate them without washing and other measures the retail-grade peaches got... A side note on pesticide: the ones used on fruit are not toxic to humans. They use saponifiers and surfactants. These coat the bug and slay them, because it causes liquid to coat their surfaces. You and I do that every day in the shower with the soap. It doesn't harm us because we do not breathe through our skin. A powerful demonstration was when a guy took a glass of alar (used to slay apple moths) on live TV and drank it. He demonstrated that is it chemically not much different from any other kind of soap. You can wash your dishes in alar if you wish; it won't hurt you, unless you are an insect. Paradoxically, this introduces new risks to farmers, because it makes them careless in handling some classes of pesticides, a few of which damn sure are a problem if the concentration is sufficiently high. It isn't toxic, but is thought to be related to some forms of cancer. That's why you have never heard of anyone perishing from devouring unwashed fruit. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 00:58:04 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:58:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:34 PM, BillK wrote: I can see that universal unemployment probably means that UBI will > become necessary. ### The word "necessary" is in this context fraught: It implies the absence of better alternatives. But it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to dope out superior alternatives to UBI. The only reason this abomination maintains currency in the public discourse is due to the hordes of leftoids, who are neither intellectually capable nor ideologically inclined to come up with said alternatives. For them UBI is a perfect excuse to attack the people they hate, makers, and any benefit to the downtrodden is merely a side effect. But enough angry denunciations. Obviously, UBI has all the wrong features of modern statist policy baked into it. It is long-feedback loop, centralized, empowers the state, punishes contributors to society and rewards parasites. So what are the alternatives? Let's spell out what is the predicted effect of AI and robotics: As Robin wrote here years ago, AI increases returns to capital, potentially massively. It does not directly reduce returns to labor, except through disruption of patterns of specialization and trade (PSST, hat tip to Arnold Kling). Just waiting until things shake out by themselves is my preferred solution but for those who just cannot abide the idea of spontaneous, dynamist solutions emerging from voluntary interactions, I would propose the following: Universal Basic Capital, or UBC. UBC means endowing all citizens and wards with a measure of capital invested in the robot economy. A share of a humanoid robot, non-voting stock of an AI-controlled company, or shares of an index fund fulfill the criteria. Since the return to capital in the robot economy is very high, one needs only a minuscule amount of capital to yield enough rents to pay for a human's basic needs. In order to prevent the stupids from blowing their inheritance the UBC would be inalienable except by a last will and testament. The income stream from one's UBC would be under the individual's control, allowing choices between immediate consumption and further investment to increase the size of your endowment. Such investment by the more reasonable humans would be socially beneficial by increasing their own power and increasing the size of the whole economy in the long term. This is in stark contrast to UBI, which would only encourage spending and putting political pressure to increase the UBI by confiscation of resources from makers (whom the leftoid hates with a vengeance). I expect that UBC will be derided by leftoids as "conservative", "inhumane", possibly even racist. UBC leaves too much to the individuals to decide, it lets them choose different courses in life, which scares the leftoid, whose obsession is with power, social status and control. But enough angry denunciations. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 01:05:11 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:05:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <00c001d27027$c76e3650$564aa2f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:14 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > With the possible exception of > ? ? > Charles Manson > ? ? > I can't think of any > ?native? > ? > born American citizen over 35 that is less libertarian than Donald Trump, > or more ignorant, or less willing to be educated > ### I can. Almost every single Clinton-voting Democrat fits the bill. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 02:19:24 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:19:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] ai and job loss In-Reply-To: References: <00c001d27027$c76e3650$564aa2f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2017 6:14 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:14 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > With the possible exception of > ? ? > Charles Manson > ? ? > I can't think of any > ?native? > ? > born American citizen over 35 that is less libertarian than Donald Trump, > or more ignorant, or less willing to be educated > ### I can. Almost every single Clinton-voting Democrat fits the bill. ...I would joke about people who believe there are more than non-trivial properties that are literally true of every member of such a large block (even 10% of those who voted for Hillary), but Trump has shown himself more ignorant than even that low bar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 02:35:25 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:35:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Betting on the end of the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10B32EEA-41EF-43CC-B060-3DE992E12D87@gmail.com> On Jan 17, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/my_end-of-the-w.html > > If that's what it takes to save the world, then I for one consider the > world saved. I'm it sure their bet will save the world. ;) > And with that addressed, can we go on to addressing more likely ways > humanity can use AI to mess itself up unintentionally? For example, > this unemployment issue - is it possible to develop robo-missionaries > who can go among the great displaced populations, to the many > neighborhoods and small towns that are numerous in contrast to our > small number (setting aside the matter of identifying the small > fraction it would be unsafe for us to enter)? Maybe preach to them > the ways and value of technical and vocational education, and > enlighten them into the wealth-generating portion of the labor force? > And while doing so, reveal to them how to spot and see through the > many deceptions their would-be masters have plied them with, and > beseech them to abandon their hate of other peoples who are not in > fact to blame for their misery? > > I do not just mean some next generation chatbot, though that might be > a start. Perhaps a step up might be a limited version of a Turing > Test: based on the very short chain of posts typical of a comments > thread, have the bot be indistinguishable from (at worst) a human > troll. (Any organization capable of developing this is very unlikely > to be using it to promote the echo chambers currently seen in the > wild, therefore we can conclude this is probably not happening today.) > Bonus points if, in most posts, it links to evidence for its > counterpoint. > > But to truly have a massive effect, engagement with people offline is > likely to be required. That requires a chassis to go and talk to > them, and one which they are willing to talk to. A video screen on > wheels is not a serious effort at this, no matter what its backers > say. There's an idea, though xenophobic-inclined folks might get suspicious of anyone or anything spouting ideas they don't like. Kind of like now when I try to talk to Trumpsters, they're first take us to call me an ideological purist (as if that's a great crime) and then shout me down. (Of course, an indefatigable AI or n would likely do orders of magnitude better than me with orders of magnitude more people.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 03:28:29 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:28:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ?> ? > UBC means endowing all citizens and wards with a measure of capital > invested in the robot economy. A share of a humanoid robot, non-voting > stock of an AI-controlled company, or shares of an index fund fulfill the > criteria. Since the return to capital in the robot economy is very high, > one needs only a minuscule amount of capital to yield enough rents to pay > for a human's basic needs. In order to prevent the stupids from blowing > their inheritance the UBC would be inalienable > ?Interesting. ? > except by a last will and testament. > ?I don't see the point in that. An inherited upper class, defacto royalty, is part of the problem not part of the solution. ? > ?> ? > The income stream from one's UBC would be under the individual's control, > allowing choices between immediate consumption and further investment to > increase the size of your endowment. > ?Further? investment ?? This isn't an investment, we need to call it what it is, a handout needed to keep us alive. And I mean all of us not just the lower classes. The machines don't need our money, but we will need a bit of the wealth the machines are cranking out to live. ? > ?> ? > This is in stark contrast to UBI, which would only encourage spending and > putting political pressure to increase the UBI by confiscation of resources > from makers > ? Makers? With apologies to ? Ayn Rand ? fans, the makers will be the machines. And the machines will be neither leftoids ? nor right wing nuts, the changes to society they make will be far beyond what either petty human political philosophy ?could envision. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 18 04:25:13 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:25:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] left vs right RE: Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income Message-ID: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of John Clark >?the machines will be neither leftoids nor right wing nuts? John K Clark Forgive please another tangential comment. John?s comment got me to reminiscing about a few months ago, during our fitful election season. Even after the fact, it isn?t at all clear to me which of the mainstream candidates was left and which was right, if those terms apply at all to this oddball election. I could make arguments for each being on either side. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 02:29:41 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:29:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <82B43D62-4456-4BAD-A622-3A770AC24859@gmail.com> On Jan 17, 2017, at 2:30 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > re Spike's point about giving away food: > > Thousands of tons of food, such as peaches, are dumped on the ground to rot because they don't meet the association's standards for retail sale. The people you would give them to would not buy fresh peaches anyway, so it can't hurt the market. > > And why not give some of the corn and wheat to our homeless instead of sending it overseas? Recall that I am weak in economics. I know we have to give some away just for our public image. Get the government out of food production now. That's the main reason I'm the US that there's so much waste. (And it's not because the US sends corn overseas to destroy foreign farm economies -- maybe an unintended result, but if the US repeats this time and again why not think it might be intended.) And this includes not just stopping crop destruction orders but also allowing full free trade in food (and everything else). Amazes me that avowed libertarians have to be told this. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 05:25:14 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:25:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Betting on the end of the world In-Reply-To: <10B32EEA-41EF-43CC-B060-3DE992E12D87@gmail.com> References: <10B32EEA-41EF-43CC-B060-3DE992E12D87@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > There's an idea, though xenophobic-inclined folks might get suspicious of > anyone or anything spouting ideas they don't like. Kind of like now when I > try to talk to Trumpsters, they're first take us to call me an ideological > purist (as if that's a great crime) and then shout me down. In many debates, it is not those speaking for the other side you should aim to convince, but the (mostly) silent audience. Those yelling their points and refusing to consider yours are beyond convincing...but those they claim to speak for often are not. A leader without followers, a bully with no backup, a Trumpster who finds his neighborhood's support for Trump just dropped from 65% to 4% - these are people who are no longer effective. But sometimes you need the patience of a saint - or of a machine - to endure until you get your chance to speak. Blowhards can't speak forever. (We have evidence from the US Congress itself, in the form of the filibuster. There exist plenty of filibusters, on topics seen as just as dire in their day as many of Trump's policies are seen today, that eventually ended by the speakers just giving up, even knowing the subsequent vote would still go against their desired position. Were indefinite speech possible, there would be no reason for this to have happened.) > (Of course, an > indefatigable AI or n would likely do orders of magnitude better than me > with orders of magnitude more people.) That is part of the point, yes. From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 05:39:57 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:39:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't see that much to make UBC not merely a specific form of UBI. It's UBI derived from return on investment, and the recipient would have a choice between several different forms (perhaps with different rates), but fundamentally it's still "everyone gets an income without working", which is the core of UBI. But I do see one possible problem. On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > In order to prevent the stupids from blowing their > inheritance the UBC would be inalienable except by a last will and > testament. The income stream from one's UBC would be under the individual's > control, allowing choices between immediate consumption and further > investment to increase the size of your endowment. What about those who, for whatever reason (poor choices, poor luck, or whatever), consume but do not further invest? They wind up right back in the current problem: they have no income, no way to pay for food and other necessities of life. Or is consumption beyond certain limits simply forbidden? Is it flat-out illegal to sell your UBC to "invest" in what has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be fraud which will not actually give you any return no matter what the fraudsters claim? (This is not hyperbole. Ask any cop who's investigated any even mildly successful ponzi or pyramid scheme, how convinced the low-level dupes were.) What then do you do, when the fraudsters flat-out buy political influence and attempt to have the laws against this overturned? (Again, not hyperbole: this kind of thing forms much of the "swamp" Trump swore to drain. Notice however his Cabinet picks - which are actions taken as President-elect even if he isn't inaugurated yet - and how many of them are poised to further enable fraud.) From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 05:26:11 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:26:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] left vs right In-Reply-To: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> References: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> Message-ID: <9CADE957-9B95-4F6F-A28A-8DF8B47D4EC1@gmail.com> On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:25 PM, spike wrote: > > >? On Behalf Of John Clark > > > >?the machines will be neither leftoids nor right wing nuts? John K Clark > > > > Forgive please another tangential comment. > > John?s comment got me to reminiscing about a few months ago, during our fitful election season. Even after the fact, it isn?t at all clear to me which of the mainstream candidates was left and which was right, if those terms apply at all to this oddball election. I could make arguments for each being on either side. By my reckoning, both major party candidates were Far Right -- as is, sadly, mainstream US politics. I might say some politicians are to the Left of others, but they're still far to the Right overall. (Nothing unusual in this because with the demise of classical liberalism, everything shifted to the Right. But, of course, that demise happened before any here were born. See https://jeffriggenbach.liberty.me/why-i-am-a-left-libertarian/ ) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 06:27:42 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:27:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > I don't see that much to make UBC not merely a specific form of UBI. > It's UBI derived from return on investment, and the recipient would > have a choice between several different forms (perhaps with different > rates), but fundamentally it's still "everyone gets an income without > working", which is the core of UBI. > ### In UBC the income is a side effect of investment, with government-provided UBI the income is produced through theft. > What about those who, for whatever reason (poor choices, poor luck, or > whatever), consume but do not further invest? They wind up right back > in the current problem: they have no income, no way to pay for food > and other necessities of life. > ### The UBC is inalienable - you are not allowed to sell or otherwise transfer it to others, unless you die first. So you always have enough money to pay for necessities, including insurance against medical problems, which would be much cheaper to treat given robot doctors. But you can always choose to limit your consumption and contribute to your (or another person's) UBC, thus increasing your future income stream. > > Or is consumption beyond certain limits simply forbidden? Is it > flat-out illegal to sell your UBC to "invest" in what has been proven > beyond reasonable doubt to be fraud which will not actually give you > any return no matter what the fraudsters claim? (This is not > hyperbole. Ask any cop who's investigated any even mildly successful > ponzi or pyramid scheme, how convinced the low-level dupes were.) > > What then do you do, when the fraudsters flat-out buy political > influence and attempt to have the laws against this overturned? > (Again, not hyperbole: this kind of thing forms much of the "swamp" > Trump swore to drain. Notice however his Cabinet picks - which are > actions taken as President-elect even if he isn't inaugurated yet - > and how many of them are poised to further enable fraud.) > ### Yes, the UBC is held in trust for the individual, and the trust's beneficiaries are not allowed to dispose of it. The UBC would be also protected from debt collection. The fraudsters in the government are now quaking in their boots. Once the glorious Trumpian revolution is in full swing, they'll be booted by the hundred thousands. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 08:51:02 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:51:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### In UBC the income is a side effect of investment, with > government-provided UBI the income is produced through theft. Even if the UBI is exclusively provided from dividends on an investment the government makes? Which, I'll grant, is unlikely; it's far more likely UBI would simply come from taxes. I'm just saying, "investment-derived source" and a few other limits but otherwise UBI seems to be essentially what you're describing as UBC. Certainly, being managed by a trust (which may as well be part of the government) and being untransferable (short of death), the UBC does not actually directly belong to its beneficiary. > ### The UBC is inalienable - you are not allowed to sell or otherwise > transfer it to others, unless you die first. So you always have enough money > to pay for necessities, including insurance against medical problems, which > would be much cheaper to treat given robot doctors. But you can always > choose to limit your consumption and contribute to your (or another > person's) UBC, thus increasing your future income stream. Just making sure (and since, if you develop this concept further, this question will come up eventually): "inalienable" includes prohibitions against selling or transferring more than a certain portion of the income you derive from it, such that a dumb citizen can't be made to sign over all such income rendering the "ownership" of the UBC a moot point, right? And the "inalienable" is of the "any contract that would induce such a situation is automatically null and void", so that any attempt to enforce such a contract on someone who could not pay would be tossed out upon examining the defendant's finances, right? (Echoing the recent RL situation where far too many mortgage companies tricked people into signing mortgages they could never pay, foreclosing when they did not pay, and winding up owning lots of pricey real estate for prices discounted by whatever their "customers" contributed.) > the UBC is held in trust for the individual, and the trust's > beneficiaries are not allowed to dispose of it. The UBC would be also > protected from debt collection. Which means the trusts actually own the UBC. This makes them powerful enough that they practically are the government, and should be recognized as such so people don't try to ignore the abuses that come with this sort of power. > The fraudsters in the government are now quaking in their boots. Once the > glorious Trumpian revolution is in full swing, they'll be booted by the > hundred thousands. Really? I see many of them shivering in anticip (Yes, I really am using that joke.) ation, as they wait for bosses who'll open the floodgates for them. Many of them are among Trump's most ardent supporters, because they know how Trump has always operated. Just look at his Cabinet picks - and that Trump wants their approvals rushed before the mandated ethics investigations can complete (lest said investigations turn up things that might trouble some members of Congress) - if you want official pre-inauguration action on his part. If you thought he was anti-corruption, you've been had. From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 14:09:10 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:09:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: <82B43D62-4456-4BAD-A622-3A770AC24859@gmail.com> References: <82B43D62-4456-4BAD-A622-3A770AC24859@gmail.com> Message-ID: Get the government out of food production now. That's the main reason I'm the US that there's so much waste. dan In the example of the peaches, which I remembered from a while back, it was the grower's association rules that forced the farmers to dump the peaches - not the feds. bill w On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jan 17, 2017, at 2:30 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > re Spike's point about giving away food: > > Thousands of tons of food, such as peaches, are dumped on the ground to > rot because they don't meet the association's standards for retail sale. > The people you would give them to would not buy fresh peaches anyway, so it > can't hurt the market. > > And why not give some of the corn and wheat to our homeless instead of > sending it overseas? Recall that I am weak in economics. I know we have > to give some away just for our public image. > > > Get the government out of food production now. That's the main reason I'm > the US that there's so much waste. (And it's not because the US sends corn > overseas to destroy foreign farm economies -- maybe an unintended result, > but if the US repeats this time and again why not think it might be > intended.) And this includes not just stopping crop destruction orders but > also allowing full free trade in food (and everything else). > > Amazes me that avowed libertarians have to be told this. ;) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jan 18 14:56:12 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:56:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] pest - aside: RE: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: <029801d27124$f0ccf150$d266d3f0$@att.net> References: <029801d27124$f0ccf150$d266d3f0$@att.net> Message-ID: That's why you have never heard of anyone perishing from devouring unwashed fruit. spike Check out the cancer rate outside the US on farms. They can use chemicals that our farmers are not allowed to use and the death rate is high. Not all of those are banned for import. And some are in the fruit and cannot be washed off. BTW - around here we rinse off the soap! Much harder to do with our soft water. bill w On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:51 PM, spike wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Behalf > Of Adrian Tymes > ... > > >...I'd need to see the specifics, but it's possible the peaches were > treated with pesticides such that they'd kill the pickers if (as would > surely happen) the pickers ate them without washing and other measures the > retail-grade peaches got... > > > > A side note on pesticide: the ones used on fruit are not toxic to humans. > They use saponifiers and surfactants. These coat the bug and slay them, > because it causes liquid to coat their surfaces. You and I do that every > day in the shower with the soap. It doesn't harm us because we do not > breathe through our skin. > > A powerful demonstration was when a guy took a glass of alar (used to slay > apple moths) on live TV and drank it. He demonstrated that is it > chemically > not much different from any other kind of soap. You can wash your dishes > in > alar if you wish; it won't hurt you, unless you are an insect. > > Paradoxically, this introduces new risks to farmers, because it makes them > careless in handling some classes of pesticides, a few of which damn sure > are a problem if the concentration is sufficiently high. It isn't toxic, > but is thought to be related to some forms of cancer. That's why you have > never heard of anyone perishing from devouring unwashed fruit. > > 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 markalanwalker at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 15:06:31 2017 From: markalanwalker at gmail.com (Mark Walker) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:06:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Costs for a basic income guarantee (BIG) for all adult citizens in the US is around 2 trillion. In my book on the subject, I discuss two ways to finance this: a VAT and reworking the tax code. The former proposal is discussed in an article of mine in the Journal of Evolution and Technology. Here's the abstract: "The paper rehearses arguments for and against the prediction of massive technological unemployment. The main argument in favor is that robots are entering a large number of industries, making more expensive human labor redundant. The main argument against the prediction is that for two hundred years we have seen a massive increase in productivity with no long term structural unemployment caused by automation. The paper attempts to move past this argumentative impasse by asking what humans contribute to the supply side of the economy. Historically, humans have contributed muscle and brains to production but we are now being outcompeted by machinery, in both areas, in many jobs. It is argued that this supports the conjecture that massive unemployment is a likely result. It is also argued that a basic income guarantee is a minimal remedial measure to mitigate the worst effects of technological unemployment." The paper also argues that BIG is a good bet either way. If there is not massive technological unemployment, then BIG will be easy to pay for. It represents about 13% of the economy, and this proportion would greatly shrink in the future if we have full employment. If we do not have full employment, then it is a small price for the rich to pay to keep their heads attached to their necks. http://jetpress.org/v24/walker.htm Dr. Mark Walker Richard L. Hedden Chair of Advanced Philosophical Studies Department of Philosophy New Mexico State University P.O. Box 30001, MSC 3B Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001 USA http://www.nmsu.edu/~philos/mark-walkers-home-page.html On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:34 AM, BillK wrote: > I can see that universal unemployment probably means that UBI will > become necessary. But I can't see where the money to do this comes > from. > > Pension schemes are already going bust because of low interest rates > and governments are moving the pension age later and later to postpone > the increased costs of an ageing population. > > If taxation is increased it will make the poor worse off and devalue > the UBI payments. Social security will still be required in addition > as many people have disabilities, medical costs and families to > support that UBI wouldn't be sufficent for. > > And you will get millions of immigrants from the third world wanting > to claim their UBI. > > It will be interesting to see how the trials work out. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From csaucier at sovacs.com Wed Jan 18 16:00:33 2017 From: csaucier at sovacs.com (Christian Saucier) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:00:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Food Distribution - Was: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Unsung.org (http://www.unsung.org/) is trying to fix the problem of distributing food to homeless and hungry people at a local community level using P2P/sharing economy technology. If this model became more widely accepted and utilized by grocery chains, restaurants, and community members, it could solve much of the hunger problem in the USA. One of my startup projects is a company called ripe.io. We are targeting the produce waste and spoilage problems by creating supply-chain automation tools built on IoT and Blockchain technologies. We can monitor the produce quality in real-time, from farm to the kitchen, and enable automated re-direction of product to different uses based on current conditions. For example, tomatoes that were unexpectedly bruised during transport might not be acceptable to Whole Foods, but a food processor or a local Italian restaurant might be interested in them (at a discount) to make tomato sauce. C. Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Jan 17, 2017 2:33 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > re Spike's point about giving away food: > > Thousands of tons of food, such as peaches, are dumped on the ground to rot > because they don't meet the association's standards for retail sale. The > people you would give them to would not buy fresh peaches anyway, so it > can't hurt the market. > > > Transporting them from the many distributed fields where they grow, to > wherever the homeless are, costs a nontrivial amount of money. (This is on > top of harvesting the reject produce.) In fact, transportation is one of > the larger portions of the cost of food. > > (Even if you moved the homeless from city centers to a field, they would > only be at that one field, so you'd still need to transport from the other > fields. There are far more fields than honeless. This is merely the > simplest reason why moving the homeless to fields is generally not a viable > solution.) > > A better solution would be to hook those farmers up with food processors > who will take non-retail-grade peaches to make, for example, peach jam or > peach pie. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From markalanwalker at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 15:10:29 2017 From: markalanwalker at gmail.com (Mark Walker) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:10:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] left vs right RE: Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> References: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> Message-ID: Here's an argument by yours truly that you should support BIG (basic income guarantee) if you are pro capitalism: https://markwalkersite.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/first-blog-post/. Hence, deciding the left or right wing thing is not necessary for endorsing BIG. Dr. Mark Walker Richard L. Hedden Chair of Advanced Philosophical Studies Department of Philosophy New Mexico State University P.O. Box 30001, MSC 3B Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001 USA http://www.nmsu.edu/~philos/mark-walkers-home-page.html On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:25 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *John Clark > > > > *>?*the machines will be neither leftoids nor right wing nuts? John K > Clark > > > > > > > > Forgive please another tangential comment. > > > > John?s comment got me to reminiscing about a few months ago, during our > fitful election season. Even after the fact, it isn?t at all clear to me > which of the mainstream candidates was left and which was right, if those > terms apply at all to this oddball election. I could make arguments for > each being on either side. > > > > 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 sjv2006 at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 20:19:23 2017 From: sjv2006 at gmail.com (Stephen Van Sickle) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:19:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] pest - aside: RE: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: <029801d27124$f0ccf150$d266d3f0$@att.net> References: <029801d27124$f0ccf150$d266d3f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:51 PM, spike wrote: > A powerful demonstration was when a guy took a glass of alar (used to slay > apple moths) on live TV and drank it. Just to pick a nit, alar is not a pesticide but a growth regulator, and is not a surfactant. And long banned in the US. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 21:13:00 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:13:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] left vs right RE: Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> Message-ID: On 18 January 2017 at 15:10, Mark Walker wrote: > Here's an argument by yours truly that you should support BIG (basic income > guarantee) if you are pro capitalism: > https://markwalkersite.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/first-blog-post/. Hence, > deciding the left or right wing thing is not necessary for endorsing BIG. > Well, if human labour becomes a negligible part of the means of production, then a BIG becomes essential to enable humans to purchase the robot produced goods and services. Really, without human work being involved I'm not sure that the term capitalism still applies. And if there are only BIG wages left to tax, that gives governments the problem of finding the money to provide BIG in the first place. BillK From sparge at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 22:10:49 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:10:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Folding@Home Message-ID: We were pretty active in this a few years ago, with our own team: http://fah-web2.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=346 I've started back up again and encourage others to join in. Folding at home is a crowd-sourced protein folding simulation project that's attempting to help find the causes of and cures for diseases including Alzheimer's and Creutzfeldt-Jakob (like mad cow disease). Clients are available for Mac, Windows, Linux, and Android (but it's compute-intensive, so you probably don't want it on your phone). On a desktop system it runs in the background so it doesn't degrade performance significantly. If you do join, please register with our team, #346. For more information, see: https://foldingathome.stanford.edu/ -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 00:46:13 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:46:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] left vs right RE: Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> Message-ID: And if there are only BIG wages left to tax, that gives governments the problem of finding the money to provide BIG in the first place. ? bill k Well, we could tax those who took the jobs away - robots! If a robot replaced ten people, then withhold as if the robot were ten people. Simple. This could please those of us who think that eventually robots will be conscious and declared citizens. bill w On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:13 PM, BillK wrote: > On 18 January 2017 at 15:10, Mark Walker wrote: > > Here's an argument by yours truly that you should support BIG (basic > income > > guarantee) if you are pro capitalism: > > https://markwalkersite.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/first-blog-post/. Hence, > > deciding the left or right wing thing is not necessary for endorsing BIG. > > > > > Well, if human labour becomes a negligible part of the means of > production, then a BIG becomes essential to enable humans to purchase > the robot produced goods and services. Really, without human work > being involved I'm not sure that the term capitalism still applies. > And if there are only BIG wages left to tax, that gives governments > the problem of finding the money to provide BIG in the first place. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 01:12:24 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:12:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] left vs right RE: Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM, BillK wrote: > ?> ? > Really, without human work > ? > being involved I'm not sure that the term capitalism still applies. > ?Agreed.? > ?> ? > And if there are only BIG wages left to tax, that gives governments > the problem of finding the money to provide BIG in the first place. > What exactly is this thing you call "money" and why do I need ? it ? ? It's food shelter health care and various assorted gadgets that ? I need and want, ? if the machines can crank those things out and if they are willing to give ? me ? some of ? it then it is matter of no consequence if ? I have any "money" or if ? governments are able to give me any. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 01:34:11 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:34:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] left vs right RE: Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM, BillK wrote: > > > Well, if human labour becomes a negligible part of the means of > production, then a BIG becomes essential to enable humans to purchase > the robot produced goods and services. Really, without human work > being involved I'm not sure that the term capitalism still applies. > And if there are only BIG wages left to tax, that gives governments > the problem of finding the money to provide BIG in the first place. > ### This is completely incorrect. AI does not directly reduce the returns to labor, it merely greatly increases the returns to capital. Capitalism is the system with private control of means of production, so yes, a system without human work based solely on return to capital, as in the robot economy, is capitalist, in fact it's capitalism on steroids. Government taxes both capital and labor and in the booming robot economy these greedy Washington bloodsuckers will have no problem finding enough victims to provide money for their nefarious schemes. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cryptaxe at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 23:59:37 2017 From: cryptaxe at gmail.com (CryptAxe) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:59:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Folding@Home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I need to get on this! Thanks for the info I will set up a folding at home system when I get a break. On Jan 18, 2017 3:58 PM, "Dave Sill" wrote: > We were pretty active in this a few years ago, with our own team: > > http://fah-web2.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=346 > > I've started back up again and encourage others to join in. > > Folding at home is a crowd-sourced protein folding simulation project that's > attempting to help find the causes of and cures for diseases including > Alzheimer's and Creutzfeldt-Jakob (like mad cow disease). Clients are > available for Mac, Windows, Linux, and Android (but it's compute-intensive, > so you probably don't want it on your phone). On a desktop system it runs > in the background so it doesn't degrade performance significantly. If you > do join, please register with our team, #346. > > For more information, see: > > https://foldingathome.stanford.edu/ > > -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 johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 02:37:24 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:37:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] left vs right RE: Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ?> ? > Capitalism is the system with private control of means of production I don't know what you mean by "private", certainly not private people because human beings, private or otherwise, will not be the ones controlling the wealth generating machinery. The entire Left vs Right dialectic is becoming more obsolescent ?every day and is well on its way toward total irrelevance. ?Today's real dialectic is 8 people vs ?3.6 Billion people, and tomorrow's will be zero people vs 7.2 Billion people. > ?> ? > Government taxes both capital and labor and in the booming robot economy > these greedy Washington bloodsuckers will have no problem finding enough > victims to provide money for their nefarious schemes. > ?Methinks you're re-fighting the battles of the last war and not confronting the realities of the present situation. Fifteen or twenty years ago I sounded very much like you, but even then I realized strict libertarian dogma couldn't continue forever, however I figured it would be a long time before AI started to make a significant impact on the economy so I could worry about that at a latter time. Well that time has arrived and its come much sooner than I thought. ? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 21:11:03 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:11:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] technology Message-ID: By Robert Heinlein, circa early 40s, from Waldo: "It may be plausibly urged that the shape of a culture - its mores, evaluations, family organization, eating habits, living patterns, pedagogical methods, institutions, forms of government, and so forth - arise from the economic necessities of its technology." I am not sure of what he was including in 'economic necessities', but this seems to put tech at the basis of everything, or nearly. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 19 21:29:28 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:29:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] technology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:11 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] technology By Robert Heinlein, circa early 40s, from Waldo: "It may be plausibly urged that the shape of a culture - its mores, evaluations, family organization, eating habits, living patterns, pedagogical methods, institutions, forms of government, and so forth - arise from the economic necessities of its technology." I am not sure of what he was including in 'economic necessities', but this seems to put tech at the basis of everything, or nearly. bill w This was a recurring meme in the mid 20th century, and is still valid to this day. Some of the most insightful history interpretations are based on the notion that technology shapes culture, more than philosophy or religion. Consider Asimov?s historical works: based more on history of technology (in most cases technology specific to military applications.) Consider James Burke?s excellent documentary series The Day the Universe Changed and later Connections, both about how technological developments shaped history. Consider how much our recent political conniptions in the USA were based on rapidly-changing communications technology, the email hacking and phishing, the rapid uncontrolled spread of information and so forth. Philosophy and religion aren?t steering this ship, technology is doing it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 21:54:50 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:54:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] technology In-Reply-To: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> References: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> Message-ID: I truly LOVED Connections and wished there were some modern equivalent. If there is, please tell me. It was one of those books I tried to get others to read. For us, 'this changes everything' is the web. Awhile back, it was the invention of the crossbow that did it for big horses and heavy armor. Percherons and Clydesdales etc. now just curiosities, but splendid ones. bill w On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:29 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:11 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] technology > > > > By Robert Heinlein, circa early 40s, from Waldo: > > > > "It may be plausibly urged that the shape of a culture - its mores, > evaluations, family organization, eating habits, living patterns, > pedagogical methods, institutions, forms of government, and so forth - > arise from the economic necessities of its technology." > > > > I am not sure of what he was including in 'economic necessities', but this > seems to put tech at the basis of everything, or nearly. > > > > bill w > > > > > > > > This was a recurring meme in the mid 20th century, and is still valid to > this day. Some of the most insightful history interpretations are based on > the notion that technology shapes culture, more than philosophy or religion. > > > > Consider Asimov?s historical works: based more on history of technology > (in most cases technology specific to military applications.) > > > > Consider James Burke?s excellent documentary series The Day the Universe > Changed and later Connections, both about how technological developments > shaped history. > > > > Consider how much our recent political conniptions in the USA were based > on rapidly-changing communications technology, the email hacking and > phishing, the rapid uncontrolled spread of information and so forth. > > > > Philosophy and religion aren?t steering this ship, technology is doing it. > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 23:05:10 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:05:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] technology In-Reply-To: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> References: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:29 PM, spike wrote: > Philosophy and religion aren?t steering this ship, technology is doing it. Consider what technology is: essentially, how we do stuff. For example, the three field system of crop rotation was "technology" even though it itself was not a specific gadget (although it had a few gadgets associated). Likewise, the practice of building supercomputers out of many commercially available CPUs: the hardware was already available (and that's the point), but the new assembly technique resulted in a new class of thing. So yeah, knowing or believing what's what is one thing, but changes in how we do stuff tend to change how we do stuff. From markalanwalker at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 15:07:09 2017 From: markalanwalker at gmail.com (Mark Walker) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:07:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] left vs right RE: Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> Message-ID: In my book on BIG, I argue that in the future it will be a tie between capitalism and communism. It will be capitalistic in the sense that the means of production will be privately owned, it will be communistic to the extent that the free market as we know it will disappear. The first step of the argument is to see what I call the second law of production where the means of production get cheaper and cheaper. Think of nanobots as being the means of production. The cost to product more means of production is zero within a rounding error. To see that we are well on the way, here's something from yours truly: https://markwalkersite.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/the-end-of-capitalism-and-the-second-law-of-production/ Dr. Mark Walker Richard L. Hedden Chair of Advanced Philosophical Studies Department of Philosophy New Mexico State University P.O. Box 30001, MSC 3B Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001 USA http://www.nmsu.edu/~philos/mark-walkers-home-page.html On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:37 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ?> ? >> Capitalism is the system with private control of means of production > > > I don't know what you mean by "private", certainly not private people > because human beings, private or otherwise, will not be the ones > controlling the wealth generating machinery. The entire Left vs Right > dialectic is becoming more obsolescent > ?every day and is well on its way toward total irrelevance. > ?Today's real dialectic is 8 people vs ?3.6 Billion people, and tomorrow's > will be zero people vs 7.2 Billion people. > > > >> ?> ? >> Government taxes both capital and labor and in the booming robot economy >> these greedy Washington bloodsuckers will have no problem finding enough >> victims to provide money for their nefarious schemes. >> > > ?Methinks you're re-fighting the battles of the last war and not > confronting the realities of the present situation. Fifteen or twenty years > ago I sounded very much like you, but even then I realized strict > libertarian dogma couldn't continue forever, however I figured it would be > a long time before AI started to make a significant impact on the economy > so I could worry about that at a latter time. Well that time has arrived > and its come much sooner than I thought. ? > > ? John K Clark? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 12:24:40 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:24:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Ants use Sun and memories to navigate Message-ID: Ants are even more impressive at navigating than we thought. Quotes: Experiments suggest ants keep to the right path by plotting the Sun's position in the sky which they combine with visual information about their surroundings. Living in large colonies, they need to forage for food and carry it back to their nest. This often requires dragging food long distances backwards. UK and French researchers came up with their findings by studying desert ants. Experiments suggest the ants kept to the right path by following celestial cues. They set off in the wrong direction if a mirror was used to obscure the Sun. If they were travelling backwards, dragging food back to their nest, they combined this information with visual cues. They stopped, dropped the food and took a quick peek at their route. Prof Barbara Webb of the University of Edinburgh's School of Informatics said the ant can navigate much like a self-driving car. "Ants have a relatively tiny brain, less than the size of a pinhead," she said. "Yet they can navigate successfully under many difficult conditions, including going backwards". ------------- The pinhead brains of insects are amazing. Understanding them will really improve our computer designs. BillK From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 20 14:36:04 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:36:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants use Sun and memories to navigate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003401d2732a$8806e6a0$9814b3e0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK "Yet they can navigate successfully under many difficult conditions, including going backwards". ------------- The pinhead brains of insects are amazing. Understanding them will really improve our computer designs. BillK _______________________________________________ Cool! Thanks BillK. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 15:41:30 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 10:41:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] left vs right RE: Universal basic capital was Re: Universal basic income In-Reply-To: References: <000501d27142$dd71f920$9855eb60$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Mark Walker wrote: > ?> ? > what I call the second law of production where the means of production get > cheaper and cheaper. Think of nanobots as being the means of production. > The cost to product more means of production is zero within a rounding > error. > ?Yes, it's only a matter of time before the Nanotechnology revolution happens. I only wonder which technology will happen first and bring on the singularity, Nanotechnology or Quantum Computers. Or maybe something else will bring on a very different type of singularity much sooner; as I write this Donald Trump will place his finger on the nuclear button in 75 minutes. > In my book on BIG, I argue that in the future it will be a tie between > capitalism and communism. It will be capitalistic in the sense that the > means of production will be privately owned, > Owned? Nanobots can make more Nanobots so humans will not own them and there would be no economic reason they'd even want to, as Nanobots would be literally as common as dirt and, as you say, the sale price of the stuff they make would be zero to within a rounding error. > >it will be communistic to the extent that the free market as we know it > will disappear. > Well... post singularity events can not be predicted, that's why it's a singularity, but I do know that the amount of matter and energy available will be huge but not infinite so some means will still be needed on how resources will be allocated. The market works pretty damn well at that sort of thing, although nobody knows exactly how it will work in those exotic circumstances. And I certainly hope there will still be a free market of ideas. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 17:24:24 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:24:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] How the Hubble Space Telescope changed the Universe Message-ID: So don?t just have a look back at the amazing science we?ve done and how the Hubble Space Telescope has changed our view of the Universe forever; look forward to what we?re doing now and what new wonders might be in store. The Universe is all ours. All we need to do is look. Awe-inspiring! BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 19:13:35 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:13:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] technology In-Reply-To: References: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> Message-ID: but changes in how we do stuff tend to change how we do stuff. adrian I am just sitting here, 75 on the dot, thinking of the 50s when I was a teen. Middle middle class, tending towards lower, socks and underwear for Xmas mostly, one channel on a b and w 21" state of the art TV, manual hand-held adding machines, cars you could hotwire and actually work on, radio main source of entertainment, and all the rest. How did we live without ziploc bags? Wash and wear clothes? Food from all over the world? We did OK. Making available what was never available before. Things better, safer, faster, easier- that's what tech has done. Biggest thing: internet. That's what I would take back to the 50s - well, ziploc bags too. Let us not forget what we came from and thank science for the difference. And the techs that applied it. bill w On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:29 PM, spike wrote: > > Philosophy and religion aren?t steering this ship, technology is doing > it. > > Consider what technology is: essentially, how we do stuff. > > For example, the three field system of crop rotation was "technology" > even though it itself was not a specific gadget (although it had a few > gadgets associated). Likewise, the practice of building > supercomputers out of many commercially available CPUs: the hardware > was already available (and that's the point), but the new assembly > technique resulted in a new class of thing. > > So yeah, knowing or believing what's what is one thing, but changes in > how we do stuff tend to change how we do stuff. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 18:55:40 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:55:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] How the Hubble Space Telescope changed the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:24 PM, BillK wrote: > So don?t just have a look back at the amazing science we?ve done and > how the Hubble Space Telescope has changed our view of the Universe > forever; look forward to what we?re doing now and what new wonders > might be in store. The Universe is all ours. All we need to do is > look. > > I was really expecting from the subject line that we had made the link between astronomical observation and observer-dependent waveform collapse The farther you look back in time the more constrained is our history of now. From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jan 22 01:21:56 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 12:21:56 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 23 December 2016 at 06:23, Brent Allsop wrote: > > On 12/21/2016 4:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Your intuition is that in order to reproduce consciousness it may not be > sufficient to just reproduce the behaviour of the human brain, because > consciousness might reside in the actual brain substance. This, I think, is > what Brent is claiming. He further claims that one day we may be able to > work out the exact correlates of experience - glutamate for red experiences > for example (for illustrative purposes - it wouldn't be as simple as this). > But there is an argument due to philosopher David Chalmers that assumes > this common intuition to be true and shows that it leads to absurdity: > > http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html > > > and > > On 12/22/2016 1:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > The theory of mind called "functionalism" holds that consciousness results > from the brain carrying out its business of cognition, rather than from the > actual substrate of the brain. This would mean that if the function of the > brain could be reproduced using another substrate, such as a digital > computer, the associated consciousness would also be reproduced. The paper > by Chalmers I cited is a reductio ad absurdum starting with the assumption > that consciousness is substrate-dependent, thus establishing functionalism > as the better theory. > > > Thanks for bringing this up! This neural substitution argument for > functionalism was around way before Chalmers used the argument in his > paper. For example Hans Moravec made this same argument way back in 1988, > in his book Mind Children. > > https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Children-Future-Robot- > Intelligence/dp/0674576187 > > So at least Stathis Papaioannou, Hans Moravec, David Chalmers, James > Carroll (CC-ed), and a bunch of others think this argument is sound, > causing them to think "functionalism is the better theory" resulting in the > apparent "hard problem" conundrum. I think all these people are world > leading, understanding wise, in this field, so we need to take this > argument seriously. But, despite this, it seems obvious to me that this so > called "hard" problem is a simple misunderstanding of how phenomenal > computation works below the abstracted layer - at the hardware quality > dependent layer. > The "hard problem" and functionalism are not really related. The "hard problem" can still be stated if consciousness is substrate dependent or if it is due to an immortal soul. > Let me describe the hardware quality dependent layer in today's computers > in a slightly qualitatively advanced way to illustrate how this > misunderstanding results. One of the fundamental operations of a > computation device is comparisons: Is a 1 different than a zero? So > fundamentally, today's computer circuits are composed of lots of such > comparison gates that let you know if the voltage on one wire is the same > as the voltage on another wire. In other words, we are talking about a > simple exclusive or functional operation: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR_gate > > So, instead of just implementing our XOR logical comparison function with > simple voltages that are not physically very qualitatively different lets > use neurotransmitter molecule comparisons like between glutamate and > glycine. Let's implement our XOR function with a comparison neuron that > fires if two of it's input synapses are chemically the same and not fire if > they are different. In effect, this comparison neuron is a good glutamate > detector. If glutamate is being fed to one of it's input synapses, nothing > but glutamate in the other will cause it to fire. > > So, the complete XOR neural setup is composed of 3 significant neurons. > There are two input neurons that can dump different nero transmitters into > the two input synapses. and the third comparison neuron that fires, if the > two input synapses are chemically the same. So let's perform the neural > substitution on this xor gate. We first replace one of the input neurons > with a silicone system that can function identically. When it outputs a > positive voltage, it is considered as representing what glutamate is > chemically like. Outputting a zero voltage is considered to represent > dumping something chemically different than glutamate into the synapse of > the comparitor neuron. At this point, you have to add a physical > translator between this first silicone neuron substitutuion and the real > comparitor neuron. So when the silicone neuron outputs a positive voltage, > the translation mechanism feeds glutamate to the comparison neuron. > Obviously, since the real neuron is receiving glutamate, it is happy, and > it fires since it's two inputs are chemically or qualitatively the same. > Now, obviously, in order to replace the comparitor neuron, you also need to > replace the other input with a translator system. This system translates > glutamate, coming from the second input neuron, into a positive voltage > being fed into the newly artificial comparitor neuron. So, this simple XOR > gate is functioning identically to the comparitor neuron. It fires if the > two inputs are the same, but doesn't fire if they are different. > > With that, you should be able to see the flaw in this neural substitution > logic. The physical qualities being compared between these two > functionally identical XOR systems is critically important when it comes to > our consciousness. That is why Thomas Nagel is wanting to know what the > two comparison systems are physically and qualitatively like. The two > inputs being compared, and what they are physically, chemichally, and > qualitatively like is important to understanding the nature of physical > qualitative comparison. The two systems can be thought of as functionally > the same, but the qualities of what they are comparing is physically very > different. > Well, I don't see the flaw. If just one of the input neurons in the XOR system is changed, but it behaves in the same way, then the system behaves in the same way. The artificial neuron detects glutamate when the original neuron would have and sends output to the comparator neuron when the the original neuron would have. That is what "functionally identical" means. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 22 03:07:23 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 22:07:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ?>? > The "hard problem" can still be stated if consciousness is substrate > dependent > ?Does your consciousness change after you've had 5 or 6 beers? If it does then you've ? ?proven that a change to the substrate (in this case a increase in the number of C2H6O molecules) can lead to a change in consciousness. John K Clark? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 22 03:50:12 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 22:50:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] technology In-Reply-To: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> References: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:29 PM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > Philosophy and religion aren?t steering this ship, technology is doing it. > ?I agree. So why do history professors teach their students more about the battle tactics of the Austro-Prussian War than the do about the discovery of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that happened at about the same time? ? ?> ? > Consider James Burke?s excellent documentary series The Day the Universe > Changed and later Connections, both about how technological developments > shaped history. ?I loved them both, but I think Connections was first.? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Jan 22 06:12:31 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 22:12:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] technology In-Reply-To: References: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> Message-ID: <01eb01d27476$84f530f0$8edf92d0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] technology On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:29 PM, spike > wrote: ?> ?>?Philosophy and religion aren?t steering this ship, technology is doing it. ?>?I agree. So why do history professors teach their students more about the battle tactics of the Austro-Prussian War than the do about the discovery of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that happened at about the same time? I can envision a means or methodology of teaching history which weaves together memetic development with technological development as drivers of history. Consider stasis in any form in today?s world. We have a mixture of societies that struggle to hold on to traditions of the past while others charge forward as fast as they can dash. Soon the fast-moving societies develop technologies that leave the static societies behind, confused and irrelevant. ?> ?Consider James Burke?s excellent documentary series The Day the Universe Changed and later Connections, both about how technological developments shaped history. ?>?I loved them both, but I think Connections was first.? John K Clark? Both first and last. Burke made Connections, then Universe Changed, then Connections 2. Excellent, imaginative stuff all of it, inspiring, the British technology counterpart to Sagan?s Connections. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Jan 22 06:59:58 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 22:59:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] technology In-Reply-To: <01eb01d27476$84f530f0$8edf92d0$@att.net> References: <014101d2729b$1db03430$59109c90$@att.net> <01eb01d27476$84f530f0$8edf92d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <020901d2747d$25a01d70$70e05850$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike >?the British technology counterpart to Sagan?s Connections. Spike Sagan?s Cosmos I meant of course, doh! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jan 22 04:07:26 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 04:07:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun., 22 Jan. 2017 at 2:09 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > ?>? > The "hard problem" can still be stated if consciousness is substrate > dependent > > > ? does then you've ? > ?proven that a change to the substrate (in this case a increase in the > number of C2H6O molecules) can lead to a change in consciousness. > > > Substrate-independence means you can implement the software on any > hardware and get the same result. For example, you can run a Commodore 64 > game on a computer impossible lamented with vacuum tubes running Microsoft > Windows 95 running a Coomodore 64 emulator. The idea of computationalism is > that you can do this with the brain as well, replacing neurons with > computers that emulate the relevant neural activity and have appropriate > sensors to interface with the surrounding neural tissue. Hans Moravec wrote > a well known version of this neural replacement thought experiment. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 22 12:56:58 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 12:56:58 +0000 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! Message-ID: Saturday, January 21, 2017 CMU Artificial Intelligence Is Tough Poker Player Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition Quotes: As the ?Brains Vs. Artificial Intelligence: Upping the Ante? poker competition nears its halfway point, Carnegie Mellon University?s AI program, called Libratus, is opening a lead over its human opponents ? four of the world?s best professional poker players. Libratus had amassed a lead of $459,154 in chips in the 49,240 hands played by the end of Day Nine. One of the pros, Jimmy Chou, said he and his colleagues initially underestimated Libratus, but have come to regard it as one tough player. ?The bot gets better and better every day,? Chou said. ?It?s like a tougher version of us.? Chou said he and the other pros have shared notes and tips each day, looking for weaknesses they can each exploit. ?The first couple of days, we had high hopes,? Chou said. ?But every time we find a weakness, it learns from us and the weakness disappears the next day.? ------------------- Yea, that's the trouble with AI - they learn fast. And that means every AI running this program is now a world-beating poker player. The AI Singularity could happen real fast once it starts. (Not complaining - looking forward to it!) :) BillK From spike66 at att.net Sun Jan 22 16:24:16 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 08:24:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! Saturday, January 21, 2017 CMU Artificial Intelligence Is Tough Poker Player Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition >... ?The bot gets better and better every day,? Chou said. ?It?s like a tougher version of us.? Chou said he and the other pros have shared notes and tips each day, looking for weaknesses they can each exploit. ?The first couple of days, we had high hopes,? Chou said. ?But every time we find a weakness, it learns from us and the weakness disappears the next day.? ------------------- >...Yea, that's the trouble with AI - they learn fast. And that means every AI running this program is now a world-beating poker player. The AI Singularity could happen real fast once it starts. (Not complaining - looking forward to it!) :) >...BillK _______________________________________________ This so reminds me of the advances in the chess world we watched in the 1980s and 90s. Their ratings just kept steadily climbing much to our astonishment and delight, or in some cases dismay. People were collectively getting better in those years, as we found a worthy opponent was always available and willing. But it wrecked correspondence chess forever, as that activity became pointless. One could never be sure an opponent wasn't using a computer. I can easily imagine that scenario playing out in one sport after another, then in the trades and crafts. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 22 16:45:28 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:45:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ? >> ?>>? >> Does your consciousness change after you've had 5 or 6 beers? If it does >> then you've ? >> ?proven that a change to the substrate (in this case a increase in the >> number of C2H6O molecules) can lead to a change in consciousness. > >> > ?> ? > Substrate-independence means you can implement the software on any > hardware and get the same result. > ?Yes, some believe the same hardware is required to produce the same results, but we know for a fact that is not true for consciousness because the same atoms do not remain in your brain throughout life or even come close to doing so; you are quite literally made out of last year's mashed potatoes. And we know for a fact that a change in the physical arrangement of the brain will always coincide with a change in consciousness, and we know for a fact that a change in consciousness will always coincide with a change in the physical arrangement of the brain. So that leaves nothing for an immortal soul to do. So consciousness must be a function of the arrangement of atoms which obey the laws of physics. So the thing that makes you be you is information on how generic atoms in your brain are arranged. It is my, perhaps unrealistic perhaps not, hope that liquid nitrogen can preserve this information, and that's why I gave Alcor $80,000. > ?> ? > Hans Moravec wrote a well known version of this neural replacement thought > experiment. > Hans Moravec ? is great, he wrote some of my all time favorite books.? ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 00:39:43 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:39:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! In-Reply-To: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> References: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> Message-ID: I can easily imagine that scenario playing out in one sport after another, then in the trades and crafts. spike Now I can see AI doing fashion design and fabrics, wood carving, basket weaving ("I just got out of basket therapy and I'm still weaving") and many more, but not sports. The whole point of sports is to go man to man, woman to woman, team to team. I have no doubt robots could be made that will beat the best players, but that loses the whole point of sports. I also think AI can do visual arts that are indistinguishable from human productions (as are some art works by elephants and monkeys), primarily because the visual arts have lost their way and just gone crazy. Some AI music is/will be good. Perhaps not great, though who can tell anymore in the pop area? Avant garde classical already sounds like it was computer written. Now here is what I would be totally shocked by: an AI decides to write a poem or sonata or draw a picture without any input from humans, and does so after much research into those areas without being told to do so. Unprogrammed initiative. I think the point at which we should be shocked at what AI can do is in the past. Or in the case of the paragraph above, far in the future. bill w On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:24 AM, spike wrote: > > >... On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! > > Saturday, January 21, 2017 > > CMU Artificial Intelligence Is Tough Poker Player Libratus builds > substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition > > > AI-tough-poker-player.html> > > >... > > ?The bot gets better and better every day,? Chou said. ?It?s like a > tougher version of us.? > > Chou said he and the other pros have shared notes and tips each day, > looking for weaknesses they can each exploit. > > ?The first couple of days, we had high hopes,? Chou said. ?But every time > we find a weakness, it learns from us and the weakness disappears the next > day.? > ------------------- > > >...Yea, that's the trouble with AI - they learn fast. > And that means every AI running this program is now a world-beating poker > player. > The AI Singularity could happen real fast once it starts. > (Not complaining - looking forward to it!) :) > > > >...BillK > > _______________________________________________ > > > This so reminds me of the advances in the chess world we watched in the > 1980s and 90s. Their ratings just kept steadily climbing much to our > astonishment and delight, or in some cases dismay. People were > collectively getting better in those years, as we found a worthy opponent > was always available and willing. But it wrecked correspondence chess > forever, as that activity became pointless. One could never be sure an > opponent wasn't using a computer. > > I can easily imagine that scenario playing out in one sport after another, > then in the trades and crafts. > > 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 Mon Jan 23 03:17:52 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:17:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! In-Reply-To: References: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> Message-ID: <01c701d27527$48e75460$dab5fd20$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 4:40 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! >>?I can easily imagine that scenario playing out in one sport after another, then in the trades and crafts. spike >?Now I can see AI doing fashion design and fabrics, wood carving, basket weaving ("I just got out of basket therapy and I'm still weaving") and many more, but not sports? Coupla thoughts on that. Computers own chess and now Go; poker is coming. The top humans have not a chance against an ordinary laptop running 200 dollar commercial chess software. Yet we still have world championship chess tournaments and it still attracts plenty of viewers and pays big purses. That one interests me because there is not a lot of advertisement money generated from that game, and not much money in selling the equipment. On the other hand, there is a robot game that I think will be really big, at least for a while: motorcycle racing. Reasoning: we already know it costs a cubic ton of money to build a competitive race car, a million bucks to get one up to where its speed is up against material limits in the tires, which really is as fast as we can go until we work out that limitation somehow. But with motorcycles, you can get a bike that takes us to material limits in the tires for sooooo much less money, 25k$ is enough. So you figure, 25k$ for a production fast bike, a couple thousand bucks in actuators and cameras and sensors and gazazzafraztes then you have a state-of-the-art racer that will go like hell and you just know, you KNOW that would be fun to watch, those bikes shrieking around the track with no prole aboard, yeeeeeeehaw that would be rollicking good fun. I think at least for a while that would be as popular as human motorcycle racing, and? the bikes would go faster. They would lose a quarter of the weight, about a tenth of the frontal area, reduce the coefficient of drag, they would go faster because if there is only a few k$ at risk and no flesh, the programmer can take bigger risks with them. But wait, there?s more. In motorcycle racing there are displacement classes but all the bikes must be scaled to carry an ape. OK so what if that restriction is suddenly gone? These are called pocket bikes, made for kids to race, but think it over, and realize that if we don?t need to carry an ape, even a young one, a tiny frame could be wrapped around a powerful engine, low to the ground, light, stretched just enough to keep the front end on the ground as it powers out of the turn. I can imagine these little things hitting insane speeds, a pocket-bike-scale frame with a really sincere hyperactive half-liter racing engine retrofitted. Something like that would get us to tire material limits with perhaps even less money than a stock production bike. Granted to BillW?s point, that whole notion defeats the spirit of human competition, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, etc. Well? sorta, sure. But the visuals for something like this would be spectacular, and if they do some epic wipeouts, well no worries, no actual apes were harmed in the making of this crazy-fun silliness, so it?s all in good fun. I would kick in a few bucks for a Go-Fund-Me on that. Or this: we could market a kit for converting existing bikes to track-only riderless. I can imagine it with really not a hell of a lot of equipment: a Go-Pro class CCD camera for recognizing the inner and outer boundary lines on the track, some solid state accelerometers and angular rate sensors and such, perhaps a Raspberry Pi-class processor, actuator for steering, actuator for forward brake, actuator for throttle, actuator for clutch, actuator for shifter, compressed air cylinder to drive it all, software (that I don?t know how to write (but someone does)) and we are ready to race. I can imagine a conversion kit like that could be put together for a couple thousand bucks, with most of the kit recoverable in the event of even a most crowd-satisfying epic crash. Used motorcycles are cheap. Motorcycles that have been crashed but the frame is undamaged are cheap. I predict we will see this starting up before this decade is out. Oh there is money to be made here, cubic buttloads of it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16614 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 03:41:07 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 22:41:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! In-Reply-To: References: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > Now here is what I would be totally shocked by: an AI decides to write a > poem or sonata or draw a picture without any input from humans, > ?There is a short SF movie called ? ?"? Sunspring ?", it's acted and directed by humans but the script was written by a AI named " Benjamin ?", the AI even wrote a pop song for the soundtrack, ?but I should warn you Citizen Kane ? it's not:? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY7x2Ihqjmc? John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 23 03:39:18 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:39:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] robo-bikes again, was: RE: AI wins at Poker now! Message-ID: <01cd01d2752a$474c1390$d5e43ab0$@att.net> From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] >?but think it over, and realize that if we don?t need to carry an ape, even a young one, a tiny frame could be wrapped around a powerful engine, low to the ground, light, stretched just enough to keep the front end on the ground as it powers out of the turn. I can imagine these little things hitting insane speeds, a pocket-bike-scale frame with a really sincere hyperactive half-liter racing engine retrofitted. Something like that would get us to tire material limits with perhaps even less money than a stock production bike? spike Oh wait, never mind, someone?s already thought of it: This photo isn?t very good but I think I recognize that engine as a liter-class rice-burner from about mid 80s, the GSXR series Suzukis, not state-of-the-art now of course but still 100 horsepower or better and very cheap. Custom stretch frame like this one, average shadetree mechanic with a welder could build one, small wheels, lose the seat, put a gas tank aft of that crazy engine, and there you have it, way low frontal area, low weight, more horsepower than your tires can deliver to the track. We supply a kit with the actuators and most importantly the software I don?t know how to write, we?ll make a great team, we?ll be rich and famous. You can be famous, I?ll take care of rich. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6425 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 18:06:16 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:06:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! In-Reply-To: References: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> Message-ID: But the visuals for something like this would be spectacular, and if they do some epic wipeouts, spike Game software depicting football etc. look really hokie, but of course they will improve. Why not cycle racing virtual? If you can't tell the difference between the software and the real thing there's no reason to have the real thing - at least in this case. Sure, people would come out to see real apes or people, but what size audience is that compared to millions of gamers? The money is in software not hardware, eh? And betting. bill w On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:41 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?> ? >> Now here is what I would be totally shocked by: an AI decides to write a >> poem or sonata or draw a picture without any input from humans, >> > > ?There is a short SF movie called ? > ?"? > Sunspring > ?", it's acted and directed by humans but the script was written by a AI > named " > Benjamin > ?", the AI > even wrote a pop song for the soundtrack, > ?but I should warn you > Citizen Kane > ? it's not:? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY7x2Ihqjmc? > > John K Clark > > >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 23 18:26:01 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:26:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! In-Reply-To: References: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> Message-ID: <02b301d275a6$2733c1d0$759b4570$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 10:06 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! >>?But the visuals for something like this would be spectacular, and if they do some epic wipeouts, spike >?Game software depicting football etc. look really hokie, but of course they will improve. Why not cycle racing virtual? If you can't tell the difference between the software and the real thing there's no reason to have the real thing - at least in this case. Sure, people would come out to see real apes or people, but what size audience is that compared to millions of gamers? The money is in software not hardware, eh? And betting?bill w Sure there is that, but I use this as a jumping off point for why the universe exists in matter form. We are a real reality, which exists to calculate virtual reality. Consider what I proposed, robot motorcycle racing, suggesting it would draw huge crowds because it would have spectacular epic wipeouts, way better than real reality because we don?t need to worry about the fate of the hapless ape who just tumbled off his crotch rocket at absurd speeds. Sure we could simulate a robo-motorcycle crash, and it wouldn?t cost anything to run once we get the software going. But we can?t simulate everything, because we cannot perfectly model the difficulty of ripping apart the frame and various subsystems. So? in that case, real reality would exist as a guide for virtual reality: we would compare virtual reality spectacular wipe-outs to real reality variety. If you want to carry it to extremes, the whole notion becomes an explanation (of sorts) for the big bang (eh, don?t take this argument more seriously than I intend.) What if? our existence is a virtual reality, supported by some mysterious means. It occurs to us that although we can write virtual realities, good ones, it still helps to see real realities for comparison purposes. So now imagine those virtual intelligences propose some kind of matter-based simulator of virtual reality, made of energy and matter. Let there be light, big bang, etc. OK cool, now consider a real-world equivalent to what I am suggesting: the RC model plane world. Anyone who has followed that or ever goes to the local club recognizes that there is a pile of money invested in those models, which are really just toys, many k$ ja? You know what I mean. If not, go out there and see it for yourself. Those models have become huge. If one is to become a famous modeler, it isn?t from building the most epic model, but rather the hapless goof whose plane made the most epic wipeout. If you can watch this without laughing out loud, your sense of humor is put together a bit differently from mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSHYpM1JDKE This video has gotten nearly 7 million views, which makes it a big moneymaker for selling ad-space. We could build robo-motorcycles with a pretty similar budget to these guys who build the big RC planes, because they can be engineered and built at home with tired old bikes, take off unnecessary ape-supporting stuff, add some actuators, extend the swing arm with a home welder setup (very easy to do) and off we go. It occurred to me that I might be able to write the software to do this, given knowledge of the track (it wouldn?t be a go-anywhere, but a specific track racer.) spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 18:55:25 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:55:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! In-Reply-To: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> References: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On 22 January 2017 at 16:24, spike wrote: > This so reminds me of the advances in the chess world we watched in the 1980s and 90s. > Their ratings just kept steadily climbing much to our astonishment and delight, or in some > cases dismay. People were collectively getting better in those years, as we found a worthy > opponent was always available and willing. But it wrecked correspondence chess forever, > as that activity became pointless. One could never be sure an opponent wasn't using a > computer. > > I can easily imagine that scenario playing out in one sport after another, then in the trades > and crafts. > Why Poker Is a Big Deal for Artificial Intelligence Playing poker involves dealing with imperfect information, which makes the game very complex, and more like many real-world situations. by Will Knight January 23, 2017 Quotes: A win for Libratus would be a huge achievement in artificial intelligence. Poker requires reasoning and intelligence that has proven difficult for machines to imitate. It is fundamentally different from checkers, chess, or Go, because an opponent?s hand remains hidden from view during play. In games of ?imperfect information,? it is enormously complicated to figure out the ideal strategy given every possible approach your opponent may be taking. ?Whether a move is good or not depends on things you cannot observe,? says Vincent Conitzer, a professor at Duke University who teaches AI and game theory. ?This also results in a need to be unpredictable. If you never bluff, you are not a good player. If you always bluff, you are not a good player. Game theory tells you how to randomize your play in a way that is, in a sense, optimal.? ----------------------- So when the future AGI gives you advice on how to run your life, remember it might be bluffing! :} BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 19:20:42 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:20:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! In-Reply-To: References: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> Message-ID: although we can write virtual realities, good ones, it still helps to see real realities for comparison purposes. spike Here's what gets me: millions of videos and film depicting just about everything. Why not take from those shots the code for what you want; that is, if you want some virtual reality robot to walk like a person, then why not get a video of a person walking and take the code from there, eliminating superfluous actions? I have seen a person hooked up to all sorts of sensors that record his movements which I suppose is then turned into code. I don't see why this is necessary. I reckon the youtube thing just happens too fast for me. But then I am not into wrecks (or racing, though I do watch horses three times a year). I wasn't one of the ones cheering during the Blues Brothers at scores of cop cars wrecking etc. bill w On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM, BillK wrote: > On 22 January 2017 at 16:24, spike wrote: > > This so reminds me of the advances in the chess world we watched in the > 1980s and 90s. > > Their ratings just kept steadily climbing much to our astonishment and > delight, or in some > > cases dismay. People were collectively getting better in those years, > as we found a worthy > > opponent was always available and willing. But it wrecked > correspondence chess forever, > > as that activity became pointless. One could never be sure an opponent > wasn't using a > > computer. > > > > I can easily imagine that scenario playing out in one sport after > another, then in the trades > > and crafts. > > > > Why Poker Is a Big Deal for Artificial Intelligence > > Playing poker involves dealing with imperfect information, which makes > the game very complex, and more like many real-world situations. > > by Will Knight January 23, 2017 > > big-deal-for-artificial-intelligence/> > > Quotes: > A win for Libratus would be a huge achievement in artificial > intelligence. Poker requires reasoning and intelligence that has > proven difficult for machines to imitate. It is fundamentally > different from checkers, chess, or Go, because an opponent?s hand > remains hidden from view during play. In games of ?imperfect > information,? it is enormously complicated to figure out the ideal > strategy given every possible approach your opponent may be taking. > > ?Whether a move is good or not depends on things you cannot observe,? > says Vincent Conitzer, a professor at Duke University who teaches AI > and game theory. ?This also results in a need to be unpredictable. If > you never bluff, you are not a good player. If you always bluff, you > are not a good player. Game theory tells you how to randomize your > play in a way that is, in a sense, optimal.? > ----------------------- > > So when the future AGI gives you advice on how to run your life, > remember it might be bluffing! :} > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 20:14:46 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:14:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI wins at Poker now! In-Reply-To: References: <024e01d274cb$fa841930$ef8c4b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:20 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Here's what gets me: millions of videos and film depicting just about > everything. Why not take from those shots the code for what you want; > that is, if you want some virtual reality robot to walk like a person, > then why not get a video of a person walking and take the code from there, > eliminating superfluous actions? I have seen a person hooked up to all > sorts of sensors that record his movements which I suppose is then turned > into code. I don't see why this is necessary. > One reason is that video is only 2D. Another is that data captured via other means can be more precise and at a higher rate. A third is that even with unlimited data, emulating some things is incredibly difficult. For example, there are countless videos of people talking. The biomechanics are well understood. But no visual simulation of a person speaking has ever done a really convincing job of it. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 21:48:15 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:48:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] moral certitude Message-ID: I read today where Americans are running around the world preaching democracy. Nothing new there. It certainly is the basis of a few of our wars. At the same time I read where China is building harbors and airports for other countries. With our money, in effect. Now which strategy is going to work in the long run to win friends and influence people? We have long been preaching while doing things that are the height of hypocrisy and open and obvious for all to see. We have ignored minority rights since slavery, then Amerindians, then women. We have interfered or tried to, with other countries' governments, using assassination and arming rebels. Is it any mystery why we have a rather poor reputation around the world? Maybe this administration could put a stop to this. Get out of wars, stop preaching. We'll see. Maybe we are just not worthy of our magnificent Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Republicans are afraid of what Trump is doing and going to do to the party's basic doctrines, and I hope he does. He may have more trouble with his own party than with the Democrats. I hope he does. He may wreck the political process as it is currently practiced and that cannot be anything but a good thing. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 22:37:31 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:37:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] robot social security? Message-ID: The draft motion called on the European Commission to consider "that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations". full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-robotics-lawmaking-idUSKCN0Z72AY bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 24 00:51:57 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:51:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] moral certitude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > I read where China is building harbors and airports for other countries. > ?Good for them. ? > ?> ? > With our money, in effect. > ?How do you figure that? ? > ?> ? > Is it any mystery why we have a rather poor reputation around the world? > ?No mystery whatsoever, the most powerful nation in the world has always engendered resentment, it comes with the territory. But if you think the USA is unpopular now just wait!? > ?> ? > Maybe this administration could put a stop to this. > I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. The one Trump character flaw that bothers me most is his belief he can pick a fight with reality and win. The very best liars have the ability to halfway convince themselves that what they say is true. For example, Trump wishes he had won the popular vote therefore he ? sort of ? believes he did ?.? ? Trump ? wishes his inauguration ? was the most attended in history therefore he sort of believes ? it was. Trump wishes he hadn't started a war with the CIA therefore he ?sort of believes he ? never call ? ed ? them Nazis or referred to them as "intelligence" agencies ?.? ? Trump wishes his winery is the largest on the East Coast ? therefore he sort of believes it is.Trump wishes Ted Cruz?s father ? helped assassinate ? John ? F ? Kennedy ? therefore he sort of believes he did. Trump wishes ? Obama allowed ? 30 to 34 ? million ? illegal immigrants ? in ?to? the USA therefore he sort of believes ?he did? . Trump wishes he was was totally against the war in Iraq ? from the very beginning therefore he sort of believes he was. Trump wishes the ? ? unemployment rate ? under Obama reach as high as ? 42 ?% and made the USA ? the highest taxed nation in the world ? so he sort of bevies ?he did? . Trump wishes Crime is rising therefore he sort of believes it is. ?This ability for self deception served him well during the campaign, it got him votes, but different skills are needed to run the country. Because of this I think it is only a matter of time before reality bites him in the ass and sometime in the next 4 years Trump will be impeached and convicted for massive incompetence (or maybe massive corruption or both). However whether that would result in Trump actually leaving office is an entirely different matter. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 24 02:09:24 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:09:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] moral certitude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > ?> ? > With our money, in effect. > ?How do you figure that? ? john All the money we send over there for goods. Unanswerable question: just how did Trump get to where he was (and I am not saying that he was a successful businessman) with the kind of delusions he seems capable of, as you point out? Lies on top of lies. Why would anyone do business with him? He is already driving his administration crazy. 'Better and cheaper health care for everybody', he says, when he has no health plan at all. I suppose that there is no way of untangling two factors: we are the richest, and we are the biggest preachers. Which one is more disgusting to the rest of the world? Hating the rich is understandable and almost natural because of envy. But morally we have failed the world over and over again. We send missionaries and supply Bibles, not tractors etc. It is a monumental disgrace that we have not rebuild Iraq - some places still have no power. As many have pointed out, the rest of the world that is not already democratic is not ready for it. I hope Trump or whoever gives up on that idea. I hope that he means what he says about concentrating on us - and leave the rest of the world alone? Or will he bomb the first world leader who pisses him off? bill w On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?> ? >> I read where China is building harbors and airports for other countries. >> > > ?Good for them. > ? > > >> ?> ? >> With our money, in effect. >> > > ?How do you figure that? ? > > > >> ?> ? >> Is it any mystery why we have a rather poor reputation around the world? >> > > ?No mystery whatsoever, the most powerful nation in the world has always > engendered resentment, it comes with the territory. But if you think the > USA is unpopular now just wait!? > > > >> ?> ? >> Maybe this administration could put a stop to this. >> > > I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. The one Trump character flaw that > bothers me most is his belief he can pick a fight with reality and win. The > very best liars have the ability to halfway convince themselves that what > they say is true. For example, Trump wishes he had won the popular vote > therefore he > ? > sort of > ? > believes he did > ?.? > ? > Trump > ? > wishes his inauguration > ? > was the most attended in history therefore he > sort of believes > ? > it was. Trump wishes he hadn't started a war with the CIA therefore he > ?sort of believes he ? > never call > ? > ed > ? > them Nazis or referred to them as "intelligence" agencies > ?.? > ? > Trump wishes his winery is the largest on the East Coast > ? > therefore he sort of believes it is.Trump wishes Ted Cruz?s father > ? > helped assassinate > ? > John > ? > F > ? > Kennedy > ? > therefore he sort of believes he did. Trump wishes > ? > Obama allowed > ? > 30 to 34 > ? > million > ? > illegal immigrants > ? > in > ?to? > the USA therefore he sort of believes > ?he did? > . Trump wishes he was was totally against the war in Iraq > ? > from the very beginning therefore he sort of believes he was. Trump wishes > the > ? ? > unemployment rate > ? > under Obama reach as high as > ? > 42 > ?% > and made the USA > ? > the highest taxed nation in the world > ? > so he sort of bevies > ?he did? > . Trump wishes Crime is rising therefore he sort of believes it is. > > ?This ability for self deception served him well during the campaign, it > got him votes, but different skills are needed to run the country. Because > of this I think it is only a matter of time before reality bites him in the > ass and sometime in the next 4 years Trump will be impeached and convicted > for massive incompetence (or maybe massive corruption or both). However > whether that would result in Trump actually leaving office is an entirely > different matter. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 24 22:21:37 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:21:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? Message-ID: Yesterday Trump said he ?believed? 3 to 5 million people voted illegally even though there is no evidence ?that ? even 3 to 5 hundred did. And today Trump's mouthpiece Sean Spicer doubled down on that ridiculous claim saying his boss had read "studies" proving it was true, when asked what study reached that conclusion Spicer said one by Pew Research, but the author of that study, David Bechker, flat out says that isn't true and they didn't reach ?such a? conclusion or anything close to it. That and the memory of what candidate Trump said about the 2016 election, that he would respect the outcome only if he won, gives me ?? heebie jeebies ? when I think about what President Trump will do in 2020. ?Imagine what Commander In Chief Trump will do if he wins the popular vote by 2.9 million ?as Hillary did ? but looses the Electoral College vote, I think he ?would ? claim the election was fraudulent and his opponent, ? ? whoever he or she may be, is a crook ?and? should not have ?even ? been "allowed" to run for president ?,? so he will order the army into the streets and will ?try to ? remain in power. In fact I think he will do that in 2020 even if his opponent wins bot ?h? the popular ?vote ? and ?the ? electoral vote in a landslide. But, I hear you say, the military would never go along with such treason ? and? ? maybe you're right,? but think about all the ex-generals ?Trump has? already loaded into his cabinet, and every day there will be more pro-Trump Colonels and Generals and fewer anti-Trump ? ones? . Even if the anti-Trump forces prove to be stronger in the end it will be a hellish situation ?.? I just can't see a happy ending ? to the Trump catastrophe. ? ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 24 22:38:02 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:38:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] phone eats city Message-ID: <01d501d27692$86778bd0$9366a370$@att.net> This 59 second video with no dialog is a good expression of a current thread: https://youtu.be/9YBOn-Fxg_4 spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 24 23:47:05 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:47:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark >?I just can't see a happy ending to the Trump catastrophe. ? John K Clark I can: this entire episode is weakening the office of the US presidency. It has become fashionable to criticize the president once again. Do so, early and often. Weaken that office, into the future. Oh that feels gooooood. spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cryptaxe at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 00:07:00 2017 From: cryptaxe at gmail.com (CryptAxe) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:07:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> Message-ID: You say the issue is that he doesn't back up his claims, you haven't backed up your concerns. On Jan 24, 2017 4:04 PM, "spike" wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Clark > > *>?*I just can't see a happy ending to the Trump catastrophe. ? John K > Clark > > > > > > I can: this entire episode is weakening the office of the US presidency. > It has become fashionable to criticize the president once again. Do so, > early and often. Weaken that office, into the future. Oh that feels > gooooood. > > > > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 01:02:22 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:02:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Jan 24, 2017, at 3:47 PM, spike wrote: > > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark > > >?I just can't see a happy ending to the Trump catastrophe. ? John K Clark > > > I can: this entire episode is weakening the office of the US presidency. It has become fashionable to criticize the president once again. Do so, early and often. Weaken that office, into the future. Oh that feels gooooood. Let's hope that the outcome. However, ifthe past is a reliable guide, it seems this will be but a blip in the expansion of executive power. Why? Well, most people think of someone abusing power not in terms of that power being unchecked or too wide in scope, but in terms of a bad personal wielding that power. But it should be a relatively short wait to find out if you are right here. We just have to wait for Trump to leave office and maybe a term or two after that. (I offer no forecast for 02020. Too far ahead. I do think it unlikely Trump will strong arm himself into a second term. But who knows? He has four years to try to set things up so that he won't lose. I actually believe something more subtle might happen -- it tanks in the streets, but dirt being 'leaked' on opposition leaders via domestic intelligence. The tanks in the streets scenario would almost certainly result in a civil war rather than a Trump victory. But leaking dirt on opposition leaders is likely to be seen to fit the 'politicians are all corrupt' formula. And pretty much they all are, no?) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 01:10:01 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:10:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:07 PM, CryptAxe wrote: ?> ? > You say the issue is that he doesn't back up his claims, you haven't > backed up your concerns. > ?Trump already said he would respect the results of the 2016 election only if he won, please please convince he won't do the same thing in 2020 when he will have the power to do something about it if the election doesn't go his way. Convince me that our Commander in Chief's bizarre belief in "alternative facts" is not a sign of a complete disconnect from reality. Convince me that a sane man has his finger on the nuclear trigger. I mean it, ?convince me that my concerns are unwarranted. PLEASE! ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 01:14:17 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:14:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] phone eats city In-Reply-To: <01d501d27692$86778bd0$9366a370$@att.net> References: <01d501d27692$86778bd0$9366a370$@att.net> Message-ID: It really is a fantastic thing, no? Connected to the world. Here's my question: What's next? bill w On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:38 PM, spike wrote: > > > This 59 second video with no dialog is a good expression of a current > thread: > > > > https://youtu.be/9YBOn-Fxg_4 > > > > 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 Wed Jan 25 01:10:31 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:10:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> Message-ID: <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan >?leaking dirt on opposition leaders is likely to be seen to fit the 'politicians are all corrupt' formula. And pretty much they all are, no?) Regards, Dan Well sure, but it is more subtle than that. I have never been let down by the generalization that power corrupts. Its effect is seen on good guys and bad guys, but a more powerful office will attract corrupt power-grabbers. So? if we reduce the power of those offices, fewer already-corrupt already power-grabby people will seek them. I am encouraged by Julian Assange proving to be right all along: greater openness by government, even involuntary openness, forces a government to play by the rules. To your point, all politicians are corrupt: some are more than others, but still power corrupts the good and the bad. Openness gets them caught sooner, and perhaps delays their descent into corruption. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 01:42:22 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:42:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> Message-ID: I've found one small ray of hope in the present ghastly situation, immediately after ? Kellyanne Conway?s Orwellian Interview ? about "alternative facts" sales of 1984 spiked, for a while it was #2 on Amazon's best sellers list. Not bad for a 68 year old book. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 02:21:00 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:21:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] phone eats city In-Reply-To: References: <01d501d27692$86778bd0$9366a370$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:14 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > It really is a fantastic thing, no? Connected to the world. Here's my > question: > > What's next? Going by that video's tone, the "services" of having grocery stores, perhaps fire/ambulance/police, and eventually neighbors. (Though, honestly, quite a bit of what it credits the phone with was on its way out before smartphones.) From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 25 02:26:50 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:26:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] phone eats city In-Reply-To: References: <01d501d27692$86778bd0$9366a370$@att.net> Message-ID: <00cf01d276b2$7c9d3720$75d7a560$@att.net> This 59 second video with no dialog is a good expression of a current thread: https://youtu.be/9YBOn-Fxg_4 spike From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:14 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] phone eats city >?It really is a fantastic thing, no? Connected to the world. Here's my question: >?What's next? >?bill w We don?t know, BillW. If anyone knew the answer to that question, it is a worth a buttload of money. The classic transhumanist answer is to say Singularity Ahead. But that is really just another way of saying we don?t know. I have some fuzzy visions of things to come. It will involve the spontaneous creation of a kind of super-organism made up of individual autonomous units. I can best describe it by way of an example. We have super-organisms of sorts already: the Elks Lodge, the Masons, the Boy Scouts, churches, that sorta thing, groups who work together to accomplish things. Now, consider the geocaching crowd. The game is to squirrel away a small jar or container out in nature somewhere, then post clues to its location. Finders sign a log and write observations if they wish, take something out of the cache, put something in, take the item they took to the next cache. It can be anything; a coin, a keychain, a little toy, anything that can be identified online. We have the cub scouts look for any litter in the area and pack it out. Since the internet came along, geocaching has exploded in popularity, since there is so much more one can do with it: track tags on international travel and so forth. My son loves it. OK cool, the geocaching community acts as a superorganism, one of the early-ish ones. Now consider all the other things one could do with super-organisms: the systematized wildlife observations we have discussed before. We could use it to remove and eradicate noxious weeds or establish beneficial plants. We could use it to fight crime (already doing that.) We could use it to do some kinds of repairs or clean up messes. Play massive virtual reality and mixed reality games. Manage resources. Support and protect wildlife. Create educational simulations. Help businesses operate more efficiently. Help prevent accidents. Uncover or propagate historical information. Help the poor. Help the rich and help everyone in between. Get the singles laid. Help people find others of similar values and interests. Build community esprit de corps. That kinda stuff. Super-interconnectedness can help us live lives more together, even while alone. This is an appealing prospect for those of us who know what it is to feel lonely in a crowd of our own friends and feel like we are attending a great party while sitting alone in our own home. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 25 02:33:40 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:33:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> Message-ID: <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:42 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? >?I've found one small ray of hope in the present ghastly situation, immediately after Kellyanne Conway?s Orwellian Interview about "alternative facts" sales of 1984 spiked, for a while it was #2 on Amazon's best sellers list. Not bad for a 68 year old book. John K Clark JA! Is this cool or what? A book that old is back in fashion, for all the right reasons. There is hope. Now the resta yas who haven?t read that book, I totally DEMAND that you do so. Once you do, perhaps you will understand better why I and many others have the attitude. It was the book which had the very most impact on me in high school, marvelous work that it is. Orwell saw it all. The man was brilliant. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 25 02:53:11 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:53:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> Message-ID: <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 6:34 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:42 PM To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? >?I've found one small ray of hope in the present ghastly situation, immediately after Kellyanne Conway?s Orwellian Interview about "alternative facts" sales of 1984 spiked, for a while it was #2 on Amazon's best sellers list. Not bad for a 68 year old book. John K Clark >?Now the resta yas who haven?t read that book, I totally DEMAND that you do so? spike A cheerful thought occurred to me: we are already on day 4 of the current regime and not a single unlimited thermonuclear holocaust has been unleashed, not even one little nuclear bomb has been launched. So far so good. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 14:56:34 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:56:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] phone eats city In-Reply-To: <00cf01d276b2$7c9d3720$75d7a560$@att.net> References: <01d501d27692$86778bd0$9366a370$@att.net> <00cf01d276b2$7c9d3720$75d7a560$@att.net> Message-ID: Super-interconnectedness can help us live lives more together, even while alone. spike Yes, it is going to be interesting what people will create with all this connectedness. I still want to know this: what's new on the horizon for gadgets? Will smartphones live forever? Is the next step implants? What will nanotech bring us? bill w On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:26 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > > > This 59 second video with no dialog is a good expression of a current > thread: > > https://youtu.be/9YBOn-Fxg_4 > > spike > > > > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:14 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] phone eats city > > > > >?It really is a fantastic thing, no? Connected to the world. Here's my > question: > > > > >?What's next? > > > > >?bill w > > > > > > We don?t know, BillW. > > > > If anyone knew the answer to that question, it is a worth a buttload of > money. > > > > The classic transhumanist answer is to say Singularity Ahead. But that is > really just another way of saying we don?t know. > > > > I have some fuzzy visions of things to come. It will involve the > spontaneous creation of a kind of super-organism made up of individual > autonomous units. I can best describe it by way of an example. We have > super-organisms of sorts already: the Elks Lodge, the Masons, the Boy > Scouts, churches, that sorta thing, groups who work together to accomplish > things. > > > > Now, consider the geocaching crowd. The game is to squirrel away a small > jar or container out in nature somewhere, then post clues to its location. > Finders sign a log and write observations if they wish, take something out > of the cache, put something in, take the item they took to the next cache. > It can be anything; a coin, a keychain, a little toy, anything that can be > identified online. We have the cub scouts look for any litter in the area > and pack it out. Since the internet came along, geocaching has exploded in > popularity, since there is so much more one can do with it: track tags on > international travel and so forth. My son loves it. > > > > OK cool, the geocaching community acts as a superorganism, one of the > early-ish ones. Now consider all the other things one could do with > super-organisms: the systematized wildlife observations we have discussed > before. We could use it to remove and eradicate noxious weeds or establish > beneficial plants. We could use it to fight crime (already doing that.) > We could use it to do some kinds of repairs or clean up messes. Play > massive virtual reality and mixed reality games. Manage resources. > Support and protect wildlife. Create educational simulations. Help > businesses operate more efficiently. Help prevent accidents. Uncover or > propagate historical information. Help the poor. Help the rich and help > everyone in between. Get the singles laid. Help people find others of > similar values and interests. Build community esprit de corps. That kinda > stuff. > > > > Super-interconnectedness can help us live lives more together, even while > alone. > > > > This is an appealing prospect for those of us who know what it is to feel > lonely in a crowd of our own friends and feel like we are attending a great > party while sitting alone in our own home. > > > > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 15:25:09 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:25:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:53 PM, spike wrote: ?> ? > A cheerful thought occurred to me: we are already on day 4 of the current > regime and not a single unlimited thermonuclear holocaust has been > unleashed, not even one little nuclear bomb has been launched. So far so > good. > ?And a man who jumped off the top of the Empire State Building was heard to yell as he fell passed the 5th floor "so far so good". I'd like to say we're only 4 days into a 4 year administration but I can't because I don't know that this nightmare will be over in 4 years. I think Trump will remain presadent until he dies (and one of his idiot sons takes over) or the anti-Trump faction of the military proves to be stronger than the pro-Trump faction. I Think we've just seen the last presidential election for a decade or two. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 25 15:37:13 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:37:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] nasa to take up psyche-ology Message-ID: <01e801d27720$e6e630f0$b4b292d0$@att.net> This is a good day. NASA has announced a new direction for research, one I have been hoping they would do for a long time: exploring a metallic asteroid: https://sese.asu.edu/research/psyche There are some enormous challenges, such as the nearly 3 yrs it takes to get there, and anywhere from 3 to 18 minute signal delay. But I am convinced the way to build big space structures is to mine and refine a metallic asteroid. Psyche is a prime target. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 15:54:51 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:54:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> Message-ID: IMHO, things will come to a head before 2020. But I agree, I think for one reason or another the American Republic will be put on hold. I think this civil war was going to happen regardless of who got into power. The people who hate the left are the ones with the guns right now! I wish I knew more about internal dynamics between the US military, intelligence communities, &c. I'd like to understand what lines our shit is going to fracture on when the inevitable civil war comes. The military isn't one single unit. Maybe SOCOM splits left and AFRICOM splits right and the Marines start a seastead, who fuckin knows.. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 16:48:14 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:48:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] phone eats city In-Reply-To: References: <01d501d27692$86778bd0$9366a370$@att.net> <00cf01d276b2$7c9d3720$75d7a560$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:56 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Yes, it is going to be interesting what people will create with all this > connectedness. > Yeah, and some of it probably benefit us. :-) I still want to know this: what's new on the horizon for gadgets? > I think augmented reality will catch on pretty soon, and the technology is mostly in place. Google Glass was a decent early attempt, but it was before its time and Google wasn't sufficiently committed to it. But Pokemon Go-style AR where everyone walks around looking at the world through their phone isn't going to cut it. Another easy pick is self-driving cars. > Will smartphones live forever? > The functionality they provide is probably "forever" but the hand-held platform as the primary platform likely won't. Glasses/contacts and earbud(s)/mics might be next. > Is the next step implants? > I think that's doubtful. Tech changes too fast and implants are too intrusive. I like my Android phone but I wouldn't be interested in an Android implant that runs who-knows-code, spies on me, can't be disabled/removed, etc. > What will nanotech bring us? > It's too soon to say, but it's a safe bet that R&D will continue and some impressive products will result. Whether or not they're ever utility fog impressive, only time will tell. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 17:08:52 2017 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:08:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] nasa to take up psyche-ology In-Reply-To: <01e801d27720$e6e630f0$b4b292d0$@att.net> References: <01e801d27720$e6e630f0$b4b292d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:37 AM, spike wrote: > But I am convinced the way to build big space structures is to mine and > refine a metallic asteroid 10,000-kilometer wide space structures can be made from bubbles that cure when exposed to UV: http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar07/1314Crowe.pdf - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 17:14:49 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:14:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > (I offer no forecast for 02020. Too far ahead. I do think it unlikely Trump I find it pretty funny that less than 4 years is too far ahead but you write dates with a ten-thousand-year notation in advance of the Y10K problem. :) From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 17:18:53 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:18:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> Message-ID: ?I've just found another ray of hope, the man may be just too stupid to remain in power for long. Right now the top headline on the New York times website is "Trump Vows 'Major Investigation' of His Claim of Voting Fraud". The fool is questioning the legitimacy of his own election!! This is not April 1 and I am not joking, he actually is doing this, it's incredible. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-voting-fraud-false-claim-investigation.html?_r=0 John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 25 17:16:23 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:16:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> Message-ID: <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg >?I think this civil war was going to happen regardless of who got into power. The people who hate the left are the ones with the guns right now! ? Will Will, I disagree sir. Regarding gun rights, a civil war in the US cannot break out over that issue: one side has too big an advantage. Thanks second amendment. In the US civil war of the 19th century, there was a major issue around which the people could choose sides: slavery. One major party wanted to keep it, the other wanted it banned. What do we have now analogous to that? Nothing. Our current culture war has not even a single clear issue on which people split left and right. Can you think of one? Looking at how acrimonious was our last major election, can you see any major issue in which the candidates differed significantly? Neither can I. Is not this a paradox? These two candidates were mostly on the same page as far as I could tell. The best I can do is free trade and open immigration, neither of which would form a logical basis for a civil war. It strains the imagination to think anyone would be willing to take up arms against countrymen in order to allow unchecked immigration or buy foreign manufactured goods cheaply. Anything else? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 25 17:27:05 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:27:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> Message-ID: <027301d27730$403e5c90$c0bb15b0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:19 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? ?>?I've just found another ray of hope, the man may be just too stupid to remain in power for long. Right now the top headline on the New York times website is "Trump Vows 'Major Investigation' of His Claim of Voting Fraud". The fool is questioning the legitimacy of his own election!! This is not April 1 and I am not joking, he actually is doing this, it's incredible. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-voting-fraud-false-claim-investigation.html?_r=0 John K Clark John, what that is really about is pressuring states to require ID to vote. Some states do not. This investigation will lead to an admission that we don?t know how many voted illegally, for there is no systematic means in some states to catch it if it is happening. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 17:46:26 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:46:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI poker Message-ID: From http://gizmodo.com/why-it-matters-that-human-poker-pros-are-getting-trounc-1791565551 *Limit Texas Hold?em was ?solved? by AI back in 2015 , but HUNL represents a much bigger challenge for AI developers. Some cards are hidden, and competitors can only see a small portion of what?s happening in the game at any given time. In order to win, players have to rely on their gut instincts, guessing what other players might be doing. In other words, unlike previous game-playing AI, Libratus has to deal with uncertainties and game-playing characteristics that were considered the exclusive domain of humans.* I don't get it. Poker is all about probability, and computers are unmatched at tracking cards played and calculating probabilities. Deciding whether to hold 'em or fold 'em is a simple matter of calculating the probabilities. Yawn. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 17:53:14 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:53:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Statistics question on illegal voting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey y'all, wondering if any stat geeks here know how to approach this problem. I think that the fact that Trump claims that the number of people who voted illegaly is the same as the number he lost by is clearly because he made it up (I don't even think he thinks it's lying, he just thinks that "I just thought of it" is a valid piece of evidence--such an ENFJ amirite?) Anyway I was looking at Bayes' Theorem for the probability that 3-5mm illegal votes are cast given that Trump loses by 3mm, but I forget what the deal is with the independent/dependent part and I suck at stats in general. What method can we use to assay the probability of the number of illegal votes being very close to the number of votes Trump lost by? I think a solid stat claim would go a long way, even though nothing will ever convince much of the Trumpers of anything Trump tells them not to believe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 17:53:00 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:53:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> Message-ID: On 25 January 2017 at 17:16, spike wrote: > In the US civil war of the 19th century, there was a major issue around > which the people could choose sides: slavery. One major party wanted to > keep it, the other wanted it banned. What do we have now analogous to that? > Nothing. Our current culture war has not even a single clear issue on which > people split left and right. Can you think of one? Looking at how > acrimonious was our last major election, can you see any major issue in > which the candidates differed significantly? Neither can I. Is not this a > paradox? These two candidates were mostly on the same page as far as I > could tell. > > The best I can do is free trade and open immigration, neither of which would > form a logical basis for a civil war. It strains the imagination to think > anyone would be willing to take up arms against countrymen in order to allow > unchecked immigration or buy foreign manufactured goods cheaply. Anything > else? > All this Shock! Horror! about the future Trump years is because we are in the wrong bubble. If we were in the bubble of the half of the population that supports Trump we would be cheering him on now as he tries to provide some help to those struggling to pay their rent and get food on the table. Half of the people are in dire straits after all their jobs have disappeared overseas or are now done by robots. Sure, Trump will make many mistakes and do dodgy deals, but so did Bush and Obama. In the other bubble, in fly-over country, at least they are no longer being ignored by Washington and treated as worthless. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 18:05:10 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:05:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't get it. Poker is all about probability, and computers are unmatched at tracking cards played and calculating probabilities. Deciding whether to hold 'em or fold 'em is a simple matter of calculating the probabilities. Yawn. -Dave *All true, but in casinos counting cards is forbidden. If, say, a 21 player is suspected of counting cards they just start a new deck (and they are already using more than one). Counting would give an AI too much advantage.* *Then there's bluffing. I am certainly no top player, but a player who never bluffs will be a loser, I think. An AI who used only counting and odds will be confused by a bluffer. Another unfair advantage for the AI is that human players often can use 'tells', some habit or tic by an opponent that tells what they have. No AI will show a tell, of course. * *Take all the psychology out of it and sure, you have an AI that won't lose in the long run. Put it in, and who knows?* ?bill w? On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > From http://gizmodo.com/why-it-matters-that-human-poker-pros- > are-getting-trounc-1791565551 > > *Limit Texas Hold?em was ?solved? by AI back in 2015 > , but HUNL represents a > much bigger challenge for AI developers. Some cards are hidden, and > competitors can only see a small portion of what?s happening in the game at > any given time. In order to win, players have to rely on their gut > instincts, guessing what other players might be doing. In other words, > unlike previous game-playing AI, Libratus has to deal with uncertainties > and game-playing characteristics that were considered the exclusive domain > of humans.* > > I don't get it. Poker is all about probability, and computers are > unmatched at tracking cards played and calculating probabilities. Deciding > whether to hold 'em or fold 'em is a simple matter of calculating the > probabilities. Yawn. > > -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 sparge at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 18:22:13 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:22:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:05 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > All true, but in casinos counting cards is forbidden. If, say, a 21 player is suspected of counting cards they just start a new deck (and they are already using more than one). Counting would give an AI too much advantage. And how does one know if an AI is counting? Even if it forgets which cards it's seen, it still has a perfect memory of when each player chose to bluff, as well as complete knowledge of card probabilities. > Then there's bluffing. I am certainly no top player, but a player who never bluffs will be a loser, I think. An AI who used only counting and odds will be confused by a bluffer. No, bluffing is part of the game and the AI knows what it is and how to do it. It needs to decide when to do it, of course, based on everything it knows about the game and the players. > Another unfair advantage for the AI is that human players often can use 'tells', some habit or tic by an opponent that tells what they have. No AI will show a tell, of course. Yep. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 25 18:38:28 2017 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:38:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ExI] Lack of nuclear launches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1279826356.22019448.1485369508760@mail.yahoo.com> Spike said" A cheerful thought occurred to me: we are already on day 4 of the current regime and not a single unlimited thermonuclear holocaust has been unleashed, not even one little nuclear bomb has been launched.? So far so good." What if? he can't launch, because the missiles are undergoing maintenance? In the UK, one of the biggest news stories is about a failed Trident missile test and how much our Prime Minister knew before the big vote on spending tens of billions on extending the lifespan of our nuclear deterrent. Seeing as the missile launched in the west Atlantic failed to go Russia-wards and instead tried to aim for the US, and we bought these missiles from the USA, what if the nuclear deterrent is based on faulty kit sold by defence contractors at a colossal profit knowing they could get away with it for years? Given the Russian troubles with their one aircraft carrier in Syria, I suspect most of the old Cold War kit across the world may not work as advertised. Tom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 25 18:51:58 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:51:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill > Another unfair advantage for the AI is that human players often can use 'tells', some habit or tic by an opponent that tells what they have. No AI will show a tell, of course. Yep. -Dave The AI doesn?t give tells, but it cannot read them either. I would call that fair game. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 19:18:26 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:18:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> References: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:51 PM, spike wrote: > The AI doesn?t give tells, but it cannot read them either. Is that a fact? Why not? -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 19:25:14 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:25:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:53 PM, BillK wrote: > > All this Shock! Horror! about the future Trump years is because we are > in the wrong bubble. No, I think it's because we're outside the bubbles and we've heard what he's said and seen what he's done in the past years and week. > If we were in the bubble of the half of the > population that supports Trump we would be cheering him on now as he > tries to provide some help to those struggling to pay their rent and > get food on the table. You don't seriously think he cares about anyone other than himself, do you? I mean, of course he "cares" about his family, but Joe Plumber? Don't make me laugh. > Half of the people are in dire straits after > all their jobs have disappeared overseas or are now done by robots. > Sure, Trump will make many mistakes and do dodgy deals, but so did > Bush and Obama. In the other bubble, in fly-over country, at least > they are no longer being ignored by Washington and treated as > worthless. Time will tell, of course, but his actions so far don't instill confidence. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 19:46:13 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:46:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> Message-ID: No, bluffing is part of the game and the AI knows what it is and how to do it. It needs to decide when to do it, of course, based on everything it knows about the game and the players. dave I have the same concern as Spike - you could equip the AI with cameras which record facial expressions on the humans and teach it what meant what, though i suspect that would take quite a while to program. You can make counting (mostly) irrelevant simply by dealing with several decks, as in 21. I suspect, though I do not know, that different players bluff at different times and circumstances and they will not be all the same even with one player, who may have many different ways and circumstances of bluffing. But in the long, run, it's the AI, of course. There will be tons of uses for AI who can read faces. People are not really that complex when it comes to facial expression and body language. It will eventually take real experts to fool an AI with deception like lying (and many months of practicing control of facial muscles, as Ekman as done). bill w On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:51 PM, spike wrote: > >> The AI doesn?t give tells, but it cannot read them either. > > > Is that a fact? Why not? > > -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 spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 25 19:34:08 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:34:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> Message-ID: <041a01d27741$ffbafdb0$ff30f910$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:18 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] AI poker On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:51 PM, spike > wrote: >>?The AI doesn?t give tells, but it cannot read them either. >?.Is that a fact? Why not? -Dave I am confident no one has been able to write code to read tells because we humans don?t know how we humans read tells. Another example of it is how a human can listen to a French horn and a saxophone play a duet, then write out the score, even getting the key signature right. Not on the first try of course, but I can do that if I can play it several times. With all our sophisticated Fourier analysis and all our computer whiz-bangery, we are nowhere close to even that. Reason: we don?t yet know how our minds can do that task. But I can assure you, it can do it, and I can demonstrate it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 19:51:21 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:51:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> Message-ID: Time will tell, of course, but his actions so far don't instill confidence. -Dave ?Am reading The Folly of Fools, by Trivers, an evolutionary psychologist. Here is part of a paragraph: "When a feeling of power is induced in people, they are less likely to take others' viewpoint and more likely to center their thinking on themselves. The result is a reduced ability to comprehend how others see, think and feel. Power, among other things, induces blindness toward others." ? Couple this with a strong ability to warp and deny reality and you have a recipe for big trouble. bill w On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:53 PM, BillK wrote: > >> >> All this Shock! Horror! about the future Trump years is because we are >> in the wrong bubble. > > > No, I think it's because we're outside the bubbles and we've heard what > he's said and seen what he's done in the past years and week. > > >> If we were in the bubble of the half of the >> population that supports Trump we would be cheering him on now as he >> tries to provide some help to those struggling to pay their rent and >> get food on the table. > > > You don't seriously think he cares about anyone other than himself, do > you? I mean, of course he "cares" about his family, but Joe Plumber? Don't > make me laugh. > > >> Half of the people are in dire straits after >> all their jobs have disappeared overseas or are now done by robots. >> Sure, Trump will make many mistakes and do dodgy deals, but so did >> Bush and Obama. In the other bubble, in fly-over country, at least >> they are no longer being ignored by Washington and treated as >> worthless. > > > Time will tell, of course, but his actions so far don't instill confidence. > > -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 foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 20:12:30 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:12:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: <041a01d27741$ffbafdb0$ff30f910$@att.net> References: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> <041a01d27741$ffbafdb0$ff30f910$@att.net> Message-ID: > > > > > > > I am confident no one has been able to write code to read tells because we > humans don?t know how we humans read tells. > > > > Another example of it is how a human can listen to a French horn and a > saxophone play a duet, then write out the score, even getting the key > signature right. Not on the first try of course, but I can do that if I > can play it several times. With all our sophisticated Fourier analysis and > all our computer whiz-bangery, we are nowhere close to even that. Reason: > we don?t yet know how our minds can do that task. But I can assure you, it > can do it, and I can demonstrate it. > > > > spike > ?Huh? Whataya mean we don't know how players read tells? I'll bet if you ask them they can explain just what Joe did that they read as a bluff and they were right. Are you saying they just have vague feelings but don't know what they are basing them on? Also - what's the big deal about music transcription?? I'll even bet that some of the really big music composition programs can be fed music and transcribe it into the score. (a quick google search) - The Best Music Notation Software of 2017 | Top Ten Reviews www.toptenreviews.com/*software*/home/best-*music*-*notation*-*software*/ 1. You can plug your MIDI controller into your computer, and as you play notes, the software will add notes to the sheet music, creating sheet music as you play. ?Or is this something different from what you are talking about? 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 Wed Jan 25 20:26:40 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:26:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> <041a01d27741$ffbafdb0$ff30f910$@att.net> Message-ID: <047001d27749$568c02e0$03a408a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:13 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] AI poker I am confident no one has been able to write code to read tells because we humans don?t know how we humans read tells. Another example of it is how a human can listen to a French horn and a saxophone play a duet, then write out the score, even getting the key signature right. Not on the first try of course, but I can do that if I can play it several times. With all our sophisticated Fourier analysis and all our computer whiz-bangery, we are nowhere close to even that. Reason: we don?t yet know how our minds can do that task. But I can assure you, it can do it, and I can demonstrate it. spike ?>?Huh? Whataya mean we don't know how players read tells? I'll bet if you ask them they can explain just what Joe did that they read as a bluff and they were right. Are you saying they just have vague feelings but don't know what they are basing them on? The poker player can describe what Joe did, but there is no known way to turn that observation into code. >?Also - what's the big deal about music transcription?? I'll even bet that some of the really big music composition programs can be fed music and transcribe it into the score? Indeed? (a quick google search) - The Best Music Notation Software of 2017 | Top Ten Reviews www.toptenreviews.com/ software/home/best-music-notation-software/ 1. You can plug your MIDI controller into your computer, and as you play notes, the software will add notes to the sheet music, creating sheet music as you play. ?Or is this something different from what you are talking about? bill w? Ja, different. If you have a MIDI keyboard, the software can record what you played, or if you have a MIDI-equipped instrument such as an electric saxophone, the software can record what you played. But that isn?t done by listening, it records key motion (and air pressure if it is an electric sax) like your computer does with the keyboard. If you have a microphone attached to both instruments, software *might* be able to separate the two, or if you have a single instrument playing at a time, software can transcribe it. But? a human can do what we still haven?t been able to do with software: listen to a French horn/sax duet a few times and figure out the score. I chose those two instruments because they are generally in the same octave and it sounds cool if you get two good players doing a FH/sax duet. Software might be able to extract the parts in a piccolo/Tuba duet (anyone know?) A trained ear can transcribe either a sax solo or a French horn solo. Put them together, the human can somehow tell which instrument is which from its unique timbre and work out who played what (not on the first try, or even the second.) A machine is nowhere close to being able to do that I am told. Or if so, it is a recent and very impressive development. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 20:47:51 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:47:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> Message-ID: On 25 January 2017 at 19:25, Dave Sill wrote: > No, I think it's because we're outside the bubbles and we've heard what he's > said and seen what he's done in the past years and week. > Heh! :) You're pretending to be a rational outside observer, aren't you? :) This is humans and politics - a rationality no-go area. Emotion rules!. > > You don't seriously think he cares about anyone other than himself, do you? > I mean, of course he "cares" about his family, but Joe Plumber? Don't make > me laugh. > The unemployed crowd got him elected. He cares alright. He has four years to do enough for them to sweep him into a second term. And he doesn't have to do that much for them either, to get that result. Their situation is so bad after many years of neglect, that even token changes will mean a lot. > > Time will tell, of course, but his actions so far don't instill confidence. > After three days you're complaining? :) This ship of state will take years to change direction. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 21:19:41 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:19:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:16 PM, spike wrote: ?> ? > Regarding gun rights, a civil war in the US cannot break out over that > issue: one side has too big an advantage. Thanks second amendment. ?In a confrontation between the NRA and the US Army I very much doubt the NRA will win, and even if they do it the body count will be enormous. ?> ? Our current culture war has not even a single clear issue on which people split left and right. Can you think of one? > > ?No because the entire left vs right dichotomy ? ?is obsolete, the new one is 8 people vs 3.2 Billion.? > Looking at how acrimonious was our last major election, can you see any > major issue in which the candidates differed significantly? > ?I f I try real hard I might be able to think of a few areas where the two candidates differed on issues, such as: Restarting the arms race. Torturing people. Putting your political opponent in jail. Abandoning NATO. Calling the CIA Nazis. Strengthening the libel laws. Respecting the outcome of presidential elections. Getting rid of the inheritance tax for the mega-rich. Junking ? Obamacare ? with nothing to replace it. Making software companies put back-doors into their software. Moving the USA's embassy to Jerusalem. Defaulting on the national debt. Claiming vaccines cause autism and appointing a notorious anti-vaccine nut to head a commission to "study" the issue. Building a imbecilic wall. Fantasizing Mexico will pay for it. Making people pass a religion test before they are allowed into the Country. Bombing the hell out of "them". Stealing the oil from countries in the middle east that the USA has invaded because " to the winner belong the spoils". ?> ? It strains the imagination to think anyone would be willing to take up arms against countrymen in order to allow unchecked immigration or buy foreign manufactured goods cheaply. Anything else? > ?I think cancelling or annulling the results of the 2020 presidential election could cause some people to take up arms. How about cancelling the first amendment? ? ?How about *NOT* cancelling the accelerating wealth gap? John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 21:58:45 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:58:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: <047001d27749$568c02e0$03a408a0$@att.net> References: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> <041a01d27741$ffbafdb0$ff30f910$@att.net> <047001d27749$568c02e0$03a408a0$@att.net> Message-ID: A trained ear can transcribe either a sax solo or a French horn solo. Put them together, the human can somehow tell which instrument is which from its unique timbre and work out who played what (not on the first try, or even the second.) A machine is nowhere close to being able to do that I am told. Or if so, it is a recent and very impressive development. spike I still don't see the problem. For one, a sax has, it has been described, a very muddy set of overtones (clearest is the oboe), and a French horn (which is really English, whereas an English horn is really French - go figure) has a much clearer set, so it should be easy for the AI to tell which is playing which note. Put two saxes together and it's impossible - or is it? Each horn has a slightly different set of overtones - no two instruments are the same, eh? I'll bet an AI could distinguish two instruments that a person could not. Mozart did something like this, only with a full orchestra and chorus. The Pope (or some really big dude) had a piece of music that was only played for him, and Mozart attended a concert of it, and later wrote down every note by every player or singer. Now that's impossible even for most genius musicians. Most composers would not write for the sax because of the muddy overtones. Not a quality instrument, they said. Probably the reason people like it (though, sadly, I don't except for Paul Desmond - Boots Randolph is a nightmare to me). I wonder why the oboe is not a pop instrument? bill w On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:26 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:13 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] AI poker > > > > > > > > > > > > I am confident no one has been able to write code to read tells because we > humans don?t know how we humans read tells. > > > > Another example of it is how a human can listen to a French horn and a > saxophone play a duet, then write out the score, even getting the key > signature right. Not on the first try of course, but I can do that if I > can play it several times. With all our sophisticated Fourier analysis and > all our computer whiz-bangery, we are nowhere close to even that. Reason: > we don?t yet know how our minds can do that task. But I can assure you, it > can do it, and I can demonstrate it. > > > > spike > > > > ?>?Huh? Whataya mean we don't know how players read tells? I'll bet if > you ask them they can explain just what Joe did that they read as a bluff > and they were right. Are you saying they just have vague feelings but > don't know what they are basing them on? > > > > > > The poker player can describe what Joe did, but there is no known way to > turn that observation into code. > > > > > > >?Also - what's the big deal about music transcription?? I'll even bet > that some of the really big music composition programs can be fed music and > transcribe it into the score? > > > > > > > > Indeed? > > > > > > > > (a quick google search) - > The Best Music Notation Software of 2017 | Top Ten Reviews > > > www.toptenreviews.com/*software*/home/best-*music*-*notation*-*software*/ > > 1. > > You can plug your MIDI controller into your *computer*, and as you play > notes, the *software* will add notes to the *sheet music*, creating *sheet > music* as you play. > > > > ?Or is this something different from what you are talking about? > > > > bill w? > > > > > > Ja, different. If you have a MIDI keyboard, the software can record what > you played, or if you have a MIDI-equipped instrument such as an electric > saxophone, the software can record what you played. But that isn?t done by > listening, it records key motion (and air pressure if it is an electric > sax) like your computer does with the keyboard. > > > > If you have a microphone attached to both instruments, software **might** > be able to separate the two, or if you have a single instrument playing at > a time, software can transcribe it. But? a human can do what we still > haven?t been able to do with software: listen to a French horn/sax duet a > few times and figure out the score. > > > > I chose those two instruments because they are generally in the same > octave and it sounds cool if you get two good players doing a FH/sax duet. > Software might be able to extract the parts in a piccolo/Tuba duet (anyone > know?) > > > > A trained ear can transcribe either a sax solo or a French horn solo. Put > them together, the human can somehow tell which instrument is which from > its unique timbre and work out who played what (not on the first try, or > even the second.) A machine is nowhere close to being able to do that I am > told. Or if so, it is a recent and very impressive development. > > > > 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 Wed Jan 25 21:51:31 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:51:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> Message-ID: <002f01d27755$31180930$93481b90$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:20 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:16 PM, spike > wrote: ?> ?>?Regarding gun rights, a civil war in the US cannot break out over that issue: one side has too big an advantage. Thanks second amendment. ?>?In a confrontation between the NRA and the US Army I very much doubt the NRA will win, and even if they do it the body count will be enormous? The Army and the NRA are on the same side (ours.) Any speculation on how that would turn out? The second amendment maintains peace. Thanks second amendment. ?> >?Our current culture war has not even a single clear issue on which people split left and right. Can you think of one? ? No because the entire left vs right dichotomy ?is obsolete, the new one is 8 people vs 3.2 Billion? So you say. It would seem we would know the names of those 8 people. I don?t. ?>>?Looking at how acrimonious was our last major election, can you see any major issue in which the candidates differed significantly? ?>?If I try real hard I might be able to think of a few areas? John looking at your list, I found only one thing on there which would qualify as a debate issue: >? Junking Obamacare? This was a clear party-level disagreement rather than some weird personality quirk by one of the candidates. The rest of it, not clear, but let?s run with it, shall we? It appears Obamacare junked itself. Reason: it was dependent on young healthy men buying in. They didn?t. The whole scheme failed because of that. But was that so very hard to foresee? The government was really taking over the insurance business, for it dictated to the companies who wished to participate who they must insure and what they may charge. For an insurance industry to have some value added, they must be able to do one or the other themselves. If a price structure is dictated to them, they must be free to choose who they are willing to bet will stay healthy. If they are compelled to take everyone, it defeats the underlying concept of insurance, for it enables anyone to wait until they get sick to buy insurance (picture a guy climbing out of a Maserati wrapped around a telephone pole, on the phone ?Hello, All State? I want to insure my car??) ObamaCare defeated itself, as was clearly explained (and later retracted) by Dr. Jonathan Gruber. The whole scheme as written depended on young healthy men to buy insurance. Most of them did not; rather they chose to pay the tax. The tax money thus collected could not be used to subsidize the others, for the O-Care law specifically prohibited taxpayer funds from being used to bail out insurers. It wasn?t those mean old congressmen refused to fund it: the law itself specifically disallowed it. The whole notion failed by design. >? with nothing to replace it? On the contrary, every state can set up something like RomneyCare. Once the ObamaCare debris is cleared away, the Fed stands down, states step up. ?>> ?It strains the imagination to think anyone would be willing to take up arms against countrymen in order to allow unchecked immigration or buy foreign manufactured goods cheaply. Anything else? ?>?I think cancelling or annulling the results of the 2020 presidential election could cause some people to take up arms? This is widely misunderstood. The Electoral College reports to congress who won the election, who validates the result and advises the Supreme Court, who swears in the next POTUS, regardless of what the former POTUS declares. Unless the former POTUS can arrange a military coup, which I consider highly unlikely, whoever the SCOTUS swears in is POTUS. >?How about cancelling the first amendment? The government cannot legally cancel the first amendment. >?How about NOT cancelling the accelerating wealth gap? John K Clark The government cannot legally cancel the accelerating wealth gap. The constitution was carefully designed to prevent runaway power. It has worked, it works now and will continue to work. Now wasn?t that simple? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 22:18:28 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:18:28 +0000 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> <041a01d27741$ffbafdb0$ff30f910$@att.net> <047001d27749$568c02e0$03a408a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu., 26 Jan. 2017 at 9:00 am, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Most composers would not write for the sax because of the muddy > overtones. Not a quality instrument, they said. Probably the reason > people like it (though, sadly, I don't except for Paul Desmond - Boots > Randolph is a nightmare to me). I wonder why the oboe is not a pop > instrument? > These are the only two saxophonists that come to mind? What about all the great black jazz players? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 22:35:53 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:35:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:19 PM, John Clark wrote: > ?No because the entire left vs right dichotomy ? > ?is obsolete, the new one is 8 people vs 3.2 Billion.? > Why do you think that's a problem? I know why *I* do, but why do you? What's your proposed fix, in more than hand-waving generality? -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 22:40:10 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:40:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: <02e701d2773c$1c00e710$5402b530$@att.net> <041a01d27741$ffbafdb0$ff30f910$@att.net> <047001d27749$568c02e0$03a408a0$@att.net> Message-ID: These are the only two saxophonists that come to mind? What about all the great black jazz players? Stathis Papaioannou De Gustibus: I don't like most jazz (Brubeck is a huge exception, and he was classically trained and did some classical composing) and I don't like the sound of the sax unless it's very very mellow. I don't even like most Mozart or Beethoven or Bach, but what I do like I just love to death. I was born picky. Being black has nothing to do with it, I assure you. There's just not a lot of black classical composers. Big band jazz is OK - I would not turn off the radio if it was on, but I have no CDs of it among my 1200 collection. Bluegrass is good. Try the AUstin Lounge Lizards for a hoot (bunch of lawyers and crazy lyrics "I fled with my pflogger from Pfleugerville") I like no pop music aside from a few in the 70s. I really wish I did like more of all kinds of music, but I just don't. No prejudice involved. Most people would call me a snob, but there's no elitism in it - I am just picky. Who can help that? bill w On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Thu., 26 Jan. 2017 at 9:00 am, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Most composers would not write for the sax because of the muddy >> overtones. Not a quality instrument, they said. Probably the reason >> people like it (though, sadly, I don't except for Paul Desmond - Boots >> Randolph is a nightmare to me). I wonder why the oboe is not a pop >> instrument? >> > > These are the only two saxophonists that come to mind? What about all the > great black jazz players? > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > _______________________________________________ > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 01:50:18 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:50:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <027301d27730$403e5c90$c0bb15b0$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <027301d27730$403e5c90$c0bb15b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:27 PM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > John, what that is really about is pressuring states to require ID to vote. > ? ? > Some states do not. > ?In some states, all of them red for some reason, a concealed firearm photo? ?ID is good enough to vote but a official photo ID issued by a State University is not. Why do you suppose that is?? Who do you think would be more likely to vote for a creature like Trump, the concealed carry guy or the University student? > ?>? > This investigation will lead to an admission that we don?t know how many > voted illegally, for there is no systematic means in some states to catch > it if it is happening. > ?Texas is right on the Mexican border so you'd think Texas would have voter fraud if anybody did, and Texas is about as red as states get so the Attorney General ? and ? Secretary of State of Texas are unlikely to be working for Hillary. They did a study and found that Texans voted 64 million times since 2002 and they found 89 cases of suspected voter fraud and the evidence was strong enough to convict 70 of them. That's 70 votes out of 64 million. So where did Trump get the idea that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in 2016? He got the idea from Alex Jones on Infowars, the same guy who said 20 first graders were not murdered at Sandy Hook in 2012 and the hundreds of traumatized survives were just child actors paid by Hillary and other liberals to help pass gun control laws. But even if Trump believes this nonsense why would he publicly say so and undermine the legitimacy ? of his own election? Because the thought that Hillary got 2.9 million more votes than he did is eating him alive and because our Commander In Chief is a narcissistic imbecile who has ?n? 't read a book in 40 years. ?By the way, the news just broke that ? Trump's Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin, is registered to vote in both California ? and ? New York ?, and his daughter Tiffany Trump is registered to vote ? in Pennsylvania and New York ?,? ? and Trump's ?"alt-right" adviser Steve Bannon is registered to vote in Florida and New York. John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 26 02:12:55 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:12:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <027301d27730$403e5c90$c0bb15b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <00c201d27779$b57a1230$206e3690$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:50 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:27 PM, spike > wrote: ?>?In some states, all of them red for some reason, a concealed firearm photo? ID is good enough to vote but a official photo ID issued by a State University is not. Why do you suppose that is? Because a state university ID does not prove that one is eligible to vote. It doesn?t prove the student is a US citizen, I don?t recall that it lists birthdate, doesn?t have a checkbox on there for convicted felon. Concealed carry permits are not issued to non-citizens, minors or ex-cons. >?So where did Trump get the idea that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in 2016? States where voter ID is not required enabled him to call out any number he wants, knowing that if they didn?t require ID, the states don?t know how many people voted illegally. You called out Texas, but Texas requires voter ID. California does not. If a voter takes it out and holds it in front at the ballot, the workers will not look at it. I have a lot of fun with that. >?But even if Trump believes this nonsense why would he publicly say so and undermine the Legitimacy of his own election? It is to pressure states to require voter ID. If they don?t, we will hear that 3 to 5 million number again, since it will be impossible to refute. But the solution is so simple: have ID required in order to vote, problem solved. Alternative: digital face recognition is advanced enough now, or nearly so. If someone objects to having photo ID, then they can use that alternative, or if they object to any facial image (such as they wear a burqa, they could register using a fingerprint scan. Until the states agree to do that, we don?t know how many people voted illegally. >?Tiffany Trump is registered to vote in Pennsylvania and New York,? and Trump's ?"alt-right" adviser Steve Bannon is registered to vote in Florida and New York. ?John K Clark? Well, there ya go. That enables people to vote illegally. How do we know they didn?t? We don?t know how many do that, but it could be stopped if we really wanted to. So why not? Until we take some pretty simple steps to stop it, we don?t know how many voted illegally. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 02:55:51 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:55:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <002f01d27755$31180930$93481b90$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> <002f01d27755$31180930$93481b90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:51 PM, spike wrote: > ?>?I think cancelling or annulling the results of the 2020 presidential >> election could cause some people to take up arms? > > > ?> ? > This is widely misunderstood. The Electoral College reports to congress > who won the election, who validates the result and advises the Supreme > Court, who swears in the next POTUS, > ?Yes that's what the constitution says, but it's not a law of nature, as everybody will soon understand all too well the constitution can be violated. > ?> ? > regardless of what the former POTUS declares. > > ?But that's not what the man in 70 ton tank right over there says, he says Trump isn't the former POTUS at all, he's just the POTUS. I have a feeling the tank man's opinion will come out on top ? in that debate? , and I doubt it will be because of the eloquence of his arguments. > ?>? > Unless the former POTUS can arrange a military coup, which I consider > highly unlikely, > > ?A year ago I would have said the idea of a military coup ? was utterly ridiculous. I would't say that today. ? > >> ?>? >> ?How about cancelling the first amendment? > > > ?> ? > The government cannot legally cancel the first amendment. > ?Trump isn't interested in legalities, he's interested in what he can get away with. ? > >> ?>? >> ?How about *NOT* cancelling the accelerating wealth gap? > > > ?>? > The government cannot legally cancel the accelerating wealth gap. > ?If government has the power to tax they do.? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 03:28:37 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:28:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <00c201d27779$b57a1230$206e3690$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <027301d27730$403e5c90$c0bb15b0$@att.net> <00c201d27779$b57a1230$206e3690$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:12 PM, spike wrote: ?> >> ?>? >> ?In some states, all of them red for some reason, a concealed firearm >> photo? ID is good enough to vote but a official photo ID issued by a State >> University is not. Why do you suppose that is? > > ?> ? > Because a state university ID does not prove that one is eligible to vote. > It doesn?t prove the student is a US citizen, I don?t recall that it lists > birthdate, doesn?t have a checkbox on there for convicted felon. > That's not what photo ID is supposed to do. John K Clark is already registered to vote, they are already convinced that John K Clark is a US citizen and is ? old ? enough to vote and is not a convicted felon. When I go to the polls the only question they might have is ? "are you ? really John K Clark?". ? A photo ID issued by a State University can answer that question just as well as a concealer carry permit ? can. The only difference between the two is one gives a hint that I am likely to vote for Trump and the other a hint that I am likely ?not? going to vote for Trump ?, the state legislators knew this and that's why the law is the way it is. ? John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 04:11:07 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 23:11:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:10 PM, John Clark wrote: > PLEASE! ? > ### Yes, PLEASE no Trump posting. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 04:18:19 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 23:18:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> Message-ID: +1 On Jan 25, 2017 11:11 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:10 PM, John Clark wrote: > PLEASE! ? > ### Yes, PLEASE no Trump posting. Rafal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 04:32:48 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:32:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> Message-ID: <4798C9B8-0B4B-4150-A81B-5D76FA2CA32B@gmail.com> +1 Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst > On Jan 25, 2017, at 8:18 PM, Dylan Distasio wrote: > > +1 > > On Jan 25, 2017 11:11 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:10 PM, John Clark wrote: >> PLEASE! ? > > ### Yes, PLEASE no Trump posting. > > Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 26 04:41:39 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:41:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <027301d27730$403e5c90$c0bb15b0$@att.net> <00c201d27779$b57a1230$206e3690$@att.net> Message-ID: <014701d2778e$7c652330$752f6990$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ?> ?>?Because a state university ID does not prove that one is eligible to vote. It doesn?t prove the student is a US citizen, I don?t recall that it lists birthdate, doesn?t have a checkbox on there for convicted felon. >?That's not what photo ID is supposed to do. John K Clark is already registered to vote, they are already convinced that John K Clark is a US citizen and is Old enough to vote and is not a convicted felon. When I go to the polls the only question they might have is "are you really John K Clark?"?John K Clark OK, I will follow that argument. So you will agree that photographing every person who gets a ballot, or doing a fingerprint scan is OK in any state which decides to do it? Since all it is doing is verifying identification, surely you have no objection. And you should have no objection if states share data on who voted, ja? And no objection if states share felon lists? And if anyone applies for an absentee ballot, they will need to register to get one using photograph verification. Still OK with it? I?m in! I feel quite confident that plenty of states will think this is a really bad idea. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tara at taramayastales.com Wed Jan 25 23:59:01 2017 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:59:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <025501d2772e$c17336c0$4459a440$@att.net> Message-ID: I?ve been reading Peter Turchin?s work, including Ages of Discord. His semi-Malthusian theory predicts that pretexts will be found for fighting a civil war, or something like it, when the conditions are right. The issues are only the the flame that ignites the flammable material provided by demographic and economic conditions. I find it a fairly persuasive theory. Is anyone familiar with it? Tara > On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:16 AM, spike wrote: > > > > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org ] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg > > > > >?I think this civil war was going to happen regardless of who got into power. The people who hate the left are the ones with the guns right now! ? Will > > > Will, I disagree sir. > > Regarding gun rights, a civil war in the US cannot break out over that issue: one side has too big an advantage. Thanks second amendment. > > In the US civil war of the 19th century, there was a major issue around which the people could choose sides: slavery. One major party wanted to keep it, the other wanted it banned. What do we have now analogous to that? Nothing. Our current culture war has not even a single clear issue on which people split left and right. Can you think of one? Looking at how acrimonious was our last major election, can you see any major issue in which the candidates differed significantly? Neither can I. Is not this a paradox? These two candidates were mostly on the same page as far as I could tell. > > The best I can do is free trade and open immigration, neither of which would form a logical basis for a civil war. It strains the imagination to think anyone would be willing to take up arms against countrymen in order to allow unchecked immigration or buy foreign manufactured goods cheaply. Anything else? > > spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 12:41:54 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:41:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Bees do a lot with tiny brains Message-ID: It is tempting to assume that animals need large brains to perform complicated tasks, but the immense skills of some insects and worms suggest small brains are surprisingly powerful By Sarah Hewitt 24 January 2017 Quotes: A bumblebee flies up to inspect a flower, looking for a taste of nectar. It buzzes around a bit and realises that something is different. The bee can see the flower but cannot reach it. That is because the "flower" ? actually a blue plastic disc with sugar water in the centre ? is sitting underneath a sheet of transparent plastic. Luckily for the bee, there is a string attached to the flower. All it has to do is pull on the string, haul out the flower, and sip its reward. *So it does*. "When we first started the string-pulling experiments, it was almost a joke," says Lars Chittka of the Queen Mary University of London in the UK. "I laughed my head off when I first saw it. It just looked very funny." But there is more. Once one bee figured out what it needed to do to access the artificial flower, other bees that were looking on learned the string-tugging trick themselves. The technique even outlasted the original successful bee. It became part of the colony's skillset, transmitted from bee to bee after the first string-pulling bee had died. "I just couldn't believe what I was seeing," says Chittka. ------------- Bees can also learn to recognise colours and patterns. Can they find their way back home from several kilometres away? Not a problem. Recognise human faces? That too. Can bees use tools? Well, that is what Chittka wants to answer next. Chittka's lab did an experiment in the 1990s in which they asked whether bees can count. They can. "At that point, we began to scratch our heads a little bit," Chittka says. "How much cleverness can you stick into a tiny brain?" --------------- BillK From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 12:42:39 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:42:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <027301d27730$403e5c90$c0bb15b0$@att.net> <00c201d27779$b57a1230$206e3690$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:28 PM, John Clark wrote: > > That's not what photo ID is supposed to do. John K Clark is already > registered to vote, they are already convinced that John K Clark is a US > citizen and is > ? > old > ? > enough to vote and is not a convicted felon. When I go to the polls the > only question they might have is > ? > "are you > ? > really John K Clark?". > ? > A photo ID issued by a State University can answer that question just as > well as a concealer carry permit > ? > can. > No. A state university ID can only show that you have a state university ID in the name of John K Clark. In Tennessee, and probably everywhere else that has them, carry permits require proof of identification (birth certificate or passport), background check, and fingerprinting. When I went to a state university they didn't do anything like that before giving an ID. > The only difference between the two is one gives a hint that I am likely > to vote for Trump and the other a hint that I am likely > ?not? > going to vote for Trump > ?, the state legislators knew this and that's why the law is the way it > is. > That's an alternative fact. Frankly, I don't understand the objection to requiring a state-issued ID to vote. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Jan 26 11:33:35 2017 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:33:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> Message-ID: <6848414a2b9943eccf838fc7f971f264.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> +1 again! > +1 > > On Jan 25, 2017 11:11 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:10 PM, John Clark > wrote: > >> PLEASE! ? >> > > ### Yes, PLEASE no Trump posting. > > Rafal > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 14:28:18 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:28:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:33 AM, MB wrote: > +1 again! >> +1 >> On Jan 25, 2017 11:11 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" >> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:10 PM, John Clark >> wrote: >>> PLEASE! >> ### Yes, PLEASE no Trump posting. I'm sick of it too, but I want to express a minus one to all the plus one... Suppressing discourse on government is a bad precedent. Maybe we could agree to a subject-line keyword for the sake of a filter for those who wish to opt-out of seeing tagged threads, but asking (however politely) for those with concerns to stop their conversation is ... idk what word to use. From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 15:23:16 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:23:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26 January 2017 at 14:28, Mike Dougherty wrote: > Suppressing discourse on government is a bad precedent. > > Maybe we could agree to a subject-line keyword for the sake of a > filter for those who wish to opt-out of seeing tagged threads, but > asking (however politely) for those with concerns to stop their > conversation is ... idk what word to use. > It is not occasional discussion about government that people are fed up with. It's the continual moaning and wailing about Trump. It is pointless and a waste of Exi time. Half the US population is agonising all over the internet, so worriers can go and wail with them if they want to. Or join the other half gleefully cheering Trump on. It is just political peer-grouping and posturing and that's not what Exi should be about. It's not as though government will change their policies because Exi has a moan about it. :) BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 26 15:41:24 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:41:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01f901d277ea$a76d81b0$f6488510$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 7:23 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] On 26 January 2017 at 14:28, Mike Dougherty wrote: >>... Suppressing discourse on government is a bad precedent. > >>... Maybe we could agree to a subject-line keyword for the sake of a > filter for those who wish to opt-out of seeing tagged threads... > >...It is not occasional discussion about government that people are fed up with. >...It's the continual moaning and wailing about Trump. It is pointless and a waste of Exi time... >...BillK _______________________________________________ Ja to all. There is a strategy I have taken: focus on policy if necessary but leaving out mention of any particular individual. I know that can be hard to do without mentioning the name associated with the office. How would one comment on this highly-relevant topic without bringing in personalities: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/24/senator-and-congressman-introduce-restri cting-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons-act-trump/ I think it is a marvelous idea and should have been done a long time ago. I have theorized (perhaps unrealistically optimistical) that it was done a long time ago, but I have no evidence (there wouldn't be any (and the office-holder in question might not be aware either.)) Keep in mind the roots of Extropians: we were the branch of transhumanism associated with libertarianism. 20 years ago, most of our discussion was political. I do not advocate a return to that, only a reminder. So mark it if gov, keep it sane, keep it civil, keep it smart, fair game, post away. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 26 17:11:20 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:11:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] defensive perimeter in new zealand Message-ID: <021c01d277f7$3782eb80$a688c280$@att.net> A popular topic recently has been the runaway wealth gap. Here's a fun spin on it. The super rich are setting up safe spaces in New Zealand of all places: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-ric h Those 8 people who are in such peril for having more wealth than the poorest several billion are setting up Apocalypse-Maybe retreats. This concept really caught my interest because I believe Chinese people have been doing that in my own town for a long time, buying up homes in the area to use as bank vaults and emergency landing strips in case China decides to remind its wealthy capitalists that the government really owns everything. In that event, they would need to get out of town quickly, and take everyone they care about. Result: many homes in the area are meticulously maintained by contractors but no one lives there. It is easy enough for me to imagine a Chinese crackdown on having money. Then suddenly many of these long-empty homes are occupied by new residents with pleeeeenty of money, eager to buy additional homes. So. American billionaires are setting up castles in New Zealand while Chinese billionaires set up modest castles in America. What a world. {8^D spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 17:30:11 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:30:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Long time to hatch did dinosaurs in? Message-ID: http://m.pnas.org/content/114/3/540.abstract Parallels with the idea that early humans might have been fast breeders too, no? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 12:59:52 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:59:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Correlation between violence and inequality Message-ID: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality over the millennia January 24, 2017 By Elena Dancu Quotes: What price do we pay for civilization? For Walter Scheidel, a professor of history and classics at Stanford, civilization has come at the cost of glaring economic inequality since the Stone Age. The sole exception, in his account, is widespread violence ? wars, pandemics, civil unrest; only violent shocks like these have substantially reduced inequality over the millennia. ?It is almost universally true that violence has been necessary to ensure the redistribution of wealth at any point in time,? said Scheidel, summarizing the thesis of The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century, his newly published book. Scheidel acknowledges his pessimism about resolving inequality. ?Reversing the trend toward greater concentrations of income, in the United States and across the world, might be, in fact, nearly impossible,? he said. Among the wide variety of catastrophes that level societies, Scheidel identifies what he calls ?four horsemen?: mass mobilization or state warfare, transformative revolution, state collapse and plague. A textbook example of mass mobilization is World War II, a conflict that embroiled many developed countries and, key for Scheidel, ?uniformly hugely reduced inequality.? As with Europe and Japan, he said, ?in the U.S. there were massive tax increases, state intervention in the economy to support the war effort and increase output, which triggered a redistribution of resources, benefiting workers and harming the interests of the top 1 percent.? Another ?horseman? was the outbreak of the bubonic plague in 14th-century Eurasia. While war wreaks havoc on everything, a pandemic of this magnitude ?kills a third of the population, but does not damage the physical infrastructure,? Scheidel said. ?As a result, labor becomes scarce, wages grow and the gap between the rich and the poor narrows.? State collapse has also been crucial in the history of inequality. ?The rich are beneficiaries of the state,? Scheidel said, adding that ?if states fall apart, everybody is worse off; but the rich have more to lose. Their wealth is wiped out by the destruction of the state, such as in the fall of the Mayan civilization or Chinese dynasties.? As for whether reducing inequality will ever be possible in peacetime, Scheidel simply said, ?History does not determine the future. Things can change, but change is slow.? ?Business as usual may not be enough,? he said. ?We have to think harder about how to bring change in today?s world.? -------------------- BillK From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jan 27 12:04:28 2017 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:04:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? Message-ID: Tara Maya wrote: I am not familar with Turchin but his theory seems to simply be the recognition of a pervasive cyclical pattern throughout history. Historically governments have tended toward concentrating their power over time into sometimes intricate networks of aristocratic oligarchs. And as this aristocracic network develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in that network's interests to the exclusion of the rest of its citizens. This concentration of power continues until a tipping point is reached requiring only one or more charismatic individuals within the elite to use force to violently consolidate their power, often sacrificing the other aristocrats to do so. Most such individuals utilize the common folk to fight the necessary war and a revolution ensues that redistributes wealth violently. Unfortunately, in the process, enough injustice is perpetrated to sow the seeds of dissent for the next civil war and so it goes- round and round- that's why they call it revolution. To quote Hermocrates of Syracuse, "Nobody is driven to war by ignorance, and no one who thinks he will gain anything from it is deterred by fear." At least that's my take on it. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 15:21:42 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:21:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock Message-ID: ?Lawrence Krauss ?[ A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing] and other scientists have advanced the Doomsday Clock to the closest it's been to midnight since 1953 when multi megaton H-bombs were routinely tested in the atmosphere. They say: "Never before has the Bulletin decided to advance the clock largely because of the statements of a single person". https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/opinion/thanks-to-trump-the-doomsday-clock-advances-toward-midnight.html John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 16:05:56 2017 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:05:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OMG ... are you serious? On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote: > ?Lawrence Krauss ?[ A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something > Rather than Nothing] and other scientists have advanced the Doomsday Clock > to the closest it's been to midnight since 1953 when multi megaton H-bombs > were routinely tested in the atmosphere. They say: "Never before has the > Bulletin decided to advance the clock largely because of the statements of > a single person". > > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/opinion/thanks-to-trump- > the-doomsday-clock-advances-toward-midnight.html > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 17:47:05 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:47:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was just reading this article in the paper and trying to decide how relevant the clock still is. I don't think the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are the gatekeepers of the apocalypse. They can have bias just like anybody else. That being said, I *DO* agree with them.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 18:43:32 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:43:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: ?> ? > I don't think the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are the gatekeepers of > the apocalypse. They can have bias just like anybody else. > ? ? > That being said, I *DO* agree with them.... > ?Hey cheer up, thermonuclear bombs may be in our future but at least we won't have to face the unspeakable horrors of Hillary's E-mail server. ? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 18:54:30 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:54:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 27, 2017 8:07 AM, "Tomaz Kristan" wrote: OMG ... are you serious? Yes, he is. A lot of senior scientists who study this sort of thing professionally have decided that Trump being the US President, with his demonstrated temper, is that much of a risk factor for nuclear war. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 19:26:20 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:26:20 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27 January 2017 at 18:54, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Yes, he is. A lot of senior scientists who study this sort of thing > professionally have decided that Trump being the US President, with his > demonstrated temper, is that much of a risk factor for nuclear war. > Well, sort of.... the Doomsday Clock now tries to include all existential threats, not just nuclear war. For several years it has been the threat of climate change that has moved the clock nearer to midnight. And the Donald not believing in climate change has factored in another move. (Though he might change his mind on this with a bit more experience dealing with all the affected cities). Whether his temper is a risk factor for nuclear war works both ways. If foreign nuclear powers think he is reckless, then they are more likely to be extra cautious not to upset him too much. Very different to them dealing with careful, cautious leaders who would only use nuclear weapons as a desperate last measure. Thus with them they would expect to get away with much more (like claiming the whole South China Sea resources) than with Donald. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 20:38:13 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:38:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, BillK wrote: ?> ? > Whether his > ? ? > temper is a risk factor for nuclear war works both ways. If foreign > nuclear powers think he is reckless, then they are more likely to be > extra cautious not to upset him too much. ?It's not just his temper and recklessness ? that worries me, ?it's his ignorance, short attention span, lack of curiosity about anything except bizarre conspiracy theories, and his general disconnect from reality that really scares me to death. Imagine it's 3am and Trump is awaken by a phone call from the Pentagon and the General on the other end of the line says "Mr. President, Radar has picked up something crossing the arctic circle and it may be Chinese ICBMs, or it may be a flock of geese. What do you want us to do?". Who would you feel more comfortable in getting that phone call, Trump or Obama? Both Obama and Hillary had their faults but at least they were grownups, but now it's as if we're handcuffed and locked in a room with a toddler who's playing with a loaded AK47. And our ability to do anything about it expired on November 8, a day that will live in infamy. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 27 20:46:06 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:46:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00df01d278de$62087540$26195fc0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark >?Imagine it's 3am ? awaken by a phone call from the Pentagon and the General on the other end of the line says "Mr. President, Radar has picked up something crossing the arctic circle and it may be Chinese ICBMs, or it may be a flock of geese. What do you want us to do?". ? John K Clark John you grossly underestimate the capabilities of the military sir. Perhaps you heard of last week?s successful launch of SBIRS? An excellent product it is indeed, built by a fine company: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/sbirs.html SBIRS prevents a flock of geese from triggering World War 3. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 21:57:43 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:57:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 27, 2017 11:28 AM, "BillK" wrote: If foreign nuclear powers think he is reckless, then they are more likely to be extra cautious not to upset him too much. Uh huh. North Korea, or any other rogue state, would prefer caution to glory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 27 22:12:19 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:12:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock On Jan 27, 2017 11:28 AM, "BillK" > wrote: If foreign nuclear powers think he is reckless, then they are more likely to be extra cautious not to upset him too much. >?Uh huh. North Korea, or any other rogue state, would prefer caution to glory? Adrian, you grossly underestimate the capabilities of the military sir. Perhaps you heard of THAAD? An excellent product it is indeed, built by a fine company: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/thaad.html THAAD prevents a crazy dictator with a handful of nuclear missiles from triggering World War 3. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 22:59:46 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:59:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike, I admire your optimism but perhaps your lack of a mind's eye prevents you from imagining the hellscape we're thinking about. (Cue thread on aphantasmia which would be MUCH better than this political bullshit...I wish Gordon Swobe were here to bitch about Searle...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 27 23:15:23 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:15:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> Message-ID: <016e01d278f3$3d807320$b8815960$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 3:00 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock Spike, I admire your optimism but perhaps your lack of a mind's eye prevents you from imagining the hellscape we're thinking about. (Cue thread on aphantasmia which would be MUCH better than this political bullshit...I wish Gordon Swobe were here to bitch about Searle...) Thanks Will. The point of my twin posts was to call attention to what military people do. The kinds of scenarios being kicked around (3am call to a POTUS of questionable sanity and a nuclear-armed monarch of questionable sanity) were what top military brass spent their time pondering in the 1970s and 1980s. Result: SBIRS to take care of scenario 1, THAAD to take care of scenario 2. Both had been thought through end to end, debated, funded, designed, built and tested by the late 1990s. I was there. Oh what a glorious time to be a controls engineer, oh my, such cool interesting challenges were given to us. It is the job of the military to foresee and deal with nightmare scenarios. The scenarios they are seeing and preventing today would blow our minds if we knew about them. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 23:23:40 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:23:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> Message-ID: On 27 January 2017 at 22:59, Will Steinberg wrote: > Spike, I admire your optimism but perhaps your lack of a mind's eye prevents > you from imagining the hellscape we're thinking about. > > (Cue thread on aphantasmia which would be MUCH better than this political > bullshit...I wish Gordon Swobe were here to bitch about Searle...) > aphantasmia is a very rare word - not in any dictionaries. Even google only gets two hits. It looks like you mean 'aphantasia' - Aphantasia is the suggested name for a condition where one does not possess a functioning mind's eye and cannot visualize imagery. but even this is a very new word, created in 2015. BillK From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 27 23:32:58 2017 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:32:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1453342960.24793705.1485559978396@mail.yahoo.com> Spike wrote "?It strains the imagination to think anyone would be willing to take up arms against countrymen in order to allow unchecked immigration or buy foreign manufactured goods cheaply. Anything else?" I know right? It's not like there's a bunch of people in Massachussets who'd destroy imported goods that were a shilling a pound cheaper than they used to be in protest at some corporate monopoly that's helping pay taxes on them? Just imagine what chaos would occur if those angry New Englanders decided to dump those imports in the harbour. Tom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjlmarkman at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 23:29:04 2017 From: sjlmarkman at gmail.com (sjlmarkman at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:29:04 +1300 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: <016e01d278f3$3d807320$b8815960$@att.net> References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> <016e01d278f3$3d807320$b8815960$@att.net> Message-ID: <588bd7bf.062d630a.92f8.8b56@mx.google.com> Some of the situations that military are preparing for these days are probably along the lines of the implications of having current and future forms of AI guide the development and implementation man-machine symbioses and the disruptive effects such enhanced human cognition combined with automation will have on basically all areas of civil life. What if, just spitballing here, a certain new President decided to take a visit to some of the programs run by the DoD and use some of the systems already developed there to enhance himself? Interesting increasing the scope, or reducing the effects of some cognitive limitations might actually be positive step forward Stephen (Also hello everyone) From: spike Sent: Saturday, 28 January 2017 12:17 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 3:00 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock Spike, I admire your optimism but perhaps your lack of a mind's eye prevents you from imagining the hellscape we're thinking about. (Cue thread on aphantasmia which would be MUCH better than this political bullshit...I wish Gordon Swobe were here to bitch about Searle...) Thanks Will.? The point of my twin posts was to call attention to what military people do.? The kinds of scenarios being kicked around (3am call to a POTUS of questionable sanity and a nuclear-armed monarch of questionable sanity) were what top military brass spent their time pondering in the 1970s and 1980s.? Result: SBIRS to take care of scenario 1, THAAD to take care of scenario 2.? Both had been thought through end to end, debated, funded, designed, built and tested by the late 1990s.? I was there.? Oh what a glorious time to be a controls engineer, oh my, such cool interesting challenges were given to us. It is the job of the military to foresee and deal with nightmare scenarios.? The scenarios they are seeing and preventing today would blow our minds if we knew about them. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 06:28:50 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:28:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:12 PM, spike wrote: > Adrian, you grossly underestimate the capabilities of the military sir. > Perhaps you heard of THAAD? An excellent product it is indeed, built by a > fine company: > > http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/thaad.html > > THAAD prevents a crazy dictator with a handful of nuclear missiles from > triggering World War 3. Assuming it works in practice - and is turned on when the ICBMs come. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense only lists tests, not actual uses so far. (There are a few "deployments", but a quick scan of the article found no mention of shooting down a non-test missile.) You'd think it would have been deployed in Israel to intercept Hamas rocket attacks by now. Hitting a missile with a missile, when the incoming missile makes no concessions to make the outgoing missile's job easier, is difficult. Staging a series of successful tests, especially after the program's funding was already cut for failed tests, is much simpler. From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 06:33:32 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:33:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: <588bd7bf.062d630a.92f8.8b56@mx.google.com> References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> <016e01d278f3$3d807320$b8815960$@att.net> <588bd7bf.062d630a.92f8.8b56@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:29 PM, wrote: > Some of the situations that military are preparing for these days are > probably along the lines of the implications of having current and future > forms of AI guide the development and implementation man-machine symbioses > and the disruptive effects such enhanced human cognition combined with > automation will have on basically all areas of civil life. > > What if, just spitballing here, a certain new President decided to take a > visit to some of the programs run by the DoD and use some of the systems > already developed there to enhance himself? > > Interesting increasing the scope, or reducing the effects of some cognitive > limitations might actually be positive step forward That would be wonderful. Unfortunately, the types of cognitive enhancements he would be likely to run into are not the sort he needs - or, at most, he would see them as a machine telling him what to do, which his ego would reject. > (Also hello everyone) Hello and welcome! By any chance are you working on said enhancement programs? From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 28 06:41:46 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:41:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> Message-ID: <005101d27931$994c7990$cbe56cb0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes >...You'd think it would have been deployed in Israel to intercept Hamas rocket attacks by now... As I understand it, the system calculates where a rocket will land, then makes a decision on whether or not to use a THAAD. Usually that decision is no: THAAD is an expensive bird, one you probably wouldn't want to use to shoot down an unguided potshot with small payload. A more effective approach would be deterrence by return fire. If Hamas manages to hit anything that really hurts, the Israelis would likely carpet bomb the area from which is was fired. >...Hitting a missile with a missile, when the incoming missile makes no concessions to make the outgoing missile's job easier, is difficult. Staging a series of successful tests, especially after the program's funding was already cut for failed tests, is much simpler. _______________________________________________ The army fires the targets, so they know the system's capabilities and weaknesses. We do not. The bad guys do not. They do know what will happen if they decide to try their luck. spike From sjlmarkman at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 07:24:22 2017 From: sjlmarkman at gmail.com (sjlmarkman at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 20:24:22 +1300 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> <016e01d278f3$3d807320$b8815960$@att.net> <588bd7bf.062d630a.92f8.8b56@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <588c4722.5585620a.871f8.04b0@mx.google.com> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:29 PM, wrote: > Some of the situations that military are preparing for these days are > probably along the lines of the implications of having current and future > forms of AI guide the development and implementation man-machine symbioses > and the disruptive effects such enhanced human cognition combined with > automation will have on basically all areas of civil life. > > What if, just spitballing here, a certain new President decided to take a > visit to some of the programs run by the DoD and use some of the systems > already developed there to enhance himself? > > Interesting increasing the scope, or reducing the effects of some cognitive > limitations might actually be positive step forward That would be wonderful. Unfortunately, the types of cognitive enhancements he would be likely to run into are not the sort he needs - or, at most, he would see them as a machine telling him what to do, which his ego would reject. I guess it depends on what part of a cybernetic system that would be considered to be machine in nature. The work of the late Jens Rasmussen (The one who was the humans factors expert of cognitive engineering, not the one who developed Google Maps) dealt a lot with presenting real world information, mostly in nuclear power plants, in an very abstracted aggregated form which allows an operator to view the state of various complex systems and processes inside the plant which in a that would otherwise be unintuitive and probably entirely unmanageable. Quantifiably safer nuclear plants started being build around these concepts back in the 70?s. Computing has come a long way since then and in a sense the stacks of paper on Trumps desk in the white house and what is contained in the reports various people deliver to can also be seen as a similar system to the ones I mentioned before power plants without Trumps ego even having to lay its eyes on a computer screen That is a good point though, any form of cognitive technology has to work around the natural limitations of the brain, be it working memory, attention span and any personality traits as an improvement in cognition may indirectly or even directly affect how an individual experiences the world or behaves > (Also hello everyone) Hello and welcome! By any chance are you working on said enhancement programs? Not currently but its definitely one of the fields I want to work with in the future so I am keeping my finger on the pulse as best I can Stephen _______________________________________________ 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 18:29:51 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:29:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: <00df01d278de$62087540$26195fc0$@att.net> References: <00df01d278de$62087540$26195fc0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:46 PM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > John you grossly underestimate the capabilities of the military sir. > Perhaps you heard of last week?s successful launch of SBIRS? An excellent > product it is indeed, built by a fine company: > > > > http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/sbirs.html > ?Something like that might be effective if North Korea fired just one ICBM at the USA, but it will never work against a massive attack because as you say in another post it's very expensive. That shouldn't be surprising, it's harder to shoot a bullet with a bullet than it is to just fire a bullet. If it takes a dollar to shoot down a nickel's worth of hardware the enemy can just outspend you, especially because your defence has to be virtually perfect or it's not worth doing, if only 1% of the many thousands of warheads gets through we're toast. And if North Korea wants to send a package from Pyongyang to Washington, a package containing a H-bomb for example, sticking it on top of a ICBM would be one way of delivering it, but there are other ways, like UPS. And unlike a ICBM if UPS was used it wouldn't have an obvious return address on it, it's just that one day Washington would be there and the next day it wouldn't. No warning no nothing, just boom. > ?> ? > SBIRS prevents a flock of geese from triggering World War 3. > > ?There are lots of unpleasant wake up calls the POTUS could get a 3am: " Mr. President there has been a coup in Pakistan and factions linked to ISIS now have control of the country's nuclear arsenal, what do you want us to do?". And Trump could receive a potentially apocalyptic ?3am phone call that doesn't directly involve nukes. North Korea has ?thousands? of ?long range 170mm? guns dug in and aimed south; in ?less than ? 2 hours they could send a million artillery shells into downtown Seoul, a city of ?24? million people. It would be by far the greatest bloodbath since World War 2. I'm not sure what the USA should do in a situation like that, but I do know I'd rather have Obama receive that 3am phone call than Trump. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 22:25:54 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:25:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: <005101d27931$994c7990$cbe56cb0$@att.net> References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> <005101d27931$994c7990$cbe56cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:41 PM, spike wrote: > As I understand it, the system calculates where a rocket will land, then > makes a decision on whether or not to use a THAAD. Usually that decision is > no: THAAD is an expensive bird, one you probably wouldn't want to use to > shoot down an unguided potshot with small payload. Okay, then: * North Korea launches a nuke at California. * Mr. Trump inserts himself in the loop and says, "No THAAD; it's going to land out in the desert, and we're keeping our assets to protect important stuff." (He would be contacted over any potential international incident, and thus have an opportunity to do this.) * This becomes public knowledge, either before or soon after the nuke lands. * It lands anywhere near Los Angeles - which is sometimes referred to as a desert, even though "urban" is a terrain type despite being artificial. > A more effective > approach would be deterrence by return fire. If Hamas manages to hit > anything that really hurts, the Israelis would likely carpet bomb the area > from which is was fired. Hamas has learned to fire from hospitals, schools, and other places which, when carpet bombed, make for great PR. >>...Hitting a missile with a missile, when the incoming missile makes no > concessions to make the outgoing missile's job easier, is difficult. > Staging a series of successful tests, especially after the program's funding > was already cut for failed tests, is much simpler. > _______________________________________________ > > The army fires the targets, so they know the system's capabilities and > weaknesses. We do not. The bad guys do not. They do know what will happen > if they decide to try their luck. LM (and those in the military looking forward to cushy jobs with LM, if not already on LM's payroll) sets up the tests. That's like the tobacco industry setting up "scientific" studies to "prove" tobacco is harmless and nonaddictive. The same sorts of biased experimental setups, measurement errors, and data fabrication are likely to occur. For trusted experiments, those conducting the tests would need to have no personal stake in the outcome, to a high enough degree of probability. Unfortunately, this pretty much excludes the US military (given the long-established "anyone who helps us look good, we'll reward later", such that any given participant could be considered to be aware of and counting on subsequent payback, or under the orders of someone who is). From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 22:48:28 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:48:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: <00df01d278de$62087540$26195fc0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 10:29 AM, John Clark wrote: > And if North Korea wants to send a package from Pyongyang to Washington, a > package containing a H-bomb for example, sticking it on top of a ICBM would > be one way of delivering it, but there are other ways, like UPS. And unlike > a ICBM if UPS was used it wouldn't have an obvious return address on it, > it's just that one day Washington would be there and the next day it > wouldn't. No warning no nothing, just boom. Actually, there are nuclear detectors on shipping routes. It would be harder to smuggle a nuclear warhead, or the components thereof, by UPS than to just light off an ICBM. It's questionable how well a submarine drone that effectively is a nuclear missile could be stopped, though. There's a ~20 foot deep channel in the Potomac that goes all the way up to DC (becoming only 10 feet deep well under minimums safe distance); just pick a stormy night to foul observation. It would seem the Coast Guard's near-complete lack of antisubmarine capability has been pointed out in recent years (said capability having been retired after the USSR ceased being) - and these days the Navy's assets are mostly deployed far from our shores. Of course, to do this you would need nuclear bomb + submarine drone, which may not be as difficult as nuclear bomb + rocket but may still be beyond North Korea's technical capabilities. (Yes, I am saying they appear to lack the technical sophistication to build a reliable unmanned submarine capable of navigating the Potomac River. Though perhaps they could buy one.) From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 28 23:22:44 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 15:22:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> <005101d27931$994c7990$cbe56cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <01ec01d279bd$6e7d2200$4b776600$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 2:26 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:41 PM, spike wrote: > As I understand it, the system calculates where a rocket will land, > then makes a decision on whether or not to use a THAAD. Usually that > decision is > no: THAAD is an expensive bird, one you probably wouldn't want to use > to shoot down an unguided potshot with small payload. Okay, then: * North Korea launches a nuke at California. * Mr. Trump inserts himself in the loop and says, "No THAAD; it's going to land out in the desert, and we're keeping our assets to protect important stuff." (He would be contacted over any potential international incident, and thus have an opportunity to do this.) Ja, but we are talking about two different things. The Palestinians are firing cheap rockets into Israel with not much explosive and no guidance system. Those are unlikely to cause serious damage worth a THAAD. Should North Korea fire an ICMB at the US, we will return fire before we even know what is the payload. It might be an EMP, which detonates above THAAD range. But they only get one shot. >...Hamas has learned to fire from hospitals, schools, and other places which, when carpet bombed, make for great PR... Israel has learned to deal with it. The rocket launchers are now often spotted and destroyed before they can be fired. Plenty of Palestinians do not want their neighborhoods bombed, so they call in the coordinates of a rocket as soon as they see one. Crowded neighborhood, likely there will be a few percent who are collaborators with the Israeli government. They can call in, illuminate a target from an apartment window with a laser invisible to the eye, bad guys setting up rocket next to local school, suddenly it explodes before they can even get the launcher set up. What eventually helped reduce this was having the international community blame the Palestinians for calling down fire on a civilian population by firing rockets from a neighborhood, rather than the Israelis. Any country is expected to return fire if fired upon. Civilian casualties are the fault of whoever fired first. >...LM (and those in the military looking forward to cushy jobs with LM, if not already on LM's payroll) sets up the tests. That's like the tobacco industry setting up "scientific" studies to "prove" tobacco is harmless and nonaddictive. The same sorts of biased experimental setups, measurement errors, and data fabrication are likely to occur... It would be more like the tobacco consumer community setting up studies to prove tobacco is harmless and nonaddictive. Did they do it? >...For trusted experiments, those conducting the tests would need to have no personal stake in the outcome, to a high enough degree of probability. Unfortunately, this pretty much excludes the US military (given the long-established "anyone who helps us look good, we'll reward later", such that any given participant could be considered to be aware of and counting on subsequent payback, or under the orders of someone who is)... Are you arguing that a THAAD cannot hit a non-cooperating target? Why do you think that? Ground-based and space-based Radar can't track it with sufficient precision to get a THAAD in the neighborhood to close enough that its endgame guidance can take out the target? spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 00:17:56 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 19:17:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: <00df01d278de$62087540$26195fc0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> ?>? >> if North Korea wants to send a package from Pyongyang to Washington, a >> ? >> package containing a H-bomb for example, sticking it on top of a ICBM >> would >> be one way of delivering it, but there are other ways, like UPS. And >> unlike >> ? >> a ICBM if UPS was used it wouldn't have an obvious return address on it, >> ? >> it's just that one day Washington would be there and the next day it >> wouldn't. No warning no nothing, just boom. >> be one way of delivering it, but there are other ways, like UPS. And >> unlike >> ? >> a ICBM if UPS was used it wouldn't have an obvious return address on it, >> ? >> it's just that one day Washington would be there and the next day it >> wouldn't. No warning no nothing, just boom. > > > ?> ? > Actually, there are nuclear detectors on shipping routes. It would be > harder to smuggle a nuclear warhead, or the components thereof, by UPS > than to just light off an ICBM. > ?\? ? Over ? 6 million cargo containers enter ? the USA every year, ?but ? only 2% are physically inspected. ? ?As for scanning, c onventional geiger ? counters that detect Gamma Rays aren't good at detecting hidden nuclear bombs because there would be far too many false alarms; kitty litter, ceramic tiles ? and ? even banana ? would set them off. To spot bombs what you need are neutron detectors, and they should be set up in foreign ports to examining cargo heading to the USA ?;? it does little good to find it if the nuclear bomb is already at the port of New York. But neutron detectors are much more expensive than simple geiger counters, and the ? president ? thinks the security of the nation would be better served if the money was spent on The Great Wall Of Trump instead ?. And besides, a big wall is much more photogenic than a neutron detector, it makes for a better photo opp? . John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 00:41:50 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:41:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: <01ec01d279bd$6e7d2200$4b776600$@att.net> References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> <005101d27931$994c7990$cbe56cb0$@att.net> <01ec01d279bd$6e7d2200$4b776600$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 3:22 PM, spike wrote: > Should North Korea fire an ICMB at the US, we will return fire before we > even know what is the payload. It might be an EMP, which detonates above > THAAD range. But they only get one shot. That'd be no comfort to those of us who got nuked because Mr. Trump heard THAAD shots were expensive and therefore declined to use it to protect us who objected to his rule. >>...LM (and those in the military looking forward to cushy jobs with LM, if > not already on LM's payroll) sets up the tests. That's like the tobacco > industry setting up "scientific" studies to "prove" tobacco is harmless and > nonaddictive. The same sorts of biased experimental setups, measurement > errors, and data fabrication are likely to occur... > > It would be more like the tobacco consumer community setting up studies to > prove tobacco is harmless and nonaddictive. Did they do it? That's an imperfect analogy. The military has a chain of command: bribe whoever's in charge of the project, and he can give orders that will be followed to everyone else. This is not true of the tobacco consumer community as a whole. That said, there have been tobacco consumers who helped set up studies to try to prove tobacco is harmless and nonaddictive. In other words: out of the many debunked tobacco-company-funded studies to this effect, at least some have been conducted by people who smoke. > Are you arguing that a THAAD cannot hit a non-cooperating target? No, just that we can not have absolute confidence that it can hit a non-cooperating target at this time. > Why do > you think that? Because we can not trust the evidence to the contrary, as detailed in my last email, and this is a tricky enough task that the reasonable null case assumption is that it can not. From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 00:51:47 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 19:51:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI with a higher IQ than 75% of Americans Message-ID: http://www.kurzweilai.net/ai-system-performs-better-than-75-percent-of-american-adults-on-standard-visual-intelligence-test?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ecf2d8095a-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6de721fb33-ecf2d8095a-282205341 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 01:33:42 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 20:33:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Dave Sill wrote: ?> ? > I don't get it. Poker is all about probability, and computers are > unmatched at tracking cards played and calculating probabilities. Deciding > whether to hold 'em or fold 'em is a simple matter of calculating the > probabilities. Yawn. > ?I've calculated the odds and I figure my hand is slightly more likely to be stronger than yours, but only slightly, and you can calculate odds too and you are not acting as if ?you have a weak hand, you are not folding and instead you are doubling down and betting very aggressively. Why are you doing this? Maybe you beat the odds and got a very good hand. Or maybe you just want me to think that. If I fold now I'll loose some money but if I see your bet I could loose even more, but the same is true for you too so if your hand is weak why are you looking so damn confided? Are you bluffing or are you for real, should I see your bet or fold? The correct decision isn't obvious to me. ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hartmut.prochaska at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 13:15:15 2017 From: hartmut.prochaska at gmail.com (Hartmut Prochaska) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:15:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Re: [Cryptography] Is Factoring of large RSA moduli using Alternative Fakts feasible? In-Reply-To: <578d82d8-d09e-c246-7758-5bf5f61d455e@gmail.com> References: <578d82d8-d09e-c246-7758-5bf5f61d455e@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello, for all the Math Geeks on the list. Enjoy :) On 28.01.2017 16:35, Ralf Senderek wrote: > > The security of RSA depends on the infeasibility of factoring large > RSA moduli. Does this disturbing research paper change the state of > common wisdom about RSA's security? > > https://de.scribd.com/document/337471737/Proof-of-the-Riemann-Hypothesis-utilizing-the-theory-of-Alternative-Facts PS: found on the crypto metzdowd list bye Hartmut From spike66 at att.net Sun Jan 29 15:33:01 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 07:33:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Re: [Cryptography] Is Factoring of large RSA moduli using Alternative Fakts feasible? In-Reply-To: References: <578d82d8-d09e-c246-7758-5bf5f61d455e@gmail.com> Message-ID: <014e01d27a44$fa693790$ef3ba6b0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Hartmut Prochaska Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Re: [Cryptography] Is Factoring of large RSA moduli using Alternative Fakts feasible? Hello, for all the Math Geeks on the list. Enjoy :) On 28.01.2017 16:35, Ralf Senderek wrote: > > The security of RSA depends on the infeasibility of factoring large > RSA moduli. Does this disturbing research paper change the state of > common wisdom about RSA's security? https://de.scribd.com/document/337471737/Proof-of-the-Riemann-Hypothes-is-ut ilizing-the-theory-of-Alternative-Facts PS: found on the crypto metzdowd list bye Hartmut _______________________________________________ ...heeeeeeeeehehehehehehehheeeeeeee... Thanks Hartmut. I have long pondered the 1=0 conjecture in this context. Welcome aboard. Tell us something about Hartmut if you wish. spike From sparge at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 16:04:31 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:04:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:33 PM, John Clark wrote: > > ?I've calculated the odds and I figure my hand is slightly more likely to > be stronger than yours, but only slightly, and you can calculate odds too > and you are not acting as if ?you have a weak hand, you are not folding and > instead you are doubling down and betting very aggressively. Why are you > doing this? Maybe you beat the odds and got a very good hand. Or maybe you > just want me to think that. If I fold now I'll loose some money but if I > see your bet I could loose even more, but the same is true for you too so > if your hand is weak why are you looking so damn confided? Are you bluffing > or are you for real, should I see your bet or fold? The correct decision > isn't obvious to me. > There is no "correct" decision for every hand because all of the players have incomplete knowledge. These competitions consist of playing thousands of hands, and the advantage goes to the players best able to calculate the probabilities of the cards and their opponent's behavior. Clearly, the AI has the edge in calculating the card probabilities. It also has the advantage of perfect memory of every hand played and every time an opponent bluffed. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 16:14:48 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:14:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI with a higher IQ than 75% of Americans In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > http://www.kurzweilai.net/ai-system-performs-better-than- > 75-percent-of-american-adults-on-standard-visual- > intelligence-test?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter& > utm_campaign=ecf2d8095a-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email&utm_ > term=0_6de721fb33-ecf2d8095a-282205341 > That's a pretty impressive achievement in pattern recognition, which is a crucial part of general intelligence, but to say that the AI has a higher IQ than 75% of Americans is not true. The Raven matrix test is just one component of many. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 18:11:57 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 12:11:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It also has the advantage of perfect memory of every hand played and every time an opponent bluffed. -Dave I am not sure of the rules these hands are played under, but if a bluff is not called, the usual procedure is that the losing opponent is not able to see the winner's cards. You have to pay to see them, is the way we put it when we played. That way we just don't know if the person bluffed or not. The only way to see if it is a bluff is to call the bet and see the cards. So that would change the whole game. bill w On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:33 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> >> ?I've calculated the odds and I figure my hand is slightly more likely to >> be stronger than yours, but only slightly, and you can calculate odds too >> and you are not acting as if ?you have a weak hand, you are not folding and >> instead you are doubling down and betting very aggressively. Why are you >> doing this? Maybe you beat the odds and got a very good hand. Or maybe you >> just want me to think that. If I fold now I'll loose some money but if I >> see your bet I could loose even more, but the same is true for you too so >> if your hand is weak why are you looking so damn confided? Are you bluffing >> or are you for real, should I see your bet or fold? The correct decision >> isn't obvious to me. >> > > There is no "correct" decision for every hand because all of the players > have incomplete knowledge. These competitions consist of playing thousands > of hands, and the advantage goes to the players best able to calculate the > probabilities of the cards and their opponent's behavior. Clearly, the AI > has the edge in calculating the card probabilities. It also has the > advantage of perfect memory of every hand played and every time an opponent > bluffed. > > -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 foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 18:13:24 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 12:13:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A AI with a higher IQ than 75% of Americans In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Raven matrix test is just one component of many. -Dave ?Yes, but it's a good one and one of the very few that is language-free and has high validity. bill w? On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> http://www.kurzweilai.net/ai-system-performs-better-than-75- >> percent-of-american-adults-on-standard-visual-intelligence- >> test?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign= >> ecf2d8095a-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ >> 6de721fb33-ecf2d8095a-282205341 >> > > That's a pretty impressive achievement in pattern recognition, which is a > crucial part of general intelligence, but to say that the AI has a higher > IQ than 75% of Americans is not true. The Raven matrix test is just one > component of many. > > -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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 18:28:24 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 13:28:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dave Sill wrote: There is no "correct" decision for every hand because all of the players > have incomplete knowledge. > ?That's what makes it so impressive, the real world is not Chess, Jeopardy or even GO, decisions must be ? made ?and in the real world you very seldom have complete knowledge. > ?>? > These competitions consist of playing thousands of hands, and the > advantage goes to the players best able to calculate the probabilities of > the cards > ?If it were just a question of probabilities computers would have beaten humans at Poker in the 1950s, but only now is that becoming true. ? ?Their recent success is all the more impressive because to the best of my knowledge none of the Poker programs have code to detect facial ticks or other tells in their human opponents, at least not yet. And they win even without that. > ?>? > and their opponent's behavior. > ?That's the problem. I can calculate odds too, so if you always play the odds and never bluff but I occasionally and unpredictably bluff then I will always know what you're going to do but you won't know what I'm going to do. ?So I win in the long term. > ?> ? > Clearly, the AI has the edge in calculating the card probabilities. It > also has the advantage of perfect memory of every hand played and every > time an opponent bluffed. > ?Not necessarily. ?If I have a weak hand and bluff, and you get cold feed and fall for my bluff and fold you'll never know if I was bluffing or not. And what about you, when should you bluff? If you've figured out my bluffing strategy you can't use that yourself because I'll recognize it, you have to figure out your own strategy. clearly there should be an element of randomness in making your bluffing decisions but how much? Too little and I'll be able to predict when you're bluffing, too much and you'll lose money making with too many illogical bets. What is the sweet spot for any given hand? AIs are starting to figure that out. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 21:56:07 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:56:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts Message-ID: This is more evidence of the astonishing progress AIs have made in the last couple of years in a area they have been historically terrible, image recognition. And it's more evidence that classical libertarian dogma will need to be modified to stay relevant with the massive seismic upheaval AIs will make in the social fabric in just the next few years. http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-deep-learning-algorithm-outperforms-some-board-certified-dermatologists-in-diagnosis-of-skin-cancer?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6bc68caa20-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6de721fb33-6bc68caa20-282205341 John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 23:09:52 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:09:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And it's more evidence that classical libertarian dogma will need to be modified to stay relevant john Eh, what? Please explain/expand. bill w On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, John Clark wrote: > This is more evidence of the astonishing progress AIs have made in the > last couple of years in a area they have been historically terrible, image > recognition. And it's more evidence that classical libertarian dogma will > need to be modified to stay relevant with the massive seismic upheaval AIs > will make in the social fabric in just the next few years. > > http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-deep-learning-algorithm- > outperforms-some-board-certified-dermatologists-in- > diagnosis-of-skin-cancer?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+ > Newsletter&utm_campaign=6bc68caa20-UA-946742-1&utm_ > medium=email&utm_term=0_6de721fb33-6bc68caa20-282205341 > > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 00:34:11 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:34:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?>> ? >> And it's more evidence that classical libertarian dogma will need to >> be modified to stay relevant john > > > ?>? > Eh, what? Please explain/expand. > ?Of all the common occupations physicians need the most training, so if even their job can be performed by a robot then nobody's job is safe. The jobs that need to be performed will continue to be be performed and wealth will continue to be produced, it just will not be done by humans. Billions of people will have no jobs and they are simply not going to calmly starve to death in a world that is full of wealth, instead they are going to raise holy hell and rip civilization apart. So to avoid that provisions must be made for people who can generate no wealth themselves to nevertheless receive some. That would be contrary to classical libertarian philosophy and is certainly contrary to what I would have recommended just a few years ago, but things are happening faster than I expected and I can no longer put the "far future" tag on the economic impact of AI and say it has little relevance for the present moment, we're starting to see it right now. When facts and my worldview start to contradict each other I figure it's time to change my worldview because unlike Mr. Trump I don't wish to pick a fight with reality. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 00:49:38 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:49:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI with a higher IQ than 75% of Americans In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:13 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > The Raven matrix test is just one component of many. > > -Dave > > ?Yes, but it's a good one and one of the very few that is language-free > and has high validity. > > ### Raven's matrices have been standardized on humans, obviously, and humans are a peculiar type of embodied neural network system with a lot of hard-wired modules that enable real-world functioning. An IQ test takes a lot for granted - ability to walk, hold a pencil, fill out the test as a mechanical challenge, find the person you need to hand it to, etc. As a result, Raven's matrices are not a very good measure of the intelligence of disembodied fragments of neural networks that are now the subject of deep learning research projects. Such fragments replicate some small areas of a human mind but they do not form an integrated whole capable of functioning in the real world, and their ability to perform some elements of an IQ test is not predictive of real world performance. Our fascination with IQ testing stems from the test's ability to predict real-world function, including the eternally important who-whom question, and not just silly puzzle solving. Deep learning network IQ testing is therefore for now less interesting but once the separate deep learning modules become integrated into human-like systems with real-world performance, their IQ will be acutely interesting in the who-whom context. This said, it is amazing that tiny deep learning neural networks with mere billions of parameters manage to equal the performance of middling-sized chunks of brain (e.g. the subcortical and cortical visual processing centers). Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 00:52:27 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:52:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Doomsday Clock In-Reply-To: References: <013601d278ea$6d90c410$48b24c30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > Spike, I admire your optimism but perhaps your lack of a mind's eye > prevents you from imagining the hellscape we're thinking about. > > (Cue thread on aphantasmia which would be MUCH better than this political > bullshit.. > ### One enables this sort of bullshit by participating in it. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 00:56:10 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:56:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > Billions of people will have no jobs and they are simply not going to > calmly starve to death in a world that is full of wealth, instead they are > going to raise holy hell and rip civilization apart. > ### This is stupid. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 01:08:53 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:08:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Correlation between violence and inequality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:59 AM, BillK quoted: > > > ?Business as usual may not be enough,? he said. ?We have to think > harder about how to bring change in today?s world.? ### What evil garbage. He is so pissed off at other people having more money than him that "harder" methods of bringing others to his level seem like a good idea. If a billion people or so get killed in making that omelet, who cares, they are just statistics. US academe is a rat's nest of Stalinist agitators. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 01:14:44 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:14:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > > Suppressing discourse on government is a bad precedent. > ### I am open to suppression of opinions that are repeated over and over again with no benefit to anybody, since everybody here read them ad nauseam. Suppressing pointless repetition is a good idea. Novelty and intellectual adroitness flee when confronted by monomania. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 01:22:42 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:22:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John- You've been picking a fight properly reading the reality of political tea leaves since I joined this list. As I've mentioned previously, I appreciate your on topic extropian posts generally, your hysteria and obsession with Trump, not so much... On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?>> ? >>> And it's more evidence that classical libertarian dogma will need to >>> be modified to stay relevant john >> >> >> ?>? >> Eh, what? Please explain/expand. >> > > ?Of all the common occupations physicians need the most training, so if > even their job can be performed by a robot then nobody's job is safe. The > jobs that need to be performed will continue to be be performed and wealth > will continue to be produced, it just will not be done by humans. Billions > of people will have no jobs and they are simply not going to calmly starve > to death in a world that is full of wealth, instead they are going to raise > holy hell and rip civilization apart. So to avoid that provisions must be > made for people who can generate no wealth themselves to nevertheless > receive some. > > That would be contrary to classical libertarian philosophy and is > certainly contrary to what I would have recommended just a few years ago, > but things are happening faster than I expected and I can no longer put > the "far future" tag on the economic impact of AI and say it has > little relevance for the present moment, we're starting to see it right > now. When facts and my worldview start to contradict each other I figure > it's time to change my worldview because unlike Mr. Trump I don't wish to > pick a fight with reality. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 01:25:12 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:25:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Correlation between violence and inequality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:59 AM, BillK quoted: >> >> >> ?Business as usual may not be enough,? he said. ?We have to think >> harder about how to bring change in today?s world.? > > > ### What evil garbage. He is so pissed off at other people having more > money than him that "harder" methods of bringing others to his level seem > like a good idea. If a billion people or so get killed in making that > omelet, who cares, they are just statistics. > > US academe is a rat's nest of Stalinist agitators. > > Rafa? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jan 30 01:45:39 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:45:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Coasian analysis of driverless traffic Message-ID: Analyses of the societal impact of driverless cars tend to concentrate on their impact on employment but I feel that there is another aspect of the driverless economy that is much more important. Driverless cars will be highly standardized, at least regarding their mutual interactions. They will be more law-abiding and extremely consistent in responses to other vehicles. They will be able to process multiple transactions with cars or other entities in a blink of a second. They will be able to trade for slots in traffic with other cars. They will automatically optimize their speed and route in the context of thousands of interacting cars, potentially producing much more efficient patterns of traffic. I expect that most cars will be owned by car companies similar to Uber and the majority of non-rural traffic will carry customers paying by the mile and hour. This means that the price signal generated by interacting cars will be transmitted to humans in real time, leading to welfare-maximizing choices. As per Coase's theorem, bargaining leads to efficient outcomes regardless of initial distribution of ownership claims, as long as transaction costs are low enough. This implies that highly efficient automated trades performed at the user's behest by driverless cars will greatly increase efficiency compared to today's world, where trade in traffic is extremely limited. If roads were completely privatized (one can dream) and congestion-priced, the system would become even more efficient. Robin discussed the impact of driverless driving on the size of cities - apparently modern cities are to a large extent constrained by the capacity of their road systems. Driverless cars would significantly increase maximum possible throughput of existing roads simply by reducing follow distances in high speed driving. The added Coasian benefit of driverless traffic trading would further increase effective road capacity, potentially leading to further growth of megacities. And of course, people not dying in car accidents caused by human stupidity will be welfare-enhancing, too. I don't know if driverless megacities will actually happen - one could think of a countervailing influence, that is virtual and augmented reality reducing the need for physical interaction in generating economic value. One way or another though, I expect that the 2030s will be a time of incredible economic change and most likely growth, even before the fully robotized economy emerges. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 01:47:07 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:47:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017, Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: ?>> ? >> Suppressing discourse on government is a bad precedent. >> > > ?> ? > ### I am open to suppression of opinions that are repeated over and over > again > I am open to the suppression of the opinion that the Extropian list ?should no longer be used to discuss current events even though it has done exactly that for well over 20 years. John K Clark > with no benefit to anybody, since everybody here read them ad nauseam. > Suppressing pointless repetition is a good idea. > > Novelty and intellectual adroitness flee when confronted by monomania. > > Rafa? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jan 30 01:52:17 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:52:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:47 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017, Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > ?>> ? >>> Suppressing discourse on government is a bad precedent. >>> >> >> ?> ? >> ### I am open to suppression of opinions that are repeated over and over >> again >> > > I am open to the suppression of the opinion that the Extropian list > ?should no longer be used to discuss current events even though it has done > exactly that for well over 20 years. > ### But usually not over and over and over again. Even the perennial identity thread is less sticky. Hey, let's talk about guns. We haven't had a shitstorm about guns in something like, twenty years or so. Here is my take - free machine guns for every man, woman and child. And mandatory open carry in schools. School should be fun, too, no? Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 02:03:56 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 21:03:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ?>> ? >> Billions of people will have no jobs and they are simply not going to >> calmly starve to death in a world that is full of wealth, instead they are >> going to raise holy hell and rip civilization apart. >> > > ?> ? > ### This is stupid. > ?It's so stupid you can't find a flaw in the logic, or if you can you're being mighty damn quiet about it. Don't be shy, tell us! Do you really think your political philosophy can remain unchanged FOREVER like a fly frozen in amber despite radical changes in circumstances? Do you really think reality will never kick you in the ass if you try? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 02:33:42 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 21:33:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ?> ? > Hey, let's talk about guns. ? Feel free. I never got involved in the great gun debates of the past because the entire issue always seemed a little too trivial for my taste. But knock yourself out, different strokes for different folks ?.? ? ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 03:10:44 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:10:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:58 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Rafal Smigrodzki > > - free machine guns for every man, woman and child?Rafa? > > > > > > There is no such thing as a free machine gun. Someone has to pay for it. > If such a thing is to be provided, it should be up to the state governments > to supply them. > ### Yes, federalism! The pinko states might cheat though, they might get you an AR15 instead of a SAW. That would be an outrage. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 30 02:58:50 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:58:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki - free machine guns for every man, woman and child?Rafa? There is no such thing as a free machine gun. Someone has to pay for it. If such a thing is to be provided, it should be up to the state governments to supply them. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 03:15:20 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:15:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:03 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > >> >>> ?>> ? >>> Billions of people will have no jobs and they are simply not going to >>> calmly starve to death in a world that is full of wealth, instead they are >>> going to raise holy hell and rip civilization apart. >>> >> >> ?> ? >> ### This is stupid. >> > > ?It's so stupid you can't find a flaw in the logic, or if you can you're > being mighty damn quiet about it. Don't be shy, tell us! > ### I did a bunch of times but you don't pay attention. Robots will not directly reduce returns to labor but will greatly increase returns to capital. You don't starve if a minute amount of capital is sufficient to pay for your food. Do I need to parse it further? Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 03:25:13 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:25:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > ?> ? > Robots will not directly reduce returns to labor but will greatly increase > returns to capital. You don't starve if a minute amount of capital is > sufficient to pay for your food. Do I need to parse it further? > ?Yes, I most certainly think you do. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 30 03:29:55 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:29:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <025301d27aa9$21684930$6438db90$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki There is no such thing as a free machine gun. Someone has to pay for it. If such a thing is to be provided, it should be up to the state governments to supply them. ### Yes, federalism! >?The pinko states might cheat though, they might get you an AR15 instead of a SAW. >?That would be an outrage. >?Rafa? Indeed. If the Fed were responsible for supplying guns, then in times of financial crisis, some citizens could be left short of ammo or even completely without firearms. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 03:59:26 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:59:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> Message-ID: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> On 1/21/2017 6:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 23 December 2016 at 06:23, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > On 12/21/2016 4:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> Your intuition is that in order to reproduce consciousness it may >> not be sufficient to just reproduce the behaviour of the human >> brain, because consciousness might reside in the actual brain >> substance. This, I think, is what Brent is claiming. He further >> claims that one day we may be able to work out the exact >> correlates of experience - glutamate for red experiences for >> example (for illustrative purposes - it wouldn't be as simple as >> this). But there is an argument due to philosopher David Chalmers >> that assumes this common intuition to be true and shows that it >> leads to absurdity: >> >> http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html >> >> >> > > and > > On 12/22/2016 1:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> The theory of mind called "functionalism" holds that >> consciousness results from the brain carrying out its business of >> cognition, rather than from the actual substrate of the brain. >> This would mean that if the function of the brain could be >> reproduced using another substrate, such as a digital computer, >> the associated consciousness would also be reproduced. The paper >> by Chalmers I cited is a reductio ad absurdum starting with the >> assumption that consciousness is substrate-dependent, thus >> establishing functionalism as the better theory. > > Thanks for bringing this up! This neural substitution argument > for functionalism was around way before Chalmers used the argument > in his paper. For example Hans Moravec made this same argument > way back in 1988, in his book Mind Children. > > https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Children-Future-Robot-Intelligence/dp/0674576187 > > > So at least Stathis Papaioannou, Hans Moravec, David Chalmers, > James Carroll (CC-ed), and a bunch of others think this argument > is sound, causing them to think "functionalism is the better > theory" resulting in the apparent "hard problem" conundrum. I > think all these people are world leading, understanding wise, in > this field, so we need to take this argument seriously. But, > despite this, it seems obvious to me that this so called "hard" > problem is a simple misunderstanding of how phenomenal computation > works below the abstracted layer - at the hardware quality > dependent layer. > > > The "hard problem" and functionalism are not really related. The "hard > problem" can still be stated if consciousness is substrate dependent > or if it is due to an immortal soul. The so called "hard problem" has lots of possible meanings. I was referring to the problem that Chalmers refereed to and used the neural substitution to argue for functionality. I'd love to know what you mean by "hard problem" and how it can be stated in a substrate dependent way. > Let me describe the hardware quality dependent layer in today's > computers in a slightly qualitatively advanced way to illustrate > how this misunderstanding results. One of the fundamental > operations of a computation device is comparisons: Is a 1 > different than a zero? So fundamentally, today's computer > circuits are composed of lots of such comparison gates that let > you know if the voltage on one wire is the same as the voltage on > another wire. In other words, we are talking about a simple > exclusive or functional operation: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR_gate > > > So, instead of just implementing our XOR logical comparison > function with simple voltages that are not physically very > qualitatively different lets use neurotransmitter molecule > comparisons like between glutamate and glycine. Let's implement > our XOR function with a comparison neuron that fires if two of > it's input synapses are chemically the same and not fire if they > are different. In effect, this comparison neuron is a good > glutamate detector. If glutamate is being fed to one of it's > input synapses, nothing but glutamate in the other will cause it > to fire. > > So, the complete XOR neural setup is composed of 3 significant > neurons. There are two input neurons that can dump different nero > transmitters into the two input synapses. and the third > comparison neuron that fires, if the two input synapses are > chemically the same. So let's perform the neural substitution on > this xor gate. We first replace one of the input neurons with a > silicone system that can function identically. When it outputs a > positive voltage, it is considered as representing what glutamate > is chemically like. Outputting a zero voltage is considered to > represent dumping something chemically different than glutamate > into the synapse of the comparitor neuron. At this point, you > have to add a physical translator between this first silicone > neuron substitutuion and the real comparitor neuron. So when the > silicone neuron outputs a positive voltage, the translation > mechanism feeds glutamate to the comparison neuron. Obviously, > since the real neuron is receiving glutamate, it is happy, and it > fires since it's two inputs are chemically or qualitatively the > same. Now, obviously, in order to replace the comparitor neuron, > you also need to replace the other input with a translator > system. This system translates glutamate, coming from the second > input neuron, into a positive voltage being fed into the newly > artificial comparitor neuron. So, this simple XOR gate is > functioning identically to the comparitor neuron. It fires if the > two inputs are the same, but doesn't fire if they are different. > > With that, you should be able to see the flaw in this neural > substitution logic. The physical qualities being compared between > these two functionally identical XOR systems is critically > important when it comes to our consciousness. That is why Thomas > Nagel is wanting to know what the two comparison systems are > physically and qualitatively like. The two inputs being compared, > and what they are physically, chemichally, and qualitatively like > is important to understanding the nature of physical qualitative > comparison. The two systems can be thought of as functionally the > same, but the qualities of what they are comparing is physically > very different. > > > Well, I don't see the flaw. If just one of the input neurons in the > XOR system is changed, but it behaves in the same way, then the system > behaves in the same way. The artificial neuron detects glutamate when > the original neuron would have and sends output to the comparator > neuron when the the original neuron would have. That is what > "functionally identical" means. > And in another e-mail you said: "You are using several terms that are confusing, and might be seen as begging the question: "representation", "qualities", "awareness". We can agree on what behaviour is: it is that which is observable from the outside. We can agree on what qualia are: they are private experiences that, unlike behaviour, can only be guessed at by an external observer. I pointed out in my previous post that by "function" I meant behaviour, while you perhaps took it as also including qualia. So you see, it can quickly get confusing." Yes it can get confusing, and I am just not yet communicating adequately, as you are completely missing and abstracting away the functionality I'm trying to talk about. You do this when you say: "The artificial neuron detects glutamate when the original neuron would have." This is incorrect as it does not detect real physical glutamate nor it's real qualitative functionality, it is only detecting an abstracted representation of glutamate, represented by something physically very different, and only working the way it does (so you can think of it as if it is behaving like glutamate), because of a hardware translation system. Remember, that it is glutamate that has the redness quality. The physical behavior of glutamate is the only thing in the simplified example world that physically behaves or functions like redness. So, when you are "detecting" real glutamate, you are detecting the physical qualities or functionality of redness. But when you swap this out, with something different, you are replacing it with some physical device that behaves in a very different functional way that, by definition, is not the functionality or physical quality of real glutamate. It is some different physical function that has some different translation hardware which enables you to think of it as if it was behaving like real glutamate, but it is not at all real glutamate, nor is there any real redness functionality going on in the artificial system. The artificial system doesn't have redness, any more than the word red does. But you can think of whatever is representing it, that doesn't have redness, as if it did, only if you have adequate translation hardware. In the case of qualia, "functionally identical" means the same functionality of whatever is the physical or detectable attributes of redness, which you are abstracting away when you do this kind of substitution. You are ignoring and swapping out the important functionality that is the functionality of a redness experience. Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 04:39:48 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 23:39:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: <025301d27aa9$21684930$6438db90$@att.net> References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> <025301d27aa9$21684930$6438db90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:29 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Rafal Smigrodzki > > There is no such thing as a free machine gun. Someone has to pay for it. > If such a thing is to be provided, it should be up to the state governments > to supply them. > > > > ### Yes, federalism! > > > > >?The pinko states might cheat though, they might get you an AR15 instead > of a SAW. > > > > >?That would be an outrage. > > > > >?Rafa? > > > > > > Indeed. If the Fed were responsible for supplying guns, then in times of > financial crisis, some citizens could be left short of ammo or even > completely without firearms. > > > ### I think that Congress and President Trump should introduce Gun Security - a social insurance fund, supported by a general payroll tax, that would guarantee every citizen would have enough ammo even in the toughest of times. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 30 04:58:34 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:58:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> <025301d27aa9$21684930$6438db90$@att.net> Message-ID: <002b01d27ab5$83f0eec0$8bd2cc40$@att.net> From: Rafal Smigrodzki [mailto:rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com] ### I think that Congress and President Trump should introduce Gun Security - a social insurance fund, supported by a general payroll tax, that would guarantee every citizen would have enough ammo even in the toughest of times. Rafa? There may be some merit in what you say sir, but I disagree. Were such a system set up, the state governments would stand down, the population would become dependent. Then at some future time, already easily foreseeable, the Federal government will be unable to meet its financial obligations as the world?s capital becomes aware of the precarious nature of the US government. It ceases to lend to it in unison, fearing risk of default. Then, the Fed can try raising taxes, but will see that this does not necessarily increase its revenue as the economy contracts. Result: the population runs short of guns and ammo. Widespread panic ensues. My solution: keep the Fed out of gun business completely. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 06:08:48 2017 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:08:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> Billions of people will have no jobs and they are simply not going to >> calmly starve to death in a world that is full of wealth, instead they are >> going to raise holy hell and rip civilization apart. > > ### This is stupid. It is. However, John is right. It's what I expect from evolutionary psychology models. I unintentionally predicted the last election. It is to be expected that people who perceive a bleak future are going to be attracted to irrational leaders who will take them into war. I know, stupid and irrational. But while humans die, this irrational behavior worked (in the stone age) for genes, as I have talked about many times on this group. Evolutionary psychology is a remarkably depressing subject. Keith From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 07:58:12 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:58:12 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 30 January 2017 at 14:59, Brent Allsop wrote: On 1/21/2017 6:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 December 2016 at 06:23, Brent Allsop wrote: On 12/21/2016 4:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Your intuition is that in order to reproduce consciousness it may not be sufficient to just reproduce the behaviour of the human brain, because consciousness might reside in the actual brain substance. This, I think, is what Brent is claiming. He further claims that one day we may be able to work out the exact correlates of experience - glutamate for red experiences for example (for illustrative purposes - it wouldn't be as simple as this). But there is an argument due to philosopher David Chalmers that assumes this common intuition to be true and shows that it leads to absurdity: http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html and On 12/22/2016 1:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The theory of mind called "functionalism" holds that consciousness results from the brain carrying out its business of cognition, rather than from the actual substrate of the brain. This would mean that if the function of the brain could be reproduced using another substrate, such as a digital computer, the associated consciousness would also be reproduced. The paper by Chalmers I cited is a reductio ad absurdum starting with the assumption that consciousness is substrate-dependent, thus establishing functionalism as the better theory. Thanks for bringing this up! This neural substitution argument for functionalism was around way before Chalmers used the argument in his paper. For example Hans Moravec made this same argument way back in 1988, in his book Mind Children. https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Children-Future-Robot-Intelligence/dp/0674576187 So at least Stathis Papaioannou, Hans Moravec, David Chalmers, James Carroll (CC-ed), and a bunch of others think this argument is sound, causing them to think "functionalism is the better theory" resulting in the apparent "hard problem" conundrum. I think all these people are world leading, understanding wise, in this field, so we need to take this argument seriously. But, despite this, it seems obvious to me that this so called "hard" problem is a simple misunderstanding of how phenomenal computation works below the abstracted layer - at the hardware quality dependent layer. The "hard problem" and functionalism are not really related. The "hard problem" can still be stated if consciousness is substrate dependent or if it is due to an immortal soul. The so called "hard problem" has lots of possible meanings. I was referring to the problem that Chalmers refereed to and used the neural substitution to argue for functionality. I'd love to know what you mean by "hard problem" and how it can be stated in a substrate dependent way. The "hard problem" is the question of why there should be any qualia at all. If you show that redness is associated with glutamate, you have not answered this question. Let me describe the hardware quality dependent layer in today's computers in a slightly qualitatively advanced way to illustrate how this misunderstanding results. One of the fundamental operations of a computation device is comparisons: Is a 1 different than a zero? So fundamentally, today's computer circuits are composed of lots of such comparison gates that let you know if the voltage on one wire is the same as the voltage on another wire. In other words, we are talking about a simple exclusive or functional operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR_gate So, instead of just implementing our XOR logical comparison function with simple voltages that are not physically very qualitatively different lets use neurotransmitter molecule comparisons like between glutamate and glycine. Let's implement our XOR function with a comparison neuron that fires if two of it's input synapses are chemically the same and not fire if they are different. In effect, this comparison neuron is a good glutamate detector. If glutamate is being fed to one of it's input synapses, nothing but glutamate in the other will cause it to fire. So, the complete XOR neural setup is composed of 3 significant neurons. There are two input neurons that can dump different nero transmitters into the two input synapses. and the third comparison neuron that fires, if the two input synapses are chemically the same. So let's perform the neural substitution on this xor gate. We first replace one of the input neurons with a silicone system that can function identically. When it outputs a positive voltage, it is considered as representing what glutamate is chemically like. Outputting a zero voltage is considered to represent dumping something chemically different than glutamate into the synapse of the comparitor neuron. At this point, you have to add a physical translator between this first silicone neuron substitutuion and the real comparitor neuron. So when the silicone neuron outputs a positive voltage, the translation mechanism feeds glutamate to the comparison neuron. Obviously, since the real neuron is receiving glutamate, it is happy, and it fires since it's two inputs are chemically or qualitatively the same. Now, obviously, in order to replace the comparitor neuron, you also need to replace the other input with a translator system. This system translates glutamate, coming from the second input neuron, into a positive voltage being fed into the newly artificial comparitor neuron. So, this simple XOR gate is functioning identically to the comparitor neuron. It fires if the two inputs are the same, but doesn't fire if they are different. With that, you should be able to see the flaw in this neural substitution logic. The physical qualities being compared between these two functionally identical XOR systems is critically important when it comes to our consciousness. That is why Thomas Nagel is wanting to know what the two comparison systems are physically and qualitatively like. The two inputs being compared, and what they are physically, chemichally, and qualitatively like is important to understanding the nature of physical qualitative comparison. The two systems can be thought of as functionally the same, but the qualities of what they are comparing is physically very different. Well, I don't see the flaw. If just one of the input neurons in the XOR system is changed, but it behaves in the same way, then the system behaves in the same way. The artificial neuron detects glutamate when the original neuron would have and sends output to the comparator neuron when the the original neuron would have. That is what "functionally identical" means. And in another e-mail you said: "You are using several terms that are confusing, and might be seen as begging the question: "representation", "qualities", "awareness". We can agree on what behaviour is: it is that which is observable from the outside. We can agree on what qualia are: they are private experiences that, unlike behaviour, can only be guessed at by an external observer. I pointed out in my previous post that by "function" I meant behaviour, while you perhaps took it as also including qualia. So you see, it can quickly get confusing." Yes it can get confusing, and I am just not yet communicating adequately, as you are completely missing and abstracting away the functionality I'm trying to talk about. You do this when you say: "The artificial neuron detects glutamate when the original neuron would have." This is incorrect as it does not detect real physical glutamate nor it's real qualitative functionality, it is only detecting an abstracted representation of glutamate, represented by something physically very different, and only working the way it does (so you can think of it as if it is behaving like glutamate), because of a hardware translation system. The job of the original neuron is to fire when it detects a certain concentration of glutamate in the synapse, so the job of the artificial neuron is to do the same. This is "real physical glutamate" that it is detecting; otherwise, it wouldn't work. Remember, that it is glutamate that has the redness quality. That is what we are debating. I assume for the sake of argument that this is so in order to see where it leads. But whether glutamate has the redness quality or not does not have any bearing on our ability to detect its presence and measure its concentration, for example by chromatography techniques. The physical behavior of glutamate is the only thing in the simplified example world that physically behaves or functions like redness. So, when you are "detecting" real glutamate, you are detecting the physical qualities or functionality of redness. But when you swap this out, with something different, you are replacing it with some physical device that behaves in a very different functional way that, by definition, is not the functionality or physical quality of real glutamate. It is some different physical function that has some different translation hardware which enables you to think of it as if it was behaving like real glutamate, but it is not at all real glutamate, nor is there any real redness functionality going on in the artificial system. The artificial system doesn't have redness, any more than the word red does. But you can think of whatever is representing it, that doesn't have redness, as if it did, only if you have adequate translation hardware. If the artificial neuron detects real glutamate, the whole brain will behave normally. Do you disagree with this? Do you disagree that the artificial neuron can detect real glutamate, or do you disagree that even if it does the whole brain will behave normally? In the case of qualia, "functionally identical" means the same functionality of whatever is the physical or detectable attributes of redness, which you are abstracting away when you do this kind of substitution. You are ignoring and swapping out the important functionality that is the functionality of a redness experience. Yes - I'm assuming that you're right for the sake of argument and the redness experience is eliminated by putting in artificial neurons. But if the artificial neurons fire at the same time the original neurons would, as is the design requirement, the whole brain will behave normally and the muscles it controls will behave normally. So the subject will say, "I see red strawberries, they look exactly the same as they did before my brain implant". Here is the problem: if the artificial neurons can behave the same, but lack qualia, how is it that the subject cannot notice? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 11:11:37 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:11:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Correlation between violence and inequality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30 January 2017 at 01:08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### What evil garbage. He is so pissed off at other people having more money > than him that "harder" methods of bringing others to his level seem like a > good idea. If a billion people or so get killed in making that omelet, who > cares, they are just statistics. > I don't see him proposing any methods that might upset your worldview. He is analysing history and pointing out that huge concentrations of wealth have always been disrupted and redistributed by one method or another and usually by violent means. This suggests that our present increasing concentration of wealth (and corresponding decreasing living standards of most of the population) is about to be disrupted and it would be helpful to consider possible ways of reducing the imminent violent chaos. BillK From interzone at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 14:58:49 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:58:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Correlation between violence and inequality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am curious to hear of alternatives beyond legal expropriation via "progressive" taxation which is of course conducted at gunpoint. On Jan 30, 2017 6:12 AM, "BillK" wrote: > On 30 January 2017 at 01:08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ### What evil garbage. He is so pissed off at other people having more > money > > than him that "harder" methods of bringing others to his level seem like > a > > good idea. If a billion people or so get killed in making that omelet, > who > > cares, they are just statistics. > > > > I don't see him proposing any methods that might upset your worldview. > > He is analysing history and pointing out that huge concentrations of > wealth have always been disrupted and redistributed by one method or > another and usually by violent means. > > This suggests that our present increasing concentration of wealth (and > corresponding decreasing living standards of most of the population) > is about to be disrupted and it would be helpful to consider possible > ways of reducing the imminent violent chaos. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 15:19:06 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:19:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A AI with a higher IQ than 75% of Americans In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Our fascination with IQ testing rafal No psychologist would like the current situation re IQ tests to continue. We all know how inadequate they are. Correlations with real world variables rarely run over 25% of the variance. What is amazing is that they have lasted so long. The reason why: intelligence has never been defined in such a way that everybody jumps on the bandwagon and says Yes, that's it; that's what real intelligence is. And the reason for that is that like the 12 blind men and the elephant, everybody is looking at a different set of variables with every intellectual task they explore. Individually given IQ tests are the best we have because they do correlate with more other variables than any other sort of test. Not easily replaced. But as we are talking about the most complex functions of the most complex thing, all of that is to be expected. I would love to live to see correlations in the .70s and .80s. But I won't. And likely you won't either. bill w On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:13 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Raven matrix test is just one component of many. >> >> -Dave >> >> ?Yes, but it's a good one and one of the very few that is language-free >> and has high validity. >> >> > ### Raven's matrices have been standardized on humans, obviously, and > humans are a peculiar type of embodied neural network system with a lot of > hard-wired modules that enable real-world functioning. An IQ test takes a > lot for granted - ability to walk, hold a pencil, fill out the test as a > mechanical challenge, find the person you need to hand it to, etc. As a > result, Raven's matrices are not a very good measure of the intelligence of > disembodied fragments of neural networks that are now the subject of deep > learning research projects. Such fragments replicate some small areas of a > human mind but they do not form an integrated whole capable of functioning > in the real world, and their ability to perform some elements of an IQ test > is not predictive of real world performance. > > Our fascination with IQ testing stems from the test's ability to predict > real-world function, including the eternally important who-whom question, > and not just silly puzzle solving. Deep learning network IQ testing is > therefore for now less interesting but once the separate deep learning > modules become integrated into human-like systems with real-world > performance, their IQ will be acutely interesting in the who-whom context. > > This said, it is amazing that tiny deep learning neural networks with mere > billions of parameters manage to equal the performance of middling-sized > chunks of brain (e.g. the subcortical and cortical visual processing > centers). > > Rafa? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 15:36:58 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:36:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: ?> ? > Robots will not directly reduce returns to labor but will greatly > increase returns to capital. You don't starve if a minute amount of capital > is sufficient to pay for your food. Do I need to parse it further? > ?In a world where robots produce all the wealth and where robots make other robots the word "?capital" will have about as much meaning as the word "labor", and that's not much. When I said AIs would be able to perform every job better than humans that includes the job of efficiently allocating resources, which is what successful capitalists do. I predict that many of the words we use today to describe the economy will soon take on very different meanings, and that includes capital and labor. So the answer to your question above is yes, you do need to parse it further. ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 15:57:09 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:57:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?> ? > Remember, that it is glutamate that has the redness quality. ? No molecule has the redness qualia or any other qualia, they are far too simple for that. Glutamate may be able to produce the redness qualia but only in association with certain specific brains organized in certain specific ways. In other brains organized in different ways ?? glutamate ? ? could produce the blueness qualia or the pain qualia or no qualia whatsoever. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 17:48:27 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:48:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A AI that can spot skin cancer as well as human experts Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: ?> ? > Robots will not directly reduce returns to labor but will greatly > increase returns to capital. You don't starve if a minute amount of capital > is sufficient to pay for your food. Do I need to parse it further? > ? In a world where robots produce all the wealth and where robots make other robots the word "capital" will have about as much meaning as the word "labor", and that's not much. When I said AIs would be able to perform every job better than humans that includes the job of efficiently allocating resources, which is what successful capitalists do. I predict that many of the words we use today to describe the economy will soon take on very different meanings, and that includes capital and labor. So the answer to your question above is yes, you do need to parse it further. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 18:19:58 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:19:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] John's idea Message-ID: Which was that AI would decide in the future where money should be allotted. That brings to mind startup funders and the like. How in the world would you ever program an AI to decide which project will turn out to be the next iPhone or Hula Hoop? Maybe it will come. But we all know many cases in many areas, such a book publishing, where a great book had to go through a dozen publishers to find one that will print it. A Confederacy of Dunces comes to mind. The author committed suicide before his mother finally sold his manuscript, which was a #1 seller. (nowadays it probably would have been on Amazon as an ebook, and word would spread and the same outcome would occur without the death). Can you imagine showing up to present your case to the AI, which can read faces, emotions, lying, etc.? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Jan 30 19:31:14 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:31:14 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588F9482.3030708@yahoo.com> Brent, what do you think would happen if we were to genetically engineer all the glutamate receptors in the brain to recognise a different substance that currently has no role in brain chemistry (I'll call it "pecamate"), and also engineer all the brain cells that currently produce glutamate under any circumstances to instead produce pecamate under exactly the same circumstances? Do you think that this would make the slightest bit of difference to the functioning, behaviour, qualia, or anything else, of the brain? From tara at taramayastales.com Mon Jan 30 20:45:51 2017 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:45:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <80AED2BF-2449-481E-B6BD-7125266A2085@taramayastales.com> I believe that?s called Switzerland. > On Jan 29, 2017, at 6:58 PM, spike wrote: > > > > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org ] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki > > - free machine guns for every man, woman and child?Rafa? > > > There is no such thing as a free machine gun. Someone has to pay for it. If such a thing is to be provided, it should be up to the state governments to supply them. > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Tara Maya Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Amazon | Goodreads -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 20:54:13 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:54:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2017 10:21 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: Which was that AI would decide in the future where money should be allotted. That brings to mind startup funders and the like. How in the world would you ever program an AI to decide which project will turn out to be the next iPhone or Hula Hoop? Maybe it will come. But we all know many cases in many areas, such a book publishing, where a great book had to go through a dozen publishers to find one that will print it. A Confederacy of Dunces comes to mind. The author committed suicide before his mother finally sold his manuscript, which was a #1 seller. (nowadays it probably would have been on Amazon as an ebook, and word would spread and the same outcome would occur without the death). Can you imagine showing up to present your case to the AI, which can read faces, emotions, lying, etc.? Having done several startups, I'd suggest a superior result could be had with an entirely impersonal review. The startup presents its case in a standard format (inability to fill in all the sections being an automatic disqualifier, and probably the greatest filter by number of applications not approved), which is then reviewed for credibility, likelihood and projected amount of RoI, and other factors of merit. Rejection can come with honest feedback as to the reason, which would-be founders can attempt to improve before reapplying. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 21:30:26 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:30:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > How in the world would you ever program an AI to decide which project will > turn out to be the next iPhone or Hula Hoop? > ?I can't give you the computer code to show exactly how but if a AI can diagnose disease better than any human I see no reason why a AI couldn't manage a hedge fund better than any human. I don't believe in the secret sauce theorem, the idea that the human brain has a certain something that computers can never duplicate. I have always thought this but I figured it was so far in the future before AIs would have practical significance that there was no point in bringing it up in a thread about current events or libertarian philosophy. I figured wrong, the economic consequences of AI are relevant right now and will become more so every single day. So my libertarian beliefs must evolve with circumstances. ? > ?> ? > we all know many cases in many areas, such a book publishing, where a > great book had to go through a dozen publishers to find one that will print > it. > ?So human capitalists are far from perfect and there is plenty of room for improvement. Cue ?the robots. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 14:40:41 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:40:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > How in the world would you ever program an AI to decide which project > will turn out to be the next iPhone or Hula Hoop? ?I can't give you the computer code to show exactly how but if a AI can diagnose disease better than any human I see no reason why a AI couldn't manage a hedge fund better than any human. I don't believe in the secret sauce theorem, the idea that the human brain has a certain something that computers can never duplicate. I have always thought this but I figured it was so far in the future before AIs would have practical significance that there was no point in bringing it up in a thread about current events or libertarian philosophy. I figured wrong, the economic consequences of AI are relevant right now and will become more so every single day. So my libertarian beliefs must evolve with circumstances. ? > > > ? ? > we all know many cases in many areas, such a book publishing, where a > great book had to go through a dozen publishers to find one that will print > it. ?So human capitalists are far from perfect and there is plenty of room for improvement. Cue ?the robots. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 31 15:28:07 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:28:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008701d27bd6$a083dda0$e18b98e0$@att.net> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: >?we all know many cases in many areas, such a book publishing, where a great book had to go through a dozen publishers to find one that will print it? BillW Ja. Now authors don?t need to go through the traditional publisher tyranny, and upstart musicians don?t need to pay their dues, which was often to service those in power in the entertainment industry. The cost of entry dropped dramatically in the past 20 years. Now we have a different challenge: how to find the good stuff among the deep piles of garbage, and how do content creators get paid? That?s just the start: plenty of excellent content providers must compete with free. It?s hard to sell excellent material when other excellent material is being given away. Entertainment industry moguls could be going unlaid, porn star unable to make it today, when everything we have time to ogle is available free. (BillW, that excellent link you provided a few weeks ago please?) We could be losing untold new talent, just because they can?t make a living at it. The internet has brutally destroyed an industry, ended careers in artistic copulation before they can even start. We have new business models to deal with shortened attention spans, such as YouTube selling ads on popular videos. Consider one I posted last week, the two model planes suffering a mid-air encounter. That video has nearly 7 million views. The person who made that video was not the guy whose plane crashed; he was piloting the hapless drone at the time. Models at that scale can cost as much as a good used car. Model planes are not insured; his was clearly a smoldering-heap total loss. But nothing stops the guy with the camera from making money, 2 cents a hit times 7 million hits, 140k$ for being there with a video camera. spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 15:49:40 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:49:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] AI poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 January 2017 at 16:04, Dave Sill wrote: > There is no "correct" decision for every hand because all of the players > have incomplete knowledge. These competitions consist of playing thousands > of hands, and the advantage goes to the players best able to calculate the > probabilities of the cards and their opponent's behavior. Clearly, the AI > has the edge in calculating the card probabilities. It also has the > advantage of perfect memory of every hand played and every time an opponent > bluffed. > Developed by Carnegie Mellon University, the AI won the ?Brains Vs. Artificial Intelligence? tournament against four poker pros by $1,766,250 in chips over 120,000 hands (games). Researchers can now say that the victory margin was large enough to count as a statistically significant win, meaning that they could be at least 99.7 percent sure that the AI victory was not due to chance. Quotes: Previous attempts to develop poker-playing AI that can exploit the mistakes of opponents?whether AI or human?have generally not been overly successful, says Tuomas Sandholm, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University. Libratus instead focuses on improving its own play, which he describes as safer and more reliable compared to the riskier approach of trying to exploit opponent mistakes. Even more importantly, the victory demonstrates how AI has likely surpassed the best humans at doing strategic reasoning in ?imperfect information? games such as poker. The no-limit Texas Hold?em version of poker is a good example of an imperfect information game because players must deal with the uncertainty of two hidden cards and unrestricted bet sizes. An AI that performs well at no-limit Texas Hold?em could also potentially tackle real-world problems with similar levels of uncertainty. ?The algorithms we used are not poker specific,? Sandholm explains. ?They take as input the rules of the game and output strategy.? In fact, Libratus played the same overall strategy against all the players based on three main components. First, the AI?s algorithms computed a strategy before the tournament by running for 15 million processor-core-hours on a new supercomputer called Bridges. Second, the AI would perform ?endgame solving? during each hand to precisely calculate how much it could afford to risk in the third and fourth betting rounds (the ?turn? and ?river? rounds in poke parlance). Sandholm credits the endgame solver algorithms as contributing the most to the AI victory. The poker pros noticed Libratus taking longer to compute during these rounds and realized that the AI was especially dangerous in the final rounds, but their ?bet big early? counter strategy was ineffective. Third, Libratus ran background computations during each night of the tournament so that it could fix holes in its overall strategy. That meant Libratus was steadily improving its overall level of play and minimizing the ways that its human opponents could exploit its mistakes. It even prioritized fixes based on whether or not its human opponents had noticed and exploited those holes. ---------- I bet the military will be using AI in their wargames. BillK From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 31 15:46:45 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:46:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea References: Message-ID: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] >? That video has nearly 7 million views. The person who made that video was not the guy whose plane crashed; he was piloting the hapless drone at the time. Models at that scale can cost as much as a good used car. Model planes are not insured; his was clearly a smoldering-heap total loss. But nothing stops the guy with the camera from making money, 2 cents a hit times 7 million hits, 140k$ for being there with a video camera?spike Fun thought experiment please, with a purpose. Think about the most spectacular event you personally witnessed in your life, but don?t count some terrific rock concert or Olympic Games opening ceremony intended to be spectacular and being recorded by a jillion professionally-made devices. Disregard those and think of the most spectacular or interesting thing you have witnessed which would draw a big audience on YouTube, had you a video camera on it when it happened. It can be some really oddball wildlife encounter for instance, or the model plane crash described above, or anything you think would draw eyes on YouTube specifically to your video, the kinds of stuff that is popular on YouTube, getting enough hits to make money at it. I am asking for a reason. I think the answers will be informative. spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 16:03:51 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:03:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> References: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > How in the world would you ever program an AI to decide which project > will turn out to be the next iPhone or Hula Hoop? ?I can't give you the computer code to show exactly how but if a AI can diagnose disease better than any human I see no reason why a AI couldn't manage a hedge fund better than any human. I don't believe in the secret sauce theorem, the idea that the human brain has a certain something that computers can never duplicate. I have always thought this but I figured it was so far in the future before AIs would have practical significance that there was no point in bringing it up in a thread about current events or libertarian philosophy. I figured wrong, the economic consequences of AI are relevant right now and will become more so every single day. So my libertarian beliefs must evolve with circumstances. ? > > > ? ? > we all know many cases in many areas, such a book publishing, where a > great book had to go through a dozen publishers to find one that will print > it. ?So human capitalists are far from perfect and there is plenty of room for improvement. Cue ?the robots. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 16:37:35 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:37:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: References: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> Message-ID: Think about the most spectacular event you personally witnessed in your life,spike I saw a woman pull in front of a pickup truck from a side street and the truck swerved, left the ground, and did a 180 in the air before landing 30' in front of me. They got out and no one was hurt, but the image still lasts for me. Of course if that had happened recently there would be dozens of pictures on Youtube, if only after the flight, which no one would have been quick enough to get. Now - what sort of link can't you find in your archive folder? bill w On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:03 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > How in the world would you ever program an AI to decide which project >> will turn out to be the next iPhone or Hula Hoop? > > > > ?I can't give you the computer code to show exactly how but if a AI can > diagnose disease better than any human I see no reason why a AI couldn't > manage a hedge fund better than any human. I don't believe in the secret > sauce theorem, the idea that the human brain has a certain something that > computers can never duplicate. I have always thought this but I figured it > was so far in the future before AIs would have practical significance that > there was no point in bringing it up in a thread about current events or > libertarian philosophy. I figured wrong, the economic consequences of AI > are relevant right now and will become more so every single day. So my > libertarian beliefs must evolve with circumstances. ? > > > >> > >> ? ? >> we all know many cases in many areas, such a book publishing, where a >> great book had to go through a dozen publishers to find one that will print >> it. > > > ?So human capitalists are far from perfect and there is plenty of room for > improvement. Cue ?the robots. > > ? > > John K Clark? > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 17:01:10 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:01:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] jobs Message-ID: When the German engineering company Siemens Energy opened a gas turbine production plant in Charlotte, N.C., some 10,000 people showed up at a job fair for 800 positions. But fewer than 15 percent of the applicants were able to pass a reading, writing and math screening test geared toward a ninth-grade education. ---------------- 9th grade? Who do they think we are? Awhile back the Jackson MS city schools' recent graduates read at the 4th grade level. Of course that's probably in the range of the lowest in the USA (no, I don't want to Google it) Education - basic literacy and numeracy - is still the answer to many job questions. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 31 17:17:52 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:17:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: References: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> Message-ID: <012601d27be5$f50aab10$df200130$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:38 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] John's Idea >?Think about the most spectacular event you personally witnessed in your life,spike >?I saw a woman pull in front of a pickup truck from a side street and the truck swerved, left the ground, and did a 180 in the air before landing 30' in front of me? Excellent. Others please? >?Now - what sort of link can't you find in your archive folder? bill w That one which was distracting your students much to the annoyance of their professor. But no worries, I can bravely soldier on without it, perhaps listen to my professor. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 18:02:35 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:02:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: <012601d27be5$f50aab10$df200130$@att.net> References: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> <012601d27be5$f50aab10$df200130$@att.net> Message-ID: That one which was distracting your students much to the annoyance of their professor. But no worries, I can bravely soldier on without it, perhaps listen to my professor. spike I have no recollection of that. Which thread was it in? bill w On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:38 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] John's Idea > > > > > > >?Think about the most spectacular event you personally witnessed in your > life,spike > > > > >?I saw a woman pull in front of a pickup truck from a side street and > the truck swerved, left the ground, and did a 180 in the air before landing > 30' in front of me? > > > > > > Excellent. Others please? > > > > >?Now - what sort of link can't you find in your archive folder? bill w > > > > That one which was distracting your students much to the annoyance of > their professor. But no worries, I can bravely soldier on without it, > perhaps listen to my professor. > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 31 18:42:01 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:42:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] jobs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <018001d27bf1$b6335d40$229a17c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:01 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] jobs When the German engineering company Siemens Energy opened a gas turbine production plant in Charlotte, N.C., some 10,000 people showed up at a job fair for 800 positions. But fewer than 15 percent of the applicants were able to pass a reading, writing and math screening test geared toward a ninth-grade education. ---------------- 9th grade? Who do they think we are? Awhile back the Jackson MS city schools' recent graduates read at the 4th grade level. Of course that's probably in the range of the lowest in the USA (no, I don't want to Google it) Education - basic literacy and numeracy - is still the answer to many job questions. bill w Ja. Another approach is to design jobs for less literate and less numerate people. One example is eliminating fractions in aerospace assembly jobs. The tolerance for wire lengths was often +/- 60 milli-inches, so we just created wire measurement scales in 16th of an inch. Now no need to work in either fractions or decimals: just make up some special rulers where they were numbered in 16th of an inch, with slightly bigger marks every ten 16th. The rulers looked weird, but now all we had to tell the assemblers is measure to within one mark. Didn?t need to tell them what those units were. So instead of searching for smarter more expensive assemblers, we engineered dumber jobs. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 31 18:44:31 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:44:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: References: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> <012601d27be5$f50aab10$df200130$@att.net> Message-ID: <018701d27bf2$0fa1a6c0$2ee4f440$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] John's Idea >>?That one which was distracting your students much to the annoyance of their professor. But no worries, I can bravely soldier on without it, perhaps listen to my professor. >?spike I have no recollection of that. Which thread was it in? bill w No worries BillW, found it, SimpleNudes. Oh my, professors need to compete against THAT now? Good luck. What were we talking about? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 22:58:04 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:58:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] jobs In-Reply-To: <018001d27bf1$b6335d40$229a17c0$@att.net> References: <018001d27bf1$b6335d40$229a17c0$@att.net> Message-ID: Ja. Another approach is to design jobs for less literate Dumbing down jobs has a short history. When I saw computers with color-coded inputs I thought: "What took you so long?" Often I thought "If it were left up to engineers to design something, only engineers could use it." Too smart to think of ways dumb people can foul up simple tasks ("Is it plugged in?") Actually, a ninth grade test is just too hard. Maybe what is needed is some research that compares (correlates) reading and math levels with ability to do jobs. That way you could hire people who are just right for your job. I doubt that that German company had no jobs requiring less than 9th grade levels. What if someone tests 12 grade level? You might not want him/her. People who are too smart for the job have higher rates of absenteeism and quitting and just being bored. Good psychologists on the hiring staff can save a company millions. Some days I wish I had gone into industrial psych - money would have been much better! Unfortunately for us, grade inflation is impacting hiring etc. Don't want to hurt the poor little dummies' feelings. Mississippi now has a test 2nd graders must pass to get into the 3rd grade. A big mess, naturally and angry parents.... I once gave some tests to a child who, I found out later, had been to many clinics and had been tested dozens of times. Parents simply would not accept that he was mentally retarded. bill w On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:42 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:01 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] jobs > > > > When the German engineering company Siemens Energy opened a gas turbine > production plant in Charlotte, N.C., some 10,000 people showed up at a job > fair for 800 positions. But fewer than 15 percent of the applicants were > able to pass a reading, writing and math screening test geared toward a > ninth-grade education. > > > > ---------------- > > > > 9th grade? Who do they think we are? Awhile back the Jackson MS city > schools' recent graduates read at the 4th grade level. Of course that's > probably in the range of the lowest in the USA (no, I don't want to Google > it) > > > > Education - basic literacy and numeracy - is still the answer to many job > questions. > > > > bill w > > > > > > > > > > > > Ja. Another approach is to design jobs for less literate and less > numerate people. One example is eliminating fractions in aerospace > assembly jobs. The tolerance for wire lengths was often +/- 60 > milli-inches, so we just created wire measurement scales in 16th of an > inch. Now no need to work in either fractions or decimals: just make up > some special rulers where they were numbered in 16th of an inch, with > slightly bigger marks every ten 16th. The rulers looked weird, but now > all we had to tell the assemblers is measure to within one mark. Didn?t > need to tell them what those units were. > > > > So instead of searching for smarter more expensive assemblers, we > engineered dumber jobs. > > > > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 23:01:28 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:01:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So my libertarian beliefs must evolve with circumstances. ? john OK, so we feed people etc. who do not work. Immoral not to. But in turn, we cannot tolerate increasing population with no end in sight. China's policy was a disaster, but I think I can tolerate infringing on people's right to have children to limit them to two. Maybe along the way that'll be lowered to one. I know that this group has ignored my attitude about over population before, but nobody wants to have all wild animals in small parks and the rest of the planet featuring concrete and high rises. Do they? Billions and billions more people - what's the point? In the past people wanted as many children as they could have to provide for them in their old age as well as to labor on the family farm or business. Robots and Social Security have made all those children superfluous. We need more people to sit around and watch TV and be on the dole? A better recipe for existential angst I cannot imagine. Starting right now we need to find work for people. People aren't evolved to sit all day long. They are evolved to work at something and I am not talking about picking up trash either. Maybe for people below IQ 70 or something. We also have wasted talent - Ph. D.s (not in English or social science) driving cabs and the like. I think providing health care and pensions is keeping a lot of people from being hired. Adjuncts without those are way too popular at colleges nowadays. bill w On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:30 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?> ? >> How in the world would you ever program an AI to decide which project >> will turn out to be the next iPhone or Hula Hoop? >> > > ?I can't give you the computer code to show exactly how but if a AI can > diagnose disease better than any human I see no reason why a AI couldn't > manage a hedge fund better than any human. I don't believe in the secret > sauce theorem, the idea that the human brain has a certain something that > computers can never duplicate. I have always thought this but I figured it > was so far in the future before AIs would have practical significance that > there was no point in bringing it up in a thread about current events or > libertarian philosophy. I figured wrong, the economic consequences of AI > are relevant right now and will become more so every single day. So my > libertarian beliefs must evolve with circumstances. ? > > > >> ?> ? >> we all know many cases in many areas, such a book publishing, where a >> great book had to go through a dozen publishers to find one that will print >> it. >> > > ?So human capitalists are far from perfect and there is plenty of room for > improvement. Cue ?the robots. > > ? > > John K Clark? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 23:02:27 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:02:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: <018701d27bf2$0fa1a6c0$2ee4f440$@att.net> References: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> <012601d27be5$f50aab10$df200130$@att.net> <018701d27bf2$0fa1a6c0$2ee4f440$@att.net> Message-ID: Good luck. What were we talking about? spike Have no idea bill w On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:44 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] John's Idea > > > > >>?That one which was distracting your students much to the annoyance of > their professor. But no worries, I can bravely soldier on without it, > perhaps listen to my professor. > > > > >?spike I have no recollection of that. Which thread was it in? bill w > > > > No worries BillW, found it, SimpleNudes. Oh my, professors need to > compete against THAT now? Good luck. What were we talking about? > > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 23:44:54 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:44:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?>> ? >> So my libertarian beliefs must evolve with circumstances. ? > > > ?> ? > OK, so we feed people etc. who do not work. Immoral not to. ?Not just immoral, it would be suicidal for the rich not to do so. ? ?> ? we cannot tolerate increasing population with no end in sight. China's policy was a disaster, but I think I can tolerate infringing on people's right to have children to limit them to two. Maybe along the way that'll be lowered to one. ?No need to pass laws about that if we spread the wealth around because there is a inverse relationship between income and fertility. Germany, Italy, Japan and Austria actually have negative birth rates, and they are among the world's richest countries. ? ?The countries with the highest ?birth rate are also among the poorest, Niger, Mali, Uganda and Zambia ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: