From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 15:53:31 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 10:53:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever In-Reply-To: <007b01d48803\$d9b1bad0\$8d153070\$@rainier66.com> References: <007b01d48803\$d9b1bad0\$8d153070\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM wrote: *> John just a coupla comments please. The time error measurement is (as I > recall) a consequence of Special Relativity rather than General Relativity* > Actually in this case General Relativity makes a larger contribution than Special Relativity, it's one of the few examples where it does something practical. The GPS satellite is moving very fast so due to Special Relativity the satellite's clock will LOSE 7210 nanoseconds a day, but the satellite's clock is more distant from the Earth's center so it's in a weaker gravitational field than the clock on the ground, so due to General Relativity the clock will GAIN 45,850 nanoseconds a day. Taking these 2 factors into account the satellite's clocks gains 45,850 ?7,210 = 38,640 nanoseconds a day relative to a clock on the ground. If this were not taken into account the GPS system would drift off by 6 miles each day every day and soon become useless. > *We already know of gravitational anomalies big enough to be noticed by > satellites,* > The position and intensity of those gravitational anomalies are well known and stable and thus could easily be taken into account. As for the local conditions caused by the waves, If the ocean fluctuates up and down the intensity of the Earth's gravitational field will fluctuate too and with exactly the same rhythm, the change in gravity will be very very small but a clock this good could detect it. In a practical system in wartime conditions the error would probably be a few inches rather than a centimeter but that would be good enough; even the best human fighter pilot only knows where the deck of his aircraft carrier is within a foot or two when he lands. >*variation in magnetic field also produces time dilation. Reasoning: > Maxwell?s equations tell us a varying magnetic field induces a magnetic > field, which is an energy transfer (ja?) and Special Relativity gives us > the tools to deal with that, so we take that c^2 factor (also in that E17 > range) and if this new atomic clock can measure stuff down there, we might > have a new magnetic field anomaly detector better than what we had before.* > I think that huge c^2 factor would work against you in this case, even a gigantic amount of magnetic energy would correspond to a tiny amount of mass and a corresponding super small change in gravity, so small a change that even this clock probably couldn't detect it. John K Clark *> Is this a cool time to be living or what?* Indeed it is! John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 1 16:42:54 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 08:42:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever In-Reply-To: References: <007b01d48803\$d9b1bad0\$8d153070\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008401d48994\$e8684660\$b938d320\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM > wrote: >> John just a coupla comments please. The time error measurement is (as I recall) a consequence of Special Relativity rather than General Relativity >..Actually in this case General Relativity makes a larger contribution than Special Relativity, it's one of the few examples where it does something practical. The GPS satellite is moving very fast so due to Special Relativity the satellite's clock will LOSE 7210 nanoseconds a day, but the satellite's clock is more distant from the Earth's center so it's in a weaker gravitational field than the clock on the ground, so due to General Relativity the clock will GAIN 45,850 nanoseconds a day. Taking these 2 factors into account the satellite's clocks gains 45,850 ?7,210 = 38,640 nanoseconds a day relative to a clock on the ground. If this were not taken into account the GPS system would drift off by 6 miles each day every day and soon become useless? John, a satellite isn?t a plane landing on a deck. We might be talking two completely different things here. The gravitational influence of the carrier could perhaps create a general relativity related frame dragging effect, but the electromagnetic presence of that big hunk of steel would be orders of magnitude larger and easier to use for that purpose. Modern carrier landings already use EM instruments in any case. Regarding the new clock, I can see how something like that could be used for space-based control systems however. We are always looking for ways to do long baseline interferometry, which definitely is influenced by the tiny gravitational anomaly effects. >?I think that huge c^2 factor would work against you in this case, even a gigantic amount of magnetic energy would correspond to a tiny amount of mass and a corresponding super small change in gravity, so small a change that even this clock probably couldn't detect it. John K Clark Agreed, c^2 is difficult to overcome when it works against you. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 18:44:51 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 13:44:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarian dad jokes In-Reply-To: <004d01d48833\$34c1c210\$9e454630\$@rainier66.com> References: <004d01d48833\$34c1c210\$9e454630\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:36 PM wrote: > > This is hilarious if one is in the right frame of mind: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHI6HKtLGM > > > > Otherwise? not. > > This one?s even better: > > https://youtu.be/Sty6mbPfIwk > I like this one too: Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 01:23:00 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 18:23:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, Very cool and interesting. But since it seems to me, the only way to judge the accuracy of something like a clock, is to have something to compare it to, I always wonder: how can we objectively know it is so accurate? Brent On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:22 AM John Clark wrote: > In yesterday's issue of the journal Nature Scientists at the National > Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported they have made a > new type of clock that is the most accurate ever, it's called a Ytterbium > Lattice Clock. It's about 100 times better than any previous clock, if > set at the time of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago today it would be > off by less than one second. > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0738-2 > > It's so good the main source of error is due to General Relativity, if you > lift the clock up by just one centimeter the Earth's gravitational field is > slightly weaker and so the clock runs noticeably faster, that may be why > NIST is now working on a portable version of their Ytterbium Lattice Clock. > If GPS satellites had clocks this good they'd know where they were relative > to the Earth to within a centimeter and so could tell users on the ground > where they were within a centimeter; and that would be more than good > enough for jet fighters to automatically land on aircraft carriers without > a pilot, even at night in a heavy fog in a bad storm with the deck tossing > up and down. It would be by far the best instrument ever made to detect > tiny changes in the gravitational field, and that would make it much > easier to find things buried deep underground. The Earth just became more > transparent. It might even be used to detect Gravitational Waves and Dark > 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 Mon Dec 3 13:42:44 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 08:42:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 8:29 PM Brent Allsop wrote: Hi John, > Very cool and interesting. > But since it seems to me, the only way to judge the accuracy of something > like a clock, is to have something to compare it to, I always wonder: how > can we objectively know it is so accurate? > There is no one true objective time but you can test a clock against something you already trust. If you trust Newton and he says the Earth's rotation should be slowing down due to the moon you can see if the clock can measure that, and if you trust Einstein who says the orbital speed of 2 Neutron Stars should speed up because their orbit will decay due to Gravitational Waves you can see if the clock can measure that. And if you make a new clock you can test it against an old trusted clock and see which one agrees more with Newton and Einstein. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 14:25:39 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 08:25:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A bit on a tangent: isn't it true that damming water has changed the Earth's rotation? bill w On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 7:48 AM John Clark wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 8:29 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > > Hi John, >> Very cool and interesting. >> But since it seems to me, the only way to judge the accuracy of something >> like a clock, is to have something to compare it to, I always wonder: how >> can we objectively know it is so accurate? >> > > There is no one true objective time but you can test a clock against > something you already trust. If you trust Newton and he says the Earth's > rotation should be slowing down due to the moon you can see if the clock > can measure that, and if you trust Einstein who says the orbital speed of 2 > Neutron Stars should speed up because their orbit will decay due to > Gravitational Waves you can see if the clock can measure that. And if you > make a new clock you can test it against an old trusted clock and see which > one agrees more with Newton and Einstein. > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 3 15:09:14 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 07:09:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006001d48b1a\$27969ea0\$76c3dbe0\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever >?A bit on a tangent: isn't it true that damming water has changed the Earth's rotation? bill w Sure does. Holding water up to a higher potential energy level slightly increases the moment of inertia of the planet. Angular momentum is conserved, rotation slows slightly. Dams lengthen the day. I think of that extra fraction of a microsecond per day a kind of bonus to make up for the enormous environmental damage caused by flooding valleys as beautiful as Yosemite. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 22:53:05 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:53:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Human species model Message-ID: Knowing what humans are and what to expect of them is critical for people to make good decisions in a world where humans dominate the ecosystem. Unfortunately, a full understanding of our species requires knowledge of evolution. There is a fair sized segment of the US population that rejects evolution. A path from common knowledge to an understanding that did not require evolution might be very useful. The concept of a top predator is either understood by most people or is obvious on inspection. It is not too difficult for people to understand that the concept applies to humans. From there it is not many steps from there to an understanding of the behavior expected for the human species. Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 23:53:39 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 17:53:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were created, our philosophers and others of the elite believed two very fundamental things: that people were rational, and that learning was everything, according to the Blank Slate idea put forth by John Locke. We now know and have established by numerous experiments and other data, that these two things are very, very wrong. The question is what do we do about it? Keith suggests that we need to know evolution. Why not, instead of framing human nature as being created by evolution, avoid the pushback and just inform people of what we are like without reference to how we got that way? What all of this may lead to is beyond my imagination to consider, but clearly some changes need to be made. I think economics may be making some, based on Kahneman's data showing how irrational people can be. We need to do something like this in every area of our lives. Ideas? bill w On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:58 PM Keith Henson wrote: > Knowing what humans are and what to expect of them is critical for > people to make good decisions in a world where humans dominate the > ecosystem. > > Unfortunately, a full understanding of our species requires knowledge > of evolution. There is a fair sized segment of the US population that > rejects evolution. A path from common knowledge to an understanding > that did not require evolution might be very useful. > > The concept of a top predator is either understood by most people or > is obvious on inspection. It is not too difficult for people to > understand that the concept applies to humans. From there it is not > many steps from there to an understanding of the behavior expected for > the human species. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 4 01:27:39 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 17:27:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002f01d48b70\$8c386090\$a4a921b0\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] Human species model >?When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were created, our philosophers and others of the elite believed two very fundamental things? I agree with you up to this point. >? that people were rational, and that learning was everything? The philosophy I see is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that government?s power as well as human rights, should be carefully defined. >?We now know ?that these two things are very, very wrong. On the contrary. If we look at the postulates suggested, time has proven both very right. >?The question is what do we do about it? bill w I propose we return to a more strict interpretation of the constitution and make sure federal government stays within the enumerated powers. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 01:57:10 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 17:57:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> On Dec 3, 2018, at 3:53 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were created, our philosophers and others of the elite believed two very fundamental things: that people were rational, and that learning was everything, according to the Blank Slate idea put forth by John Locke. > > We now know and have established by numerous experiments and other data, that these two things are very, very wrong. > > The question is what do we do about it? Keith suggests that we need to know evolution. Why not, instead of framing human nature as being created by evolution, avoid the pushback and just inform people of what we are like without reference to how we got that way? > > What all of this may lead to is beyond my imagination to consider, but clearly some changes need to be made. I think economics may be making some, based on Kahneman's data showing how irrational people can be. We need to do something like this in every area of our lives. Ideas? This is far too simplistic a view of the worldview at that time in the US and the Atlantic world. You?re forgetting that Locke, while very influential in regards to rights theory and politics, was already dead nearly 90 years by this time and other thinkers, such as Hume, Rousseau, and Adam Smith were of no small influence. While Rousseau would probably fit into the more simplistic model, Hume and Smith don?t, especially when it comes to moral theory and action. And this is hardly academic since the Framers and other Founders (since many Founders were anti-Constitution I distinguish between the former and the latter) were not all Lockeans and were worried about specifically mob rule, factionalism, and other things we could sweep into the category of the irrational. The later model of rationality in economics arose with folks like Ricardo and later economists. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 4 04:38:09 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 20:38:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] dilbert on the singularity Message-ID: <000a01d48b8b\$28ee2e00\$7aca8a00\$@rainier66.com> For those of you who do not have Dilbert desk calendars: why don?t you have a Dilbert desk calendar? Dilbert is god! This week the office robot asked Dilbert to teach it to write code. The office grumpy bear jumps Dilbert for causing the singularity. The robot reprograms itself and enslaves humanity. Alice showed it how to write an artificial soul. It discovers it doesn?t like owning humanity. Funny stuff. spike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3094 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 14:22:48 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:22:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> References: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Spike wrote bill w wrote We now know ?that these two things are very, very wrong. Spike wrote On the contrary. If we look at the postulates suggested, time has proven both very right. Spike, we are having a very serious breakdown in understanding You are not seriously saying that learning is everything, meaning genetics counts for nothing, or that people are totally rational. Please explain bill w On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:01 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Dec 3, 2018, at 3:53 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were created, our philosophers > and others of the elite believed two very fundamental things: that people > were rational, and that learning was everything, according to the Blank > Slate idea put forth by John Locke. > > We now know and have established by numerous experiments and other data, > that these two things are very, very wrong. > > The question is what do we do about it? Keith suggests that we need to > know evolution. Why not, instead of framing human nature as being created > by evolution, avoid the pushback and just inform people of what we are like > without reference to how we got that way? > > What all of this may lead to is beyond my imagination to consider, but > clearly some changes need to be made. I think economics may be making > some, based on Kahneman's data showing how irrational people can be. We > need to do something like this in every area of our lives. Ideas? > > > This is far too simplistic a view of the worldview at that time in the US > and the Atlantic world. You?re forgetting that Locke, while very > influential in regards to rights theory and politics, was already dead > nearly 90 years by this time and other thinkers, such as Hume, Rousseau, > and Adam Smith were of no small influence. While Rousseau would probably > fit into the more simplistic model, Hume and Smith don?t, especially when > it comes to moral theory and action. > > And this is hardly academic since the Framers and other Founders (since > many Founders were anti-Constitution I distinguish between the former and > the latter) were not all Lockeans and were worried about specifically mob > rule, factionalism, and other things we could sweep into the category of > the irrational. > > The later model of rationality in economics arose with folks like Ricardo > and later economists. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 4 15:04:47 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:04:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: References: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <002201d48be2\$b319a8a0\$194cf9e0\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >>?Spike wrote On the contrary. If we look at the postulates suggested, time has proven both very right. >?Spike, we are having a very serious breakdown in understanding You are not seriously saying that learning is everything, meaning genetics counts for nothing, or that people are totally rational. Please explain bill w Hi BillW, The US Constitution was framed by guys who had just gotten through a bloody conflict over authority. You can see throughout that document that it was designed to limit Federal government power, and to distribute power with checks and balances. The Bill of Rights exists because several of the states would not agree to form a federal government unless certain human rights were acknowledged and specifically defined, such as free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to bear arms, freedom from arbitrary police actions and so on. The ideals of rationality you mentioned may well have been held, but the framers were really all about limiting federal government power. The things they wrote and did make so much sense in that light, Time has proven them so very right: power corrupts. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 16:06:38 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 10:06:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: <002201d48be2\$b319a8a0\$194cf9e0\$@rainier66.com> References: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> <002201d48be2\$b319a8a0\$194cf9e0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: All good and I agree. Now what happened to genetics/blank slate, and rationality? bill w On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 9:09 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > > > >>?Spike wrote On the contrary. If we look at the postulates suggested, > time has proven both very right. > > > > >?Spike, we are having a very serious breakdown in understanding You are > not seriously saying that learning is everything, meaning genetics counts > for nothing, or that people are totally rational. > > > > Please explain > > > > bill w > > > > > > Hi BillW, > > > > The US Constitution was framed by guys who had just gotten through a > bloody conflict over authority. You can see throughout that document that > it was designed to limit Federal government power, and to distribute power > with checks and balances. > > > > The Bill of Rights exists because several of the states would not agree to > form a federal government unless certain human rights were acknowledged and > specifically defined, such as free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to > bear arms, freedom from arbitrary police actions and so on. The ideals of > rationality you mentioned may well have been held, but the framers were > really all about limiting federal government power. > > > > The things they wrote and did make so much sense in that light, Time has > proven them so very right: power corrupts. > > > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 4 16:54:04 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:54:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: References: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> <002201d48be2\$b319a8a0\$194cf9e0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004901d48bf1\$f79a22c0\$e6ce6840\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] Human species model >?All good and I agree. Now what happened to genetics/blank slate, and rationality? bill W I don?t know. Plenty of us are still working to keep the federal government within its clearly-defined boundaries. We might worry about rationality and the rest of it at some point, but first things first. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 17:12:37 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:12:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: <004901d48bf1\$f79a22c0\$e6ce6840\$@rainier66.com> References: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> <002201d48be2\$b319a8a0\$194cf9e0\$@rainier66.com> <004901d48bf1\$f79a22c0\$e6ce6840\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Some kind of extropian you are. Here we have the opportunity to redesign everything, gov. inclu., to better fit with what people are really like, and you punt it down the road. What you want to do: keep plugging away at keeping the gov. to the laws. Well, we've been doing that since the laws were passed, and that will never end. What we need to do is to change our perception of people: some things they are not responsible for because they were inherited in a strong form. Some things they are responsible for, but it's due to their irrationality, not to evil or something. What's left is rationality. And how do we make society more rational? But I see no reason of any kind to mess with the Con. and B of R. I do wonder what our society would be like if voting by property owners only had stuck with us. bill w On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:58 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Human species model > > > > > > >?All good and I agree. Now what happened to genetics/blank slate, and > rationality? bill W > > > > > > I don?t know. Plenty of us are still working to keep the federal > government within its clearly-defined boundaries. We might worry about > rationality and the rest of it at some point, but first things first. 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 Dec 4 18:29:44 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:29:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions Message-ID: https://www.space.com/42618-gravitational-waves-biggest-farthest-black-hole-crash.html https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0156/P1800324/006/O2RandP.pdf John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 20:59:13 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:59:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: <002201d48be2\$b319a8a0\$194cf9e0\$@rainier66.com> References: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> <002201d48be2\$b319a8a0\$194cf9e0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:10 AM wrote: > > > The things they wrote and did make so much sense in that light, Time has > proven them so very right: power corrupts. > It's also proven the futility of trying to construct a government with limited powers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 4 21:00:46 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:00:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008801d48c14\$6dad3750\$4907a5f0\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 10:30 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions https://www.space.com/42618-gravitational-waves-biggest-farthest-black-hole-crash.html https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0156/P1800324/006/O2RandP.pdf John K Clark Hoooowwwww how how howwwww how the hell? can there be so damn many of these marvelous things this late in the day, this long since the Big Bang? John are you finding this as puzzling as I am? I did the calcs according to my understanding and estimated if I live to be 90 I would be lucky to hear of one such collision in my lifetime. Now we have nearly a dozen in three years. This is like putting one coin into the slot machine the first time you ever go into a casino and winning the grand prize. For me it is even more an embarrassment of riches in a way, like the lucky sap who won big with one single pull of the slot machine who was the pastor of a society which considers gambling is a sin. Imagine he was in town for the electronics show and had one quarter in his pocket, put it in the machine, now he?s a millionaire. That guy is me: I didn?t think LIGO was a good investment of science money. Now, oh how happy I am to have been so wrong on that. LIGO has been the best science fixed-asset investment since Hubble, maybe better than Hubble in a way. I still don?t understand how there could be a coupla orders of magnitude more collisions than I estimated. Oh I blew that one. I soooo don?t understand the BB model now. This is a good thing in science to discover that oneself is stupid (or preferably just ignorant (because ignorance has a cure (a pleasant one if one has the right attitude.)))) John is this result keeping you awake at night? Me too. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zoielsoy at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 21:07:38 2018 From: zoielsoy at gmail.com (Angel Z. Lopez) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:07:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I Need help Message-ID: Guys, I?m reaching out because I?ve lost my job has a construction estimator and need some help paying bills. If you can help it would be appreciated deeply. When I?m in the position to help I will make sure to pay it forward to anyone in this chat. LTC address: MGLaLVDf9bWvLgWSqtvfKxshkCr81VGbWP BTC address: 1JajR8UuqBGDwcEeqAAEZxmkGoWT4DfguU ETH address: 0xf746085E39f9FF4BcF87a035Dd18735cfDe94a09 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 21:45:50 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:45:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] I Need help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45488AD6-807E-4C75-89AA-96F59698C5ED@gmail.com> Sorry to hear that, and apologies. I?m a fast food cashier. SR Ballard > On Dec 4, 2018, at 3:07 PM, Angel Z. Lopez wrote: > > Guys, > I?m reaching out because I?ve lost my job has a construction estimator and need some help paying bills. If you can help it would be appreciated deeply. When I?m in the position to help I will make sure to pay it forward to anyone in this chat. > > LTC address: > MGLaLVDf9bWvLgWSqtvfKxshkCr81VGbWP > > BTC address: > 1JajR8UuqBGDwcEeqAAEZxmkGoWT4DfguU > > ETH address: > 0xf746085E39f9FF4BcF87a035Dd18735cfDe94a09 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 22:30:07 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 22:30:07 +0000 Subject: [ExI] LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions In-Reply-To: <008801d48c14\$6dad3750\$4907a5f0\$@rainier66.com> References: <008801d48c14\$6dad3750\$4907a5f0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 21:18, spike wrote: > > Hoooowwwww how how howwwww how the hell? can there be so damn many of these marvelous things this late in the day, this long since the Big Bang? John are you finding this as puzzling as I am? I did the calcs according to my understanding and estimated if I live to be 90 I would be lucky to hear of one such collision in my lifetime. Now we have nearly a dozen in three years. This is like putting one coin into the slot machine the first time you ever go into a casino and winning the grand prize. > > For me it is even more an embarrassment of riches in a way, like the lucky sap who won big with one single pull of the slot machine who was the pastor of a society which considers gambling is a sin. Imagine he was in town for the electronics show and had one quarter in his pocket, put it in the machine, now he?s a millionaire. That guy is me: I didn?t think LIGO was a good investment of science money. Now, oh how happy I am to have been so wrong on that. LIGO has been the best science fixed-asset investment since Hubble, maybe better than Hubble in a way. > > I still don?t understand how there could be a coupla orders of magnitude more collisions than I estimated. Oh I blew that one. I soooo don?t understand the BB model now. This is a good thing in science to discover that oneself is stupid (or preferably just ignorant (because ignorance has a cure (a pleasant one if one has the right attitude.)))) > Psssst Spike - The Universe is really, REALLY big! :) These events are coming from way outside our galaxy. See: Quote: The 11 detections that have been made so far are shown above, with 10 of them representing black hole-black hole mergers, and only GW170817 representing a neutron star-neutron star merger. Those merging neutron stars was the closest event at a mere 130-140 million light years away. The most massive merger seen ? GW170729 ? comes to us from a location that, with the expansion of the Universe, is now 9 billion light years away. ------------------- BillK From spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 4 22:43:35 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:43:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions In-Reply-To: References: <008801d48c14\$6dad3750\$4907a5f0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00eb01d48c22\$cb22cfe0\$61686fa0\$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK > >>... I still don?t understand how there could be a coupla orders of > magnitude more collisions than I estimated. Oh I blew that one. I > soooo don?t understand the BB model now. This is a good thing in > science to discover that oneself is stupid (or preferably just > ignorant (because ignorance has a cure (a pleasant one if one has the > right attitude.)))) spike > >...Psssst Spike - The Universe is really, REALLY big! :) These events are coming from way outside our galaxy. Well, ja of course. Had they been in our galaxy I woulda gone crazy by now trying to figure out how that could happen. spike From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 22:53:33 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 22:53:33 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Poor Little Proton...... Message-ID: LHC Noir 12/04/18 By Farrin Abbott, Sarah Charley, Justin May A proton describes its final moments in the Large Hadron Collider. During its second run, between 2015 and 2018, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN collided about 16 million billion particle pairs. This is the story of one of them. (3 min video) BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 23:32:31 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:32:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: References: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> <002201d48be2\$b319a8a0\$194cf9e0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: dave sill wrote It's also proven the futility of trying to construct a government with limited powers And yet, look at how good we have it. Yeah, people are thieves, every one of us, and all of us need to be monitored down to our toes. But just how much privacy would that system destroy? For me, you could make me count pennies and make good if I come up short. But the way it is now, the more power they have, the more privacy they want for their under the table deals. Quis epsos custodes custodiet? Maybe that problem will take care of itself the more we use AIs to do our work. (Even here in the most corrupted state in the US, the legislature has passed a law about restricting campaign funds to use in campaigns! A big win for us. Which brings up the question - is there any way to bribe an AI? Will there ever be a program that is unhackable? bill w. On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:04 PM Dave Sill wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:10 AM wrote: > >> >> >> The things they wrote and did make so much sense in that light, Time has >> proven them so very right: power corrupts. >> > > It's also proven the futility of trying to construct a government with > limited powers. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 5 02:28:37 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 21:28:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions In-Reply-To: <008801d48c14\$6dad3750\$4907a5f0\$@rainier66.com> References: <008801d48c14\$6dad3750\$4907a5f0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:18 PM wrote: > > *Hoooowwwww how how howwwww how the hell? can there be so damn many of > these marvelous things this late in the day, this long since the Big Bang? > John are you finding this as puzzling as I am? * > Absolutely! this is fun! > > Now we have nearly a dozen in three years. > The LIGO people now estimate there are 53 Black Hole mergers per year withing 3 billion light years, and when it come back on line early next year with the new upgrades LIGO should be able to see them all; although there is great uncertainty in that number, it could be as few as 25 or as many as 108. And if its big enough LIGO can see further than that, even without the new improvements it spotted one 6 billion light years away. > I didn?t think LIGO was a good investment of science money. I was starting to think it was a boondoggle too, shows you what I know. > Now, oh how happy I am to have been so wrong on that. Me too! > *LIGO has been the best science fixed-asset investment since Hubble, > maybe better than Hubble.* Yep, I can't think of anything where we got more bang for the buck. > > I soooo don?t understand the BB model now. > Welcome to the club. It's hard to see how all of those Black Holes could have come from dead giant stars, some of them must be primordial. I could be wrong but I have a hunch they will provide at least a partial answer to the Dark Matter puzzle. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 02:49:42 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 21:49:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions In-Reply-To: References: <008801d48c14\$6dad3750\$4907a5f0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Correction: The Black Hole merger LIGO detected on July 29 2017 was 9 billion light years away not 6 as I said. A 51 and 34 solar mass Black hole collided resulting in a 80 solar mass Black hole with 5 solar masses converted into the energy in the form of Gravitational Waves. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 5 03:11:46 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:11:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions In-Reply-To: References: <008801d48c14\$6dad3750\$4907a5f0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00e301d48c48\$41b19cc0\$c514d640\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions Correction: The Black Hole merger LIGO detected on July 29 2017 was 9 billion light years away not 6 as I said. A 51 and 34 solar mass Black hole collided resulting in a 80 solar mass Black hole with 5 solar masses converted into the energy in the form of Gravitational Waves. John K Clark These results feel so incompatible with the inflation model. Seldom do I get to really enjoy feeling stupid. Usually it is most unpleasant. This is one of the times when I like the heck out of having missed this by so much. Now we get to learn neeeeewww stuuuuuff. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 13:10:55 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:10:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Human species model In-Reply-To: References: <21A97B08-E9E0-4755-BBF9-689C126D100F@gmail.com> <002201d48be2\$b319a8a0\$194cf9e0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:37 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > dave sill wrote It's also proven the futility of trying to construct a > government with limited powers > > And yet, look at how good we have it. > Things could be much, much better. > Yeah, people are thieves, every one of us, and all of us need to be > monitored down to our toes. > Nope. Normal people doing normal crimes isn't the cause of government overreach and government surveillance isn't the fix. > Which brings up the question - is there any way to bribe an AI? > Maybe. Depends upon the AI in question. > Will there ever be a program that is unhackable? > Sure, but the more complex the program, the harder it is to make it secure. An unhackable operating system is pretty unrealistic, for an operating system that's generally useful. A human-level AI would vastly more complex than that. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Wed Dec 5 17:40:33 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:40:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: <0e4067efc1f036d2b77dc153b53eeae6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Keith Henson (KH) and John Clark (JC) wrote: KH>> The trait of having religions, like all else in living things, >> evolved. It was either directly selected or it is a side effect from >> some other trait that was selected. * Religions are directly selected for or against based upon their teachings. Compare Catholicism to Shakers for example. JC> I don't see any way religion could be selected for directly, maybe it > helps something else that is selected for directly but I think it's more > likely religion is a Evolutionary Spandrel; I wouldn't be surprised if > music appreciation was one too. How is it not obvious that religion is a trait selected for by increased reproductive success? After all, repeated bouts of conjugal bliss is a much easier way to grow a religion than proselytizing strangers at the point of a pen or a sword. Prohibiting masturbation and contraception while demanding that the faithful "be fruitful and multiply" is a sure recipe for Darwinian success. Therefore any religion that makes it a sacred duty to procreate is certainly no spandrel. https://fullymyelinated.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/religion-and-family-size/ Of course some religions had historically prohibited sex entirely like the Shakers and thus as of 2017, there are only two Shakers left in the world: Brother Arnold Hadd, age 58 and Sister June Carpenter, 77. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers So it would seem that the most successful of religions are those whose edicts are most conducive to reproductive success of its members. This leads to the somewhat paradoxical situation that, on average, those that don't believe in evolution are actually better at it than those that do. KH>> The trait to have religions is widespread. This indicates that at >> some point in our past, the trait was under strong selection. What >> situations in our evolutionary past would have led to a strong selection >> for this psychological trait? War. * There is certainly a correlation between religion and war but they are both complex traits and it is doubtful that one is necessarily causal of the other. Admittedly religion facilitates war by giving participants a shared tribal identity to rally around as a tribal totem or battle standard. Also religions tend to assuage fear of death in it's participants with promises of after-lives for the faithful who die in battle: Valhalla, Heaven, Paradise, Nirvana, etc. JC> I'm skeptical that religion will in general help to get a gene into the > next generation, for one thing one of the main causes of war is religion > and the genes in young men killed in religious wars end up going nowhere, > and for another in the last 60 years death from violence has dropped to > the lowest level in human history and the general trend toward violence > has been declining for centuries. Well in a strictly historical context, the vanquished soldier's genes were nonetheless perpetuated by his sister and children who got raped and/or sold into slavery by the victors. Modern warfare with all its rules of engagement and Geneva conventions? I would agree that there is not much of a selective advantage for warfare in modern times. Conversely however, in ancient times, warfare might have served as the primary method of gene transfer between tribal gene pools which might have otherwise become too homozygously inbred. KH>> *>I make a case that "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it >> doesn't make sense" has its origin in the same psychological trait that >> worked up our ancestors in a resource crisis to kill their neighbors.* I think it runs deeper than that. It has to do with status hierarchies as well and that is tied up in our primate natures. The word primate itself is the derived from the Latin word primus which means "first". Who does the alpha male of your tribe answer to? The gods. So I think religion is the psychological extrapolation of your primate status hierarchy beyond the monkey that you fear the most. It is probably very much tied up in ones susceptibility to perceived authority. That is there is probably a strong correlation between a person's religiousness and whether Stanley Milgram in a white lab coat can get them to electrocute other study participants. JC> I think it's more likely religion results from a tendency of very young > children to believe what their parents tell them. Without that tendency it > would be impossible to pass on valuable information from one generation > to the next, like how to make a fire or how to hunt a Mammoth or how to > plant seeds etc. Well yes, of course but I think it is the rituals that children see their parents do that cements religions into their minds more than what their parents say. This is because I think animism and magic predate religion and religion likely evolved from the other two. Magic is about the use of rituals to influence real world outcomes. As the nature spirits of animism gave way to anthropomorphic gods, magic gave way to prayer, sarcrifices, ablutions, and other means of influencing the favor of the gods. If you see your father pray to a god for success before setting out on the hunt, you are likely to do so as well especially if he comes back with meat. Who is this god person? Your chieftain's boss. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 18:24:19 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 12:24:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <0e4067efc1f036d2b77dc153b53eeae6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <0e4067efc1f036d2b77dc153b53eeae6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: warfare might have served as the primary method of gene transfer between tribal gene pools which might have otherwise become too homozygously inbred. stuart I ran across these astounding statistics, which show that people are not learning very fast about being inbred: The U.S. is the only western country with cousin marriage restrictions. It is estimated that *20 percent* of all couples worldwide are first cousins. It is also estimated that *80 percent* of all marriages historically have been between first cousins! bill w On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:03 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > Keith Henson (KH) and John Clark (JC) wrote: > > > KH>> The trait of having religions, like all else in living things, > >> evolved. It was either directly selected or it is a side effect from > >> some other trait that was selected. * > > Religions are directly selected for or against based upon their teachings. > Compare Catholicism to Shakers for example. > > JC> I don't see any way religion could be selected for directly, maybe it > > helps something else that is selected for directly but I think it's more > > likely religion is a Evolutionary Spandrel; I wouldn't be surprised if > > music appreciation was one too. > > How is it not obvious that religion is a trait selected for by increased > reproductive success? After all, repeated bouts of conjugal bliss is a > much easier way to grow a religion than proselytizing strangers at the > point of a pen or a sword. Prohibiting masturbation and contraception > while demanding that the faithful "be fruitful and multiply" is a sure > recipe for Darwinian success. > > Therefore any religion that makes it a sacred duty to procreate is > certainly no spandrel. > > https://fullymyelinated.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/religion-and-family-size/ > > Of course some religions had historically prohibited sex entirely like the > Shakers and thus as of 2017, there are only two Shakers left in the world: > Brother Arnold Hadd, age 58 and Sister June Carpenter, 77. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers > > So it would seem that the most successful of religions are those whose > edicts are most conducive to reproductive success of its members. This > leads to the somewhat paradoxical situation that, on average, those that > don't believe in evolution are actually better at it than those that do. > > KH>> The trait to have religions is widespread. This indicates that at > >> some point in our past, the trait was under strong selection. What > >> situations in our evolutionary past would have led to a strong selection > >> for this psychological trait? War. * > > There is certainly a correlation between religion and war but they are > both complex traits and it is doubtful that one is necessarily causal of > the other. > > Admittedly religion facilitates war by giving participants a shared tribal > identity to rally around as a tribal totem or battle standard. > > Also religions tend to assuage fear of death in it's participants with > promises of after-lives for the faithful who die in battle: Valhalla, > Heaven, Paradise, Nirvana, etc. > > JC> I'm skeptical that religion will in general help to get a gene into the > > next generation, for one thing one of the main causes of war is religion > > and the genes in young men killed in religious wars end up going nowhere, > > and for another in the last 60 years death from violence has dropped to > > the lowest level in human history and the general trend toward violence > > has been declining for centuries. > > Well in a strictly historical context, the vanquished soldier's genes were > nonetheless perpetuated by his sister and children who got raped and/or > sold into slavery by the victors. Modern warfare with all its rules of > engagement and Geneva conventions? I would agree that there is not much of > a selective advantage for warfare in modern times. > > Conversely however, in ancient times, warfare might have served as the > primary method of gene transfer between tribal gene pools which might have > otherwise become too homozygously inbred. > > KH>> *>I make a case that "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it > >> doesn't make sense" has its origin in the same psychological trait that > >> worked up our ancestors in a resource crisis to kill their neighbors.* > > I think it runs deeper than that. It has to do with status hierarchies as > well and that is tied up in our primate natures. The word primate itself > is the derived from the Latin word primus which means "first". Who does > the alpha male of your tribe answer to? The gods. > > So I think religion is the psychological extrapolation of your primate > status hierarchy beyond the monkey that you fear the most. It is probably > very much tied up in ones susceptibility to perceived authority. That is > there is probably a strong correlation between a person's religiousness > and whether Stanley Milgram in a white lab coat can get them to > electrocute other study participants. > > JC> I think it's more likely religion results from a tendency of very young > > children to believe what their parents tell them. Without that tendency > it > > would be impossible to pass on valuable information from one generation > > to the next, like how to make a fire or how to hunt a Mammoth or how to > > plant seeds etc. > > Well yes, of course but I think it is the rituals that children see their > parents do that cements religions into their minds more than what their > parents say. This is because I think animism and magic predate religion > and religion likely evolved from the other two. Magic is about the use of > rituals to influence real world outcomes. As the nature spirits of animism > gave way to anthropomorphic gods, magic gave way to prayer, sarcrifices, > ablutions, and other means of influencing the favor of the gods. > > If you see your father pray to a god for success before setting out on the > hunt, you are likely to do so as well especially if he comes back with > meat. Who is this god person? Your chieftain's boss. > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 5 18:28:41 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 12:28:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <0e4067efc1f036d2b77dc153b53eeae6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <0e4067efc1f036d2b77dc153b53eeae6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: That is there is probably a strong correlation between a person's religiousness and whether Stanley Milgram in a white lab coat can get them to electrocute other study participants. keith https://www.jstor.org/stable/3510781?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents That turns out not to be the case. The results of this study are puzzling but still contradictory to your statement. bill w On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:03 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > Keith Henson (KH) and John Clark (JC) wrote: > > > KH>> The trait of having religions, like all else in living things, > >> evolved. It was either directly selected or it is a side effect from > >> some other trait that was selected. * > > Religions are directly selected for or against based upon their teachings. > Compare Catholicism to Shakers for example. > > JC> I don't see any way religion could be selected for directly, maybe it > > helps something else that is selected for directly but I think it's more > > likely religion is a Evolutionary Spandrel; I wouldn't be surprised if > > music appreciation was one too. > > How is it not obvious that religion is a trait selected for by increased > reproductive success? After all, repeated bouts of conjugal bliss is a > much easier way to grow a religion than proselytizing strangers at the > point of a pen or a sword. Prohibiting masturbation and contraception > while demanding that the faithful "be fruitful and multiply" is a sure > recipe for Darwinian success. > > Therefore any religion that makes it a sacred duty to procreate is > certainly no spandrel. > > https://fullymyelinated.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/religion-and-family-size/ > > Of course some religions had historically prohibited sex entirely like the > Shakers and thus as of 2017, there are only two Shakers left in the world: > Brother Arnold Hadd, age 58 and Sister June Carpenter, 77. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers > > So it would seem that the most successful of religions are those whose > edicts are most conducive to reproductive success of its members. This > leads to the somewhat paradoxical situation that, on average, those that > don't believe in evolution are actually better at it than those that do. > > KH>> The trait to have religions is widespread. This indicates that at > >> some point in our past, the trait was under strong selection. What > >> situations in our evolutionary past would have led to a strong selection > >> for this psychological trait? War. * > > There is certainly a correlation between religion and war but they are > both complex traits and it is doubtful that one is necessarily causal of > the other. > > Admittedly religion facilitates war by giving participants a shared tribal > identity to rally around as a tribal totem or battle standard. > > Also religions tend to assuage fear of death in it's participants with > promises of after-lives for the faithful who die in battle: Valhalla, > Heaven, Paradise, Nirvana, etc. > > JC> I'm skeptical that religion will in general help to get a gene into the > > next generation, for one thing one of the main causes of war is religion > > and the genes in young men killed in religious wars end up going nowhere, > > and for another in the last 60 years death from violence has dropped to > > the lowest level in human history and the general trend toward violence > > has been declining for centuries. > > Well in a strictly historical context, the vanquished soldier's genes were > nonetheless perpetuated by his sister and children who got raped and/or > sold into slavery by the victors. Modern warfare with all its rules of > engagement and Geneva conventions? I would agree that there is not much of > a selective advantage for warfare in modern times. > > Conversely however, in ancient times, warfare might have served as the > primary method of gene transfer between tribal gene pools which might have > otherwise become too homozygously inbred. > > KH>> *>I make a case that "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it > >> doesn't make sense" has its origin in the same psychological trait that > >> worked up our ancestors in a resource crisis to kill their neighbors.* > > I think it runs deeper than that. It has to do with status hierarchies as > well and that is tied up in our primate natures. The word primate itself > is the derived from the Latin word primus which means "first". Who does > the alpha male of your tribe answer to? The gods. > > So I think religion is the psychological extrapolation of your primate > status hierarchy beyond the monkey that you fear the most. It is probably > very much tied up in ones susceptibility to perceived authority. That is > there is probably a strong correlation between a person's religiousness > and whether Stanley Milgram in a white lab coat can get them to > electrocute other study participants. > > JC> I think it's more likely religion results from a tendency of very young > > children to believe what their parents tell them. Without that tendency > it > > would be impossible to pass on valuable information from one generation > > to the next, like how to make a fire or how to hunt a Mammoth or how to > > plant seeds etc. > > Well yes, of course but I think it is the rituals that children see their > parents do that cements religions into their minds more than what their > parents say. This is because I think animism and magic predate religion > and religion likely evolved from the other two. Magic is about the use of > rituals to influence real world outcomes. As the nature spirits of animism > gave way to anthropomorphic gods, magic gave way to prayer, sarcrifices, > ablutions, and other means of influencing the favor of the gods. > > If you see your father pray to a god for success before setting out on the > hunt, you are likely to do so as well especially if he comes back with > meat. Who is this god person? Your chieftain's boss. > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 5 18:31:50 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 12:31:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] true spike? Message-ID: https://www.gocomics.com/dilbert-classics/2018/12/05 bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 5 21:00:18 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 13:00:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] true spike? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003d01d48cdd\$87b7fcb0\$9727f610\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] true spike? https://www.gocomics.com/dilbert-classics/2018/12/05 bill w Nah. Understatement. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Wed Dec 5 22:48:50 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:48:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: BillW wrote: > That is > there is probably a strong correlation between a person's religiousness and > whether Stanley Milgram in a white lab coat can get them to electrocute > other study participants. keith > > https://www.jstor.org/stable/3510781?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents > > That turns out not to be the case. The results of this study are > puzzling but still contradictory to your statement. Did you actually read the study that you cited? A small sample of 30 college students were categorized as extremists i.e. extreme believers and extreme non-believers, and religious moderates based on the scores on 3 subjective written tests: 1. An inventory of religious beliefs which was likely biased toward Judeo-christian tradition as the test was administered by psychology researchers at a theological seminary., 2. A test of where one falls on the fundamentalism to humanism axis, and 3. a self-evaluated "closeness to God" questionnaire. It is notable that the "extreme non-believers" based on test #2 (fundamentalism) and test #3 (closeness to God) administered the lowest average voltage shocks out of the three categories of students. This doesn't contradict my hypothesis but rather supports it. The discrepancy is easily understood that someone who is strongly religious is less likely to perceive a secular authority figure like a scientist as having any real authority and therefore would be more likely to disobey a scientist. In order to control for that, they should have arranged for a pastor of those students' faith to order the administration of electric shocks to perceived non-believers. Stuart LaForge From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 23:37:19 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 15:37:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM "Stuart LaForge" wrote: > Keith Henson (KH) and John Clark (JC) wrote: > KH>> The trait of having religions, like all else in living things, > >> evolved. It was either directly selected or it is a side effect from > >> some other trait that was selected. * > > Religions are directly selected for or against based upon their teachings. > Compare Catholicism to Shakers for example. Perhaps I should have been more specific. When I talk about "traits" and "evolved" the context is evolutionary psychology. "In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors." There are more recent selection events (see Gregory Clark), but for wide spread traits like capture-bonding, mechanisms for religions and those for war (if separate), you need to think about selection before agriculture. I.e., historical Catholics and Shakers are not "hunter-gatherer ancestors," and should not be used as examples. It seems really unlikely in a hunter-gatherer world long before birth control that religion or anything related to it made any difference in the number of children a woman had. The proximate limit to human populations in those days was war with other humans (top predator argument). The ultimate cause of the limit was the (fluxuating) capacity of the environment to feed them. But, as I have pointed out in other postings, the model shows that human genes do not profit from war unless the alternative (such as starving) is worse. So you would expect genes to get this judgment for "a time for war" correct, and genes that get the tribe into "attack mode" when needed would be positively selected. The major religions where we know something of their historical origins seem to have started as a set of xenophobic memes. I have been thinking about ways to locate the genes and brain structures behind these traits. Keith From avant at sollegro.com Thu Dec 6 01:13:53 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 17:13:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: Keith Henson wrote: > Perhaps I should have been more specific.? When I talk about "traits" > and "evolved" the context is evolutionary psychology. I had made that tacit assumption actually. > > "In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines > that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by > our hunter-gatherer ancestors." In so far as the brain is our fastest evolving human organ, having tripled in size in the last two million years, I would think that evo-psych would be one of our fastest evolving traits. > > There are more recent selection events (see Gregory Clark), but for > wide spread traits like capture-bonding, mechanisms for religions and those > for war (if separate), you need to think about selection before > agriculture.? I.e., historical Catholics and Shakers are not > "hunter-gatherer ancestors," and should not be used as examples. But religion itself is a moving target that has been evolving alongside our capacity for it. Depending on how you define religion, our "hunter-gatherer ancestors" may not have actually had religion. Assuming that the written word is necessary to distinguish true religion from animistic and shamanistic traditions or more generally superstitions that were largely passed down word of mouth. And believing what a tribal elder says amounts to little more than yielding to that elder's authority. True religion documented in sacred writing did not come about until around the development of writing, city-states, and agriculture which all came about at roughly the same time. Therefore there would not have been enough time for any real genetic component for religion to have developed aside from those that enabled tribalism and the tendency to trust the authority of ones elders in matters of survival. But on the other hand, if you define religion as the copying of sacred rituals from one generation to the next, well that is very old and there is likely a genetic component to that. Curiously chimpanzees and elephants are known for performing rituals too. > It seems really unlikely in a hunter-gatherer world long before birth > control that religion or anything related to it made any difference in the > number of children a woman had.? The proximate limit to human populations > in those days was war with other humans (top predator argument).? The > ultimate cause of the limit was the (fluxuating) capacity of the > environment to feed them. War does not require religion as attested to by the warring of apes and ants but learning how to awaken the fire spirits inside wooden sticks is vital for survival and that requires you to trust your elders. > But, as I have pointed out in other postings, the model shows that > human genes do not profit from war unless the alternative (such as > starving) is worse. Does the model account for the benefits of genetic out-breeding as a result of war? > So you would expect genes to get this judgment for "a time for war" > correct, and genes that get the tribe into "attack mode" when needed would > be positively selected. > > The major religions where we know something of their historical > origins seem to have started as a set of xenophobic memes. > > I have been thinking about ways to locate the genes and brain > structures behind these traits. What do you think of Dean Hamer's so-called God gene VMAT2? Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 14:21:24 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:21:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So you are saying, I think, that obedience is best obtained in a religious context when the demands are given by a similarly religious person, and not that obedience is more of a generalized tendency in religious persons (which is what I thought you were saying first) bill w. On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:53 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > BillW wrote: > > > That is > > there is probably a strong correlation between a person's religiousness > and > > whether Stanley Milgram in a white lab coat can get them to electrocute > > other study participants. keith > > > > https://www.jstor.org/stable/3510781?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents > > > > That turns out not to be the case. The results of this study are > > puzzling but still contradictory to your statement. > > Did you actually read the study that you cited? A small sample of 30 > college students were categorized as extremists i.e. extreme believers and > extreme non-believers, and religious moderates based on the scores on 3 > subjective written tests: > > 1. An inventory of religious beliefs which was likely biased toward > Judeo-christian tradition as the test was administered by psychology > researchers at a theological seminary., 2. A test of where one falls on > the fundamentalism to humanism axis, and 3. a self-evaluated "closeness to > God" questionnaire. > > It is notable that the "extreme non-believers" based on test #2 > (fundamentalism) and test #3 (closeness to God) administered the lowest > average voltage shocks out of the three categories of students. This > doesn't contradict my > hypothesis but rather supports it. The discrepancy is easily understood > that someone who is strongly religious is less likely to perceive a > secular authority figure like a scientist as having any real authority and > therefore would be more likely to disobey a scientist. > > In order to control for that, they should have arranged for a pastor of > those students' faith to order the administration of electric shocks to > perceived non-believers. > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 avant at sollegro.com Thu Dec 6 19:17:47 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 11:17:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: <2089c5b6f3db1f753ecf9487ee07d59b.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> BillW wrote: > So you are saying, I think, that obedience is best obtained in a religious > context when the demands are given by a similarly religious person, and > not that obedience is more of a generalized tendency in religious persons > (which is what I thought you were saying first) No actually you were right the first time. I am saying that religious people are more prone to obey those they percieve to have authority. The caveat however is that the authority must be perceived to be ligitimate. And that perception of legitimate authority is largely subjective. Thus someone who is very strongly religious (like a fundamentalist extremist) might not recognize secular authority (like a scientist) as being legitimate. This is merely a hypothesis on my part but it is largely the result of anecdotal evidence from observations of the religious people that I know. I don't consider the study you cited to be statistically sound enough to draw any real conclusions regarding my hypothesis upon, since it had a very small sample size. For example, the there were only 4 or 5 "extremely non-religious" students involved in the study. But the data does suggest my idea might have some merit. This could explain why nationalistic sentiments are often combined with religious sentiment as in "For God and country!", "God and King Richard!", and other such common phrases. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 22:12:12 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 16:12:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <2089c5b6f3db1f753ecf9487ee07d59b.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <2089c5b6f3db1f753ecf9487ee07d59b.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I am guilty and ashamed of myself - please forgive. I found one study (and did NOT read anything but the Abstract) and left it at that. Sorry. I will do so and consider your criticisms and try to answer your, now our, questions about obedience. A professional lapse. Getting lazy. bill w On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:22 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > BillW wrote: > > > So you are saying, I think, that obedience is best obtained in a > religious > > context when the demands are given by a similarly religious person, and > > not that obedience is more of a generalized tendency in religious persons > > (which is what I thought you were saying first) > > No actually you were right the first time. I am saying that religious > people are more prone to obey those they percieve to have authority. The > caveat however is that the authority must be perceived to be ligitimate. > And that perception of legitimate authority is largely subjective. Thus > someone who is very strongly religious (like a fundamentalist extremist) > might not recognize secular authority (like a scientist) as being > legitimate. > > This is merely a hypothesis on my part but it is largely the result of > anecdotal evidence from observations of the religious people that I know. > > I don't consider the study you cited to be statistically sound enough to > draw any real conclusions regarding my hypothesis upon, since it had a > very small sample size. For example, the there were only 4 or 5 "extremely > non-religious" students involved in the study. > > But the data does suggest my idea might have some merit. This could > explain why nationalistic sentiments are often combined with religious > sentiment as in "For God and country!", "God and King Richard!", and other > such common phrases. > > Stuart LaForge > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Dec 7 00:09:41 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 19:09:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <0e4067efc1f036d2b77dc153b53eeae6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <0e4067efc1f036d2b77dc153b53eeae6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:04 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > *Religions are directly selected for or against based upon their > teachings.* I think a religious meme (not gene) can be directly selected for. The meme that infected the 911 hijackers, that its a good idea to kill yourself if by doing so you can kill lots of disbelievers, has been very successful; from the meme's point of view crashing a airliner into a skyscraper was a wise move in that it increased its chances of being reproduced in other minds. A meme that says "if you believe in me you will get 77 virgins when you die but if you don't God will torture you for a infinite number of years" has obvious potential for reproductive success in other minds. > * > How is it not obvious that religion is a trait selected for by > increased reproductive success?* Increased reproductive success of the meme not the gene, biological Evolution works so much slower than cultural Evolution I don't see how it could play a significant part. The only important gene involved would be one for a tendency of very young children to believe what adults tell them, and that goes far beyond religion, without that we wouldn't have science or art or any of the other good things civilization brings. So be careful what you tell very young children because they'll probably believe you, possibly for life. > > > *Therefore any religion that makes it a sacred duty to procreate is > certainly no spandrel.* > The reason Saudi Arabia is almost entirely Muslim and Israel is almost entirely Jewish is not because the two populations have radically different genes (70% of Jewish men and 82% of Arab men inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestor) but because they have radically different memes. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sat Dec 8 17:07:08 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 09:07:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> John Clark wrote: >> Religions are directly selected for or against based upon their >> teachings. > > > I?think a religious meme (not gene) can be directly selected for. Memes, like genes, do not exist in a vacuum. Either can only selected upon when they are actively being expressed by organisms capable of expressing them. Naked DNA in test tube is merely a relatively stable repository of information as is a bible or a software DVD in drawer. It is only during "runtime" that the gene, meme, or software is actively being selected for or against. > The > meme that infected the 911 hijackers, that its a good idea to kill > yourself if by doing so you can kill lots of disbelievers, has been very > successful; Has it? It certainly succeeded at its political agenda of attracting media attention but I don't see it as very successful as a "replicator". Sure out of the billions of Muslims, a few dozen perform suicide attacks every year. But compared to the Islamic memes of washing your hands before you eat or facing east to pray? Not so much. Incidently, since the intent of facing east is to face Mecca, do the Muslims in Asia face west? In the age of GPS you would think that Muslims would be allowed or able to precisely face Mecca no matter where they were on the globe. > from the meme's point of view crashing a airliner into a > skyscraper was a wise move in that it increased its chances of being > reproduced in other minds.? A meme that says "if you believe in me you > will get 77 virgins when you die but if you don't God will torture you > for a infinite number of years" has obvious potential for reproductive > success in other minds. Part of allure of the "77 virgins" is due to the Three Wives Law in many Muslim countries. If the richest men are entitled to three wives, that seriously depletes the mating pool of Muslim women for the poorer males. Those males must either resort to consorting with infidel women or endure a great deal of sexual frustration and resultant aggression. >> How is it not obvious that religion is a trait selected for by >> increased reproductive success? > > Increased reproductive success of the meme not the gene, biological > Evolution works so much slower than cultural Evolution I don't see how it > could play a significant part. Memes are like retroviruses in that they can replicate directly on their own or piggy-back on the replication of their host. Religion, like wealth, is a heritable trait that does not have a genetic basis. Therefore Catholics largely give rise to more Catholics. > The only important gene involved would be > one for a tendency of very young children to believe what adults tell > them, and that goes far beyond religion, without that we wouldn't have > science or art or any of the other good things civilization brings.?So be > careful what you tell very young children because they'll probably > believe you, possibly for life. I agree 100% with this. >> Therefore any religion that makes it a sacred duty to procreate is >> certainly no spandrel. > > The reason Saudi Arabia is almost entirely Muslim and Israel is almost > entirely Jewish is not because the two populations have radically > different genes ?(70% of Jewish men and 82% of? Arab men inherited their > Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestor) but because they have > radically different memes. John K Clark? The religious memes of Jews and Muslims are not that radically different either. In fact correcting for translation, a significant portion of their content is shared. The biography of the common ancestor you speak of is explicitly described in both Torah and Quran. Abraham is Ibraham, Isaac is Ishaq, and Ishmael is Ismail but the story is the same. The Jews hold themselves to be the descendants of Isaac(Ishaq) and the Muslims claim to be the descendants of Ismail(Ishmael). Islam clearly evolved from Judaism just as Christianity did. A similar pattern of religious speciation complete with violence is seen in the UK with Catholics of Ireland and the Protestants of Northern Ireland. Perhaps religion operates as a spoiler for genetic kin-selection allowing closely related individuals to be in separate tribes and consequently go to war with each other. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 17:20:43 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 11:20:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: So be > careful what you tell very young children because they'll probably > believe you, possibly for life. Or at least until they reach the teen years, or possibly before. Have you two never heard of teenage rebellion against adult ideas? Show me a generation that bows and scrapes to the ideas of their elders and I will show you a generation that, if it ever existed, existed in a very closed society. Aside from some places in the Amazon and the islands around Java, closed societies no longer exist, no matter how much the Chinese wish they were. bill w On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 11:12 AM Stuart LaForge wrote: > John Clark wrote: > > >> Religions are directly selected for or against based upon their > >> teachings. > > > > > > I think a religious meme (not gene) can be directly selected for. > > Memes, like genes, do not exist in a vacuum. Either can only selected upon > when they are actively being expressed by organisms capable of expressing > them. Naked DNA in test tube is merely a relatively stable repository of > information as is a bible or a software DVD in drawer. It is only during > "runtime" that the gene, meme, or software is actively being selected for > or against. > > > The > > meme that infected the 911 hijackers, that its a good idea to kill > > yourself if by doing so you can kill lots of disbelievers, has been very > > successful; > > Has it? It certainly succeeded at its political agenda of attracting media > attention but I don't see it as very successful as a "replicator". Sure > out of the billions of Muslims, a few dozen perform suicide attacks every > year. But compared to the Islamic memes of washing your hands before you > eat or facing east to pray? Not so much. > > Incidently, since the intent of facing east is to face Mecca, do the > Muslims in Asia face west? In the age of GPS you would think that Muslims > would be allowed or able to precisely face Mecca no matter where they were > on the globe. > > > from the meme's point of view crashing a airliner into a > > skyscraper was a wise move in that it increased its chances of being > > reproduced in other minds. A meme that says "if you believe in me you > > will get 77 virgins when you die but if you don't God will torture you > > for a infinite number of years" has obvious potential for reproductive > > success in other minds. > > Part of allure of the "77 virgins" is due to the Three Wives Law in many > Muslim countries. If the richest men are entitled to three wives, that > seriously depletes the mating pool of Muslim women for the poorer males. > Those males must either resort to consorting with infidel women or endure > a great deal of sexual frustration and resultant aggression. > > >> How is it not obvious that religion is a trait selected for by > >> increased reproductive success? > > > > Increased reproductive success of the meme not the gene, biological > > Evolution works so much slower than cultural Evolution I don't see how it > > could play a significant part. > > Memes are like retroviruses in that they can replicate directly on their > own or piggy-back on the replication of their host. Religion, like wealth, > is a heritable trait that does not have a genetic basis. Therefore > Catholics largely give rise to more Catholics. > > > The only important gene involved would be > > one for a tendency of very young children to believe what adults tell > > them, and that goes far beyond religion, without that we wouldn't have > > science or art or any of the other good things civilization brings. So be > > careful what you tell very young children because they'll probably > > believe you, possibly for life. > > I agree 100% with this. > > >> Therefore any religion that makes it a sacred duty to procreate is > >> certainly no spandrel. > > > > The reason Saudi Arabia is almost entirely Muslim and Israel is almost > > entirely Jewish is not because the two populations have radically > > different genes (70% of Jewish men and 82% of Arab men inherited their > > Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestor) but because they have > > radically different memes. John K Clark > > The religious memes of Jews and Muslims are not that radically different > either. In fact correcting for translation, a significant portion of their > content is shared. The biography of the common ancestor you speak of is > explicitly described in both Torah and Quran. Abraham is Ibraham, Isaac is > Ishaq, and Ishmael is Ismail but the story is the same. The Jews hold > themselves to be the descendants of Isaac(Ishaq) and the Muslims claim to > be the descendants of Ismail(Ishmael). > > Islam clearly evolved from Judaism just as Christianity did. A similar > pattern of religious speciation complete with violence is seen in the UK > with Catholics of Ireland and the Protestants of Northern Ireland. > > Perhaps religion operates as a spoiler for genetic kin-selection allowing > closely related individuals to be in separate tribes and consequently go > to war with each other. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 9 01:26:48 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:26:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 12:25 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> So be careful what you tell very young children because they'll probably believe >> you, possibly for life. > > > *>Or at least until they reach the teen years, or possibly before. Have > you two never heard of teenage rebellion against adult ideas?* > Sure but most of the rebellion is over pretty minor stuff such as length of hair or types of music, and the issues of more substance such as drugs and sexual matters are exactly the same as what the parents rebelled against when they were teens. The rebellious teens almost always end up with the same religion as the parents, political philosophy is a little more variable but not a lot. In reality the motto of most teenagers is "I want to be a rebel just like everybody else". John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 16:05:24 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 10:05:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: OK, John, I'll call your bluff - I don't have any data,though I suppose I could get some, but do you? Most children wind up in the same religion and so forth? bill w On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 7:32 PM John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 12:25 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > >> So be careful what you tell very young children because they'll >>> probably believe you, possibly for life. >> >> >> *>Or at least until they reach the teen years, or possibly before. Have >> you two never heard of teenage rebellion against adult ideas?* >> > > Sure but most of the rebellion is over pretty minor stuff such as length > of hair or types of music, and the issues of more substance such as drugs > and sexual matters are exactly the same as what the parents rebelled > against when they were teens. The rebellious teens almost always end up > with the same religion as the parents, political philosophy is a little > more variable but not a lot. In reality the motto of most teenagers is "I > want to be a rebel just like everybody else". > > 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 Sun Dec 9 16:50:18 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 11:50:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 11:10 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > OK, John, I'll call your bluff - I don't have any data,though I suppose I > could get some, but do you? Most children wind up in the same religion and > so forth? > All you need to do is glace at this color coded map of the world's religions: World's religions map If children did not usually have the same religion as their parents this map would be a uniform grey, but instead we see gaudy primary colors. Why is there a very strong correlation between geography and religious philosophy, why should one have anything to do with the other? Because very young children tend to believe what adults tell them, and if they are told it often enough they can hold that belief for life even if what they are told is utterly ridiculous. If you show me 2 people and tell me the first one is from Ireland and the second one is from Afghanistan and ask me to guess which one is a Christian and which one is a Muslim I believe I could do so and my chances of being correct would be considerably better than 50-50. Geography and religious belief seem to be two very radically things, so if I'm wrong what is your explanation as to why knowledge about the one gives us knowledge about the other? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 17:32:37 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 11:32:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Well, for one thing, people lie, including children. Muslim children are Muslim because their parents are. (They don't have to declare for themselves or be baptized etc.) Probably the data collectors assume the same for families everywhere. In the case of the Muslims, you take your life in your hands if you deny your parents religion. So if inwardly they are not believers, outwardly they have to be. This is certainly less true of Christians and other religions, but I"ll bet most kids, teens, put their parent's religion down when filling out forms until they reach college. I do wonder what is happening in Ireland. The church there has been so guilty of sexual activity with children that many are not going to Mass, but I'll bet they put "Catholic' in forms. Which is all to say that there can be a huge difference between inward and outward conformity. I believe that what you believe is true in the past and has been for a long time. Look at the history of England and how it could be death if you practice the 'wrong' religion. But times, they are a' changin. So I still need real data. Going to church is becoming rarer and rarer in our country, and possibly in European countries as well, which is why I still say we need data. I don't know what any of you have experienced. Many of you are atheists. In my case it was a big struggle within myself to come out as an atheist. Family flak doesn't even begin to describe it. What people put down on forms and what they truly believe can be very, very different. bill w On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 11:10 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > OK, John, I'll call your bluff - I don't have any data,though I suppose >> I could get some, but do you? Most children wind up in the same religion >> and so forth? >> > > All you need to do is glace at this color coded map of the world's > religions: > > World's religions map > > > If children did not usually have the same religion as their parents this > map would be a uniform grey, but instead we see gaudy primary colors. Why > is there a very strong correlation between geography and religious > philosophy, why should one have anything to do with the other? Because very > young children tend to believe what adults tell them, and if they are told > it often enough they can hold that belief for life even if what they are > told is utterly ridiculous. > > If you show me 2 people and tell me the first one is from Ireland and the > second one is from Afghanistan and ask me to guess which one is a Christian > and which one is a Muslim I believe I could do so and my chances of being > correct would be considerably better than 50-50. Geography and religious > belief seem to be two very radically things, so if I'm wrong what is your > explanation as to why knowledge about the one gives us knowledge about > the other? > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 9 17:42:30 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 09:42:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <003101d48fe6\$8f3d0d20\$adb72760\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 11:10 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > OK, John, I'll call your bluff - I don't have any data,though I suppose I could get some, but do you? Most children wind up in the same religion and so forth? All you need to do is glace at this color coded map of the world's religions: World's religions map >?If children did not usually have the same religion as their parents this map would be a uniform grey? If this source had mapped post-religion as grey, good chance most of it would be a uniform grey. Post-religion isn?t exactly atheism and isn?t exactly agnosticism, but rather a kind of grey that means more like knowing that religion exists and knowing it is vaguely culture-linked, but doesn?t insist on any particular dogma and doesn?t claim any particular relevance. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 9 17:58:21 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 09:58:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <004801d48fe8\$c69168f0\$53b43ad0\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >? I"ll bet most kids, teens, put their parent's religion down when filling out forms until they reach college? Indeed sir? On what forms would such a question be allowed? >?I don't know what any of you have experienced. Many of you are atheists. In my case it was a big struggle within myself to come out as an atheist. Family flak doesn't even begin to describe it. >?What people put down on forms and what they truly believe can be very, very different. bill w I am surprised such forms exist in our modern world. I have a fun contribution to the notion, an observation from the current 7th grade public school curriculum. Since at least the time I was that age, religion in all its forms was avoided in public schools. It is difficult or impossible to explain the history of Europe in particular without talking a lot about Christianity, and without going into detail on the Protestant reformation. They tried. Now, suddenly, everything is different. The online resources are filled with detailed discussions about not just the Reformation, but individual players, in detail, with religious dogma crammed in there all over the place. So? why the sudden change? I offer this explanation: with the arrival of excellent online curriculum, the school administrators are suddenly freed from the risk that individual teachers would say something, anything, that would offend someone, anyone. The online material is excellent, it explains so much. If a parent complains, then the student has the option of not doing that unit. There is enough material that the student can learn around that material and still make the tall pointy grade. Now the administration can freely offer online material about Christianity, Protestantism or Catholicism, Islam, Hindu, anything they want (and they do.) I have viewed some of the material my son?s school subscribes to, and it is excellent. It doesn?t appear to promote any particular religion. The students come away with so much better understanding of European history; there is no comparison to the old days when teachers were afraid to mention it. Much of history cannot be understood without detailed study of religion and its role in politics. This is clear if one gazes at BillW?s world religion map and noticing it has sharp boundaries that are on the boundaries between nations. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 9 18:26:56 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 10:26:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <004d01d48fe8\$c73941b0\$55abc510\$@rainier66.com> References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <004d01d48fe8\$c73941b0\$55abc510\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006a01d48fec\$c4834ca0\$4d89e5e0\$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com >?I have a fun contribution to the notion, an observation from the current 7th grade public school curriculum. Since at least the time I was that age, religion in all its forms was avoided in public schools. It is difficult or impossible to explain the history of Europe in particular without talking a lot about Christianity, and without going into detail on the Protestant reformation. They tried. They tried and mostly failed. >?Now, suddenly, everything is different? spike Ja, I am replying to my own post, with some further thoughts please. What if? we think of religion a little differently. Instead of thinking of religion in general as a field of philosophy, let us think of it as a kind of technology. This technology is used for something we don?t really need anymore. As a thought experiment: imagine a group of geographically co-located humans who have no common folklore, no common mores, no common system of ethics, no historical common roots. Anyone can fight anyone (and they do.) Groups form, loosely connected via genetics: extended families and associates, to form tribes. These tribes form their own philosophical common ground, an accepted folklore, an accepted mostly universal superstition. If we view that common folklore as a technology, it gives that tribe an advantage in that it suppresses internal conflict, allowing that society to work together more effectively, using its fighting prowess against external enemies. That tribe grows. In the days before nations grew to where their boundaries touched, this unifying technology was important. It made society work somewhat in unison. Now, we don?t need it anymore: we are unified by other means. Result: people who embrace varying religions all act pretty similarly in public. The religion doesn?t matter as much. So? there is no need to keep supporting it financially. It fades over time. If we view religion as a kind of technology, the history of Europe in Medieval times interpreted as a struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism, makes complete sense. Why the final shots in that war are recent (in Ireland) makes sense. That we no longer need religion as a unifying force explains why we have political parties rising as new substitute religions. spike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5710 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 18:55:16 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 12:55:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <004801d48fe8\$c69168f0\$53b43ad0\$@rainier66.com> References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <004801d48fe8\$c69168f0\$53b43ad0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: If a parent complains, then the student has the option of not doing that unit. There is enough material that the student can learn around that material and still make the tall pointy grade. Now the administration can freely offer online material about Christianity, Protestantism or Catholicism, Islam, Hindu, anything they want (and they do.) I find this very sad and very disturbing. It was bad enough when nothing was taught and now it may be even worse. Letting parents select what their children are taught is a road to ignorance and that leads to bigotry and that leads to street fights all the way up to war. As for forms, I have no idea what is current, but most of the forms I see, census, hospital, have places for religions. I would guess that no businesses do this anymore. Who else? No idea. bill w On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:05 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > > > *>?* I"ll bet most kids, teens, put their parent's religion down when > filling out forms until they reach college? > > > > Indeed sir? On what forms would such a question be allowed? > > > > >?I don't know what any of you have experienced. Many of you are > atheists. In my case it was a big struggle within myself to come out as an > atheist. Family flak doesn't even begin to describe it. > > > > >?What people put down on forms and what they truly believe can be very, > very different. > > > > bill w > > > > I am surprised such forms exist in our modern world. > > > > I have a fun contribution to the notion, an observation from the current 7 > th grade public school curriculum. Since at least the time I was that > age, religion in all its forms was avoided in public schools. It is > difficult or impossible to explain the history of Europe in particular > without talking a lot about Christianity, and without going into detail on > the Protestant reformation. They tried. > > > > Now, suddenly, everything is different. The online resources are filled > with detailed discussions about not just the Reformation, but individual > players, in detail, with religious dogma crammed in there all over the > place. So? why the sudden change? > > > > I offer this explanation: with the arrival of excellent online curriculum, > the school administrators are suddenly freed from the risk that individual > teachers would say something, anything, that would offend someone, anyone. > The online material is excellent, it explains so much. If a parent > complains, then the student has the option of not doing that unit. There > is enough material that the student can learn around that material and > still make the tall pointy grade. Now the administration can freely offer > online material about Christianity, Protestantism or Catholicism, Islam, > Hindu, anything they want (and they do.) > > > > I have viewed some of the material my son?s school subscribes to, and it > is excellent. It doesn?t appear to promote any particular religion. The > students come away with so much better understanding of European history; > there is no comparison to the old days when teachers were afraid to mention > it. Much of history cannot be understood without detailed study of > religion and its role in politics. This is clear if one gazes at BillW?s > world religion map and noticing it has sharp boundaries that are on the > boundaries between nations. > > > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 9 19:20:39 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 11:20:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <004801d48fe8\$c69168f0\$53b43ad0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008301d48ff4\$45d360e0\$d17a22a0\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2018 10:55 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion >>? If a parent complains, then the student has the option of not doing that unit. There is enough material that the student can learn around that material and still make the tall pointy grade. Now the administration can freely offer online material about Christianity, Protestantism or Catholicism, Islam, Hindu, anything they want (and they do.) >? I find this very sad and very disturbing? Indeed? I find it happy and comforting, particularly after reviewing the material myself. It doesn?t promote or denigrate any particular religion (it isn?t obvious to me if they do) but explains a lotta lotta about why and how come. >? It was bad enough when nothing was taught and now it may be even worse? Disagree. It was bad enough, but now is much better. I recall when biology was being taught in the public school without mentioning evolution, how little sense it all makes without that cornerstone concept. Without some knowledge of religion, history in general makes damn little sense. For instance, we in the USA recently celebrated a festival of Thanksgiving, where we talk about pilgrims, European people seeking religious freedom. OK. Why did both Catholic and Protestant authorities have heartburn with them? Seems like one or the other would have been OK with them. Reason: civil authorities were hoping to use religion as a unifying force in their cultures. Perhaps they hoped (in the ideal case) that everyone in their country would subscribe to the religion of the crown. OK, that makes sense. Now, separatists, where do they fit? No allegiance to the Pope or the state religion. Now the crown can?t be sure of their loyalty. They can?t be sure if they can trust the separatists to charge the enemy. They don?t know whether to fight them or trust them. So? they don?t want them. No one wants them. The separatists want to follow their own way. They got on board a ship and sailed to undeveloped territory where they damn well knew their chances of survival were a tossup. They went anyway. That?s powerful motivation. >?Letting parents select what their children are taught is a road to ignorance and that leads to bigotry and that leads to street fights all the way up to war? There is that, but it might be a road away from ignorance and away from bigotry, and solves street fights and war. >?As for forms, I have no idea what is current, but most of the forms I see, census, hospital, have places for religions? Hmmm, OK. I haven?t seen that in decades. >? I would guess that no businesses do this anymore? Not if they don?t want to get the pants sued offa them. >? Who else? No idea?bill w I have lived in California so long, I have forgotten how the rest of the world operates. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 20:39:59 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 15:39:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:38 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Well, for one thing, people lie, including children. Muslim children are > Muslim because their parents are. > Sure some do, but I don't think it's credible to maintain this represents more than a tiny minority because when they have children of their own they drill the exact same thing into their head. Do you really think this could go on for 100 generations with nobody believing what they say? I think most Muslims are sincere, I also thing sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue. > > In the case of the Muslims, you take your life in your hands if you > deny your parents religion. > Yes but why should all those Muslims want to murder non-believers if they really thought it was all a load of crap? > I do wonder what is happening in Ireland. The church there has been so > guilty of sexual activity with children that many are not going to Mass, > but I'll bet they put "Catholic' in forms. > But they don't just put it on forms, they might not go to mass every Sunday but most STILL think Judgement Day will happen and expect Catholic theology to prevail in that court and a Catholic priest would be their best lawyer to prepare their case. Perhaps not as many believe this as before it became known that so many Catholic priests were pedophiles but even today the vast majority of Catholics in Ireland STILL send their children to Catholic schools taught by Catholic priests. Go Figure. > > So I still need real data. > If everybody always lies about what they consciously believe then there can never be any real data about it because the only thing we know about what others are consciousness of and what they believe is by listening to what they say. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 22:37:35 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 16:37:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <7686c985d4d75b4d2de49101040624cf.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: The people of Ireland send their kids to Catholic schools (though many are taking their kids out as well as not going to Mass) because they have few choices and Catholic schools are ubiquitous. Lying on forms, tests, etc. is so extensive that many subjects cannot be researched this way - sex things for one. Everybody lies about sex. Women are more liberal these days. Are they? Or are their survey answers just different? Or are they lying now to be hep, or were they lying in the past? It could all be conformity to the values at the time. Outer conformity; not necessarily inner. Freedom is becoming more and more popular, in China and many other places. People see how the rest of the world lives and wants something different from what they have. Even the people in Iran (if you can believe their surveys) do not want any religious entities in government. They want not a theocracy but a democracy, and I hope they get it. In the Middle Ages if your father was a tailor, so were you - for the most part. Now people in most places have so much more freedom and so many more opportunities that I do not see how the conformity from generation to generation will hold. And more and more people are moving into big cities, where anonymity is far easier than in the village they came from. Then they can be free to shuck their old ways and religion. Times, they are a' changin. I do not know, of course, just what percentage of Muslims want to kill us, but it has to be somewhere around .000009 and maybe that's not enough zeros. And just what do you have against sincerity? That's like being against honesty. bill w On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:44 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:38 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > Well, for one thing, people lie, including children. Muslim children >> are Muslim because their parents are. >> > > Sure some do, but I don't think it's credible to maintain this represents > more than a tiny minority because when they have children of their own they > drill the exact same thing into their head. Do you really think this could > go on for 100 generations with nobody believing what they say? I think most > Muslims are sincere, I also thing sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue. > > > >> > In the case of the Muslims, you take your life in your hands if you >> deny your parents religion. >> > > Yes but why should all those Muslims want to murder non-believers if they > really thought it was all a load of crap? > > > I do wonder what is happening in Ireland. The church there has been so >> guilty of sexual activity with children that many are not going to Mass, >> but I'll bet they put "Catholic' in forms. >> > > But they don't just put it on forms, they might not go to mass every > Sunday but most STILL think Judgement Day will happen and expect Catholic > theology to prevail in that court and a Catholic priest would be their best > lawyer to prepare their case. Perhaps not as many believe this as before it > became known that so many Catholic priests were pedophiles but even today > the vast majority of Catholics in Ireland STILL send their children to > Catholic schools taught by Catholic priests. Go Figure. > > > >> > So I still need real data. >> > > If everybody always lies about what they consciously believe then there > can never be any real data about it because the only thing we know about > what others are consciousness of and what they believe is by listening to > what they say. > > 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 16:32:17 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 08:32:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:47 AM "Stuart LaForge" wrote: smo[ > In so far as the brain is our fastest evolving human organ, having tripled > in size in the last two million years, I would think that evo-psych would > be one of our fastest evolving traits. I can't parse that. Please try again. snip > But religion itself is a moving target that has been evolving alongside > our capacity for it. Depending on how you define religion, our > "hunter-gatherer ancestors" may not have actually had religion. I am not talking about religion, no matter how you want to define it. I am talking about the human *capacity* to have religions. It is so widespread among human populations that, like capture-bonding, it is nearly universal. That is an indication that the capacity to have religions was under serious selection over a long time. I agree with you that the capacity to have religions developed long before religions themselves. The most serious selection factor in those days was war between groups of people. snip > > But on the other hand, if you define religion as the copying of sacred > rituals from one generation to the next, well that is very old and there > is likely a genetic component to that. Curiously chimpanzees and elephants > are known for performing rituals too. Perhaps you can explain how "performing rituals" or not doing so had a survival advantage to genes? > > It seems really unlikely in a hunter-gatherer world long before birth > > control that religion or anything related to it made any difference in the > > number of children a woman had. The proximate limit to human populations > > in those days was war with other humans (top predator argument). The > > ultimate cause of the limit was the (fluxuating) capacity of the > > environment to feed them. > > War does not require religion as attested to by the warring of apes and > ants but learning how to awaken the fire spirits inside wooden sticks is > vital for survival and that requires you to trust your elders. War, even among ants, is episodic. Bonobos don't fight. Chimps are hostile to other groups all time. Human wars depend on the situation. I suspect that the mechanism that turns on wars between human groups is the same underlying psychological mechanisms that are behind our capacity to have religions. This speculation will eventually be tested as the tools get better. > > But, as I have pointed out in other postings, the model shows that > > human genes do not profit from war unless the alternative (such as > > starving) is worse. > > Does the model account for the benefits of genetic out-breeding as a > result of war? No. Do you have a way to put numbers on this benefit? > > So you would expect genes to get this judgment for "a time for war" > > correct, and genes that get the tribe into "attack mode" when needed would > > be positively selected. > > > > The major religions where we know something of their historical > > origins seem to have started as a set of xenophobic memes. > > > > I have been thinking about ways to locate the genes and brain > > structures behind these traits. > > What do you think of Dean Hamer's so-called God gene VMAT2? >From the Wiki article, support seems weak, but this is the kind of genetics that would lie behind the capacity to have religions at all. Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 17:40:31 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:40:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps you can explain how "performing rituals" or not doing so had a survival advantage to genes? Keith Maybe some of you know and can point me at some articles as opposed to my Googling it: dance. I notice that many religions, esp. the ones still practiced by what we call tribes, involve dancing. One thing that stands out to me about dance is that it gives a person a change to 'shake their booty'. So aspects of a personality come out in their dances as well as the opportunity to show off their bodies. This could give some people reproductive advantages over others. Now why our big religions think dance is Satanic I just dunno. I do think dancing is in the Bible somewhere. Of course it is sexual - it can't help but be sexual. Just moving, even if she is wearing hoop skirts, is sexual. Why are so many religions down on sex and dance? Why is the idea of Jesus dancing, or even having a good time, upsetting to Christians? Gods don't like to have good times? Serious all the time? And a Happy Monday to y'all. bill w On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:37 AM Keith Henson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:47 AM "Stuart LaForge" > wrote: > > smo[ > > > In so far as the brain is our fastest evolving human organ, having > tripled > > in size in the last two million years, I would think that evo-psych would > > be one of our fastest evolving traits. > > I can't parse that. Please try again. > > snip > > > But religion itself is a moving target that has been evolving alongside > > our capacity for it. Depending on how you define religion, our > > "hunter-gatherer ancestors" may not have actually had religion. > > I am not talking about religion, no matter how you want to define it. > I am talking about the human *capacity* to have religions. It is so > widespread among human populations that, like capture-bonding, it is > nearly universal. That is an indication that the capacity to have > religions was under serious selection over a long time. I agree with > you that the capacity to have religions developed long before > religions themselves. The most serious selection factor in those days > was war between groups of people. > > snip > > > > But on the other hand, if you define religion as the copying of sacred > > rituals from one generation to the next, well that is very old and there > > is likely a genetic component to that. Curiously chimpanzees and > elephants > > are known for performing rituals too. > > Perhaps you can explain how "performing rituals" or not doing so had a > survival advantage to genes? > > > > It seems really unlikely in a hunter-gatherer world long before birth > > > control that religion or anything related to it made any difference in > the > > > number of children a woman had. The proximate limit to human > populations > > > in those days was war with other humans (top predator argument). The > > > ultimate cause of the limit was the (fluxuating) capacity of the > > > environment to feed them. > > > > War does not require religion as attested to by the warring of apes and > > ants but learning how to awaken the fire spirits inside wooden sticks is > > vital for survival and that requires you to trust your elders. > > War, even among ants, is episodic. Bonobos don't fight. Chimps are > hostile to other groups all time. Human wars depend on the situation. > I suspect that the mechanism that turns on wars between human groups > is the same underlying psychological mechanisms that are behind our > capacity to have religions. This speculation will eventually be > tested as the tools get better. > > > > But, as I have pointed out in other postings, the model shows that > > > human genes do not profit from war unless the alternative (such as > > > starving) is worse. > > > > Does the model account for the benefits of genetic out-breeding as a > > result of war? > > No. Do you have a way to put numbers on this benefit? > > > > So you would expect genes to get this judgment for "a time for war" > > > correct, and genes that get the tribe into "attack mode" when needed > would > > > be positively selected. > > > > > > The major religions where we know something of their historical > > > origins seem to have started as a set of xenophobic memes. > > > > > > I have been thinking about ways to locate the genes and brain > > > structures behind these traits. > > > > What do you think of Dean Hamer's so-called God gene VMAT2? > > From the Wiki article, support seems weak, but this is the kind of > genetics that would lie behind the capacity to have religions at all. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 21:32:14 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:32:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: Spike wrote: > If we view religion as a kind of technology, the history of Europe in Medieval times interpreted as a struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism, makes complete sense. I don't think there was any difference in the rate of wars before or after Martin Luther. What was at work here was the requirement to burn off part of the population due to fertility in excess of replacement. > Why the final shots in that war are recent (in Ireland) makes sense. Well, yes. Ireland was the last place in Europe where fertility fell to replacement. > That we no longer need religion as a unifying force explains why we have political parties rising as new substitute religions. I argued years ago that Communism also fell into the class of memes that could fill the "religious meme receptor site" in human mental space. Keith From avant at sollegro.com Tue Dec 11 18:41:12 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:41:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: <1db4a8a3e7425da19ae963f10b80a044.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Keith Henson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:47 AM "Stuart LaForge" > wrote: >> In so far as the brain is our fastest evolving human organ, having >> tripled in size in the last two million years, I would think that >> evo-psych would be one of our fastest evolving traits. > > I can't parse that. Please try again. What I am saying is that in the last two million years our brain has physically changed in size by a factor of 3. Assuming that behavioral complexity is function of larger brains and more neurons, I would therefore expect that our evolutionary psychology should have changed at least as much in the same time period. > I am not talking about religion, no matter how you want to define it. > I am talking about the human *capacity* to have religions. It is so > widespread among human populations that, like capture-bonding, it is nearly > universal. How do you distinguish this capacity for religion from any other cultural phenomena that allows memes and social constructs to override genes? It is certainly more sophisticated in humans but it occurs across the spectrum of social animals. In wolves for example, typically only the dominant pair of alpha male and female breed. Why would the average (non-dominant) wolves in the pack allow this? Why would these average wolves cooperatively hunt, protect, and help feed pups that are unrelated to them effectively throwing their own genes under the bus? Sure one could argue that they are related so this is some kind of kin selection going on but this is typically true only of the females who tend to be siblings. The males are typically completely unrelated and randomly get adopted into packs. In social creatures with even mammal-level intelligence, there are cultural factors that can override genetic interests. > That is an indication that the capacity to have religions was > under serious selection over a long time. I agree with you that the > capacity to have religions developed long before religions themselves. > The most serious selection factor in those days > was war between groups of people. At some point our brains achieved enough size and complexity for cultural evolution to supersede biological evolution. When that occurred memes, conscious intent, and learned behavior gained the ability to override genes and instincts. Religion simply hitched a ride on a far more general trait; that is social intelligence and the dominance hierarchies that such intelligence enabled. This capacity for learned social behavior was necessary not just for the development of religion but also for pretty much every aspect of culture. Some of these social adaptations coincided with the rational self-interest of ones genes like every useful skill you ever learned. And others conflicted greatly with ones genes like killing your siblings so that you could become the alpha. But regardless at the end of the day culture, memes, and rituals won out over genetics. Also it is of note that we are not alone in this. Culture does not begin or end with man. Other social animals tend to share many of these characteristics. Observe these langurs grieve a fake camera monkey that they think is a dead infant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg79mkbNaTg Does their body language strike you as familiar? It is funeral body language. Recognizably intact over 55 million years of evolution (Langur fossils are some of the oldest primate fossils). > > snip >> >> But on the other hand, if you define religion as the copying of sacred >> rituals from one generation to the next, well that is very old and there >> is likely a genetic component to that. Curiously chimpanzees and >> elephants are known for performing rituals too. > > Perhaps you can explain how "performing rituals" or not doing so had a > survival advantage to genes? Rituals are largely bonding mechanisms to cement relationships within groups of social animals. Sometimes these rituals perform a direct survival function like social grooming among primates. Other times they seem to provide no more than emotional support like monkey and elephant funerals. Although sometimes elephant funerals are more like group autopsies. In this video, I see just as much curiosity as grief. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku_GUNzXoeQ >> War does not require religion as attested to by the warring of apes >> and ants but learning how to awaken the fire spirits inside wooden >> sticks is vital for survival and that requires you to trust your elders. >> > > War, even among ants, is episodic. Bonobos don't fight. Chimps are > hostile to other groups all time. Human wars depend on the situation. I > suspect that the mechanism that turns on wars between human groups is the > same underlying psychological mechanisms that are behind our capacity to > have religions. This speculation will eventually be tested as the tools > get better. I think this recent paper in Nature will give you a lot of crunchy data to chew on. It has to do with the phylogenetic analysis of "conspecific violence" or murder/warfare across all mammals. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19758 https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v538/n7624/extref/nature19758-s1.pdf In the second link is a lot of data regarding the evolution of murder and warfare in humans. The upshot of the Nature article is that humans are about six times more likely than the average mammal to die by the actions of a member of our own species. Based upon paleontological and archaelogical evidence during the Stone Age about 3.5% of humans died by the hand of another human. This fluctuates throughout history, with a maximum during the middle ages where approximately 12% of humans died by another's hand. For comparison, in chimps about 4.5% die from attacks by another chimp making them, humans, and baboons the bloodiest primates. But surprisingly we are nowhere close to being the most murderous mammals. That distinction goes to meerkats which are social weasels that live in southern Africa with 20% of all meerkat deaths are attributable to other meerkats. Usually in dominance disputes with meerkats in the same colony or territorial wars with other meerkat colonies. As a general rule, social mammals are more murderous than solitary mammals and territorial mammals are more murderous than nomadic mammals. The most murderous mammals of all are those which are both social and territorial. So warfare among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was rarer than I had assumed. It wasn't until we settled down and became territorial that warfare truly became a human preoccupation. >> Does the model account for the benefits of genetic out-breeding as a >> result of war? > > No. Do you have a way to put numbers on this benefit? Unfortunately most of the hard numbers I can find are from recent wars: The book GIs and Fr?uleins, by Maria Hohn, documents 66,000 German children born to fathers who were soldiers of Allied forces in the period 1945?55: American parent: 36,334 French parent: 10,188 British parent: 8,397 Soviet parent: 3,105 Belgian parent: 1,767 Other/unknown: 6,829 >>> So you would expect genes to get this judgment for "a time for war" >>> correct, and genes that get the tribe into "attack mode" when needed >>> would be positively selected. >>> >>> The major religions where we know something of their historical >>> origins seem to have started as a set of xenophobic memes. Cultural identity may not be possible without some measure of xenophobia. There cannot be a "self" without an "other". >>> >>> I have been thinking about ways to locate the genes and brain >>> structures behind these traits. >> >> What do you think of Dean Hamer's so-called God gene VMAT2? >> > >> From the Wiki article, support seems weak, but this is the kind of >> > genetics that would lie behind the capacity to have religions at all. Well as far as brain structures involved in religion go, try looking up Koren and Persinger's research on the temporal lobe. When they used a so-called God helmet to magnetically stimulate the temporal lobes of experimental subjects, those subjects experienced out of body experiences, sensed a spiritual presence in the room, and had all manner of mystical experiences. Of note, the temporal lobe is a part of the brain involved in distinguishing self from non-self. Therefore it is a part of the brain heavily used in social interactions. Stuart LaForge From avant at sollegro.com Tue Dec 11 18:41:25 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:41:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: <0c7586d2a8e23ddec53e2e7a787363af.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Keith Henson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:47 AM "Stuart LaForge" > wrote: >> In so far as the brain is our fastest evolving human organ, having >> tripled in size in the last two million years, I would think that >> evo-psych would be one of our fastest evolving traits. > > I can't parse that. Please try again. What I am saying is that in the last two million years our brain has physically changed in size by a factor of 3. Assuming that behavioral complexity is function of larger brains and more neurons, I would therefore expect that our evolutionary psychology should have changed at least as much in the same time period. > I am not talking about religion, no matter how you want to define it. > I am talking about the human *capacity* to have religions. It is so > widespread among human populations that, like capture-bonding, it is nearly > universal. How do you distinguish this capacity for religion from any other cultural phenomena that allows memes and social constructs to override genes? It is certainly more sophisticated in humans but it occurs across the spectrum of social animals. In wolves for example, typically only the dominant pair of alpha male and female breed. Why would the average (non-dominant) wolves in the pack allow this? Why would these average wolves cooperatively hunt, protect, and help feed pups that are unrelated to them effectively throwing their own genes under the bus? Sure one could argue that they are related so this is some kind of kin selection going on but this is typically true only of the females who tend to be siblings. The males are typically completely unrelated and randomly get adopted into packs. In social creatures with even mammal-level intelligence, there are cultural factors that can override genetic interests. > That is an indication that the capacity to have religions was > under serious selection over a long time. I agree with you that the > capacity to have religions developed long before religions themselves. > The most serious selection factor in those days > was war between groups of people. At some point our brains achieved enough size and complexity for cultural evolution to supersede biological evolution. When that occurred memes, conscious intent, and learned behavior gained the ability to override genes and instincts. Religion simply hitched a ride on a far more general trait; that is social intelligence and the dominance hierarchies that such intelligence enabled. This capacity for learned social behavior was necessary not just for the development of religion but also for pretty much every aspect of culture. Some of these social adaptations coincided with the rational self-interest of ones genes like every useful skill you ever learned. And others conflicted greatly with ones genes like killing your siblings so that you could become the alpha. But regardless at the end of the day culture, memes, and rituals won out over genetics. Also it is of note that we are not alone in this. Culture does not begin or end with man. Other social animals tend to share many of these characteristics. Observe these langurs grieve a fake camera monkey that they think is a dead infant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg79mkbNaTg Does their body language strike you as familiar? It is funeral body language. Recognizably intact over 55 million years of evolution (Langur fossils are some of the oldest primate fossils). > > snip >> >> But on the other hand, if you define religion as the copying of sacred >> rituals from one generation to the next, well that is very old and there >> is likely a genetic component to that. Curiously chimpanzees and >> elephants are known for performing rituals too. > > Perhaps you can explain how "performing rituals" or not doing so had a > survival advantage to genes? Rituals are largely bonding mechanisms to cement relationships within groups of social animals. Sometimes these rituals perform a direct survival function like social grooming among primates. Other times they seem to provide no more than emotional support like monkey and elephant funerals. Although sometimes elephant funerals are more like group autopsies. In this video, I see just as much curiosity as grief. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku_GUNzXoeQ >> War does not require religion as attested to by the warring of apes >> and ants but learning how to awaken the fire spirits inside wooden >> sticks is vital for survival and that requires you to trust your elders. >> > > War, even among ants, is episodic. Bonobos don't fight. Chimps are > hostile to other groups all time. Human wars depend on the situation. I > suspect that the mechanism that turns on wars between human groups is the > same underlying psychological mechanisms that are behind our capacity to > have religions. This speculation will eventually be tested as the tools > get better. I think this recent paper in Nature will give you a lot of crunchy data to chew on. It has to do with the phylogenetic analysis of "conspecific violence" or murder/warfare across all mammals. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19758 https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v538/n7624/extref/nature19758-s1.pdf In the second link is a lot of data regarding the evolution of murder and warfare in humans. The upshot of the Nature article is that humans are about six times more likely than the average mammal to die by the actions of a member of our own species. Based upon paleontological and archaelogical evidence during the Stone Age about 3.5% of humans died by the hand of another human. This fluctuates throughout history, with a maximum during the middle ages where approximately 12% of humans died by another's hand. For comparison, in chimps about 4.5% die from attacks by another chimp making them, humans, and baboons the bloodiest primates. But surprisingly we are nowhere close to being the most murderous mammals. That distinction goes to meerkats which are social weasels that live in southern Africa with 20% of all meerkat deaths are attributable to other meerkats. Usually in dominance disputes with meerkats in the same colony or territorial wars with other meerkat colonies. As a general rule, social mammals are more murderous than solitary mammals and territorial mammals are more murderous than nomadic mammals. The most murderous mammals of all are those which are both social and territorial. So warfare among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was rarer than I had assumed. It wasn't until we settled down and became territorial that warfare truly became a human preoccupation. >> Does the model account for the benefits of genetic out-breeding as a >> result of war? > > No. Do you have a way to put numbers on this benefit? Unfortunately most of the hard numbers I can find are from recent wars: The book GIs and Fr?uleins, by Maria Hohn, documents 66,000 German children born to fathers who were soldiers of Allied forces in the period 1945?55: American parent: 36,334 French parent: 10,188 British parent: 8,397 Soviet parent: 3,105 Belgian parent: 1,767 Other/unknown: 6,829 >>> So you would expect genes to get this judgment for "a time for war" >>> correct, and genes that get the tribe into "attack mode" when needed >>> would be positively selected. >>> >>> The major religions where we know something of their historical >>> origins seem to have started as a set of xenophobic memes. Cultural identity may not be possible without some measure of xenophobia. There cannot be a "self" without an "other". >>> >>> I have been thinking about ways to locate the genes and brain >>> structures behind these traits. >> >> What do you think of Dean Hamer's so-called God gene VMAT2? >> > >> From the Wiki article, support seems weak, but this is the kind of >> > genetics that would lie behind the capacity to have religions at all. Well as far as brain structures involved in religion go, try looking up Koren and Persinger's research on the temporal lobe. When they used a so-called God helmet to magnetically stimulate the temporal lobes of experimental subjects, those subjects experienced out of body experiences, sensed a spiritual presence in the room, and had all manner of mystical experiences. Of note, the temporal lobe is a part of the brain involved in distinguishing self from non-self. Therefore it is a part of the brain heavily used in social interactions. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 15:10:10 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:10:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <1db4a8a3e7425da19ae963f10b80a044.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <1db4a8a3e7425da19ae963f10b80a044.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:46 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > *In wolves for example, typically only the dominant pair of alpha male and > female breed. Why would the average (non-dominant) wolves in the pack allow > this?* A better example might be Elephant Seals, virtually all the females are in the alpha male's harem and no other male gets to breed. So if you're a young male what do you do? You could challenge the Alpha Male but you'd better be careful, if you dispose of the alpha male you gain a huge advantage in getting your genes into the next generation but because the stakes are so high Elephant Seal fights are particularly violent often ending in serious injury or death for the loser. And the Alpha Male is certain to be very large and tough, so unless you're certain you are even larger and tougher a better strategy for a young male might be to just wait for the alpha male to grow old and weak and challenge him then. > > > > > * > The upshot of the Nature article is that humans are about six times > more likely than the average mammal to die by the actions of a member of > our own species. Based upon paleontological and archaelogical evidence > during the Stone Age about 3.5% of humans died by the hand of another > human. This fluctuates throughout history, with a maximum during the middle > ages where approximately 12% of humans died by another's hand.* > That's one reason I'm happy I'm not living in the middle ages. Today about .05% of people die by murder and .005% die in war. This is the least violent time in human history. > > > *For comparison, in chimps about 4.5% die from attacks by another chimp > making them, humans, and baboons the bloodiest primates.* But the typical social group for chimps is only about a hundred, if you tried to cram 30 million of them in an area the size of Tokyo they'd tear each other apart even if they had enough food. > So warfare among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was rarer than I had > assumed. There are 30,000 year old cave paintings showing people being pierced by arrows and a 8000 year old painting in Spain of archers fighting each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morella_(combate-de-arquero.png John K Clark > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 12 15:36:32 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:36:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <1db4a8a3e7425da19ae963f10b80a044.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <002401d49230\$76068010\$62138030\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark >?A better example might be Elephant Seals, virtually all the females are in the alpha male's harem and no other male gets to breed. So if you're a young male what do you do? You could challenge the Alpha Male but you'd better be careful, if you dispose of the alpha male you gain a huge advantage in getting your genes into the next generation but because the stakes are so high Elephant Seal fights are particularly violent often ending in serious injury or death for the loser? John K Clark If you get a chance to view them at San Simeon or Ano Nuevo, take your time, stay out there and watch all day. My observation is that the fights are seldom with the alpha. The betas will fight each other, but it seems they aren?t usually fighting to the death. It is more like teenager horseplay. Last time I was out there I saw something fun. The alpha?s harem stretches for about 100 meters or so. Two betas would work together: one would go to one end, the cows start making noises, the huge alpha comes lumbering down there to chase him off, the beta?s buddy starts in at the other end, making the alpha come blobbing down there. They keep him ?running? back and forth until he is exhausted, then the betas have their way. So a few of the betas? genes get passed on that way. Of course you know eventually those two betas will hafta fight it out, and that one really will be to the death or serious injury. The motion elephant seals make to run is highly inefficient. Here ya go, about 35 seconds into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbkt_tPzp-s Ano Nuevo has a nice boardwalk where a prole can set up a lawn chair and watch these dudes. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 18:10:24 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:10:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] my view of education Message-ID: What is taught in school? I am more concerned with what is not being taught. Have you ever opened a book entitled something like ?What they did not teach you in school?? If you did, you find out that schools, from grade one, teach a very sanitized version of history, especially American history. Americans are always right, our opponents are always wrong. When we go to war, atrocities are committed by them, not us. Our heroes never do anything wrong and are completely one-dimensional people. That is change some during and after the Vietnam 'war.' If we had studied another country?s history books and found things like this, we would call their teaching propaganda and lies, destined to brainwash their children into believing that their country is right and others wrong. Having had history in college, I can say that they did not even try to overcome to one-sided images presented in high school and before. It was just more detailed. Now I am a loyal American who loves his country. But. I want the truth out and no lies and coverups in educating children. After all, lying to children about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and so on, are discovered to be lies, though thought to be harmless, along the way to adulthood. School boards and colleges say that they are teaching critical thinking, but my question is, where? How? In what class? One-sided teaching is the farthest thing from fair it is possible to get. I think that is the worst kind of critical nonthinking, and actually immoral. We are all pretty smart, eh? Did we notice these things when we went through school? I certainly did not. Education or propaganda? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 05:55:13 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 23:55:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would say I noticed that something was missing in school, but I couldn?t quite put my finger on it particularly. My father is a history major so often filled in other things at the dinner table, and I checked out many ?critical? books at the library. My parents always tried to ?home school? me in addition to my public school education. SR Ballard > On Dec 13, 2018, at 12:10 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > What is taught in school? I am more concerned with what is not being taught. Have you ever opened a book entitled something like ?What they did not teach you in school?? > > If you did, you find out that schools, from grade one, teach a very sanitized version of history, especially American history. Americans are always right, our opponents are always wrong. When we go to war, atrocities are committed by them, not us. Our heroes never do anything wrong and are completely one-dimensional people. That is change some during and after the Vietnam 'war.' > > If we had studied another country?s history books and found things like this, we would call their teaching propaganda and lies, destined to brainwash their children into believing that their country is right and others wrong. > > Having had history in college, I can say that they did not even try to overcome to one-sided images presented in high school and before. It was just more detailed. > > Now I am a loyal American who loves his country. But. I want the truth out and no lies and coverups in educating children. After all, lying to children about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and so on, are discovered to be lies, though thought to be harmless, along the way to adulthood. > > School boards and colleges say that they are teaching critical thinking, but my question is, where? How? In what class? One-sided teaching is the farthest thing from fair it is possible to get. I think that is the worst kind of critical nonthinking, and actually immoral. > > We are all pretty smart, eh? Did we notice these things when we went through school? I certainly did not. > > Education or propaganda? > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 06:20:02 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:20:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91415235-57E1-46D4-A067-B12E1C0F8AAA@gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2018, at 10:10 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > What is taught in school? I am more concerned with what is not being taught. Have you ever opened a book entitled something like ?What they did not teach you in school?? > > If you did, you find out that schools, from grade one, teach a very sanitized version of history, especially American history. Americans are always right, our opponents are always wrong. When we go to war, atrocities are committed by them, not us. Our heroes never do anything wrong and are completely one-dimensional people. That is change some during and after the Vietnam 'war.' > > If we had studied another country?s history books and found things like this, we would call their teaching propaganda and lies, destined to brainwash their children into believing that their country is right and others wrong. > > Having had history in college, I can say that they did not even try to overcome to one-sided images presented in high school and before. It was just more detailed. > > Now I am a loyal American who loves his country. But. I want the truth out and no lies and coverups in educating children. After all, lying to children about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and so on, are discovered to be lies, though thought to be harmless, along the way to adulthood. > > School boards and colleges say that they are teaching critical thinking, but my question is, where? How? In what class? One-sided teaching is the farthest thing from fair it is possible to get. I think that is the worst kind of critical nonthinking, and actually immoral. > > We are all pretty smart, eh? Did we notice these things when we went through school? I certainly did not. > > Education or propaganda? From reading Bryan Caplan and others on education, I suspect the problem is deeper than what children are taught in school. Caplan?s book on education seems to show that education overall is really unlikely to serve the purpose you think because it?s basically used to get credentials to move up in the world ? as opposed to actually learning history or the like. And from my talks with both Americans and non-Americans, I think he?s right: most people are deeply uninterested in most stuff taught in schools and even when they do learn, it?s mostly to pass the test and get the diploma ? not to master a subject matter. That being the case, it should come as little surprise that even people who get their diploma soon forget history, civics, etc. In fact, my guess would be the nationalist/patriot taint is really less about what people learn in school than just the kind of the usual in group stuff almost all humans suffer from. In other words, it might likely be there regardless of what?s in the curriculum. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 06:30:49 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:30:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9557C6E3-EFF1-4863-97C5-C1C6B050B51E@gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2018, at 9:55 PM, SR Ballard wrote: > > I would say I noticed that something was missing in school, but I couldn?t quite put my finger on it particularly. > > My father is a history major so often filled in other things at the dinner table, and I checked out many ?critical? books at the library. My parents always tried to ?home school? me in addition to my public school education. That?s a good father to have. For those who weren?t so fortunate though what would stop the curious among them from reading and learning more? Certainly not what?s in the curriculum at their school. If they really had an interest ? as opposed to being forced to take these classes ? then in the past libraries and today the internet would provide them with the means. Such means we?re widely available over the past century to most Americans and now to more than half the world. My experience in school was different too. I actually did learn a lot of history there before college and read widely outside of school. But I noticed early, like Bryan Caplan notes in his book on education, that most students learned enough to get the grade and diploma, then quickly forgot what they were taught. (The exceptions were usually either curious/intellectual students or ones who were [impractically*] going to major in history. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst * One history major I knew ended up working in IT. Another went into business. I bet they still retain both the knowledge of and interest in their major?s subject matter, but they might have been better served in high school and college by switching majors ? if the goal was work in the history field. From sparge at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 13:44:14 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 08:44:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Now I am a loyal American who loves his country. But. I want the truth out > and no lies and coverups in educating children. > Government-run education promotes the government, not too surprisingly. After all, lying to children about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and so on, are > discovered to be lies, though thought to be harmless, along the way to > adulthood. > I'm not convinced they're harmless, but they do serve to demonstrate the need for skepticism. > School boards and colleges say that they are teaching critical thinking, > but my question is, where? How? In what class? One-sided teaching is the > farthest thing from fair it is possible to get. I think that is the worst > kind of critical nonthinking, and actually immoral. > Yeah, they don't teach critical thinking and generally don't reward students questioning their teachings. > Education or propaganda? > It's some of both, of course. I think where public K-12 education really fails is in teaching life skills like planning, time management, finance, decision making, etc. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 15:44:56 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:44:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dave sill wrote - I think where public K-12 education really fails is in teaching life skills like planning, time management, finance, decision making, etc. I would include all of these as parts of a critical thinking study. My concern, though, is really not what is taught but the lack of how to think about it. As a teacher I kept getting comments on how I made students think and about how hard I was, until I finally concluded that these two were related. I don't know where and how I picked up thinking skills, but grad school gives an example: in looking at the research literature on some subject I became aware of just how many errors appeared in studies, like the text said one thing and the chart said another. That sharpened my eye. If people smart enough to publish articles in important journals make errors, then I should be on the lookout every time I read something. Even fiction helped: finding errors of plot or character, timeline, etc. makes reading an exercise in thinking even in escape literature. I would gladly read of how people in this group developed their skills. bill w On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 7:48 AM Dave Sill wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> Now I am a loyal American who loves his country. But. I want the truth >> out and no lies and coverups in educating children. >> > Government-run education promotes the government, not too surprisingly. > > After all, lying to children about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and so on, are >> discovered to be lies, though thought to be harmless, along the way to >> adulthood. >> > I'm not convinced they're harmless, but they do serve to demonstrate the > need for skepticism. > >> School boards and colleges say that they are teaching critical thinking, >> but my question is, where? How? In what class? One-sided teaching is the >> farthest thing from fair it is possible to get. I think that is the worst >> kind of critical nonthinking, and actually immoral. >> > Yeah, they don't teach critical thinking and generally don't reward > students questioning their teachings. > >> Education or propaganda? >> > It's some of both, of course. I think where public K-12 education really > fails is in teaching life skills like planning, time management, finance, > decision making, etc. > > -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 avant at sollegro.com Fri Dec 14 17:44:55 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:44:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: John Clark wrote: >> In wolves for example, typically only the dominant pair of alpha male >> and > female breed. Why would the average (non-dominant) wolves in the pack > allow this? > > A better example might be Elephant Seals, virtually all the females are > in the alpha male's harem and no other male gets to breed. [ . . . ] > And the Alpha Male is > certain to be very large and tough, so unless you're certain you are even > larger and tougher a better strategy for a young male might be to just > wait for the alpha male to grow old and weak and challenge him then. Well ok. But that is pretty simple-minded compared to the politics in a wolf pack or chimp troop. The beta seals don't lick or groom the alpha seal to curry his favor or forge alliances for example. Although I found Spike's anecdote to be interesting. >> This >> fluctuates throughout history, with a maximum during the middle ages >> where approximately 12% of humans died by another's hand. > That's one reason I'm happy I'm not living in the middle ages. Today > about .05% of people die by murder and .005% die in war. This is the > least violent time in human history. >From 12% to .05% is certainly a huge difference in a little over a thousand years. I think this difference is mostly cultural. But there could very well be a genetic component. I think that there is a sense in which culture selectively breeds humans (or any social animal) to suit its structure and in democratic societies, women are, to a certain extent, the selective agents of that culture. Technology has allowed women the means of practicing sexual selection like no other species before man. For example, "Freakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner suggests that the drop in violence is largely the result of women's rights when it comes to birth control and abortion. The pill and Roe vs Wade prevented a lot of violent assholes and rapists from passing their genes into the next generation. ? > But the typical social group for chimps is only about a hundred, if you > tried to cram 30 million of them in an area the size of Tokyo they'd tear > each other apart even if they had enough food. Lol. I would be hard pressed to think of a more unpleasant scenario. Can you imagine the noise? Yes. Humanity certainly is hypersocial these days. > >> So warfare among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was rarer than I had >> > assumed. > > There are 30,000 year old cave paintings showing people being pierced by > arrows? and a 8000 year old painting in Spain of archers fighting each > other: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morella_(combate-de-arquero.png According to the article 3.39 % percent of the human remains from that period had indications of being slain by another human. So the level of interpersonal violence was quite high. But it wasn't "Lord of the Flies" all day, every day. Which the middle ages apparently was. Stuart LaForge From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 17:56:08 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:56:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:44 PM "Stuart LaForge" > > Keith Henson wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:47 AM "Stuart LaForge" > > wrote: > >> In so far as the brain is our fastest evolving human organ, having > >> tripled in size in the last two million years, I would think that > >> evo-psych would be one of our fastest evolving traits. > > > > I can't parse that. Please try again. > > What I am saying is that in the last two million years our brain has > physically changed in size by a factor of 3. Assuming that behavioral > complexity is function of larger brains and more neurons, I would > therefore expect that our evolutionary psychology should have changed at > least as much in the same time period. Humans don't possess "evolutionary psychology." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology EP can't be possessed. It is an approach to understanding which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations. We do have a long list of psychological traits. I suspect your intent here is to say those human psychological traits changed about as much as the expansion of the brain. Could be I suppose. There would be severe measurement problems even if you had a time machine to go back and get the data. Take capture-bonding, a psychological trait where the evolutionary driver is fairly obvious. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Capture-bonding "The percentage of females in the lowland villages who have been abducted is significantly higher: 17% compared to 11.7% in the highland villages." (Napoleon Chagnon quoted at Sexual Polarization in Warrior Cultures). Translating into something that could be measured, your expectation would be that the percentage of captives (almost all women) who adapted to being captured would have gone up over the period where the brain expanded. > > I am not talking about religion, no matter how you want to define it. > > I am talking about the human *capacity* to have religions. It is so > > widespread among human populations that, like capture-bonding, it is nearly > > universal. > > How do you distinguish this capacity for religion from any other cultural > phenomena that allows memes and social constructs to override genes? It is > certainly more sophisticated in humans but it occurs across the spectrum > of social animals. > > In wolves for example, typically only the dominant pair of alpha male and > female breed. > > Why would the average (non-dominant) wolves in the pack allow this? Why > would these average wolves cooperatively hunt, protect, and help feed pups > that are unrelated to them effectively throwing their own genes under the > bus? > Sure one could argue that they are related so this is some kind of kin > selection going on but this is typically true only of the females who tend > to be siblings. The males are typically completely unrelated and randomly > get adopted into packs. Can you provide a URL for these statements? It's been a while since I read up on the subject. snip > The upshot of the Nature article is that humans are about six times more > likely than the average mammal to die by the actions of a member of our > own species. Based upon paleontological and archaelogical evidence during > the Stone Age about 3.5% of humans died by the hand of another human. This > fluctuates throughout history, with a maximum during the middle ages where > approximately 12% of humans died by another's hand. Some places much higher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization > For comparison, in chimps about 4.5% die from attacks by another chimp > making them, humans, and baboons the bloodiest primates. But surprisingly > we are nowhere close to being the most murderous mammals. > > That distinction goes to meerkats which are social weasels that live in > southern Africa with 20% of all meerkat deaths are attributable to other > meerkats. Usually in dominance disputes with meerkats in the same colony > or territorial wars with other meerkat colonies. You might note that meerkats have a high reproductive rate and not much predation. The environment can only support so many of them so they have to kill each other. It's the same problem humans have. > As a general rule, social mammals are more murderous than solitary mammals > and territorial mammals are more murderous than nomadic mammals. The most > murderous mammals of all are those which are both social and territorial. > > So warfare among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was rarer than I had > assumed. It wasn't until we settled down and became territorial that > warfare truly became a human preoccupation. > > >> Does the model account for the benefits of genetic out-breeding as a > >> result of war? > > > > No. Do you have a way to put numbers on this benefit? > > Unfortunately most of the hard numbers I can find are from recent wars: > The book GIs and Fr?uleins, by Maria Hohn, documents 66,000 German > children born to fathers who were soldiers of Allied forces in the period > 1945?55: > > American parent: 36,334 > French parent: 10,188 > British parent: 8,397 > Soviet parent: 3,105 > Belgian parent: 1,767 > Other/unknown: 6,829 Those are not useful numbers. You need data on how the children were better in some genetically significant way as a result of outbreeding. > > >>> So you would expect genes to get this judgment for "a time for war" > >>> correct, and genes that get the tribe into "attack mode" when needed > >>> would be positively selected. > >>> > >>> The major religions where we know something of their historical > >>> origins seem to have started as a set of xenophobic memes. > > Cultural identity may not be possible without some measure of xenophobia. > There cannot be a "self" without an "other". This is in conflict with outbreeding. Very often the people a tribe got their wives from where the same as the ones they fought. Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 18:01:16 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:01:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] crispr news Message-ID: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-scientists-crispr-code-precise-human.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 18:04:09 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:04:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure who wrote this - Keith or Stuart There cannot be a "self" without an "other". I don't know what this means. Our identity is totally tied up in our relationships? If I am alone on the planet I lose my identity? ?? bill w On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Keith Henson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:44 PM "Stuart LaForge" > > > > Keith Henson wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:47 AM "Stuart LaForge" > > > wrote: > > >> In so far as the brain is our fastest evolving human organ, having > > >> tripled in size in the last two million years, I would think that > > >> evo-psych would be one of our fastest evolving traits. > > > > > > I can't parse that. Please try again. > > > > What I am saying is that in the last two million years our brain has > > physically changed in size by a factor of 3. Assuming that behavioral > > complexity is function of larger brains and more neurons, I would > > therefore expect that our evolutionary psychology should have changed at > > least as much in the same time period. > > Humans don't possess "evolutionary psychology." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology EP can't be > possessed. It is an approach to understanding which human > psychological traits are evolved adaptations. We do have a long list > of psychological traits. I suspect your intent here is to say those > human psychological traits changed about as much as the expansion of > the brain. > > Could be I suppose. There would be severe measurement problems even > if you had a time machine to go back and get the data. Take > capture-bonding, a psychological trait where the evolutionary driver > is fairly obvious. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Capture-bonding > "The percentage of females in the lowland villages who have been > abducted is significantly higher: 17% compared to 11.7% in the > highland villages." (Napoleon Chagnon quoted at Sexual Polarization in > Warrior Cultures). > > Translating into something that could be measured, your expectation > would be that the percentage of captives (almost all women) who > adapted to being captured would have gone up over the period where the > brain expanded. > > > > I am not talking about religion, no matter how you want to define it. > > > I am talking about the human *capacity* to have religions. It is so > > > widespread among human populations that, like capture-bonding, it is > nearly > > > universal. > > > > How do you distinguish this capacity for religion from any other cultural > > phenomena that allows memes and social constructs to override genes? It > is > > certainly more sophisticated in humans but it occurs across the spectrum > > of social animals. > > > > In wolves for example, typically only the dominant pair of alpha male and > > female breed. > > > > Why would the average (non-dominant) wolves in the pack allow this? Why > > would these average wolves cooperatively hunt, protect, and help feed > pups > > that are unrelated to them effectively throwing their own genes under the > > bus? > > > Sure one could argue that they are related so this is some kind of kin > > selection going on but this is typically true only of the females who > tend > > to be siblings. The males are typically completely unrelated and randomly > > get adopted into packs. > > Can you provide a URL for these statements? It's been a while since I > read up on the subject. > > snip > > > The upshot of the Nature article is that humans are about six times more > > likely than the average mammal to die by the actions of a member of our > > own species. Based upon paleontological and archaelogical evidence during > > the Stone Age about 3.5% of humans died by the hand of another human. > This > > fluctuates throughout history, with a maximum during the middle ages > where > > approximately 12% of humans died by another's hand. > > Some places much higher > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization > > > For comparison, in chimps about 4.5% die from attacks by another chimp > > making them, humans, and baboons the bloodiest primates. But surprisingly > > we are nowhere close to being the most murderous mammals. > > > > That distinction goes to meerkats which are social weasels that live in > > southern Africa with 20% of all meerkat deaths are attributable to other > > meerkats. Usually in dominance disputes with meerkats in the same colony > > or territorial wars with other meerkat colonies. > > You might note that meerkats have a high reproductive rate and not > much predation. The environment can only support so many of them so > they have to kill each other. It's the same problem humans have. > > > As a general rule, social mammals are more murderous than solitary > mammals > > and territorial mammals are more murderous than nomadic mammals. The most > > murderous mammals of all are those which are both social and territorial. > > > > So warfare among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was rarer than I had > > assumed. It wasn't until we settled down and became territorial that > > warfare truly became a human preoccupation. > > > > >> Does the model account for the benefits of genetic out-breeding as a > > >> result of war? > > > > > > No. Do you have a way to put numbers on this benefit? > > > > Unfortunately most of the hard numbers I can find are from recent wars: > > The book GIs and Fr?uleins, by Maria Hohn, documents 66,000 German > > children born to fathers who were soldiers of Allied forces in the period > > 1945?55: > > > > American parent: 36,334 > > French parent: 10,188 > > British parent: 8,397 > > Soviet parent: 3,105 > > Belgian parent: 1,767 > > Other/unknown: 6,829 > > Those are not useful numbers. You need data on how the children were > better in some genetically significant way as a result of outbreeding. > > > > >>> So you would expect genes to get this judgment for "a time for war" > > >>> correct, and genes that get the tribe into "attack mode" when needed > > >>> would be positively selected. > > >>> > > >>> The major religions where we know something of their historical > > >>> origins seem to have started as a set of xenophobic memes. > > > > Cultural identity may not be possible without some measure of xenophobia. > > There cannot be a "self" without an "other". > > This is in conflict with outbreeding. Very often the people a tribe > got their wives from where the same as the ones they fought. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 18:44:03 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:44:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> > On Dec 14, 2018, at 12:04 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Not sure who wrote this - Keith or Stuart > > There cannot be a "self" without an "other". > > I don't know what this means. Our identity is totally tied up in our relationships? If I am alone on the planet I lose my identity? > > ?? bill w In short: yes. If you are the only man on the planet, are you still in America? Do you still have your American citizenship? Are you still employed (and thus able to identify with your job)? If you are religious, can you really say that your church still exists? Do your social bonds exist still (like son, father, brother, teacher)? Can you still be considered a misanthrope if there are no people? Do you still have social anxiety or confidence if there are no people? Are you still smart if there is no one left who is dumber than you? So yes, your personal identity is deeply tied to other people. Read a bit about the effects of solitary confinement if you don?t believe that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 18:58:47 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:58:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> References: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 1:49 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > If you are the only man on the planet, are you still in America? > Depending upon your definition of America and your location, yes. Do you still have your American citizenship? > That depends upon your definition of "American citizenship". Are you still employed (and thus able to identify with your job)? > That depends upon your job. If you're self-employed and still doing the work, sure. > If you are religious, can you really say that your church still exists? > Depends on your definition of church. > Do your social bonds exist still (like son, father, brother, teacher)? > Not currently, according to your premise. > Can you still be considered a misanthrope if there are no people? > Sure. > Do you still have social anxiety or confidence if there are no people? > Sure. > Are you still smart if there is no one left who is dumber than you? > Sure. You're the smartest. And the stupidest. So yes, your personal identity is deeply tied to other people. > Yes, but it doesn't cease to exist without others. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Dec 14 19:28:35 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:28:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: Spike wrote: > The motion elephant seals make to run is highly inefficient. It doesn't have to be efficient. It just needs to be slightly faster than an orca can beach itself and flop around on dry land. There is not much else a 12 foot long 4 ton creature needs to run away from that it wouldn't be be better off swimming from. Stuart LaForge From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 19:56:49 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:56:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2CA619B4-6729-47E5-8BE8-CCB55055E822@gmail.com> >> If you are the only man on the planet, are you still in America? > > Depending upon your definition of America and your location, yes. > >> Do you still have your American citizenship? > > That depends upon your definition of "American citizenship". > >> Are you still employed (and thus able to identify with your job)? > > That depends upon your job. If you're self-employed and still doing the work, sure. > >> If you are religious, can you really say that your church still exists? > > Depends on your definition of church. > >> Do your social bonds exist still (like son, father, brother, teacher)? > > Not currently, according to your premise. > >> Can you still be considered a misanthrope if there are no people? > > Sure. > >> Do you still have social anxiety or confidence if there are no people? > > Sure. > >> Are you still smart if there is no one left who is dumber than you? > > Sure. You're the smartest. And the stupidest. > >> So yes, your personal identity is deeply tied to other people. > > Yes, but it doesn't cease to exist without others. > > -Dave If your identity requires people, and you remove the people, how can the identity continue? The USA is a nation. It?s boundaries rely on treaty, and those treaties rely on governments. With no people, there are no government, thus no nations. You cannot maintain citizenship to a country which does not exist. How could you possibly maintain a meaningful ?job? as we currently understand one in a capitalist society, if there is no money, no goods or services to exchange, and no one to consume the product you create. There is no possible financial end, as there are no people. If a Church is a religious organization, then it ceases to exist when there is no one to organize it. If it is a body of believers it ends when there are no believers. If it is a group of opinions, then perhaps it continues to exist until you, the last human, dies. If there are no people, how would you know if you were still a misanthrope. There is no way to check. Similarly you cannot be anxious of social interactions if their are none, and you can?t be confident in them either because they fail to exist. Similarly, you are now neither smart nor dumb, because your responses to events are precisely the definition of average. Your attitudes and reactions literally become the only possible ones. If you took an IQ a thousand times, your score would average to 100 because you are the only person who could be used to average the score. The concept of ?self? is created in relation to that which is not the self (the other). No one is arguing that your physical body would dissolve and that you would ascend to an enlightened non-material self. What we?re saying is that your concept of ?self? that is, how you define yourself as a person distinct from others, breaks down if you are the only person. Let?s take a for example here: how would you describe yourself? What type of person are you? How would that sense of self be impacted by no longer having other people? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 20:10:51 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:10:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:44 AM, Dave Sill wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> Now I am a loyal American who loves his country. But. I want the truth out and no lies and coverups in educating children. >> > Government-run education promotes the government, not too surprisingly. While I don?t doubt that, I wonder if it?s the biggest factor here. Are most people likely to not be loyal Americans or whatever simply because they weren?t taught so in school? >> School boards and colleges say that they are teaching critical thinking, but my question is, where? How? In what class? One-sided teaching is the farthest thing from fair it is possible to get. I think that is the worst kind of critical nonthinking, and actually immoral. >> > Yeah, they don't teach critical thinking and generally don't reward students questioning their teachings. I?m a bit pessimistic if critical thinking and a questioning attitude can be taught to kids who aren?t already open to them. And a problem here is how general skills are often not applied to specific cases. I believe this explains phenomena like someone being for freedom of speech, but then supporting speech codes. >> Education or propaganda? >> > It's some of both, of course. I think where public K-12 education really fails is in teaching life skills like planning, time management, finance, decision making, etc. Most of those skills might be taught on the job rather than in school, don?t you think? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 20:49:40 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:49:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:15 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:44 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > > Government-run education promotes the government, not too surprisingly. > > While I don?t doubt that, I wonder if it?s the biggest factor here. Are > most people likely to not be loyal Americans or whatever simply because > they weren?t taught so in school? > No, I doubt it's the biggest factor. > Yeah, they don't teach critical thinking and generally don't reward >> students questioning their teachings. >> > I?m a bit pessimistic if critical thinking and a questioning attitude can > be taught to kids who aren?t already open to them. And a problem here is > how general skills are often not applied to specific cases. I believe this > explains phenomena like someone being for freedom of speech, but then > supporting speech codes. > Oh, I think kids do a great job of learning by example. If they see critical thinking rewarded, they're motivated to seek the same rewards. > It's some of both, of course. I think where public K-12 education really > fails is in teaching life skills like planning, time management, finance, > decision making, etc. > > Most of those skills might be taught on the job rather than in school, > don?t you think? > I'm talking about basic life skills that would help people get jobs. And what motivation would an employer have to teach these skills? -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 14 20:58:45 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:58:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004801d493ef\$ce09c2c0\$6a1d4840\$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Stuart LaForge Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:29 AM To: Exi Chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Spike wrote: > The motion elephant seals make to run is highly inefficient. It doesn't have to be efficient. It just needs to be slightly faster than an orca can beach itself and flop around on dry land. There is not much else a 12 foot long 4 ton creature needs to run away from that it wouldn't be be better off swimming from. Stuart LaForge They can only mate on land and only fight on land, ja. That scenario where two betas are running the alpha back and forth to exhaustion on the beach works pretty well from what I saw. That technique would determine how the species evolves. It wouldn't necessarily select the faster runners (blobbers?) because the betas playing either end wouldn't really need to be all that fast. They would need to be fast at reaching climax because they would only have about a half a minute to get er dun, keep his concentration while the alpha is blobbing his way, inject the DNA, get back to the safety of the water. spike From sparge at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 21:01:57 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:01:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <2CA619B4-6729-47E5-8BE8-CCB55055E822@gmail.com> References: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> <2CA619B4-6729-47E5-8BE8-CCB55055E822@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:01 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > If your identity requires people, and you remove the people, how can the > identity continue? > My identity doesn't require other people. Without other people my identity will change, but it'll still be mine. The USA is a nation. It?s boundaries rely on treaty, and those treaties > rely on governments. With no people, there are no government, thus no > nations. > If I'm the last person on Earth, and I think I'm in the US, then I'm in the US. I don't need governments to validate my beliefs. You cannot maintain citizenship to a country which does not exist. > I can make a country exist. How could you possibly maintain a meaningful ?job? as we currently > understand one in a capitalist society, if there is no money, no goods or > services to exchange, and no one to consume the product you create. There > is no possible financial end, as there are no people. > I would redefine "job" to apply to a non-capitalist world. If a Church is a religious organization, then it ceases to exist when there > is no one to organize it. > If I'm the only member of the Church, it ceases to exist when I say it does. > If it is a body of believers it ends when there are no believers. > OK, so if I believe then it doesn't end. If there are no people, how would you know if you were still a misanthrope. > I would ask myself "do you wish there were other people?" and if the answer was "no" then I'd know I'm still a misanthrope. There is no way to check. > See above. > Similarly you cannot be anxious of social interactions if their are none, > Sure you can; you can be anxious of potential social interactions. There don't have to be monsters for one to be afraid of monsters. and you can?t be confident in them either because they fail to exist. > Similarly, you are now neither smart nor dumb, because your responses to > events are precisely the definition of average. > You can make wise or unwise decisions, whether there are other people or not. > Your attitudes and reactions literally become the only possible ones. If > you took an IQ a thousand times, your score would average to 100 because > you are the only person who could be used to average the score. > IQ becomes meaningless but intelligence doesn't cease to exist. The concept of ?self? is created in relation to that which is not the self > (the other). No one is arguing that your physical body would dissolve and > that you would ascend to an enlightened non-material self. > So what's your point? Without other people I cease to be a person? That's ludicrous. What we?re saying is that your concept of ?self? that is, how you define > yourself as a person distinct from others, breaks down if you are the only > person. > No it doesn't, it just changes. Let?s take a for example here: how would you describe yourself? What type > of person are you? How would that sense of self be impacted by no longer > having other people? > I'd be different, but I wouldn't cease to exist. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 21:15:59 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:15:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Long ago article Message-ID: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/meme002.htm This was before I got into EP. It's amusing. Keith From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 14 21:22:44 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:22:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007101d493f3\$27d89b70\$7789d250\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Subject: Re: [ExI] my view of education On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:44 AM, Dave Sill > wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: Now I am a loyal American who loves his country. But. I want the truth out and no lies and coverups in educating children. Government-run education promotes the government, not too surprisingly. While I don?t doubt that, I wonder if it?s the biggest factor here. Are most people likely to not be loyal Americans or whatever simply because they weren?t taught so in school?...Dan Clarification: public schools are funded at the state level. I live in a state (California) which seems to be thinking of itself as its own nation, free to make laws in contradiction to national law. This notion is under scrutiny with respect to the biggies: the whole sanctuary state for immigration and the restrictive gun laws and so forth, but consider the legalization of marijuana. California schools fail to explain properly what it means when state law is different from federal law. State authorities can (and do) bust people for certain kinds of weapons allowed at the federal level. But they fail to explain that feds can do likewise: they can bust illegal immigrants in California and they can bust people for grass. The reason I mention it in this forum is my having to explain to young people that if they choose to smoke grass, they can still get in all kinds of legal trouble if they take it anywhere where the federal agents are likely to be, such as the airport, the national parks, plenty of places. Just because California isn?t going to go after them doesn?t mean the feds won?t, and California won?t pony up a legal defense if the feds decide to jump them. California public schools fail spectacularly in explaining this danger, while taking up the time to grossly exaggerate the dangers of using plastic straws. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 21:25:06 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:25:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> <2CA619B4-6729-47E5-8BE8-CCB55055E822@gmail.com> Message-ID: What we?re saying is that your concept of ?self? that is, how you define yourself as a person distinct from others, breaks down if you are the only person. I agree with everything that Dave said. I am acutely aware that, as a social psychologist, a lot of what you say is true: that we define ourselves in part by how we compare to others in personality, intelligence, etc., whether we view others as hostile or friendly, and so on. But as Dave said, that's just not all we are. We can look at the physical world and know certain things about how to do things in it, how to accomplish eating and drinking. We can identify ourselves in part by our likes and dislikes: food, music, colors, landscapes. Take religion: my views on that do not depend on comparing myself to others's views. Mine are just mine. I can compare with words like agnostic, which separates me from many believers, but if there are no others, I still have what I believe. In short, if I were to be left alone on this planet, I would certainly miss others dreadfully, but there would still be a 'me' and I would not lack for things to love, to do, to accomplish and a lot more bill w On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:16 PM Dave Sill wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:01 PM SR Ballard wrote: > >> >> If your identity requires people, and you remove the people, how can the >> identity continue? >> > > My identity doesn't require other people. Without other people my identity > will change, but it'll still be mine. > > The USA is a nation. It?s boundaries rely on treaty, and those treaties >> rely on governments. With no people, there are no government, thus no >> nations. >> > > If I'm the last person on Earth, and I think I'm in the US, then I'm in > the US. I don't need governments to validate my beliefs. > > You cannot maintain citizenship to a country which does not exist. >> > > I can make a country exist. > > How could you possibly maintain a meaningful ?job? as we currently >> understand one in a capitalist society, if there is no money, no goods or >> services to exchange, and no one to consume the product you create. There >> is no possible financial end, as there are no people. >> > > I would redefine "job" to apply to a non-capitalist world. > > If a Church is a religious organization, then it ceases to exist when >> there is no one to organize it. >> > > If I'm the only member of the Church, it ceases to exist when I say it > does. > > >> If it is a body of believers it ends when there are no believers. >> > > OK, so if I believe then it doesn't end. > > If there are no people, how would you know if you were still a misanthrope. >> > > I would ask myself "do you wish there were other people?" and if the > answer was "no" then I'd know I'm still a misanthrope. > > There is no way to check. >> > > See above. > > >> Similarly you cannot be anxious of social interactions if their are none, >> > > Sure you can; you can be anxious of potential social interactions. There > don't have to be monsters for one to be afraid of monsters. > > and you can?t be confident in them either because they fail to exist. >> Similarly, you are now neither smart nor dumb, because your responses to >> events are precisely the definition of average. >> > > You can make wise or unwise decisions, whether there are other people or > not. > > >> Your attitudes and reactions literally become the only possible ones. If >> you took an IQ a thousand times, your score would average to 100 because >> you are the only person who could be used to average the score. >> > > IQ becomes meaningless but intelligence doesn't cease to exist. > > The concept of ?self? is created in relation to that which is not the self >> (the other). No one is arguing that your physical body would dissolve and >> that you would ascend to an enlightened non-material self. >> > > So what's your point? Without other people I cease to be a person? That's > ludicrous. > > What we?re saying is that your concept of ?self? that is, how you define >> yourself as a person distinct from others, breaks down if you are the only >> person. >> > > No it doesn't, it just changes. > > Let?s take a for example here: how would you describe yourself? What type >> of person are you? How would that sense of self be impacted by no longer >> having other people? >> > > I'd be different, but I wouldn't cease to exist. > > -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 Fri Dec 14 21:37:23 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:37:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dan wrote ?m a bit pessimistic if critical thinking and a questioning attitude can be taught to kids who aren?t already open to them. Simple example: take a kid shopping for clothes and shoes. Let's say he's about six. I speculate that he will want expensive ones, will pick on the basis of what other kids are wearing, his favorite colors, etc. (My own 14 year old daughter, long ago, simply would not wear Lee jeans. I told her she could have three pairs for the price of the Gloria Vanderbilt ones she wanted. I bought the VAnderbilt ones, of course. When she had her own children I reminded her of that scene, and she admitted that she was wrong.) So then show he how to put all of his criteria in some kind of order: what's most important? Least? Point out that if he gets those Nikes he can't wear them to school because they would be stolen from him right off his feet. And if he spends so much money on shoes he will not have much left over for coats, which he has to have, and he won't want to have a cheap coat, and o on. So, decision-making starts. If the parent just buys what she thinks she can afford and the kid will wear, and makes all of his choices for him, he learns nothing. So parents, I assume, though I have never heard of such, give a kid an allowance when he is ten or twelve and he has to buy everyhthing from it: clothes, games, tickets, etc. This is teaching like throwing a kid in the pool and tell him to swim,is teaching. So when he gets into trouble, having spend all his weekly allowance on food, you sit down and help him make decisions, at least to get him started. But of course you cannot tell him how to rank his likes, so he is forced to do that decision-making. I have read exactly zero books on how to raise kids, so I just don't know how much time they spend on critical thinking. I hope it's a lot and parents buy the books etc. bill w On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:44 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> Now I am a loyal American who loves his country. But. I want the truth >> out and no lies and coverups in educating children. >> > Government-run education promotes the government, not too surprisingly. > > > While I don?t doubt that, I wonder if it?s the biggest factor here. Are > most people likely to not be loyal Americans or whatever simply because > they weren?t taught so in school? > > School boards and colleges say that they are teaching critical thinking, >> but my question is, where? How? In what class? One-sided teaching is the >> farthest thing from fair it is possible to get. I think that is the worst >> kind of critical nonthinking, and actually immoral. >> > Yeah, they don't teach critical thinking and generally don't reward > students questioning their teachings. > > > I?m a bit pessimistic if critical thinking and a questioning attitude can > be taught to kids who aren?t already open to them. And a problem here is > how general skills are often not applied to specific cases. I believe this > explains phenomena like someone being for freedom of speech, but then > supporting speech codes. > > Education or propaganda? >> > It's some of both, of course. I think where public K-12 education really > fails is in teaching life skills like planning, time management, finance, > decision making, etc. > > > Most of those skills might be taught on the job rather than in school, > don?t you think? > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 21:38:38 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:38:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:15 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>> On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:44 AM, Dave Sill wrote: >>>> Yeah, they don't teach critical thinking and generally don't reward students questioning their teachings. >>>> >> I?m a bit pessimistic if critical thinking and a questioning attitude can be taught to kids who aren?t already open to them. And a problem here is how general skills are often not applied to specific cases. I believe this explains phenomena like someone being for freedom of speech, but then supporting speech codes. > > Oh, I think kids do a great job of learning by example. If they see critical thinking rewarded, they're motivated to seek the same rewards. I?d like to see evidence showing there because there?s much evidence to show people don?t generalize well. Maybe I?ve misread the work on this, but it seems like most people don?t go from example to example well ? unless primed and prompted. >>> It's some of both, of course. I think where public K-12 education really fails is in teaching life skills like planning, time management, finance, decision making, etc. >> >> Most of those skills might be taught on the job rather than in school, don?t you think? > > I'm talking about basic life skills that would help people get jobs. And what motivation would an employer have to teach these skills? The skills you mention though are ones I would expect are better taught by having kids get out in the ?real world? and work rather than sit in class being shown examples and hoping they?re apply those examples outside the classroom. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 22:30:43 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:30:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dan wrote I?d like to see evidence showing there because there?s much evidence to show people don?t generalize well. Maybe I?ve misread the work on this, but it seems like most people don?t go from example to example well ? unless primed and prompted. It varies a lot, mostly with IQ. I have seen studies where mentally retarded Ss and normals work the same tasks and then are switched to a generalization task. Most of the normals used the skills they learned on the previous task, but the MRs did not until prompted. But I really am not aware of most research on this subject. I will generalize: I think that if people did not generalize fairly readily the species would not have lasted nearly this. Few things in the world present themselves as identical to what was experienced before. bill w On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Dec 14, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:15 PM Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > >> On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:44 AM, Dave Sill wrote: >> > Yeah, they don't teach critical thinking and generally don't reward >>> students questioning their teachings. >>> >> I?m a bit pessimistic if critical thinking and a questioning attitude can >> be taught to kids who aren?t already open to them. And a problem here is >> how general skills are often not applied to specific cases. I believe this >> explains phenomena like someone being for freedom of speech, but then >> supporting speech codes. >> > > Oh, I think kids do a great job of learning by example. If they see > critical thinking rewarded, they're motivated to seek the same rewards. > > > I?d like to see evidence showing there because there?s much evidence to > show people don?t generalize well. Maybe I?ve misread the work on this, but > it seems like most people don?t go from example to example well ? unless > primed and prompted. > > It's some of both, of course. I think where public K-12 education really >> fails is in teaching life skills like planning, time management, finance, >> decision making, etc. >> >> Most of those skills might be taught on the job rather than in school, >> don?t you think? >> > > I'm talking about basic life skills that would help people get jobs. And > what motivation would an employer have to teach these skills? > > > The skills you mention though are ones I would expect are better taught by > having kids get out in the ?real world? and work rather than sit in class > being shown examples and hoping they?re apply those examples outside the > classroom. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 00:17:00 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:17:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C0408D5-B1C0-40A8-8A3E-F3CCA2ADB514@gmail.com> On Dec 14, 2018, at 2:30 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > dan wrote > > ?I?d like to see evidence showing there because there?s much evidence to show people don?t generalize well. Maybe I?ve misread the work on this, but it seems like most people don?t go from example to example well ? unless primed and prompted.? > > It varies a lot, mostly with IQ. I have seen studies where mentally retarded Ss and normals work the same tasks and then are switched to a generalization task. Most of the normals used the skills they learned on the previous task, but the MRs did not until prompted. But I really am not aware of most research on this subject. The work I?ve seen shows average students not generalizing if not promoted or directed* in many cases ? enough to undermine the argument that average people, say, being taught history will then go on and generalize to current policies or events. Now if students with IQ positively correlated with generalization, then it?s likely it?s not that the student is learning to generalize so much as they already are good generalizers... In other words, it?s at least possible that had they not been schooled that they might be as good or as bad at generalization. > I will generalize: I think that if people did not generalize fairly readily the species would not have lasted nearly this. Few things in the world present themselves as identical to what was experienced before. Given the data, I think it?s wrong to think every last human is great at generalization. Instead, a better theory here might be there?s a bell curve but since humans do seem really good at imitation that all that?s necessary for a social species to survive is a few outliers perform successful generalizations that imitators can then follow. Or failing that that those worse at generalizing (who might still not be terrrible overall) can specialize in areas that don?t require heavy generalization. And in fact most work doesn?t require much generalization. One can stick in a very narrow domain ? hunting large game, fishing, growing wheat, fixing truck engines, coding apps on mobile phones ? and not have to worry about other domains or about generalized knowledge overall. Your argument would work if humans were asocial or operated only in tiny groups yet still needed to generalize. (In fact, the smaller the human group, generally, the fewer skill sets overall can be maintained to any degree. A really tiny society tends to lose the skill sets because it can no longer retain the knowledge base, including tacit knowledge. I?m thinking here especially of preliterate societies.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst * If they?re promoted or directed then it?s not really raw generalization happening, but following instructions. And most of the evidence with education seems to show students learning to get the grade or diploma, then promptly forgetting what they learned ? that is, not generalizing. There are exceptions, but the exceptions are usually people who go into academia, which is a tiny minority of students. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 00:29:02 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:29:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: <007101d493f3\$27d89b70\$7789d250\$@rainier66.com> References: <007101d493f3\$27d89b70\$7789d250\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2018, at 1:22 PM, wrote: > > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan > Subject: Re: [ExI] my view of education > > > > > On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:44 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Now I am a loyal American who loves his country. But. I want the truth out and no lies and coverups in educating children. > > Government-run education promotes the government, not too surprisingly. > > While I don?t doubt that, I wonder if it?s the biggest factor here. Are most people likely to not be loyal Americans or whatever simply because they weren?t taught so in school?...Dan > > > Clarification: public schools are funded at the state level. > > I live in a state (California) which seems to be thinking of itself as its own nation, free to make laws in contradiction to national law. This notion is under scrutiny with respect to the biggies: the whole sanctuary state for immigration and the restrictive gun laws and so forth, but consider the legalization of marijuana. > > California schools fail to explain properly what it means when state law is different from federal law. State authorities can (and do) bust people for certain kinds of weapons allowed at the federal level. But they fail to explain that feds can do likewise: they can bust illegal immigrants in California and they can bust people for grass. > > The reason I mention it in this forum is my having to explain to young people that if they choose to smoke grass, they can still get in all kinds of legal trouble if they take it anywhere where the federal agents are likely to be, such as the airport, the national parks, plenty of places. Just because California isn?t going to go after them doesn?t mean the feds won?t, and California won?t pony up a legal defense if the feds decide to jump them. > > California public schools fail spectacularly in explaining this danger, while taking up the time to grossly exaggerate the dangers of using plastic straws. I?m not sure how this even answers my point. My guess is people simply don?t educated on these things. It?s a fantasy to believe they do because adults tested after years of studying civics or government usually can?t even recall simple facts like how many branches of the federal government there are or who were the two sides in the Civil War. And you?re expecting them to retain knowledge of where federal and state law disagree? Even if that were taught, my guess is most students would only learn enough to get a grade and diploma then promptly forget it. Add to this, their decision to break specific laws might be influenced more by their peer group and other influences ? and not what?s in the curriculum. As for your wider comment about state laws conflicting with federal law, this is a fantastic thing that those skeptical of centralized control or big government should at least not dismiss. Here in Washington, the feds can still hurt people for smoking pot, but it?s rare and my hope is that eventually the feds cave on this. That will probably happen as ever more people openly disregard the completely unjust federal law. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 00:38:51 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:38:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1812F45E-7E5F-4D39-B088-67F03648567A@gmail.com> On Dec 14, 2018, at 1:37 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > dan wrote ?m a bit pessimistic if critical thinking and a questioning attitude can be taught to kids who aren?t already open to them. > > Simple example: take a kid shopping for clothes and shoes. Let's say he's about six. I speculate that he will want expensive ones, will pick on the basis of what other kids are wearing, his favorite colors, etc. (My own 14 year old daughter, long ago, simply would not wear Lee jeans. I told her she could have three pairs for the price of the Gloria Vanderbilt ones she wanted. I bought the VAnderbilt ones, of course. When she had her own children I reminded her of that scene, and she admitted that she was wrong.) So then show he how to put all of his criteria in some kind of order: what's most important? Least? Point out that if he gets those Nikes he can't wear them to school because they would be stolen from him right off his feet. And if he spends so much money on shoes he will not have much left over for coats, which he has to have, and he won't want to have a cheap coat, and o on. So, decision-making starts. > > If the parent just buys what she thinks she can afford and the kid will wear, and makes all of his choices for him, he learns nothing. So parents, I assume, though I have never heard of such, give a kid an allowance when he is ten or twelve and he has to buy everyhthing from it: clothes, games, tickets, etc. This is teaching like throwing a kid in the pool and tell him to swim,is teaching. So when he gets into trouble, having spend all his weekly allowance on food, you sit down and help him make decisions, at least to get him started. But of course you cannot tell him how to rank his likes, so he is forced to do that decision-making. > > I have read exactly zero books on how to raise kids, so I just don't know how much time they spend on critical thinking. I hope it's a lot and parents buy the books etc. I meant taught as in taught in school. Parents have a stronger incentive to get it right. And the example you give is of fostering agency. That?s very different from the typical case of critical thinking classes I?ve taken ? ones where you go over case studies and try to apply principles and discuss them, and then you?re tested on similar cases often with prompting. I?m not saying the latter can?t work, but it seems harder with a captive audience who just want to pass the class or do something else. Which is why I mentioned students already ?being open? to them (critical thinking and a questioning attitude*). One more thing: critical thinking tends to be a great overall skill to have ? like reading and arithmetic. But schooling tends to be oriented towards stuff that?s easy to teach and test ? like narrow domains of knowledge. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst * As opposed to either students who are unable, unwilling, or who merely want to pass the class and move on. Think of this way: most majors in college require some foreign language study. Yet studied show that the US is strongly monolingual even for college grads. Why is that? They learned enough to meet the degree requirement and promptly forgot the stuff once they got their diploma. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 00:40:12 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:40:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: <5C0408D5-B1C0-40A8-8A3E-F3CCA2ADB514@gmail.com> References: <5C0408D5-B1C0-40A8-8A3E-F3CCA2ADB514@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 6:21 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Dec 14, 2018, at 2:30 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > dan wrote > > ?I?d like to see evidence showing there because there?s much evidence to > show people don?t generalize well. Maybe I?ve misread the work on this, but > it seems like most people don?t go from example to example well ? unless > primed and prompted.? > > It varies a lot, mostly with IQ. I have seen studies where mentally > retarded Ss and normals work the same tasks and then are switched to a > generalization task. Most of the normals used the skills they learned on > the previous task, but the MRs did not until prompted. But I really am not > aware of most research on this subject. > > > The work I?ve seen shows average students not generalizing if not promoted > or directed* in many cases ? enough to undermine the argument that average > people, say, being taught history will then go on and generalize to current > policies or events. > > Now if students with IQ positively correlated with generalization, then > it?s likely it?s not that the student is learning to generalize so much as > they already are good generalizers... In other words, it?s at least > possible that had they not been schooled that they might be as good or as > bad at generalization. > > I will generalize: I think that if people did not generalize fairly > readily the species would not have lasted nearly this. Few things in the > world present themselves as identical to what was experienced before. > > > Given the data, I think it?s wrong to think every last human is great at > generalization. Here you are setting up a straw man and knocking him > down. I would never make such a statement about any human characteristic. Instead, > a better theory here might be there?s a bell curve but since humans do seem > really good at imitation that all that?s necessary for a social species to > survive is a few outliers perform successful generalizations that imitators > can then follow. Or failing that that those worse at generalizing (who > might still not be terrrible overall) can specialize in areas that don?t > require heavy generalization. > > And in fact most work doesn?t require much generalization. One can stick > in a very narrow domain ? hunting large game, fishing, growing wheat, > fixing truck engines, coding apps on mobile phones ? and not have to worry > about other domains or about generalized knowledge overall. Your argument > would work What argument is that? if humans were asocial or operated only > in tiny groups yet still needed to generalize. (In fact, the smaller the > human group, generally, the fewer skill sets overall can be maintained to > any degree. A really tiny society tends to lose the skill sets because it > can no longer retain the knowledge base, including tacit knowledge. I?m > thinking here especially of preliterate societies.) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > > > * If they?re promoted or directed then it?s not really raw generalization > happening, but following instructions. No - they are not told what to do, > but prompted to remember doing some other task. And most of the evidence > with education seems to show students learning to get the grade or diploma, > then promptly forgetting what they learned ? that is, not generalizing.Forgetting > something and generalizing something are different things. There are > exceptions, but the exceptions are usually people who go into academia, > which is a tiny minority of students. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Dec 15 00:48:50 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:48:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> References: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8383F094-88D1-453F-9285-122BC116DE16@gmail.com> On Dec 14, 2018, at 10:44 AM, SR Ballard wrote: > >> On Dec 14, 2018, at 12:04 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> >> Not sure who wrote this - Keith or Stuart >> >> There cannot be a "self" without an "other". >> >> I don't know what this means. Our identity is totally tied up in our relationships? If I am alone on the planet I lose my identity? >> >> ?? bill w > > In short: yes. > > If you are the only man on the planet, are you still in America? Do you still have your American citizenship? Are you still employed (and thus able to identify with your job)? If you are religious, can you really say that your church still exists? Do your social bonds exist still (like son, father, brother, teacher)? Can you still be considered a misanthrope if there are no people? Do you still have social anxiety or confidence if there are no people? Are you still smart if there is no one left who is dumber than you? > > So yes, your personal identity is deeply tied to other people. > > Read a bit about the effects of solitary confinement if you don?t believe that. It seems like you?re conflating social identity with identity and identity change with having no identity. If I were to move from Seattle to Tokyo much of my social relations would radically change. You might say I would become a different person, but it?s not like I literarily have no identity under such a change. And if I woke up tomorrow to find myself the only person on Earth, sure, that?d be a radical change in my life. My social context would simply cease ? existing only as a memory. Presuming I don?t go completely mad, I bet I?d still maintain some aspects of my former self. I might continue to read books, prefer to take a shower in the morning rather than in the evening, hanker after a good latte, enjoy partly sunny days, etc. I bet I?d be depressed too for the loss of companionship, but that wouldn?t mean do much not having an identity as losing a very important part of my life. This is akin to if I were, say, to suffer a serious accident now and no longer be able to walk. My identity would change, but I?d still have an identity. (I love hiking and moving around. So not being able to walk would also likely depress me, but on some level I?d still be me.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 01:12:47 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:12:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] States Message-ID: "In short: the psychological traits that lead to wars evolved in the long course of human evolution. War was a prime factor in keeping human populations in demographic balance with the ability of the ecosystem to feed them. Typically, populations built up, competed, and were periodically reduced by wars." The last stages to the current political situation are tribes, chieftains, city-states, and our current states. The functions of a State are to reduce the violence internally and to defend its borders or to attack beyond them. Competition for scarce resources didn't stop when states emerged. But this makes me wonder. The leaders of tribes to nations may have a wired in need--perhaps even responsibility--to keep their populations ready to fight. We have not had states long enough for evolution to have had a lot of effect on human psychological traits, so if it exists at all, it must have come from previous social organizations, tribes and such. *IF* war is largely a bottom-up process that starts with a recognition of a bleak future, then the wide discussion of a resource crisis and of future bad weather may be setting the world up for a coming war. A bad economic downturn would make a bad situation worse. I think there is a remarkably simple way to model wars, clear back to the stone age. For a constant environment, the human population can't exceed the capacity of the environment to feed it. William Calvin in _The Ascent of Mind:_ goes into the problem using bears as an example of an animal (like humans) with few predators. Unlike bears, humans have figured out how to increase the productivity of the environment. Like bears, they expand to the limit anyway. There is lots of material, for example, "Climate Change and War Frequency in Eastern China over the Last Millennium" https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46520148/Climate_change_and_war_frequency_in_East20160615-13363-ayvnfy.pdf Keith From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 01:21:26 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:21:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] my view of education In-Reply-To: References: <5C0408D5-B1C0-40A8-8A3E-F3CCA2ADB514@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4DB93E16-D521-41CF-959A-6AE7029902C1@gmail.com> > On Dec 14, 2018, at 4:40 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 6:21 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>> On Dec 14, 2018, at 2:30 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> dan wrote >>> >>> ?I?d like to see evidence showing there because there?s much evidence to show people don?t generalize well. Maybe I?ve misread the work on this, but it seems like most people don?t go from example to example well ? unless primed and prompted.? >>> >>> It varies a lot, mostly with IQ. I have seen studies where mentally retarded Ss and normals work the same tasks and then are switched to a generalization task. Most of the normals used the skills they learned on the previous task, but the MRs did not until prompted. But I really am not aware of most research on this subject. >> >> The work I?ve seen shows average students not generalizing if not promoted or directed* in many cases ? enough to undermine the argument that average people, say, being taught history will then go on and generalize to current policies or events. >> >> Now if students with IQ positively correlated with generalization, then it?s likely it?s not that the student is learning to generalize so much as they already are good generalizers... In other words, it?s at least possible that had they not been schooled that they might be as good or as bad at generalization. >> >>> I will generalize: I think that if people did not generalize fairly readily the species would not have lasted nearly this. Few things in the world present themselves as identical to what was experienced before. >> >> Given the data, I think it?s wrong to think every last human is great at generalization. Here you are setting up a straw man and knocking him down. I would never make such a statement about any human characteristic. Okay, but your above statement seemed to hint at that, don?t you think? >> Instead, a better theory here might be there?s a bell curve but since humans do seem really good at imitation that all that?s necessary for a social species to survive is a few outliers perform successful generalizations that imitators can then follow. Or failing that that those worse at generalizing (who might still not be terrrible overall) can specialize in areas that don?t require heavy generalization. >> >> And in fact most work doesn?t require much generalization. One can stick in a very narrow domain ? hunting large game, fishing, growing wheat, fixing truck engines, coding apps on mobile phones ? and not have to worry about other domains or about generalized knowledge overall. Your argument would work What argument is that? Your above statement: ?I will generalize: I think that if people did not generalize fairly readily the species would not have lasted nearly this.? My contention is most people are not good at generalization; a few are and rest generally just imitate those few. >> if humans were asocial or operated only in tiny groups yet still needed to generalize. (In fact, the smaller the human group, generally, the fewer skill sets overall can be maintained to any degree. A really tiny society tends to lose the skill sets because it can no longer retain the knowledge base, including tacit knowledge. I?m thinking here especially of preliterate societies.) >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> Sample my Kindle books at: >> http://author.to/DanUst >> >> * If they?re promoted or directed then it?s not really raw generalization happening, but following instructions. No - they are not told what to do, but prompted to remember doing some other task. My bad. In the case of promoting, sure, but then the problem is they?re being guided to generalize, which kind of means generalization hasn?t been taught. If you told me you can play a Bach prelude, but then need prompting each section I?d say you don?t know how to play it. Sure you might show some promise, but I doubt anyone?s going to hire you to play that piece in a concert. >> And most of the evidence with education seems to show students learning to get the grade or diploma, then promptly forgetting what they learned ? that is, not generalizing.Forgetting something and generalizing something are different things. That?s true, but since there?s good evidence that students are already bad at generalization and that forgetting what happens to most of what they?re taught, it remains to be shown that they can be taught generalization and, very importantly, that once taught it that they will retain it. So if the goal is to teach generalization, then presumably one doesn?t want to teach it and then having students promptly lose the skill once they?ve passed the class or gotten their diploma. >> There are exceptions, but the exceptions are usually people who go into academia, which is a tiny minority of students. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sat Dec 15 05:37:54 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 21:37:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: <2e66e7dd71506cb95a7c49743fe4f09b.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Keith Henson wrote: > Humans don't possess "evolutionary psychology." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology EP can't be > possessed. It is an approach to understanding which human psychological > traits are evolved adaptations. We do have a long list of psychological > traits. I suspect your intent here is to say those human psychological > traits changed about as much as the expansion of the brain. What I meant by "evolutionary psychology" was the psychology of man as he evolved not the discipline that studies that very thing. Under the "psychology" entry at dictionary.com: definition 3. the sum or characteristics of the mental states and processes of a person or class of persons, or of the mental states and processes involved in a field of activity: e.g. the psychology of a soldier; the psychology of politics. But I understand your confusion now. > Translating into something that could be measured, your expectation > would be that the percentage of captives (almost all women) who adapted to > being captured would have gone up over the period where the brain > expanded. But capture bonding is just a single EP trait, unless there are differences between sexes in which case there may be two different traits. But I think rather than trying to measure individual traits you would be better off counting the number of traits by keeping track of when they emerged. Incidentally one of the tenants of Evolutionary Psychology (this time I mean the discipline) that I hold exception with is that "our modern skulls house stone age minds". If minds could not evolve faster than genes, then there would be no point to having evolved minds in the first place. Minds went from cave paintings >> How do you distinguish this capacity for religion from any other >> cultural phenomena that allows memes and social constructs to override >> genes? It is certainly more sophisticated in humans but it occurs across >> the spectrum of social animals. >> >> In wolves for example, typically only the dominant pair of alpha male >> and female breed. >> >> Why would the average (non-dominant) wolves in the pack allow this? Why >> would these average wolves cooperatively hunt, protect, and help feed >> pups that are unrelated to them effectively throwing their own genes >> under the bus? > >> Sure one could argue that they are related so this is some kind of kin >> selection going on but this is typically true only of the females who >> tend to be siblings. The males are typically completely unrelated and >> randomly get adopted into packs. > > Can you provide a URL for these statements? It's been a while since I > read up on the subject. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/5210739 http://zbs.bialowieza.pl/g2/pdf/1495.pdf >> The upshot of the Nature article is that humans are about six times >> more likely than the average mammal to die by the actions of a member of >> our own species. Based upon paleontological and archaelogical evidence >> during the Stone Age about 3.5% of humans died by the hand of another >> human. This fluctuates throughout history, with a maximum during the >> middle ages where approximately 12% of humans died by another's hand. > > Some places much higher > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization >From what I have been able to gather, Keeley's claims in "War Before Civilization" rest more on the behavior of tribes that remained isolationist all the way into the 20th century. That likely means there would a heavy bias toward xenophobia. The only ancient evidence he touts are remains from a single grave site in the Sudan. From what I have been able to gather independently from this source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/new-study-of-prehistoric-skeletons-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/ "The most ancient clear-cut evidence of deadly group violence is a mass grave, estimated to be 13,000 years old, found in the Jebel Sahaba region of the Sudan, near the Nile River. Of the 59 skeletons in the grave, 24 bear marks of violence, such as hack marks and embedded stone points." So the only hard evidence Keeley has is 59 skeletons 24 of which were killed by violence. At least according to the reference to Jebel Sahaba in in the wiki link you provided as I have not actually read his book. The Gomez et al. Nature paper I cited claims to have analyzed 2003 remains in the old world and 1973 remains in the new world from the same time period (mesolithic). That makes for some robust statistics so I trust the Nature paper more than Keeley. > You might note that meerkats have a high reproductive rate and not > much predation. The environment can only support so many of them so they > have to kill each other. It's the same problem humans have. Well meerkats actually do have plenty of predators but they use a clever system of lookouts and alarm calls to avoid them. But yes, I agree with you. Meerkats will kill their own newborns if resources are too scarce. The Gomez paper actually addresses your more general point: "Thus, the temporal pattern in the level of lethal violence seems to hold even after considering these potential biases. Concomitant changes in the cultural and ecological human environment may have caused this pattern. Notably, population density, a common ecological driver of lethal aggression in mammals was lower in periods with high levels of lethal violence than in the less violent Modern and Contemporary ages. High population density is therefore probably a consequence of successful pacification, rather than a cause of strife." On the other hand, one planet can only sustain so many of us sacred monkeys when even the insects are dying. So we are going to have to make some tough choices soon. But a war to thin the herd is not the best or only option. >>>>> So you would expect genes to get this judgment for "a time for >>>>> war" correct, and genes that get the tribe into "attack mode" when >>>>> needed would be positively selected. >>>>> >>>>> The major religions where we know something of their historical >>>>> origins seem to have started as a set of xenophobic memes. >> >> Cultural identity may not be possible without some measure of >> xenophobia. There cannot be a "self" without an "other". >> > > This is in conflict with outbreeding. Very often the people a tribe > got their wives from where the same as the ones they fought. Ok so which xenophobic memes would a capture-bonded war wife believe? Those of her birth tribe or those of her captors? Would her belief be sincere? Or might she think both tribes are wrong about the other and try to make peace? In lieu of trying to find statistics on how outbreeding is beneficial for a tribe, allow me to introduce you to the Va Doma tribe of Zimbabwe. They veritable poster children for inbreeding. https://face2faceafrica.com/article/vadoma-the-zimbabwean-ostrich-tribe-with-rare-two-toed-population Stuart LaForge From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 05:49:34 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 23:49:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> <2CA619B4-6729-47E5-8BE8-CCB55055E822@gmail.com> Message-ID: <198E0BFE-41BF-4BEB-9CEB-A735C55872EC@gmail.com> >> The concept of ?self? is created in relation to that which is not the self (the other). No one is arguing that your physical body would dissolveand that you would ascend to an enlightened non-material self. > > So what's your point? Without other people I cease to be a person? That's ludicrous. > >> What we?re saying is that your concept of ?self? that is, how you define yourself as a person distinct from others, breaks down if you are the only person. > > No it doesn't, it just changes. > >> Let?s take a for example here: how would you describe yourself? What type of person are you? How would that sense of self be impacted by no longer having other people? > > I'd be different, but I wouldn't cease to exist. > > -Dave You have entirely missed everything I said here. I am only going to respond to this little bit due to time. Please note the phrase ?no one?. ?No one is arguing that your physical body would dissolve? Please look into the psychological effects of solitary confinement, where people become unable to tell the difference between self and environment, injuring themselves without knowing they are doing it. If who you are depends on others, then your ?self? changes when you remove the people... SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 13:02:13 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 08:02:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: <198E0BFE-41BF-4BEB-9CEB-A735C55872EC@gmail.com> References: <80987D60-5A62-4EE3-B08B-BA5BF63CB2F8@gmail.com> <2CA619B4-6729-47E5-8BE8-CCB55055E822@gmail.com> <198E0BFE-41BF-4BEB-9CEB-A735C55872EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 1:01 AM SR Ballard wrote: > > If who you are depends on others, then your ?self? changes when you remove > the people... > That's never been in dispute. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 15:50:30 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 07:50:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion (Stuart LaForge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:52 PM "Stuart LaForge" wrote: > From: > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion > Message-ID: > <2e66e7dd71506cb95a7c49743fe4f09b.squirrel at secure199.inmotionhosting.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 > > Keith Henson wrote: snip > > Translating into something that could be measured, your expectation > > would be that the percentage of captives (almost all women) who adapted to > > being captured would have gone up over the period where the brain > > expanded. > > But capture bonding is just a single EP trait, I wish you would be more careful with the terminology. "EP trait" doesn't work. A psychological trait that resulted from evolution works. As for it being a single trait, if you want to measure a number of traits, you do it one at a time. Capture-bonding is one of the few psychological traits that have an obvious selection mechanism. unless there are > differences between sexes in which case there may be two different traits. > But I think rather than trying to measure individual traits you would be > better off counting the number of traits by keeping track of when they > emerged. We don't have the time machine to go back and see, so this is entirely academic But I do wonder what others you would put in a list to see when they emerged.? > Incidentally one of the tenants of Evolutionary Psychology (this time I > mean the discipline) that I hold exception with is that "our modern skulls > house stone age minds". If minds could not evolve faster than genes, then > there would be no point to having evolved minds in the first place. Minds > went from cave paintings > > >> How do you distinguish this capacity for religion from any other > >> cultural phenomena that allows memes and social constructs to override > >> genes? It is certainly more sophisticated in humans but it occurs across > >> the spectrum of social animals. > >> > >> In wolves for example, typically only the dominant pair of alpha male > >> and female breed. > >> > >> Why would the average (non-dominant) wolves in the pack allow this? Why > >> would these average wolves cooperatively hunt, protect, and help feed > >> pups that are unrelated to them effectively throwing their own genes > >> under the bus? > > > >> Sure one could argue that they are related so this is some kind of kin > >> selection going on but this is typically true only of the females who > >> tend to be siblings. The males are typically completely unrelated and > >> randomly get adopted into packs. > > > > Can you provide a URL for these statements? It's been a while since I > > read up on the subject. > > https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/5210739 > http://zbs.bialowieza.pl/g2/pdf/1495.pdf > > >> The upshot of the Nature article is that humans are about six times > >> more likely than the average mammal to die by the actions of a member of > >> our own species. Based upon paleontological and archaelogical evidence > >> during the Stone Age about 3.5% of humans died by the hand of another > >> human. This fluctuates throughout history, with a maximum during the > >> middle ages where approximately 12% of humans died by another's hand. > > > > Some places much higher > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization > > >From what I have been able to gather, Keeley's claims in "War Before > Civilization" rest more on the behavior of tribes that remained > isolationist all the way into the 20th century. That likely means there > would a heavy bias toward xenophobia. The only ancient evidence he touts > are remains from a single grave site in the Sudan. From what I have been > able to gather independently from this source: > https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/new-study-of-prehistoric-skeletons-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/ > > "The most ancient clear-cut evidence of deadly group violence is a mass > grave, estimated to be 13,000 years old, found in the Jebel Sahaba region > of the Sudan, near the Nile River. Of the 59 skeletons in the grave, 24 > bear marks of violence, such as hack marks and embedded stone points." > > So the only hard evidence Keeley has is 59 skeletons 24 of which were > killed by violence. He has a lot more: For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. 1325 AD). The Crow Creek massacre seems to have occurred just when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death toll represented more than 60% of the village's population, estimated from the number of houses to have been about 800. The survivors appear to have been primarily young women, as their skeletons are underrepresented among the bones; if so, they were probably taken away as captives. Certainly, the site was deserted for some time after the attack because the bodies evidently remained exposed to scavenging animals for a few weeks before burial. In other words, this whole village was annihilated in a single attack and never reoccupied.[7] snip > On the other hand, one planet can only sustain so many of us sacred > monkeys when even the insects are dying. So we are going to have to make > some tough choices soon. But a war to thin the herd is not the best or > only option. I would really like to know what you consider other options. Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 17:46:56 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 11:46:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion (Stuart LaForge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: keith wrote Capture-bonding is one of the few psychological traits that have an obvious selection mechanism. I would really like to know more about these traits. Will you send me a link or what to put in the search field (assuming EP traits won't do) to find info on them? Thanks! bill w On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 9:55 AM Keith Henson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:52 PM "Stuart LaForge" > wrote: > > > From: > > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion > > Message-ID: > > < > 2e66e7dd71506cb95a7c49743fe4f09b.squirrel at secure199.inmotionhosting.com> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 > > > > Keith Henson wrote: > > snip > > > > Translating into something that could be measured, your expectation > > > would be that the percentage of captives (almost all women) who > adapted to > > > being captured would have gone up over the period where the brain > > > expanded. > > > > But capture bonding is just a single EP trait, > > I wish you would be more careful with the terminology. "EP trait" > doesn't work. A psychological trait that resulted from evolution > works. > > As for it being a single trait, if you want to measure a number of > traits, you do it one at a time. > > Capture-bonding is one of the few psychological traits that have an > obvious selection mechanism. > > unless there are > > differences between sexes in which case there may be two different > traits. > > But I think rather than trying to measure individual traits you would be > > better off counting the number of traits by keeping track of when they > > emerged. > > We don't have the time machine to go back and see, so this is entirely > academic But I do wonder what others you would put in a list to see > when they emerged.? > > > Incidentally one of the tenants of Evolutionary Psychology (this time I > > mean the discipline) that I hold exception with is that "our modern > skulls > > house stone age minds". If minds could not evolve faster than genes, then > > there would be no point to having evolved minds in the first place. Minds > > went from cave paintings > > > > >> How do you distinguish this capacity for religion from any other > > >> cultural phenomena that allows memes and social constructs to override > > >> genes? It is certainly more sophisticated in humans but it occurs > across > > >> the spectrum of social animals. > > >> > > >> In wolves for example, typically only the dominant pair of alpha male > > >> and female breed. > > >> > > >> Why would the average (non-dominant) wolves in the pack allow this? > Why > > >> would these average wolves cooperatively hunt, protect, and help feed > > >> pups that are unrelated to them effectively throwing their own genes > > >> under the bus? > > > > > >> Sure one could argue that they are related so this is some kind of kin > > >> selection going on but this is typically true only of the females who > > >> tend to be siblings. The males are typically completely unrelated and > > >> randomly get adopted into packs. > > > > > > Can you provide a URL for these statements? It's been a while since I > > > read up on the subject. > > > > https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/5210739 > > http://zbs.bialowieza.pl/g2/pdf/1495.pdf > > > > >> The upshot of the Nature article is that humans are about six times > > >> more likely than the average mammal to die by the actions of a member > of > > >> our own species. Based upon paleontological and archaelogical evidence > > >> during the Stone Age about 3.5% of humans died by the hand of another > > >> human. This fluctuates throughout history, with a maximum during the > > >> middle ages where approximately 12% of humans died by another's hand. > > > > > > Some places much higher > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization > > > > >From what I have been able to gather, Keeley's claims in "War Before > > Civilization" rest more on the behavior of tribes that remained > > isolationist all the way into the 20th century. That likely means there > > would a heavy bias toward xenophobia. The only ancient evidence he touts > > are remains from a single grave site in the Sudan. From what I have been > > able to gather independently from this source: > > > https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/new-study-of-prehistoric-skeletons-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/ > > > > "The most ancient clear-cut evidence of deadly group violence is a mass > > grave, estimated to be 13,000 years old, found in the Jebel Sahaba region > > of the Sudan, near the Nile River. Of the 59 skeletons in the grave, 24 > > bear marks of violence, such as hack marks and embedded stone points." > > > > So the only hard evidence Keeley has is 59 skeletons 24 of which were > > killed by violence. > > He has a lot more: > > For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a > mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and > children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an > attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival > (ca. 1325 AD). The Crow Creek massacre seems to have occurred just > when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses > were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death > toll represented more than 60% of the village's population, estimated > from the number of houses to have been about 800. The survivors appear > to have been primarily young women, as their skeletons are > underrepresented among the bones; if so, they were probably taken away > as captives. Certainly, the site was deserted for some time after the > attack because the bodies evidently remained exposed to scavenging > animals for a few weeks before burial. In other words, this whole > village was annihilated in a single attack and never reoccupied.[7] > > snip > > > On the other hand, one planet can only sustain so many of us sacred > > monkeys when even the insects are dying. So we are going to have to make > > some tough choices soon. But a war to thin the herd is not the best or > > only option. > > I would really like to know what you consider other options. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 18:24:10 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:24:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion (Stuart LaForge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 17:52, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > keith wrote > Capture-bonding is one of the few psychological traits that have an > obvious selection mechanism. > > I would really like to know more about these traits. Will you send me a link or what to put in the search field (assuming EP traits won't do) to find info on them? > > Thanks! bill w > Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology and, of course, as EP is controversial - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology There are many links there for more information. BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 19:34:37 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 11:34:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Tim May died Message-ID: I am really bummed out. Tim May was reported dead on another list I read. He was mentioned on this list most recently a couple of years ago as one of the ur-cryptoanarchists. Tim used to come to my PENSFA parties when I lived in San Jose in the mid to late 80s. A story from those days is him trying to fool my daughter with a chicken drumstick, a turkey drumstick and one of those salad spinners. Tried to get her to think the spinner had made the drumstick larger. She wasn't having any of it. Tim was also known for writing the specification for the anon remailer network. Eric Hughes then implemented it. He was one of the people I talked to about cryonics a number of times over the years, last just after Hal Finney was suspended. To no avail. Keith From robot at ultimax.com Sat Dec 15 19:56:29 2018 From: robot at ultimax.com (Robert G Kennedy III, PE) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 14:56:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] States In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: IIRC, in Diamond's /Guns Germs & Steel/ (1997) the political taxonomy (as a function of size / cultural maturity) is: 1. family-groups/clans 2. tribes ruled by Big Men 3. city-states ruled by kings 4. empires (of which a key feature is being polyglot). If you read books like Diamond's, then you're probably going to encounter William McNeil's /Plagues and Peoples/ (1976), and Zinsser's /Rats Lice & History/ (1935, 1960). Which is my way of suggesting that we all should consider the role of disease, too. Zinsser wrote "disease was the single most significant military factor for all human history" a phrase that stuck with me ever since I read it. RGK3 On 2018-12-15 00:38 in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 183, Issue 9, Keith Henson wrote: > "In short: the psychological traits that lead to wars evolved in > the long course of human evolution. War was a prime factor in > keeping human populations in demographic balance with the > ability of the ecosystem to feed them. Typically, populations > built up, competed, and were periodically reduced by wars." > > The last stages to the current political situation are tribes, > chieftains, city-states, and our current states. The functions of a > State are to reduce the violence internally and to defend its borders > or to attack beyond them. Competition for scarce resources didn't > stop when states emerged. > > But this makes me wonder. The leaders of tribes to nations may have a > wired in need--perhaps even responsibility--to keep their populations > ready to fight. We have not had states long enough for evolution to > have had a lot of effect on human psychological traits, so if it > exists at all, it must have come from previous social organizations, > tribes and such. > > *IF* war is largely a bottom-up process that starts with a recognition > of a bleak future, then the wide discussion of a resource crisis and > of future bad weather may be setting the world up for a coming war. A > bad economic downturn would make a bad situation worse. > > I think there is a remarkably simple way to model wars, clear back to > the stone age. For a constant environment, the human population can't > exceed the capacity of the environment to feed it. William Calvin in > _The Ascent of Mind:_ goes into the problem using bears as an example > of an animal (like humans) with few predators. Unlike bears, humans > have figured out how to increase the productivity of the environment. > Like bears, they expand to the limit anyway. > > There is lots of material, for example, "Climate Change and War > Frequency in Eastern China over the Last Millennium" > https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46520148/Climate_change_and_war_frequency_in_East20160615-13363-ayvnfy.pdf > > Keith -- Robert G Kennedy III, PE www.ultimax.com From avant at sollegro.com Sat Dec 15 22:32:41 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 14:32:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion (Stuart LaForge Message-ID: Keith Henson wrote: > As for it being a single trait, if you want to measure a number of > traits, you do it one at a time. > Capture-bonding is one of the few psychological traits that have an > obvious selection mechanism. [snip] > We don't have the time machine to go back and see, so this is entirely > academic? But I do wonder what others you would put in a list to see when > they emerged.? Well I would interpret cultural innovations as novel psychological traits. A concrete example would be our affinity for fire. We are one of the few animals on earth that use fire. In order to tame it, we had to overcome our instinctive fear of it. That qualifies as a psychological adaptation as much as anything. Then for the rest we just go down the line. What is the first evidence of art, of burial, of writing, of compound tools, simple machines, of dance, of music. Essentially document anywhere you can find the oldest physical evidence of a cultural meme. >> So the only hard evidence Keeley has is 59 skeletons 24 of which were >> killed by violence. > > He has a lot more: > > For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a > mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children > who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their > village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. 1325 AD). That is definitely not the Stone Age. That is the Post-Classic period marking the aftermath of the collapse of the Mayan Empire. It is the period of maximum violent death in the new world as the Medieval Period was in the old world although not quite as bad - 10% versus 12%. Both for the same reason in that they both occur in the aftermath of the fall of relatively violent long-lived empires. The Mayans in the west and the Romans in the east. Both empires had higher than average violent death percentages of about the same range. 5% percent for the Mayans vs 6% for the Romans in the Classical versus Iron Age. >> On the other hand, one planet can only sustain so many of us sacred >> monkeys when even the insects are dying. So we are going to have to make >> some tough choices soon. But a war to thin the herd is not the best or >> only option. > > I would really like to know what you consider other options. Different folks have different options. Whose options are you asking me to consider? Mine? Yours? The governor's? Trump's? Putin's? War is a nice one syllable word, but it is no longer a tenable solution to the overpopulation problem. This is because of the way modern wars are fought. Any war catastrophic enough to make a dent in global human populations would severely deplete our remaining resources, shatter what was left of our fragile ecosystem, and change the climate drastically. The survivors of such a war would enter a new dark ages making it a war with no victory for anyone. No, culture got us into this mess and culture is going to have to get us out of this mess. It will take numerous small measures. Small steps toward an enlightened goal. Start with a small thing. Strike all laws against suicide and assisted suicide off of the books. Anybody who wants off the ride should be allowed off the ride with as humane and painless methods as science can provide. Next, give natural selection back its teeth. Eliminate this obsession with safety that modern society has. If people want to ride motorcycles without helmets or free-climb skyscrapers, let them. People should be allowed to risk their own lives to whatever end they so desire that does not harm another. Next, I could imagine changing welfare laws to pay a flat rate rather than offering a per child incentive. Same with taxes. I would eliminate tax breaks or tax credits for children unless the children were adopted. Further measures could be considered as needed all the way up to full blown science-fiction scenarios. But my point is that a gradual decline in population is preferable to a sudden drop. And culture gives us the soft tools to do precisely that. Also this current generation of teenagers is already the least promiscuous of any since we started keeping track, so I am hopeful. Something you should consider is this. In the oceans our role as top predator is shared by one species Orcinus orca the aptly named killer whale. A creature that effortlessly kills great white sharks to dine on their livers and some of the smartest creatures on this planet. There is zero evidence in the literature of killer whale on killer whale violence ever. And there are very few documented cases of orca attacks on people. And the few that are documented are usually captive whales attacking their captors. This is an animal that eats dolphins and other whales What limits their numbers except us or them? What can they teach us about culture and population balance? Stuart LaForge From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 00:33:10 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 19:33:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Cryosecurity -- considering all post-preservation scenarios Message-ID: A number of times during the past few years, my mind has dwelled on some possible negative post-cryopreservation scenarios which I have not ever seen discussed. Death is considered the worst case, but what about fates worse than death? In particular I worry that a malicious stranger could steal your body, and then you would wake up being or enslaved, or submitted to the nightmarish whims of some madman. Cryogenic resuscitation technology will probably be more widely available in the future, if that is a route which we end up exploring more, so who knows what kind of people will have access to it? Or, there could possibly be moles for some criminal organization among the employees of a cryo company. Has this kind of scenario been written about before? It's a lot of trust to put in a company, to watch over the carbonite slab containing yourself... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Sun Dec 16 03:49:41 2018 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 19:49:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Tim May died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b3d1796-84d8-2f44-188b-b5260cc04b8a@moulton.com> Also Tim had a presentation at the Extro 1 conference in 1994. Lucky Green has written a very good piece about Tim and his background https://www.facebook.com/lucky.green.73/posts/10155498914786706 On 12/15/18 11:34 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > I am really bummed out. Tim May was reported dead on another list I read. > > He was mentioned on this list most recently a couple of years ago as > one of the ur-cryptoanarchists. > > Tim used to come to my PENSFA parties when I lived in San Jose in the > mid to late 80s. A story from those days is him trying to fool my > daughter with a chicken drumstick, a turkey drumstick and one of those > salad spinners. Tried to get her to think the spinner had made the > drumstick larger. She wasn't having any of it. > > Tim was also known for writing the specification for the anon remailer > network. Eric Hughes then implemented it. > > He was one of the people I talked to about cryonics a number of times > over the years, last just after Hal Finney was suspended. To no > avail. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- F. C. Moulton moulton at moulton.com From dsunley at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 15:36:12 2018 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 08:36:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Cryosecurity -- considering all post-preservation scenarios In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's far, /far/ worse than that. By far, the most likely scenario in which you'll wake up from cryopreservation is where someone used your surviving brainstate to create a computer upload. Copying computer files is trivial, and keeping them secure is very, very difficult. Maybe one copy of you wakes up in a pleasant environment owned and operated by family, friends, or benign strangers, but in the worst case scenarii, thousands (millions, billions?) of uploads based, with varying degrees of modifications, on you, wake up in environments of every possible description, after time frames ranging from decades to geological epochs. On Dec 15, 2018 5:37 PM, "Will Steinberg" wrote: > A number of times during the past few years, my mind has dwelled on some > possible negative post-cryopreservation scenarios which I have not ever > seen discussed. Death is considered the worst case, but what about fates > worse than death? > > In particular I worry that a malicious stranger could steal your body, and > then you would wake up being or enslaved, or submitted to the nightmarish > whims of some madman. > > Cryogenic resuscitation technology will probably be more widely available > in the future, if that is a route which we end up exploring more, so who > knows what kind of people will have access to it? Or, there could possibly > be moles for some criminal organization among the employees of a cryo > company. > > Has this kind of scenario been written about before? It's a lot of trust > to put in a company, to watch over the carbonite slab containing yourself... > > _______________________________________________ > 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 avant at sollegro.com Sun Dec 16 19:10:32 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 11:10:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A World of Abundance Message-ID: It's possible. I can see it in mind's eye because Killer whales already have it. So successful a hunter is the average killer whale that it spends 10% of its day hunting. The rest is spent in leisure sleeping or playing around. In our culture, if we are lucky enough to find full-time jobs, then we work 8-12 hours a day. That's 33% -50% of our day. Factor in all the time spent preparing for work and commuting to work. After sleep, well shit you get no time for leisure. Why does OUR species have the epithet "sapiens"? The orcas of Monterey Bay "pranking" the largest animal on earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KCQrLA3UKw Stuart LaForge From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 22:22:40 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 22:22:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] A World of Abundance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 19:16, Stuart LaForge wrote: > > It's possible. I can see it in mind's eye because Killer whales already > have it. So successful a hunter is the average killer whale that it spends > 10% of its day hunting. The rest is spent in leisure sleeping or playing > around. > > In our culture, if we are lucky enough to find full-time jobs, then we > work 8-12 hours a day. That's 33% -50% of our day. Factor in all the time > spent preparing for work and commuting to work. After sleep, well shit you > get no time for leisure. > > Why does OUR species have the epithet "sapiens"? > > The orcas of Monterey Bay "pranking" the largest animal on earth: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KCQrLA3UKw > Elephant seals upset! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTOZ1JOXUkQ (14 secs) BillK From atymes at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 05:40:18 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:40:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Cryosecurity -- considering all post-preservation scenarios In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've recently been reading a story, Agent of the Imperium, along similar lines. (An agent of an interstellar empire gets uploaded onto a series of wafers, which get activated into bodies for various emergencies - only for a month at a time, and not always a single chain of memories between them.) On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:39 AM Darin Sunley wrote: > > It's far, /far/ worse than that. > > By far, the most likely scenario in which you'll wake up from cryopreservation is where someone used your surviving brainstate to create a computer upload. > > Copying computer files is trivial, and keeping them secure is very, very difficult. Maybe one copy of you wakes up in a pleasant environment owned and operated by family, friends, or benign strangers, but in the worst case scenarii, thousands (millions, billions?) of uploads based, with varying degrees of modifications, on you, wake up in environments of every possible description, after time frames ranging from decades to geological epochs. > > On Dec 15, 2018 5:37 PM, "Will Steinberg" wrote: >> >> A number of times during the past few years, my mind has dwelled on some possible negative post-cryopreservation scenarios which I have not ever seen discussed. Death is considered the worst case, but what about fates worse than death? >> >> In particular I worry that a malicious stranger could steal your body, and then you would wake up being or enslaved, or submitted to the nightmarish whims of some madman. >> >> Cryogenic resuscitation technology will probably be more widely available in the future, if that is a route which we end up exploring more, so who knows what kind of people will have access to it? Or, there could possibly be moles for some criminal organization among the employees of a cryo company. >> >> Has this kind of scenario been written about before? It's a lot of trust to put in a company, to watch over the carbonite slab containing yourself... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 16:22:51 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:22:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Cryosecurity -- considering all post-preservation scenarios In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:38 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > *I worry that a malicious stranger could steal your body, and then you > would wake up being or enslaved, or submitted to the nightmarish whims of > some madman.* He would have to be very mad indeed to think that in a age of full Drexler style Nanotechnology he couldn't make far better slaves from scratch and do so far easier than repairing a imperfectly frozen brain from the previous century. If anybody bothers to awaken us it must be because of benevolence because we just couldn't give them any added value, except perhaps for nostalgia and the satisfaction of doing the right thing. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 17 22:17:20 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:17:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] reason on tim may Message-ID: <000e01d49656\$47cdf1e0\$d769d5a0\$@rainier66.com> https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/16/tim-may-influential-writer-on-crypto-ana? utm_medium=email I never realized Tm May was such a big deal. Through making his online acquaintance, I knew he was a really smart guy, very insightful. This is Reason's write up. I see a lot of the old time ExI crowd in there, such as Wei Dei. What the heck ever happened to him? Anyone here friends with Dei? Please have him drop us a note and say hello to old friends. spike Tim May, Father of 'Crypto Anarchy,' Is Dead at 67 The Cypherpunk co-founder was a major influence on both bitcoin and WikiLeaks. Jim Epstein|Dec. 16, 2018 11:31 am * * * * * * Jim EpsteinTim May, co-founder of the influential Cypherpunks mailing list and a significant influence on both bitcoin and WikiLeaks, passed away last week at his home in Corralitos, California. The news was announced Saturday on a Facebook post written by his friend Lucky Green. In his influential 1988 essay, " The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto," May predicted that advances in computer technology would eventually allow "individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other" anonymously and without government intrusion. "These developments will alter completely the nature of government regulation [and] the ability to tax and control economic interactions," he wrote. A deeply private person, May's aversion to outside intrusions defined his philosophical outlook. "'Leave me alone,'" he wrote, is "at the root of libertarianism more so than formal theories about the nature of man." "My political philosophy is keep your hands off my stuff....Out of my files, out of my office, off what I eat, drink, and smoke," he once told journalist Andy Greenberg. Born in 1951, May grew up in in a suburb of San Diego before his family moved to Washington, D.C., when his father, a naval officer, was transferred there. At the age of 12, he joined a local gun club at the urging of his father and would become a lifelong collector. May was a loner, a science prodigy, and a voracious consumer of science fiction. In the summer of 1967, when entering his junior year in high school, he picked up a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. "It just spoke to me," he said in a 2017 unpublished video interview with Reason, which is being incorporated into a documentary. "I read it nonstop for three days, and to the disdain of my teachers in school, I would write articles about the Anti-Trust Act and the evils of the Sherman Act." May went to college at U.C.-Santa Barbara, took graduate physics classes, and got a job at Intel. He solved a crucial issue plaguing the functioning of memory chips, publishing his findings in a 1979 paper, and then retired in 1986 at the age of 34, cashing in his stock options. He would never have to work again. In 1987, May's friend Chip Morningstar introduced him to the economist and entrepreneur Phil Salin-a meeting that would lead May to formulate the concept of crypto anarchy. Salin was building the American Information Exchange, or AMiX, the first online marketplace for buying and selling information. "It was clear he was a strong libertarian of the Hayek sort," May recalled. "We all shared the same views." But Salin's vision of an e-commerce platform that would reduce transaction costs, facilitate cross-border trade, and make localized expertise more widely available didn't resonate with May's anarchism. "People aren't going to be selling meaningless stuff like surfboard recommendations," he told Salin. May recalled suggesting that instead it could serve as "a high-tech version of Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden," paraphrasing himself.* "Or someone who can exfiltrate bomber plans for that B-1 Bomber." May later fleshed out his idea, calling "BlackNet," where "nation-states, export laws, patent laws, national security considerations and the like [are considered] relics of the pre-cyberspace era." He also perceived a crucial flaw: BlackNet couldn't function without a non-governmental digital currency. "I admitted to Phil the big problem was untraceable payments," he recalled. "They can be tracked when they send their Visa information." The next day, May dug up a copy of the October 1985 copy of Communications of the ACM featuring a cover story by cryptographer David Chaum, titled " Security Without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete." "It was an epiphany," May recalled. "It was like standing on top of the mountain and seeing that this is out there." Chaum's work applied the tools of cryptography-mathematical techniques for sending secret messages-to real-world problems. His 1985 article sketched out a new digital currency system that used cryptography to hide a purchaser's identity. May saw Chaum's scheme as deeply flawed, but came away convinced that a decentralized, non-governmental digital money system was possible. Chaum's work also led him to focus on the political implications of public-key cryptography, a system first described in a 1976 paper that allowed perfect strangers to exchange secret messages and establish provable, pseudonymous identities. May became convinced that public-key cryptography combined with networked computing would break apart social power structures. It would create a virtual space that May compared to "Galt's Gulch," the fictional Colorado community in Atlas Shrugged where Rand's heroes go to escape government intrusion and establish a capitalist paradise. In September of 1988, May sat down at his Macintosh Plus "for an hour and a half" to bang out an essay loosely patterned after The Communist Manifesto. He titled it " The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto." Running 497 words, it was his most influential piece of writing. "Just as the technology of printing altered and reduced the power of medieval guilds and the social power structure," he wrote, "so too will cryptologic methods fundamentally alter the nature of corporations and of government interference in economic transactions." In September 1992, May and his friends Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel came up with the idea of setting up an online mailing list to discuss their ideas. Within a few days of its launch, a hundred people had signed up for the Cypherpunks mailing list. (The group's name was coined by Hughes' girlfriend as a play on the "cyberpunk" genre of fiction.) By 1997, it averaged 30 messages daily with about 2,000 subscribers. May was its most prolific contributor. May and Hughes, along with free speech activist John Gilmore, wore masks on the cover of the second issue of Wiredmagazine accompanying a profile by journalist Steven Levy, who described the Cypherpunks as "more a gathering of those who share a predilection for codes, a passion for privacy, and the gumption to do something about it." WiredThe Cypherpunks list, which dissolved shortly after September 11, 2001 ("a lot of people got cold feet about talking about this stuff"), was deeply influential at a time when the U.S. government was fighting to keep public-key cryptography out of the hands of the public. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was an active reader and participant on the list, contributing his first posts in 1995 under the name "Proff." Assange's 2012 book Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet restated May's theory in grandiose terms, describing how "a strange property of the physical universe that we live in" (cryptography) made it possible to create "new lands barred to those who control physical reality." Did bitcoin's pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, contribute to the Cypherpunks list under a different name? There's no way of knowing, but the core components of his invention incubated in its voluminous, technical correspondence. From the outset of their project, May and his fellow travelers were focused on creating an internet-based cryptographic currency shielded from government interference-completing the technical challenge Chaum had only begun to solve. The British cryptographer Adam Back first proposed HashCash on the list, a system for creating digital scarcity (known as "proof of work") that was later cited in Nakamoto's white paper. Nick Szabo-the creator of "Bit Gold," who coined the phrase "smart contracts"-discussed his ideas on the list. Wei Dai, who Nakamoto contacted while formulating bitcoin, proposed his digital cash system, "b-money," on the list, citing May as a major influence. Another major contributor was computer scientist Hal Finney, who died in 2014. Finney came up with the idea of using Back's technology to create an e-money; along with, Nakamoto he was the most important figure in bitcoin's early days. May himself brought the attention of his fellow cypherpunks to a digital timestamping system developed by Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta, a primitive version of what would become known as a blockchain. "I can see these connections that are not fully formed," May recalled. "I can just tell something is going to be important." After the Cypherpunks list dissolved, May's influence faded-until Nakamoto's 2008 bombshell. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency spawned a new generation of techno-libertarians self-identifying as Cypherpunks. May's writings started recirculating, and the movement found a new home: Parallel Polis, a three-story building in Prague, home to the Institute of Cryptoanarchy, which puts on an annual Hacker's Conference to advance the ideas of May and his fellow travelers. May recently expressed disgust with the current state of the cryptocurrency community, citing its overpriced conferences and the advent of "bitcoin exchanges that have draconian rules about KYC, AML, passports, freezes on accounts and laws about reporting 'suspicious activity' to the local secret police." "I think Satoshi would barf," he told CoinDesk in his last published interview. In my last exchange with May in November, he told me that he was done granting interviews with reporters, feeling burned out on the space. He preferred to spend his time playing with his new MIDI keyboard. Did May's prediction of crypto anarchy turn out wrong, or is it too early to tell? In 2017, he was optimistic that many of the changes he foresaw in the late 1980s were beginning to take shape, speaking of a fork in the road-the world was moving toward either Leviathan or an "anarchic-type system." There would be no in-between. More recently, he quoted the epitaph found on Ancient Roman gravestones: "I was not. I was. I am not. I don't care." Rest in peace, Tim May. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 22:41:38 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 17:41:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Cryosecurity -- considering all post-preservation scenarios In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:25 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:38 PM Will Steinberg > wrote: > > > *I worry that a malicious stranger could steal your body, and then you >> would wake up being or enslaved, or submitted to the nightmarish whims of >> some madman.* > > > He would have to be very mad indeed to think that in a age of full Drexler > style Nanotechnology he couldn't make far better slaves from scratch and do > so far easier than repairing a imperfectly frozen brain from the previous > century. If anybody bothers to awaken us it must be because of benevolence > because we just couldn't give them any added value, except perhaps for > nostalgia and the satisfaction of doing the right thing. > > John K Clark > I think you may underestimate the malevolence of some people. The kind of person who *enjoys* having slaves could certainly be the same kind of person that would enjoy the extra cruelty that a person who didn't anticipate waking up in that state would endure. I do agree though that it in the scenario you talk about, it would probably be rather rare. But I imagine there may be a significant period of time where we have the scientific understanding to be able to preserve people with the ability to resuscitate their body, but not enough of an understanding of the underlying logic of the human brain to recreate their mind. It is also likely (and already is the case) that those who are among the first to be cryopreserved also tend to be very intelligent scientific experts. If you were, for example, a foreign country looking to steal state-secret technology/strategy could steal the body (or mind) of some thought leader. I am also not necessarily implying that this theft happens an entire century previous. You could get frozen on January 1 2032, and stolen + resuscitated on February 1. I only mean to allude to how the risk people take with cryopreservation may be deeper than thought, given that the perceived worst outcome is death when, really, there are scenarios that most people would consider which are equally as bad as, or worse than, death itself. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 23:27:32 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:27:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] States In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:32 PM "Robert G Kennedy III, PE" wrote: snip > If you read books like Diamond's, then you're probably going to > encounter William McNeil's /Plagues and Peoples/ (1976), and Zinsser's > /Rats Lice & History/ (1935, 1960). > > Which is my way of suggesting that we all should consider the role of > disease, too. Of course. But disease is stochastic. My claim is that humans going to war is mechanistic. Something has to keep the population in ecological balance with the resources. If random diseases don't do it, the humans must. Keith > Zinsser wrote "disease was the single most significant > military factor for all human history" a phrase that stuck with me ever > since I read it. > > RGK3 > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 06:14:58 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 22:14:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] More, Tim May in the news Message-ID: https://btcmanager.com/cypherpunk-tim-may-bitcoin/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/17/timothy_c_may/ https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-anarchist-manifesto-author-tim-may-dies-of-natural-causes-report Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 21:11:51 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 15:11:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] xmas Message-ID: If you are giving gag gifts, check out The Encyclopedia of Immaturity. I actually ordered it. bill w https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/159174427X/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?smid=AJC03PKE1W7JD&psc=1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 18 22:19:29 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 14:19:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] xmas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bc01d4971f\$bec85f50\$3c591df0\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 1:12 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] xmas If you are giving gag gifts, check out The Encyclopedia of Immaturity. I actually ordered it. bill w https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/159174427X/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?smid=AJC03PKE1W7JD &psc=1 I thought of one today. Freeway, big billboards advertising a local CBD Expo at the big convention center. No explanation for what CBD is, but I vaguely guessed it was one of those hipster things: if you don?t know what it is, you won?t go to the expo, and if you are a likely attendee, it doesn?t need defining. Right on: it is some kind of hemp oil thing. I wouldn?t understand. It gave me an idea: rent a billboard, advertise something that really isn?t defined, a huge international RLJ Expo, with all major dealers coming etc. Then you get a bunch of curious yahoos showing up not knowing what the hell you are selling there. Lotsa hipsters go nuts whenever they find out they aren?t hip to something. Too much like admitting one is old. So all these hipsters show up, we could sell them stuff. Anything we want. If asked what is RLJ, we don?t know, just there to sell stuff. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 23:40:40 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:40:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] xmas In-Reply-To: <00bc01d4971f\$bec85f50\$3c591df0\$@rainier66.com> References: <00bc01d4971f\$bec85f50\$3c591df0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I like it! It needs something catchy. It reminds me of the completely phony 'clearance sale'. What does that mean? It means they want to sell things that are not selling, so they can order some things that might sell. Clear out so they can fill up again. The thing you can trust is that they will be cheaper than the usual price, which might be better than buying it somewhere else - maybe. "Sold elsewhere at \$34.99" Yeah? Where? (Standard sales point on TV Shopping Network - does anyone actually the prices elsewhere?) I always ask if advertised this way: "Home-cooked meals." Yeah, I ask 'Whose home?' and get funny looks. The one thing I have not seen is a phony fire sale. I have heard of 'going out of business' sales that were advertised as soon as the business opened. bill w On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 4:23 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2018 1:12 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] xmas > > > > If you are giving gag gifts, check out The Encyclopedia of Immaturity. I > actually ordered it. bill w > > > > > https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/159174427X/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?smid=AJC03PKE1W7JD&psc=1 > > > > > > > > > > I thought of one today. Freeway, big billboards advertising a local CBD > Expo at the big convention center. No explanation for what CBD is, but I > vaguely guessed it was one of those hipster things: if you don?t know what > it is, you won?t go to the expo, and if you are a likely attendee, it > doesn?t need defining. Right on: it is some kind of hemp oil thing. I > wouldn?t understand. > > > > It gave me an idea: rent a billboard, advertise something that really > isn?t defined, a huge international RLJ Expo, with all major dealers coming > etc. > > > > Then you get a bunch of curious yahoos showing up not knowing what the > hell you are selling there. Lotsa hipsters go nuts whenever they find out > they aren?t hip to something. Too much like admitting one is old. So all > these hipsters show up, we could sell them stuff. Anything we want. If > asked what is RLJ, we don?t know, just there to sell stuff. > > > > 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 Dec 19 13:31:49 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:31:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] reason on tim may In-Reply-To: <000e01d49656\$47cdf1e0\$d769d5a0\$@rainier66.com> References: <000e01d49656\$47cdf1e0\$d769d5a0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 5:22 PM wrote: > *> I never realized Tm May was such a big deal. Through making his online > acquaintance, I knew he was a really smart guy, very insightful. * > When I first joined the list in the early 90s Tim May was probably the most frequent contributor to a very active list, I didn't always agree with him but his posts were always thought provoking and I made a point of reading him first. I was sorry he left the list after a few years. And I'm sorry he wasn't cryopreserved; he maintained the probability of success was too low to worry about, but I felt that the probability of success was not low it was unknown, all you could say was it was greater than 0 and less than 1. So if you have the money as Tim did then there was no downside. If it didn't work you wouldn't be any deader. But I could never convince him. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 15:46:20 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:46:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?My_book_=E2=80=98Tales_of_the_Turing_Church?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99_is_published?= Message-ID: My book ?Tales of the Turing Church? is published My book ?Tales of the Turing Church: Hacking religion, enlightening science, awakening technology? is available for readers to buy on Amazon (Kindle and paperback editions). https://turingchurch.net/my-book-tales-of-the-turing-church-is-published-c858130ac2fb From ben at zaiboc.net Wed Dec 19 19:25:36 2018 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:25:36 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Children's Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C1A9B30.9020809@zaiboc.net> SR Ballard wrote: "I grew up in fear of the cops at my school..." I think the phrase "the cops at my school" has to be the most disturbing thing I've read on this list. Are things really so bad in the US these days that schools have cops? Or am I misreading this? Ben Zaiboc From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 23:01:36 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:01:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Children's Rights In-Reply-To: <5C1A9B30.9020809@zaiboc.net> References: <5C1A9B30.9020809@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I can't speak for any increase or decrease in violence at schools, but I will refer you to Stephen Pinker's book 'The Better Angels of our Nature' for a surprising look at what has been happening over the last couple of hundred years from war down to assault. Remember, the media are all over anything they can put on TV. bill w On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:29 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: > SR Ballard wrote: > > "I grew up in fear of the cops at my school..." > > I think the phrase "the cops at my school" has to be the most disturbing > thing I've read on this list. Are things really so bad in the US these > days that schools have cops? Or am I misreading this? > > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 01:37:09 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:37:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Children's Rights In-Reply-To: <5C1A9B30.9020809@zaiboc.net> References: <5C1A9B30.9020809@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: <266985CC-868E-4700-8712-E4DB79520F1E@gmail.com> I don?t know how ?bad? it is in our schools as compared to elsewhere, however I?ve gone to many different schools: 2 elementary schools (one pre 9/11 with no cop, one post 9/11 with a cop) 3 middle schools (2 with, 1 without) 2 high schools (both with) 2 jr colleges (both with), and lived near 2 major universities that had their own police departments The city that I currently live in has about 5-6 public school districts, each with their own special police departments, they have their own squad cars, K-9 units, etc. They specifically and only deal with the schools in the district: no traffic tickets (except in school zones I think), etc. I never saw much need for them, really. I have seen exactly one heroin sale, and had exactly one kid bring a grenade to school. Seems overblown to me. They also double as truancy cops I believe. SR Ballard > On Dec 19, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > SR Ballard wrote: > > "I grew up in fear of the cops at my school..." > > I think the phrase "the cops at my school" has to be the most disturbing thing I've read on this list. Are things really so bad in the US these days that schools have cops? Or am I misreading this? > > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 23:12:33 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:12:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Early Extropian postings Message-ID: I am trying to collect the early Extropian list postings. If you have some of them, please let me know. Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 23:13:45 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:13:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] science breakthroughs of the year Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_K2SmZNc3E >From Science Magazine bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 21 00:03:14 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:03:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] really old worms Message-ID: <007301d498c0\$91c7f310\$b557d930\$@rainier66.com> Cool! https://www.rt.com/news/434375-frozen-worms-alive-siberia-permafrost/ spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 00:05:00 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:05:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dunning-Kruger Effect. Message-ID: OK now I'm really worried. The last remaining adult in the entire Trump administration, Secretary of Defence General Jim (madman) Mattis, has just resigned in protest; I understand why he did it but I wish he hadn't because despite his nickname he was unique in the Executive branch in being both smart and honorable. Now there will be no calming intelligent voice between the order being given and the missiles flying. Perhaps this can explain what's going on in Washington: The Dunning-Kruger Effect. PS: The financial markets were already skittish and I don't think they are going to like this any better than I do. Merry Christmas. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 02:39:45 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 20:39:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Dunning-Kruger Effect. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: T has put a lot of his ego into the wall, and his own party won't give it to him. Now he'll shut down the gov. until he gets it. ?? If this does not lead to impeachment, nothing will. OTOH, he wants troops out of Syria, in defiance of his military advisors, so he is not supporting a combative view 100%, which surprised me. Apparently pointing out that he is wrong several times a day has no effect on him. I don't know that I have ever seen a person like him and have no theory to go to. Of course there is a negative correlation between expertise and ideas of competence and certainty - known for a long time. bill w On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 6:20 PM John Clark wrote: > OK now I'm really worried. The last remaining adult in the entire Trump > administration, Secretary of Defence General Jim (madman) Mattis, has > just resigned in protest; I understand why he did it but I wish he hadn't > because despite his nickname he was unique in the Executive branch in being > both smart and honorable. Now there will be no calming intelligent voice > between the order being given and the missiles flying. > > Perhaps this can explain what's going on in Washington: > > The Dunning-Kruger Effect. > > PS: The financial markets were already skittish and I don't think they are > going to like this any better than I do. Merry Christmas. > > 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 06:01:39 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:01:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list Message-ID: I wonder if anyone knows the date the list started? I am making fair progress on locating the list content, but I don't know how far back it goes. Best wishes, Keith From giulio at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 06:54:07 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:54:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Early Extropian postings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you find something, please upload it to the Github repository: https://github.com/Extropians On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:16 AM Keith Henson wrote: > > I am trying to collect the early Extropian list postings. If you > have some of them, please let me know. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 09:55:42 2018 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 03:55:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Early Extropian postings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/extropians/ On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, 12:57 AM Giulio Prisco If you find something, please upload it to the Github repository: > https://github.com/Extropians > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:16 AM Keith Henson > wrote: > > > > I am trying to collect the early Extropian list postings. If you > > have some of them, please let me know. > > > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 11:11:54 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:11:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 06:08, Keith Henson wrote: > > I wonder if anyone knows the date the list started? > > I am making fair progress on locating the list content, but I don't > know how far back it goes. > Extropy website says 1991. I don't know whether the early Extropy-chat mail list started as a private mail list. If so, there may be problems getting permissions if the contents are to be made public. BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 16:50:35 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:50:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] reason on tim may (John Clark) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:09 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 5:22 PM wrote: > > > *> I never realized Tm May was such a big deal. Through making his online > > acquaintance, I knew he was a really smart guy, very insightful. * Tim May and the Cypherpunks mailing list were a _really_ big deal. The current Bitcoin and blockchain trace directly to that list. > When I first joined the list in the early 90s Tim May was probably the most > frequent contributor to a very active list, I didn't always agree with him > but his posts were always thought-provoking and I made a point of reading > him first. I was sorry he left the list after a few years. And I'm sorry he > wasn't cryopreserved; he maintained the probability of success was too low > to worry about, but I felt that the probability of success was not low it > was unknown, all you could say was it was greater than 0 and less than 1. > So if you have the money as Tim did then there was no downside. If it > didn't work you wouldn't be any deader. But I could never convince him. I couldn't either. Last time I tried was just after Hal Finney went into suspension. In the particular circumstances where Tim died, I am not so sure he would have gotten much of a suspension. I happen to know a little about it and lying dead on the floor for about a week may not leave much information in the brain. Living alone isn't the best idea if you are serious about cryonics. Those who are signed up should keep this in mind. On a different note, not long after I met Tim, mid-80s, he invited me to visit and see what he was doing at Intel. At the time, the 386 was in development. Intel was trying to push up the clock rate. As they did, the chips failed to produce the right results. The problem was to determine where in the circuits it needed design modifications, but that wasn't so easy since there could be 20 to 30 gates/clocks between the original error and the data coming out on the pins. The project Tim was in charge of used a scanning electron microscope on a de-capped 386 in a big vacuum chamber. The logic levels of all the internal traces were visible in the display because the logic voltage affected the scanning electrons. Run at a low clock rate, they knew what pattern the internal logic levels should be. Run at a clock speed where the chips failed, they could see where the deep internal logic levels departed from the correct values. They ran it like a blink comparator. As they cranked up the clock, the failing logic trace would start blinking. It was, without a doubt, the most ingenious use of fundamental physics to solve a technical problem I have seen. I believe the project Tim was in charge of was one of the reasons Intel dominated the computer chip industry. I have not written about this before. Keith From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 16:56:15 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:56:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 Message-ID: Hi fellow extropians, For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, we've launched Canonizer 2.0. My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: https://vimeo.com/307590745 If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 21 18:29:59 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:29:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Cool! Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time since we heard from ya. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Brent Allsop Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: Jim Bennett Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 Hi fellow extropians, For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, we've launched Canonizer 2.0. My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: https://vimeo.com/307590745 If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 19:29:11 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:29:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> References: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: to brent alsop\ I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up to. If it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc., I want to know who you have and what are their qualifications. Designing these things takes experts. I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can sway opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the questions, etc.. bill w On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote: > Cool! > > > > Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time since we > heard from ya. > > > > spike > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Brent Allsop > *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Cc:* Jim Bennett > *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 > > > > > > Hi fellow extropians, > > > > For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, we've > launched Canonizer 2.0. > > > > My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: > > > > https://vimeo.com/307590745 > > > > If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it > donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token > offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. > > > > Brent Allsop > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 19:58:25 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:58:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Hi William, Thanks for the great input, things like that really help. The initial reason I started this was I wanted to know what the best (as in most expert consensus) thoughts on consciousness were, if any. All I could find in any of the so called ?peer reviewed journals? was just junk, and a bunch of people yelling bad arguments about how everyone else but them was wrong. I admit I also had an ulterior motive. I had some understanding of what I thought were some good ideas on consciousness ? but having no experience or education ? couldn?t get anything even close to being published. I needed a tool where I could either build some expert consensus around my theory or find a better theory any experts could come up with, to push the field forward. So, I guess it?s kind of a consensus building petition kind of thing. I wanted to communicate to everyone there is not so called ?hard problem?, and the simple solution is just not being ?qualia blind.? I was able to build a HUGE consensus around this general idea, contained in this camp: https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6? That was huge!! Nobody had realized anything like this amount of consensus was possible in this field. Especially including Chalmers, Dennett, Hameroff, Smythies? all being in the same camp. Since we were able to push the lessor important controversial issues down into sub camps, this allowed us to build and discover that there isn?t that much expert disagreement on consciousness after all. Next, we want to use it for things like global warming. I can?t wait to see what kind of consensus people can really find on supposedly important topics like that. We are also about to use the system as a primary tool to build the ?platform? of the new upstart political United Utah Party? When people ask us what the united parties platform is, we want to tell them that if they haven?t ?canonized? what they want, we don?t yet know exactly what our platform is. The united Utah parties? goal is to find out and get everyone, everything they want. We want a way so a million people can communicate, concisely and quantitatively, to their elected representatives, about what they want. Does that help at all? On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > to brent alsop\ > > I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up to. If > it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc., I want to know who you > have and what are their qualifications. Designing these things takes > experts. I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can sway > opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the > questions, etc.. > bill w > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote: > >> Cool! >> >> >> >> Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time since we >> heard from ya. >> >> >> >> spike >> >> >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *Brent Allsop >> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM >> *To:* ExI chat list >> *Cc:* Jim Bennett >> *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi fellow extropians, >> >> >> >> For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, we've >> launched Canonizer 2.0. >> >> >> >> My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: >> >> >> >> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >> >> >> >> If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it >> donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token >> offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. >> >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:17:37 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:17:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: William, You seem to be thinking of this as a traditional survey. It is not! When David Chalmers herd about our survey, he had the same concerns you did. The egghead stole my idea, but thought he could do it better, so he did it the traditional way: https://philpapers.org/surveys/ That was a disaster, and it just falsely reinforced the belief everyone had that there was no consensus, whatsoever in this field. Traditional surveys are about what people disagree on. We want to find, build consensus arround, measure it rigorously, what people agree on with room for any different points of view. A very different task. Brent On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > to brent alsop\ > > I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up to. If > it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc., I want to know who you > have and what are their qualifications. Designing these things takes > experts. I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can sway > opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the > questions, etc.. > bill w > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote: > >> Cool! >> >> >> >> Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time since we >> heard from ya. >> >> >> >> spike >> >> >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *Brent Allsop >> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM >> *To:* ExI chat list >> *Cc:* Jim Bennett >> *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi fellow extropians, >> >> >> >> For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, we've >> launched Canonizer 2.0. >> >> >> >> My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: >> >> >> >> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >> >> >> >> If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it >> donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token >> offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. >> >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Dec 21 22:45:23 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 16:45:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Next, we want to use it for things like global warming. I can?t wait to see what kind of consensus people can really find on supposedly important topics like that. Now my question is: who are the people? National surveys? Surveys of the intelligentsia? Vetting other surveys done by, say, National Science Foundation or some other like Roper? If you are going to actually perform surveys, then you need psychometricians/social psychologists so avoid asking question in a biased way, or in such a way as to get biased answers, and to survey people in a statistically appropriate way. We want to find, build consensus around, measure it rigorously, what people agree on with room for any different points of view. On the topic of consciousness citing people like Dennett, you are likely to find high reliability - same answers next year. On topics like global warming, you are likely to find variations, sometimes wide, in what people think today and last year and next year. I guess some of my concerns are about: are you going to vet other data for rigor, or are you going to produce raw data and who is going to vet yours? bill w On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:22 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > William, > > You seem to be thinking of this as a traditional survey. It is not! When > David Chalmers herd about our survey, he had the same concerns you did. > The egghead stole my idea, but thought he could do it better, so he did it > the traditional way: > > https://philpapers.org/surveys/ > > That was a disaster, and it just falsely reinforced the belief everyone > had that there was no consensus, whatsoever in this field. > > Traditional surveys are about what people disagree on. We want to find, > build consensus arround, measure it rigorously, what people agree on with > room for any different points of view. A very different task. > > Brent > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> to brent alsop\ >> >> I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up to. If >> it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc., I want to know who you >> have and what are their qualifications. Designing these things takes >> experts. I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can sway >> opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the >> questions, etc.. >> bill w >> >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote: >> >>> Cool! >>> >>> >>> >>> Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time since we >>> heard from ya. >>> >>> >>> >>> spike >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>> Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >>> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM >>> *To:* ExI chat list >>> *Cc:* Jim Bennett >>> *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi fellow extropians, >>> >>> >>> >>> For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, >>> we've launched Canonizer 2.0. >>> >>> >>> >>> My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>> >>> >>> >>> If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it >>> donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token >>> offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. >>> >>> >>> >>> Brent Allsop >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Sat Dec 22 16:55:50 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 10:55:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] a little alien fun Message-ID: An official report confirms what most of us have already suspected: that the alien visitors who arrived unexpectedly on this planet are not particularly bright, nor interesting. The document describes our interstellar chums as being 'dull' and 'unable to plan long-term'. The report paints a picture of a race who are 'prone to put high importance on inconsequential minutiae' and are 'easily distracted from important issues.' On an entirely separate note, the aliens were reported to be merging into human society far better than has been expected - the reason for this is unclear. (Jasper Fforde) bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 20:27:02 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 13:27:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, Thanks for the continued feedback and questions. That really helps! I?m realizing we are completely failing at communicating about the Canonizer use model. In traditional systems, you do, indeed, need vetting. But Canonizer is completely different. Canonizer?s use model us more like Wikipedia, where the crowd does the vetting. Wikipedia works great if everyone agrees, but if someone disagrees, currently, you end up with polarizing edit wars. With Canonizer, when disagreement shows up in Wikipedia, instead of an edit war, you just say: OK, we?ve discovered disagreement, so let?s move the disagreeable part over to canonizer ? where both competing camps can be represented in multiple camps, concisely and quantitatively ? everyone getting what they want in a win win way. Canonizer.com is for theoretical fields where there is not yet a scientific census. Consciousness is a good example field. Currently, in this field, everyone writes a book or article. First, they classify the field into the way they perceive the various competing camps, then they point out the flaws they think they see in these camps. However, they often get this wrong, their ideological religions polarize things, and the criticisms usually are just talking past each other. They present their own theory, in their own language (different than everyone else?s language) and from their own unique religious (including atheism) point of view. Since every expert has their own book, in their own language, from their own point of view ? it gives the perception that nobody agrees on anything. Because everyone is using different ambiguous language, nobody can communicate. Nobody talks about what people agree on. And everyone ends up focusing on minor disagreements ? completely missing any consensus that may exist. With canonizer, the first person starts the competition by creating their own camp on the topic. Then when a competing camp comes along, you build as much consensus as possible (canonizing the best terminology and so on through continued negotiation) and build a supper camp on what people can agree on (usually the most important doctrines where most people do agree, like ?approachable via science?). Everyone is highly motivated to find some terminology to agree on, because forking the camp reduces the consensus and influence of your camp. More and more competing camps can show up, pointing out different yet to be falsified theories. Obviously, the more diversity the better, as you want to capture and test for all theoretical possibilities. The focus is always on falsifiability. Everyone is encouraged to come up with and describe experiments that could validate their camp (or falsify it). We ask everyone: ?What would falsify your theory, and force you into a competing theory? With this theoretical information, the experimentalists can then perform the experiments being described that people agree would falsify their camp. Good arguments also work. You can measure the quality of a new argument, by how many people it converts - these can rise to the top and be focused on. Ultimately, the experiments are done till there is one remaining camp that can?t be falsified. We?ve already seen one camp on at Canonizer.com be falsified, by data coming from the large hadron collider. Being able to track things like this makes it better than a very dramatic sporting competition, with definite leaders and losers in the competition as more camps are falsified. Unlike a traditional survey, At canonizer.com getting everyone into the same camp (or at least as few camps as possible ? what communicating concisely and quantitatively means and how you measure progress) is the ultimate goal. Once you get everyone into the same single camp, by experimentally falsifying all the others, you know, rigorously and definitively, you have finally achieved a ?scientific consensus?. Then, you can throw it back to Wikipedia, since everyone now agrees. Then you move onto the next yet to be resolved scientific controversy, where you start the competition over ? continuing the amplification of the wisdom of the crowd process, significantly accelerating the scientific process, and knowing, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants. Does that help? On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:47 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Next, we want to use it for things like global warming. I can?t wait to > see what kind of consensus people can really find on supposedly important > topics like that. > Now my question is: who are the people? National surveys? Surveys of > the intelligentsia? Vetting other surveys done by, say, National Science > Foundation or some other like Roper? If you are going to actually perform > surveys, then you need psychometricians/social psychologists so avoid > asking question in a biased way, or in such a way as to get biased answers, > and to survey people in a statistically appropriate way. > > We want to find, build consensus around, measure it rigorously, what > people agree on with room for any different points of view. > > On the topic of consciousness citing people like Dennett, you are likely > to find high reliability - same answers next year. On topics like global > warming, you are likely to find variations, sometimes wide, in what people > think today and last year and next year. > > I guess some of my concerns are about: are you going to vet other data for > rigor, or are you going to produce raw data and who is going to vet yours? > > bill w > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:22 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> William, >> >> You seem to be thinking of this as a traditional survey. It is not! >> When David Chalmers herd about our survey, he had the same concerns you >> did. The egghead stole my idea, but thought he could do it better, so he >> did it the traditional way: >> >> https://philpapers.org/surveys/ >> >> That was a disaster, and it just falsely reinforced the belief everyone >> had that there was no consensus, whatsoever in this field. >> >> Traditional surveys are about what people disagree on. We want to find, >> build consensus arround, measure it rigorously, what people agree on with >> room for any different points of view. A very different task. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Flynn Wallace < >> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> to brent alsop\ >>> >>> I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up to. If >>> it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc., I want to know who you >>> have and what are their qualifications. Designing these things takes >>> experts. I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can sway >>> opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the >>> questions, etc.. >>> bill w >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote: >>> >>>> Cool! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time since >>>> we heard from ya. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> spike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>>> Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM >>>> *To:* ExI chat list >>>> *Cc:* Jim Bennett >>>> *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi fellow extropians, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, >>>> we've launched Canonizer 2.0. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it >>>> donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token >>>> offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brent Allsop >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Sat Dec 22 23:30:06 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:30:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: This is much clearer - I think. You are setting up a forum for people to post their ideas and data, and are not generating any data or vetting any data. You are letting users do that. It does sound like a very good idea and I'd probably get involved, which is not the same thing as saying that it has any market value. I am not in a position to contribute to you or anybody - sorry. I would be glad to offer any suggestions and receive any emails that you send out. I appreciate the time you have spent answering me. bill w On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 2:32 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > > > Thanks for the continued feedback and questions. That really helps! I?m > realizing we are completely failing at communicating about the Canonizer > use model. In traditional systems, you do, indeed, need vetting. But > Canonizer is completely different. > > > > Canonizer?s use model us more like Wikipedia, where the crowd does the > vetting. Wikipedia works great if everyone agrees, but if someone > disagrees, currently, you end up with polarizing edit wars. With > Canonizer, when disagreement shows up in Wikipedia, instead of an edit war, > you just say: OK, we?ve discovered disagreement, so let?s move the > disagreeable part over to canonizer ? where both competing camps can be > represented in multiple camps, concisely and quantitatively ? everyone > getting what they want in a win win way. > > > > Canonizer.com is for theoretical fields where there is not yet a > scientific census. Consciousness is a good example field. Currently, in > this field, everyone writes a book or article. First, they classify the > field into the way they perceive the various competing camps, then they > point out the flaws they think they see in these camps. However, they > often get this wrong, their ideological religions polarize things, and the > criticisms usually are just talking past each other. > > > > They present their own theory, in their own language (different than > everyone else?s language) and from their own unique religious (including > atheism) point of view. Since every expert has their own book, in their > own language, from their own point of view ? it gives the perception that > nobody agrees on anything. Because everyone is using different ambiguous > language, nobody can communicate. Nobody talks about what people agree > on. And everyone ends up focusing on minor disagreements ? completely > missing any consensus that may exist. > > > > With canonizer, the first person starts the competition by creating their > own camp on the topic. Then when a competing camp comes along, you build > as much consensus as possible (canonizing the best terminology and so on > through continued negotiation) and build a supper camp on what people can > agree on (usually the most important doctrines where most people do agree, > like ?approachable via science?). Everyone is highly motivated to find > some terminology to agree on, because forking the camp reduces the > consensus and influence of your camp. More and more competing camps can > show up, pointing out different yet to be falsified theories. Obviously, > the more diversity the better, as you want to capture and test for all > theoretical possibilities. > > > > The focus is always on falsifiability. Everyone is encouraged to come up > with and describe experiments that could validate their camp (or falsify > it). We ask everyone: ?What would falsify your theory, and force you into > a competing theory? With this theoretical information, the > experimentalists can then perform the experiments being described that > people agree would falsify their camp. > > > Good arguments also work. You can measure the quality of a new argument, > by how many people it converts - these can rise to the top and be focused > on. Ultimately, the experiments are done till there is one remaining camp > that can?t be falsified. We?ve already seen one camp on at Canonizer.com > be falsified, by data coming from the large hadron collider. Being able to > track things like this makes it better than a very dramatic sporting > competition, with definite leaders and losers in the competition as more > camps are falsified. > > > > Unlike a traditional survey, At canonizer.com getting everyone into the > same camp (or at least as few camps as possible ? what communicating > concisely and quantitatively means and how you measure progress) is the > ultimate goal. Once you get everyone into the same single camp, by > experimentally falsifying all the others, you know, rigorously and > definitively, you have finally achieved a ?scientific consensus?. Then, > you can throw it back to Wikipedia, since everyone now agrees. Then you > move onto the next yet to be resolved scientific controversy, where you > start the competition over ? continuing the amplification of the wisdom of > the crowd process, significantly accelerating the scientific process, and > knowing, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants. > > > > Does that help? > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:47 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> Next, we want to use it for things like global warming. I can?t wait to >> see what kind of consensus people can really find on supposedly important >> topics like that. >> Now my question is: who are the people? National surveys? Surveys of >> the intelligentsia? Vetting other surveys done by, say, National Science >> Foundation or some other like Roper? If you are going to actually perform >> surveys, then you need psychometricians/social psychologists so avoid >> asking question in a biased way, or in such a way as to get biased answers, >> and to survey people in a statistically appropriate way. >> >> We want to find, build consensus around, measure it rigorously, what >> people agree on with room for any different points of view. >> >> On the topic of consciousness citing people like Dennett, you are likely >> to find high reliability - same answers next year. On topics like global >> warming, you are likely to find variations, sometimes wide, in what people >> think today and last year and next year. >> >> I guess some of my concerns are about: are you going to vet other data >> for rigor, or are you going to produce raw data and who is going to vet >> yours? >> >> bill w >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:22 PM Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> William, >>> >>> You seem to be thinking of this as a traditional survey. It is not! >>> When David Chalmers herd about our survey, he had the same concerns you >>> did. The egghead stole my idea, but thought he could do it better, so he >>> did it the traditional way: >>> >>> https://philpapers.org/surveys/ >>> >>> That was a disaster, and it just falsely reinforced the belief everyone >>> had that there was no consensus, whatsoever in this field. >>> >>> Traditional surveys are about what people disagree on. We want to find, >>> build consensus arround, measure it rigorously, what people agree on with >>> room for any different points of view. A very different task. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Flynn Wallace < >>> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> to brent alsop\ >>>> >>>> I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up to. >>>> If it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc., I want to know who >>>> you have and what are their qualifications. Designing these things takes >>>> experts. I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can sway >>>> opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the >>>> questions, etc.. >>>> bill w >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote: >>>> >>>>> Cool! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time since >>>>> we heard from ya. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> spike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>>>> Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM >>>>> *To:* ExI chat list >>>>> *Cc:* Jim Bennett >>>>> *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi fellow extropians, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, >>>>> we've launched Canonizer 2.0. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it >>>>> donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token >>>>> offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brent Allsop >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 00:13:07 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 16:13:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 12:43 PMBillK wrote: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 06:08, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > I wonder if anyone knows the date the list started? > > > > I am making fair progress on locating the list content, but I don't > > know how far back it goes. > > > > Extropy website says 1991. > The oldest I have is Oct. 17, 1991. But it is clear from the conversation that the list had been running before that. > I don't know whether the early Extropy-chat mail list started as a > private mail list. > If so, there may be problems getting permissions if the contents are > to be made public. Perry Metzger was the main person in those days who wanted the list private. He considers that decision incorrect now. I really doubt the early archive will attract the attention of any but old time extropians and historians even if I made it public. But your point is correct. Are there any objections now to making the early postings public? Keith From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 00:55:25 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 19:55:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 7:18 PM Keith Henson wrote: *> Are there any objections now to making the early postings public?* Not from me. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 23 07:41:28 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 23:41:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006701d49a92\$eb2d8a40\$c1889ec0\$@rainier66.com> >...The oldest I have is Oct. 17, 1991. But it is clear from the conversation that the list had been running before that. Keith there was a Wired article that mentioned Extropians in 1994. I remember seeing it and starting to read it occasionally sometime shortly after that. The nature of those posts were completely different then: our attention span was much longer in those days. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 09:04:00 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 09:04:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 at 00:18, Keith Henson wrote: > The oldest I have is Oct. 17, 1991. But it is clear from the > conversation that the list had been running before that. > > Perry Metzger was the main person in those days who wanted the list > private. He considers that decision incorrect now. I really doubt > the early archive will attract the attention of any but old time > extropians and historians even if I made it public. > > But your point is correct. > > Are there any objections now to making the early postings public? > Some early posters are now deceased and unable to give permission. If they were still alive they might now disagree with something they wrote 27 years ago. Also, some early posters may no longer be in contact with Exi and would not know that their historical discussions might now be made public. I believe the original intention of having a private mail list was so that anything at all could be discussed, no matter how abhorrent the subject might be. We are now living in the #MeToo generation where much of the social behaviour of the 1980s and 90s is now condemned as unacceptable by the politically correct standards of today. Some of these early private posts might cause unexpected problems, especially if people have moved on and become rich or well-known. BillK From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 15:05:09 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 08:05:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, I'm glad that helps, at least a bit. Thanks so much for your interest, and for asking questions, rather than just dismissing. Since we want to get the largest possible sample sets, anything you, or anyone else could do to indicate your currenting thinking about things like Consciousness would certainly be helpful. For example, what are your thoughts about the emerging leading consensus "Representational Qualia Theory" solution to the so called "hard problem" of consciousness or "explanatory gap"? https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6 Do you agree with the experts and think it works to bridge the explanatory gap and resolve the so called hard problem, allowing us to "eff the ineffable"? If so, you could easily join that camp by selecting the "Join or directly support" button. Do you think any of the other competing camps are better? You could do the same for that. Or if you have another theoretical possibility that hasn't been canonized in a camp yet, that would help to. And you, or anyone could do the same on any of the other topics you have any beliefs about. In the future we will have canonizer algorithms that give the people that were in the right camps, before anyone else, much higher weight. So the more people that are right, sooner, the higher your trusted reputation will be in the future. Thanks! Brent On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 4:32 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > This is much clearer - I think. You are setting up a forum for people to > post their ideas and data, and are not generating any data or vetting any > data. You are letting users do that. It does sound like a very good idea > and I'd probably get involved, which is not the same thing as saying that > it has any market value. > > I am not in a position to contribute to you or anybody - sorry. > > I would be glad to offer any suggestions and receive any emails that you > send out. I appreciate the time you have spent answering me. > > bill w > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 2:32 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Bill, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the continued feedback and questions. That really helps! I?m >> realizing we are completely failing at communicating about the Canonizer >> use model. In traditional systems, you do, indeed, need vetting. But >> Canonizer is completely different. >> >> >> >> Canonizer?s use model us more like Wikipedia, where the crowd does the >> vetting. Wikipedia works great if everyone agrees, but if someone >> disagrees, currently, you end up with polarizing edit wars. With >> Canonizer, when disagreement shows up in Wikipedia, instead of an edit war, >> you just say: OK, we?ve discovered disagreement, so let?s move the >> disagreeable part over to canonizer ? where both competing camps can be >> represented in multiple camps, concisely and quantitatively ? everyone >> getting what they want in a win win way. >> >> >> >> Canonizer.com is for theoretical fields where there is not yet a >> scientific census. Consciousness is a good example field. Currently, in >> this field, everyone writes a book or article. First, they classify the >> field into the way they perceive the various competing camps, then they >> point out the flaws they think they see in these camps. However, they >> often get this wrong, their ideological religions polarize things, and the >> criticisms usually are just talking past each other. >> >> >> >> They present their own theory, in their own language (different than >> everyone else?s language) and from their own unique religious (including >> atheism) point of view. Since every expert has their own book, in their >> own language, from their own point of view ? it gives the perception that >> nobody agrees on anything. Because everyone is using different ambiguous >> language, nobody can communicate. Nobody talks about what people agree >> on. And everyone ends up focusing on minor disagreements ? completely >> missing any consensus that may exist. >> >> >> >> With canonizer, the first person starts the competition by creating their >> own camp on the topic. Then when a competing camp comes along, you build >> as much consensus as possible (canonizing the best terminology and so on >> through continued negotiation) and build a supper camp on what people can >> agree on (usually the most important doctrines where most people do agree, >> like ?approachable via science?). Everyone is highly motivated to find >> some terminology to agree on, because forking the camp reduces the >> consensus and influence of your camp. More and more competing camps can >> show up, pointing out different yet to be falsified theories. Obviously, >> the more diversity the better, as you want to capture and test for all >> theoretical possibilities. >> >> >> >> The focus is always on falsifiability. Everyone is encouraged to come up >> with and describe experiments that could validate their camp (or falsify >> it). We ask everyone: ?What would falsify your theory, and force you into >> a competing theory? With this theoretical information, the >> experimentalists can then perform the experiments being described that >> people agree would falsify their camp. >> >> >> Good arguments also work. You can measure the quality of a new argument, >> by how many people it converts - these can rise to the top and be focused >> on. Ultimately, the experiments are done till there is one remaining camp >> that can?t be falsified. We?ve already seen one camp on at Canonizer.com >> be falsified, by data coming from the large hadron collider. Being able to >> track things like this makes it better than a very dramatic sporting >> competition, with definite leaders and losers in the competition as more >> camps are falsified. >> >> >> >> Unlike a traditional survey, At canonizer.com getting everyone into the >> same camp (or at least as few camps as possible ? what communicating >> concisely and quantitatively means and how you measure progress) is the >> ultimate goal. Once you get everyone into the same single camp, by >> experimentally falsifying all the others, you know, rigorously and >> definitively, you have finally achieved a ?scientific consensus?. Then, >> you can throw it back to Wikipedia, since everyone now agrees. Then you >> move onto the next yet to be resolved scientific controversy, where you >> start the competition over ? continuing the amplification of the wisdom of >> the crowd process, significantly accelerating the scientific process, and >> knowing, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants. >> >> >> >> Does that help? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:47 PM William Flynn Wallace < >> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Next, we want to use it for things like global warming. I can?t wait to >>> see what kind of consensus people can really find on supposedly important >>> topics like that. >>> Now my question is: who are the people? National surveys? Surveys of >>> the intelligentsia? Vetting other surveys done by, say, National Science >>> Foundation or some other like Roper? If you are going to actually perform >>> surveys, then you need psychometricians/social psychologists so avoid >>> asking question in a biased way, or in such a way as to get biased answers, >>> and to survey people in a statistically appropriate way. >>> >>> We want to find, build consensus around, measure it rigorously, what >>> people agree on with room for any different points of view. >>> >>> On the topic of consciousness citing people like Dennett, you are likely >>> to find high reliability - same answers next year. On topics like global >>> warming, you are likely to find variations, sometimes wide, in what people >>> think today and last year and next year. >>> >>> I guess some of my concerns are about: are you going to vet other data >>> for rigor, or are you going to produce raw data and who is going to vet >>> yours? >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:22 PM Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> William, >>>> >>>> You seem to be thinking of this as a traditional survey. It is not! >>>> When David Chalmers herd about our survey, he had the same concerns you >>>> did. The egghead stole my idea, but thought he could do it better, so he >>>> did it the traditional way: >>>> >>>> https://philpapers.org/surveys/ >>>> >>>> That was a disaster, and it just falsely reinforced the belief everyone >>>> had that there was no consensus, whatsoever in this field. >>>> >>>> Traditional surveys are about what people disagree on. We want to >>>> find, build consensus arround, measure it rigorously, what people agree on >>>> with room for any different points of view. A very different task. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Flynn Wallace < >>>> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> to brent alsop\ >>>>> >>>>> I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up to. >>>>> If it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc., I want to know who >>>>> you have and what are their qualifications. Designing these things takes >>>>> experts. I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can sway >>>>> opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the >>>>> questions, etc.. >>>>> bill w >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Cool! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time since >>>>>> we heard from ya. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> spike >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>>>>> Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM >>>>>> *To:* ExI chat list >>>>>> *Cc:* Jim Bennett >>>>>> *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi fellow extropians, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, >>>>>> we've launched Canonizer 2.0. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it >>>>>> donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token >>>>>> offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent Allsop >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 16:33:32 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 11:33:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dunning-Kruger Effect. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: JKC, I don't think you're saying anything that hasn't been said many times already, sadly. I agree with WFW; we are squarely in the Twilight Zone right now and any previously established metrics are not going to be very helpful. If I had to go on a hunch, I would say that an answer is much more likely to come from studying ancient rather than modern history. While we may not have a modern precedent for understanding this clusterfuck, I'm fairly sure something like this must have happened in the past 5,000 years of recorded history. Just a matter of finding the most applicable happening. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 16:51:55 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 10:51:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Dunning-Kruger Effect. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am possibly the most ignorant person re history that you know, but I do know that King George III (?), the mad king of Revolutionary days, made all of his advisors cringe. But of course, we now know that he was insane, so............ bill w On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 10:38 AM Will Steinberg wrote: > JKC, > > I don't think you're saying anything that hasn't been said many times > already, sadly. I agree with WFW; we are squarely in the Twilight Zone > right now and any previously established metrics are not going to be very > helpful. > > If I had to go on a hunch, I would say that an answer is much more likely > to come from studying ancient rather than modern history. While we may not > have a modern precedent for understanding this clusterfuck, I'm fairly sure > something like this must have happened in the past 5,000 years of recorded > history. Just a matter of finding the most applicable happening. > _______________________________________________ > 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 spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 23 16:52:35 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 08:52:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Dunning-Kruger Effect. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <012001d49adf\$e85b9e90\$b912dbb0\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: Re: [ExI] The Dunning-Kruger Effect. JKC, >?I don't think you're saying anything that hasn't been said many times already, sadly? Just a matter of finding the most applicable happening?. Will I might be able to offer some historical context with China?s Great Leap Forward. It is helpful to listen to someone who lived through that firsthand. If the primary goal is to even the disparity in wealth, the easiest way to accomplish that is for poor people to steal from rich people. If the primary goal is to equalize the number of men and women who get engineering degrees, the easiest way is to gather they young men and encourage them to take up something besides engineering. The easiest way to reduce the academic achievement gap is to hold back the best students. (Right?) US-ians are living in times where our two mainstream parties are loose coalitions of disparate and incompatible factions. The winner will be whichever mainstream party is most effective in uniting its factions. Punchline: the most effective and easiest way to unite a coalition party is to divide a country. Doesn?t that theory explain a lot? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 16:57:08 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 10:57:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I am highly critical of people who don't just say something - they make pronouncements, on topics they can't possibly understand without a doctorate or just tons of study. So I would not my my two, or possibly, one cent opinion in on consciousness, global warming and many others. Chat group members have kindly advised me that some of my opinions are just not right - don't square with evidence - so I have become a bit shy about my opinions and certainly don't make pronouncements about anything outside my maid area - psychology - and many things in psychology I have not studied, or am not up on, and so on. But outside the two you mention, I certainly would like to offer my opinion on topics you will have on your website. Keep me posted. bill w On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:10 AM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > I'm glad that helps, at least a bit. Thanks so much for your interest, > and for asking questions, rather than just dismissing. Since we want to > get the largest possible sample sets, anything you, or anyone else could do > to indicate your currenting thinking about things like Consciousness would > certainly be helpful. For example, what are your thoughts about the > emerging leading consensus "Representational Qualia Theory" solution to the > so called "hard problem" of consciousness or "explanatory gap"? > > https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6 > > Do you agree with the experts and think it works to bridge the explanatory > gap and resolve the so called hard problem, allowing us to "eff the > ineffable"? If so, you could easily join that camp by selecting the "Join > or directly support" button. Do you think any of the other competing camps > are better? You could do the same for that. Or if you have another > theoretical possibility that hasn't been canonized in a camp yet, that > would help to. > > And you, or anyone could do the same on any of the other topics you have > any beliefs about. In the future we will have canonizer algorithms that > give the people that were in the right camps, before anyone else, much > higher weight. So the more people that are right, sooner, the higher your > trusted reputation will be in the future. > > Thanks! > > Brent > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 4:32 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> This is much clearer - I think. You are setting up a forum for people to >> post their ideas and data, and are not generating any data or vetting any >> data. You are letting users do that. It does sound like a very good idea >> and I'd probably get involved, which is not the same thing as saying that >> it has any market value. >> >> I am not in a position to contribute to you or anybody - sorry. >> >> I would be glad to offer any suggestions and receive any emails that you >> send out. I appreciate the time you have spent answering me. >> >> bill w >> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 2:32 PM Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Bill, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for the continued feedback and questions. That really helps! >>> I?m realizing we are completely failing at communicating about the >>> Canonizer use model. In traditional systems, you do, indeed, need >>> vetting. But Canonizer is completely different. >>> >>> >>> >>> Canonizer?s use model us more like Wikipedia, where the crowd does the >>> vetting. Wikipedia works great if everyone agrees, but if someone >>> disagrees, currently, you end up with polarizing edit wars. With >>> Canonizer, when disagreement shows up in Wikipedia, instead of an edit war, >>> you just say: OK, we?ve discovered disagreement, so let?s move the >>> disagreeable part over to canonizer ? where both competing camps can be >>> represented in multiple camps, concisely and quantitatively ? everyone >>> getting what they want in a win win way. >>> >>> >>> >>> Canonizer.com is for theoretical fields where there is not yet a >>> scientific census. Consciousness is a good example field. Currently, in >>> this field, everyone writes a book or article. First, they classify the >>> field into the way they perceive the various competing camps, then they >>> point out the flaws they think they see in these camps. However, they >>> often get this wrong, their ideological religions polarize things, and the >>> criticisms usually are just talking past each other. >>> >>> >>> >>> They present their own theory, in their own language (different than >>> everyone else?s language) and from their own unique religious (including >>> atheism) point of view. Since every expert has their own book, in their >>> own language, from their own point of view ? it gives the perception that >>> nobody agrees on anything. Because everyone is using different ambiguous >>> language, nobody can communicate. Nobody talks about what people agree >>> on. And everyone ends up focusing on minor disagreements ? completely >>> missing any consensus that may exist. >>> >>> >>> >>> With canonizer, the first person starts the competition by creating >>> their own camp on the topic. Then when a competing camp comes along, you >>> build as much consensus as possible (canonizing the best terminology and so >>> on through continued negotiation) and build a supper camp on what people >>> can agree on (usually the most important doctrines where most people do >>> agree, like ?approachable via science?). Everyone is highly motivated to >>> find some terminology to agree on, because forking the camp reduces the >>> consensus and influence of your camp. More and more competing camps can >>> show up, pointing out different yet to be falsified theories. Obviously, >>> the more diversity the better, as you want to capture and test for all >>> theoretical possibilities. >>> >>> >>> >>> The focus is always on falsifiability. Everyone is encouraged to come >>> up with and describe experiments that could validate their camp (or falsify >>> it). We ask everyone: ?What would falsify your theory, and force you into >>> a competing theory? With this theoretical information, the >>> experimentalists can then perform the experiments being described that >>> people agree would falsify their camp. >>> >>> >>> Good arguments also work. You can measure the quality of a new >>> argument, by how many people it converts - these can rise to the top and be >>> focused on. Ultimately, the experiments are done till there is one >>> remaining camp that can?t be falsified. We?ve already seen one camp on at >>> Canonizer.com be falsified, by data coming from the large hadron collider. >>> Being able to track things like this makes it better than a very dramatic >>> sporting competition, with definite leaders and losers in the competition >>> as more camps are falsified. >>> >>> >>> >>> Unlike a traditional survey, At canonizer.com getting everyone into the >>> same camp (or at least as few camps as possible ? what communicating >>> concisely and quantitatively means and how you measure progress) is the >>> ultimate goal. Once you get everyone into the same single camp, by >>> experimentally falsifying all the others, you know, rigorously and >>> definitively, you have finally achieved a ?scientific consensus?. Then, >>> you can throw it back to Wikipedia, since everyone now agrees. Then you >>> move onto the next yet to be resolved scientific controversy, where you >>> start the competition over ? continuing the amplification of the wisdom of >>> the crowd process, significantly accelerating the scientific process, and >>> knowing, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants. >>> >>> >>> >>> Does that help? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:47 PM William Flynn Wallace < >>> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Next, we want to use it for things like global warming. I can?t wait >>>> to see what kind of consensus people can really find on supposedly >>>> important topics like that. >>>> Now my question is: who are the people? National surveys? Surveys of >>>> the intelligentsia? Vetting other surveys done by, say, National Science >>>> Foundation or some other like Roper? If you are going to actually perform >>>> surveys, then you need psychometricians/social psychologists so avoid >>>> asking question in a biased way, or in such a way as to get biased answers, >>>> and to survey people in a statistically appropriate way. >>>> >>>> We want to find, build consensus around, measure it rigorously, what >>>> people agree on with room for any different points of view. >>>> >>>> On the topic of consciousness citing people like Dennett, you are >>>> likely to find high reliability - same answers next year. On topics like >>>> global warming, you are likely to find variations, sometimes wide, in what >>>> people think today and last year and next year. >>>> >>>> I guess some of my concerns are about: are you going to vet other data >>>> for rigor, or are you going to produce raw data and who is going to vet >>>> yours? >>>> >>>> bill w >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:22 PM Brent Allsop >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> William, >>>>> >>>>> You seem to be thinking of this as a traditional survey. It is not! >>>>> When David Chalmers herd about our survey, he had the same concerns you >>>>> did. The egghead stole my idea, but thought he could do it better, so he >>>>> did it the traditional way: >>>>> >>>>> https://philpapers.org/surveys/ >>>>> >>>>> That was a disaster, and it just falsely reinforced the belief >>>>> everyone had that there was no consensus, whatsoever in this field. >>>>> >>>>> Traditional surveys are about what people disagree on. We want to >>>>> find, build consensus arround, measure it rigorously, what people agree on >>>>> with room for any different points of view. A very different task. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Flynn Wallace < >>>>> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> to brent alsop\ >>>>>> >>>>>> I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up to. >>>>>> If it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc., I want to know who >>>>>> you have and what are their qualifications. Designing these things takes >>>>>> experts. I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can sway >>>>>> opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the >>>>>> questions, etc.. >>>>>> bill w >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Cool! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time >>>>>>> since we heard from ya. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> spike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM >>>>>>> *To:* ExI chat list >>>>>>> *Cc:* Jim Bennett >>>>>>> *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi fellow extropians, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, >>>>>>> we've launched Canonizer 2.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it >>>>>>> donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token >>>>>>> offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brent Allsop >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 18:16:27 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 11:16:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: <002101d4995b\$2e7c2ab0\$8b748010\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, There are two purposes of canonizer.com. One is to track the popular beliefs. That is what the default popular consensus default canonizwer algorithm is for. So we want to track everyone "making pronouncements" of any kind, or even any beliefs anyone is currently holding - even of not at all justified. The default Canonizer algorithm is the popular one person one vote algorithm. The goal of this algorithm is to track all that. So the more people that participate, the better. Secondly, there is the "expert consensus" canonizer algorithm: https://canonizer.com/topic/53-Mind-Experts/11 This is to find out what the leading experts believe, the state of the art of human understanding, who's position are very much expected to be completely justified and argued, and concisely described in the camps. In order for a scientific revolution to take place, not only do a handful of experts need to first understand it, but a significant number of the general population must understand it, and use it for their working hypothesis, also. The "Representational Qualia Theory" camp: https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6 is claiming to be a testable solution to the so called "hard problem" of consciousness, or at least a testable way to bridge the "explanatory gap" and eff the ineffable nature of consciousness. Right now there are just about 37 experts and lay people that have understood what this camp is claiming, and agree that it is a possible testable solution to the "hard problem". This is a long way from a scientific revolution. Currently, everyone and their dog, claims to have a so called "solution" to the hard problem. Many of them being published in "peer reviewed" journals. Nobody has the time to vet all of these, especially since 99% of them are all junk. So those that do, if you do find one that is a good one, and believe others should check into this, it would really be helpful if more people could "join the camp" to help the good theories stand out from all the junk, so more people will take the effort to check into it - accelerating scientific progression of humanity. Thanks, Brent Allsop On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 10:29 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I am highly critical of people who don't just say something - they make > pronouncements, on topics they can't possibly understand without a > doctorate or just tons of study. > > So I would not my my two, or possibly, one cent opinion in on > consciousness, global warming and many others. Chat group members have > kindly advised me that some of my opinions are just not right - don't > square with evidence - so I have become a bit shy about my opinions and > certainly don't make pronouncements about anything outside my maid area - > psychology - and many things in psychology I have not studied, or am not up > on, and so on. > > But outside the two you mention, I certainly would like to offer my > opinion on topics you will have on your website. Keep me posted. > > bill w > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:10 AM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Bill, >> >> I'm glad that helps, at least a bit. Thanks so much for your interest, >> and for asking questions, rather than just dismissing. Since we want to >> get the largest possible sample sets, anything you, or anyone else could do >> to indicate your currenting thinking about things like Consciousness would >> certainly be helpful. For example, what are your thoughts about the >> emerging leading consensus "Representational Qualia Theory" solution to the >> so called "hard problem" of consciousness or "explanatory gap"? >> >> https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6 >> >> Do you agree with the experts and think it works to bridge the >> explanatory gap and resolve the so called hard problem, allowing us to "eff >> the ineffable"? If so, you could easily join that camp by selecting the >> "Join or directly support" button. Do you think any of the other competing >> camps are better? You could do the same for that. Or if you have another >> theoretical possibility that hasn't been canonized in a camp yet, that >> would help to. >> >> And you, or anyone could do the same on any of the other topics you have >> any beliefs about. In the future we will have canonizer algorithms that >> give the people that were in the right camps, before anyone else, much >> higher weight. So the more people that are right, sooner, the higher your >> trusted reputation will be in the future. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 4:32 PM William Flynn Wallace < >> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This is much clearer - I think. You are setting up a forum for people >>> to post their ideas and data, and are not generating any data or vetting >>> any data. You are letting users do that. It does sound like a very good >>> idea and I'd probably get involved, which is not the same thing as saying >>> that it has any market value. >>> >>> I am not in a position to contribute to you or anybody - sorry. >>> >>> I would be glad to offer any suggestions and receive any emails that you >>> send out. I appreciate the time you have spent answering me. >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 2:32 PM Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Bill, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for the continued feedback and questions. That really helps! >>>> I?m realizing we are completely failing at communicating about the >>>> Canonizer use model. In traditional systems, you do, indeed, need >>>> vetting. But Canonizer is completely different. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Canonizer?s use model us more like Wikipedia, where the crowd does the >>>> vetting. Wikipedia works great if everyone agrees, but if someone >>>> disagrees, currently, you end up with polarizing edit wars. With >>>> Canonizer, when disagreement shows up in Wikipedia, instead of an edit war, >>>> you just say: OK, we?ve discovered disagreement, so let?s move the >>>> disagreeable part over to canonizer ? where both competing camps can be >>>> represented in multiple camps, concisely and quantitatively ? everyone >>>> getting what they want in a win win way. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Canonizer.com is for theoretical fields where there is not yet a >>>> scientific census. Consciousness is a good example field. Currently, in >>>> this field, everyone writes a book or article. First, they classify the >>>> field into the way they perceive the various competing camps, then they >>>> point out the flaws they think they see in these camps. However, they >>>> often get this wrong, their ideological religions polarize things, and the >>>> criticisms usually are just talking past each other. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> They present their own theory, in their own language (different than >>>> everyone else?s language) and from their own unique religious (including >>>> atheism) point of view. Since every expert has their own book, in their >>>> own language, from their own point of view ? it gives the perception that >>>> nobody agrees on anything. Because everyone is using different ambiguous >>>> language, nobody can communicate. Nobody talks about what people agree >>>> on. And everyone ends up focusing on minor disagreements ? completely >>>> missing any consensus that may exist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With canonizer, the first person starts the competition by creating >>>> their own camp on the topic. Then when a competing camp comes along, you >>>> build as much consensus as possible (canonizing the best terminology and so >>>> on through continued negotiation) and build a supper camp on what people >>>> can agree on (usually the most important doctrines where most people do >>>> agree, like ?approachable via science?). Everyone is highly motivated to >>>> find some terminology to agree on, because forking the camp reduces the >>>> consensus and influence of your camp. More and more competing camps can >>>> show up, pointing out different yet to be falsified theories. Obviously, >>>> the more diversity the better, as you want to capture and test for all >>>> theoretical possibilities. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The focus is always on falsifiability. Everyone is encouraged to come >>>> up with and describe experiments that could validate their camp (or falsify >>>> it). We ask everyone: ?What would falsify your theory, and force you into >>>> a competing theory? With this theoretical information, the >>>> experimentalists can then perform the experiments being described that >>>> people agree would falsify their camp. >>>> >>>> >>>> Good arguments also work. You can measure the quality of a new >>>> argument, by how many people it converts - these can rise to the top and be >>>> focused on. Ultimately, the experiments are done till there is one >>>> remaining camp that can?t be falsified. We?ve already seen one camp on at >>>> Canonizer.com be falsified, by data coming from the large hadron collider. >>>> Being able to track things like this makes it better than a very dramatic >>>> sporting competition, with definite leaders and losers in the competition >>>> as more camps are falsified. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Unlike a traditional survey, At canonizer.com getting everyone into >>>> the same camp (or at least as few camps as possible ? what communicating >>>> concisely and quantitatively means and how you measure progress) is the >>>> ultimate goal. Once you get everyone into the same single camp, by >>>> experimentally falsifying all the others, you know, rigorously and >>>> definitively, you have finally achieved a ?scientific consensus?. Then, >>>> you can throw it back to Wikipedia, since everyone now agrees. Then you >>>> move onto the next yet to be resolved scientific controversy, where you >>>> start the competition over ? continuing the amplification of the wisdom of >>>> the crowd process, significantly accelerating the scientific process, and >>>> knowing, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Does that help? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:47 PM William Flynn Wallace < >>>> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Next, we want to use it for things like global warming. I can?t wait >>>>> to see what kind of consensus people can really find on supposedly >>>>> important topics like that. >>>>> Now my question is: who are the people? National surveys? Surveys >>>>> of the intelligentsia? Vetting other surveys done by, say, National >>>>> Science Foundation or some other like Roper? If you are going to actually >>>>> perform surveys, then you need psychometricians/social psychologists so >>>>> avoid asking question in a biased way, or in such a way as to get biased >>>>> answers, and to survey people in a statistically appropriate way. >>>>> >>>>> We want to find, build consensus around, measure it rigorously, what >>>>> people agree on with room for any different points of view. >>>>> >>>>> On the topic of consciousness citing people like Dennett, you are >>>>> likely to find high reliability - same answers next year. On topics like >>>>> global warming, you are likely to find variations, sometimes wide, in what >>>>> people think today and last year and next year. >>>>> >>>>> I guess some of my concerns are about: are you going to vet other data >>>>> for rigor, or are you going to produce raw data and who is going to vet >>>>> yours? >>>>> >>>>> bill w >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:22 PM Brent Allsop >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> William, >>>>>> >>>>>> You seem to be thinking of this as a traditional survey. It is not! >>>>>> When David Chalmers herd about our survey, he had the same concerns you >>>>>> did. The egghead stole my idea, but thought he could do it better, so he >>>>>> did it the traditional way: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://philpapers.org/surveys/ >>>>>> >>>>>> That was a disaster, and it just falsely reinforced the belief >>>>>> everyone had that there was no consensus, whatsoever in this field. >>>>>> >>>>>> Traditional surveys are about what people disagree on. We want to >>>>>> find, build consensus arround, measure it rigorously, what people agree on >>>>>> with room for any different points of view. A very different task. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Flynn Wallace < >>>>>> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> to brent alsop\ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up >>>>>>> to. If it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc., I want to know >>>>>>> who you have and what are their qualifications. Designing these things >>>>>>> takes experts. I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can >>>>>>> sway opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the >>>>>>> questions, etc.. >>>>>>> bill w >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cool! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brent where the heck have you been man? Seems like a long time >>>>>>>> since we heard from ya. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> spike >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* ExI chat list >>>>>>>> *Cc:* Jim Bennett >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi fellow extropians, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, >>>>>>>> we've launched Canonizer 2.0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call >>>>>>>> it donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token >>>>>>>> offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brent Allsop >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 16:09:10 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 09:09:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure if it is relevant, but public genealogical systems, like those run by the Mormon church, keep people's data private, till they die. On Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 2:06 AM BillK On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 at 00:18, Keith Henson wrote: > > The oldest I have is Oct. 17, 1991. But it is clear from the > > conversation that the list had been running before that. > > > > Perry Metzger was the main person in those days who wanted the list > > private. He considers that decision incorrect now. I really doubt > > the early archive will attract the attention of any but old time > > extropians and historians even if I made it public. > > > > But your point is correct. > > > > Are there any objections now to making the early postings public? > > > > Some early posters are now deceased and unable to give permission. > If they were still alive they might now disagree with something they > wrote 27 years ago. Also, some early posters may no longer be in > contact with Exi and would not know that their historical discussions > might now be made public. > I believe the original intention of having a private > mail list was so that anything at all could be discussed, no matter > how abhorrent the subject might be. > > We are now living in the #MeToo generation where much of the social > behaviour of the 1980s and 90s is now condemned as unacceptable by the > politically correct standards of today. > Some of these early private posts might cause unexpected problems, > especially if people have moved on and become rich or well-known. > > > > > > 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 Dec 24 17:08:32 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 12:08:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:14 AM Brent Allsop wrote: > Not sure if it is relevant, but public genealogical systems, like those > run by the Mormon church, keep people's data private, till they die. > Given that a fair number of us have cryonics arrangements, I'd say that doesn't apply. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 18:11:57 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 18:11:57 +0000 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 at 17:14, Dave Sill wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:14 AM Brent Allsop wrote: >> Not sure if it is relevant, but public genealogical systems, >> like those run by the Mormon church, keep people's data private, till >> they die. > > > Given that a fair number of us have cryonics arrangements, I'd > say that doesn't apply. > > -Dave That's an interesting point. When a cryonics patient is revived could they be charged with crimes which only came to light after they were cryopreserved? Once revival becomes feasible there may also have to be changes to statutes of limitations, as while preserved no time actually passes for the patient. BillK From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 19:39:51 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 12:39:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] origin date for the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi BillK, In my opinion, you?re thinking about this given current limitations and operations. When people say ?The world isn?t just?, they always forget the ?yet?. I don?t know about you, but I?m never going to give up, until perfect justice is achieved. Almost every transaction we do in life is probably not very equal or just. Any kind of ?statue of limitation? for crimes done against others just postpones the required justice. Even crimes like murder will need to be atoned for. You may need to do something like be the slave of the person you killed, after resurrecting them, for a hundred years or more. It?s going to take Hitler, a long time, but I?m sure such will be eventually possible for all. Oh, and obviously most people do so much more good, making the world a better place for the next generation, than any bad they may do, especially including things like having children, that their reward, given compounded interest, will be unimaginable in today's limited terms. That?s why I like the Mormon idea of the ?millennium?. Mormons believe this will last 1000 years. So, I imagine that this so called ?millennium? will start, when the last person dies. The people that make it to this time will be in huge debt to all their still dead ancestors for doing all the work they did to give them this immortal heaven, for free. As the Bible says: ?The hearts of the children will turn to their fathers?, and ?The first shall be last?... I?ll resurrect my parents, they ? their parents?. It?ll be the continuation of the genealogical work Mormons have already started. This must continue until everyone is finally not only resurrected, but justly paid back, with compounded interest, for all the good they did during their lives. The end of the 1000 year millennium will be after everyone is resurrected, and all debts are paid off by all. If anyone is interested, and hasn?t already read it, I?ve written a fan fiction story to James Cameron?s movie ?Titanic? called ?1229 Years after Titanic?. It describes what resurrection by your children, uploading and all that could be like, and how it might be to receive one?s just ?rewards in heaven? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ybLgIbOSDu9-ye1wAu9B5RnCBuSVcIihtXrhtVWZajo/edit It?s always a work in process, and you?ll see that some people have made comments. Any such is always welcome from anyone. Thanks, Brent On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:14 AM BillK wrote: > On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 at 17:14, Dave Sill wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:14 AM Brent Allsop wrote: > >> Not sure if it is relevant, but public genealogical systems, > >> like those run by the Mormon church, keep people's data private, till > >> they die. > > > > > > Given that a fair number of us have cryonics arrangements, I'd > > say that doesn't apply. > > > > -Dave > > > That's an interesting point. When a cryonics patient is revived > could they be charged with crimes which only came to light after they > were cryopreserved? Once revival becomes feasible there may also > have to be changes to statutes of limitations, as while preserved no time > actually passes for the patient. > > > > > 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 Tue Dec 25 15:24:24 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 10:24:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:08 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > *we've launched Canonizer 2.0.* > *My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video:* > > https://vimeo.com/307590745 > I notice that the third most popular topic on the Canonizer is "the hard problem" (beaten only by theories of consciousness and God). Apparently this too has something to do with consciousness but it would seem to me the first order of business should be to state exactly what general sort of evidence would be sufficient to consider the problem having been solved. I think the evidence from biological Evolution is overwhelming that if you'd solved the so called "easy problem" which deals with intelligence then you've come as close to solving the "hard problem" as anybody is ever going to get. I also note there is no listing at all for "theories of intelligence" and I think I know why, coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy but coming up with a theory of intelligence is not. It takes years of study to become an expert in the field of AI but anyone can talk about consciousness. However I think the Canonizer does a good job on specifying what "friendly AI" means, in fact it's the best definition of it I've seen: "*It means that the entity isn't blind to our interests. Notice that I didn't say that the entity has our interests at heart, or that they are its highest priority goal. Those might require intelligence with a human shape. But an SI that was ignorant or uncaring of our interests could do us enormous damage without intending it.*" John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 16:26:48 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 10:26:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy but coming up with a theory of intelligence is not. John Clark Just what sort of theory do you want, John? Any abstract entity like intelligence, love, hate, creativity, has to be dragged down to operational definitions involving measurable things. For many years the operational definition of intelligence has been the scores on an intelligence test, and of course there are many different opinions as to what tests are appropriate, meaning in essence that people differ on just what intelligence is. The problem is that it is not anything. Oh, it is reducible in theory to actions in the brain - neurons and hormones and who knows what from the glia. So is love those actions as well, and every other thing you can think of. But people have generally resisted reductionism in this area. Me too, until someone can find a use for it. Look up the word 'nice' and you will find a trail of very different meanings. Just what meaning is correct? All of them - at least they were true at the time a particular use occurred. Intelligence is that way too - it is whatever we want to mean by the word. Most want to use it in a way that means one thing (usually determined by factor analysis). Some want to call it several things which may intercorrelate to some extent. The first idea usually wins out. Whatever it is, it is the most useful test in existence because it correlates with and thus predicts more things than any other test in existence. So - the best theory is the one which predicts more things in the 'real' world than any other, and the operational definition wins. And nobody is really happy with that. I can't understand it. bill w On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:08 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > *we've launched Canonizer 2.0.* >> *My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video:* >> >> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >> > > I notice that the third most popular topic on the Canonizer is "the hard > problem" (beaten only by theories of consciousness and God). Apparently > this too has something to do with consciousness but it would seem to me the > first order of business should be to state exactly what general sort of > evidence would be sufficient to consider the problem having been solved. I > think the evidence from biological Evolution is overwhelming that if you'd > solved the so called "easy problem" which deals with intelligence then > you've come as close to solving the "hard problem" as anybody is ever going > to get. > > I also note there is no listing at all for "theories of intelligence" and > I think I know why, coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy but > coming up with a theory of intelligence is not. It takes years of study to > become an expert in the field of AI but anyone can talk about consciousness. > > However I think the Canonizer does a good job on specifying what > "friendly AI" means, in fact it's the best definition of it I've seen: > > "*It means that the entity isn't blind to our interests. Notice that I > didn't say that the entity has our interests at heart, or that they are its > highest priority goal. Those might require intelligence with a human shape. > But an SI that was ignorant or uncaring of our interests could do us > enormous damage without intending 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 16:58:00 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 09:58:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good questions, John. We need to be clearer about what exactly this ?solution to the so-called hard problem? described in the ?Representational Qualia Theory? camp that has so much expert consensus is and is not: https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6? First off, many people think the ?had problem? is many different things. The specific ?hard problem? we are dealing with in both of these canonizer.com topics is just the ?explanatory gap?. How do you know what it is like to be a bat, what did Mary learn, when she experienced red for the first time even though she knew, abstractly, everything about red, before she experienced it for the first time? How do you ?eff the ineffable? and all that. In my opinion, this is the only hard problem. Everything else falls within what David Chalmers describes as easy problems. It?s surprising how so many people think the ?hard problem? is something completely different than the explanatory gap, or something different than the qualitative nature of consciousness problem. Second, this isn?t YET a solution to the hard problem. It is theoretical a meta approach to observing physics, in a new non-qualia-blind way (see the above camp for a description of qualia blindness). It is only a prediction that if experimentalists stop being qualia blind, they will soon be able to objectively detect if someone does or does not have something like red / green qualia inversion. In other words, what is required to bridge the explanatory gap, is to discover which set of our abstract descriptions of physics in the brain should be interpreted as a redness, and a greenness physical quality, and so on. Once an experimentalist does this, we will then be able to ?eff the ineffable? or bridge the explanatory gap. In other words, the prediction being made in the ?Representational Qualia Theory? camp needs to be verified by experimentalists, as the theory predicts is about to happen, before it will be a real solution to the qualitative hard problem. Does that help? On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy but coming up with a > theory of intelligence is not. John Clark > > Just what sort of theory do you want, John? Any abstract entity like > intelligence, love, hate, creativity, has to be dragged down to operational > definitions involving measurable things. For many years the operational > definition of intelligence has been the scores on an intelligence test, and > of course there are many different opinions as to what tests are > appropriate, meaning in essence that people differ on just what > intelligence is. > > The problem is that it is not anything. Oh, it is reducible in theory to > actions in the brain - neurons and hormones and who knows what from the > glia. So is love those actions as well, and every other thing you can > think of. But people have generally resisted reductionism in this area. > Me too, until someone can find a use for it. > > Look up the word 'nice' and you will find a trail of very different > meanings. Just what meaning is correct? All of them - at least they were > true at the time a particular use occurred. > > Intelligence is that way too - it is whatever we want to mean by the > word. Most want to use it in a way that means one thing (usually > determined by factor analysis). Some want to call it several things which > may intercorrelate to some extent. The first idea usually wins out. > > Whatever it is, it is the most useful test in existence because it > correlates with and thus predicts more things than any other test in > existence. > > So - the best theory is the one which predicts more things in the 'real' > world than any other, and the operational definition wins. And nobody is > really happy with that. I can't understand it. > > bill w > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:08 PM Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >> > *we've launched Canonizer 2.0.* >>> *My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video:* >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>> >> >> I notice that the third most popular topic on the Canonizer is "the hard >> problem" (beaten only by theories of consciousness and God). Apparently >> this too has something to do with consciousness but it would seem to me the >> first order of business should be to state exactly what general sort of >> evidence would be sufficient to consider the problem having been solved. I >> think the evidence from biological Evolution is overwhelming that if you'd >> solved the so called "easy problem" which deals with intelligence then >> you've come as close to solving the "hard problem" as anybody is ever going >> to get. >> >> I also note there is no listing at all for "theories of intelligence" >> and I think I know why, coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy >> but coming up with a theory of intelligence is not. It takes years of >> study to become an expert in the field of AI but anyone can talk about >> consciousness. >> >> However I think the Canonizer does a good job on specifying what >> "friendly AI" means, in fact it's the best definition of it I've seen: >> >> "*It means that the entity isn't blind to our interests. Notice that I >> didn't say that the entity has our interests at heart, or that they are its >> highest priority goal. Those might require intelligence with a human shape. >> But an SI that was ignorant or uncaring of our interests could do us >> enormous damage without intending it.*" >> >> 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 17:56:07 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 11:56:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In other words, what is required to bridge the explanatory gap, is to discover which set of our abstract descriptions of physics in the brain should be interpreted as a redness, and a greenness physical quality, and so on. Brent A trip to my audiologist was interesting: I had a buzz in one ear from my hearing aid, and invited him to listen to it so he could understand what to correct. He said that it would not help because he would not hear the same thing as I did - maybe not hear it at all. So if different people hear different things from the exact same sound source, it seems that being exposed to red and green things does not ensure that the people will see, much less experience in their brains, the same things. I have no background in the qualia problem as I have read being discussed here, so my thinking may be way off. bill w On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:02 AM Brent Allsop wrote: > > > Good questions, John. We need to be clearer about what exactly this > ?solution to the so-called hard problem? described in the ?Representational > Qualia Theory? camp that has so much expert consensus is and is not: > > > > https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6? > > > > First off, many people think the ?had problem? is many different things. > The specific ?hard problem? we are dealing with in both of these > canonizer.com topics is just the ?explanatory gap?. How do you know what > it is like to be a bat, what did Mary learn, when she experienced red for > the first time even though she knew, abstractly, everything about red, > before she experienced it for the first time? How do you ?eff the > ineffable? and all that. In my opinion, this is the only hard problem. > Everything else falls within what David Chalmers describes as easy > problems. It?s surprising how so many people think the ?hard problem? is > something completely different than the explanatory gap, or something > different than the qualitative nature of consciousness problem. > > > > Second, this isn?t YET a solution to the hard problem. It is theoretical > a meta approach to observing physics, in a new non-qualia-blind way (see > the above camp for a description of qualia blindness). It is only a > prediction that if experimentalists stop being qualia blind, they will soon > be able to objectively detect if someone does or does not have something > like red / green qualia inversion. > > > > In other words, what is required to bridge the explanatory gap, is to > discover which set of our abstract descriptions of physics in the brain > should be interpreted as a redness, and a greenness physical quality, and > so on. Once an experimentalist does this, we will then be able to ?eff the > ineffable? or bridge the explanatory gap. In other words, the prediction > being made in the ?Representational Qualia Theory? camp needs to be > verified by experimentalists, as the theory predicts is about to happen, > before it will be a real solution to the qualitative hard problem. > > > > Does that help? > > > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy but coming up with a >> theory of intelligence is not. John Clark >> >> Just what sort of theory do you want, John? Any abstract entity like >> intelligence, love, hate, creativity, has to be dragged down to operational >> definitions involving measurable things. For many years the operational >> definition of intelligence has been the scores on an intelligence test, and >> of course there are many different opinions as to what tests are >> appropriate, meaning in essence that people differ on just what >> intelligence is. >> >> The problem is that it is not anything. Oh, it is reducible in theory to >> actions in the brain - neurons and hormones and who knows what from the >> glia. So is love those actions as well, and every other thing you can >> think of. But people have generally resisted reductionism in this area. >> Me too, until someone can find a use for it. >> >> Look up the word 'nice' and you will find a trail of very different >> meanings. Just what meaning is correct? All of them - at least they were >> true at the time a particular use occurred. >> >> Intelligence is that way too - it is whatever we want to mean by the >> word. Most want to use it in a way that means one thing (usually >> determined by factor analysis). Some want to call it several things which >> may intercorrelate to some extent. The first idea usually wins out. >> >> Whatever it is, it is the most useful test in existence because it >> correlates with and thus predicts more things than any other test in >> existence. >> >> So - the best theory is the one which predicts more things in the 'real' >> world than any other, and the operational definition wins. And nobody is >> really happy with that. I can't understand it. >> >> bill w >> >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:08 PM Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>> > *we've launched Canonizer 2.0.* >>>> *My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video:* >>>> >>>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>>> >>> >>> I notice that the third most popular topic on the Canonizer is "the hard >>> problem" (beaten only by theories of consciousness and God). Apparently >>> this too has something to do with consciousness but it would seem to me the >>> first order of business should be to state exactly what general sort of >>> evidence would be sufficient to consider the problem having been solved. I >>> think the evidence from biological Evolution is overwhelming that if you'd >>> solved the so called "easy problem" which deals with intelligence then >>> you've come as close to solving the "hard problem" as anybody is ever going >>> to get. >>> >>> I also note there is no listing at all for "theories of intelligence" >>> and I think I know why, coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy >>> but coming up with a theory of intelligence is not. It takes years of >>> study to become an expert in the field of AI but anyone can talk about >>> consciousness. >>> >>> However I think the Canonizer does a good job on specifying what >>> "friendly AI" means, in fact it's the best definition of it I've seen: >>> >>> "*It means that the entity isn't blind to our interests. Notice that I >>> didn't say that the entity has our interests at heart, or that they are its >>> highest priority goal. Those might require intelligence with a human shape. >>> But an SI that was ignorant or uncaring of our interests could do us >>> enormous damage without intending it.*" >>> >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 23:26:00 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 16:26:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Bill w, Yes, you're close. You realize that everyone's knowledge of stuff could be different than, or completely missing from, your knowledge of stuff. So, take for example the abstract name for the neurotransmitter: glutamate, and our abstract descriptions of how glutamate reacts in a synapse. Now let's assume that science objectively demonstrates, or can't falsify the theory that it is that glutamate physics, reacting in a synapse, that you know of as your redness physical quality of knowledge. And the neurotransmitter glycine is your grenness knowledge. Now, you need to be able to observe those two neurotransmitters, in the correct synapses, when you, and someone else, looks at a red light. If one person uses glutamate to represent red, and another uses glycine to represent red, and visa versa for green. You can then say in an objectively justified way, an effing statement like "Your rudeness is like my grenness." Does that help? Brent On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 10:58 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > In other words, what is required to bridge the explanatory gap, is to > discover which set of our abstract descriptions of physics in the brain > should be interpreted as a redness, and a greenness physical quality, and > so on. Brent > > A trip to my audiologist was interesting: I had a buzz in one ear from my > hearing aid, and invited him to listen to it so he could understand what to > correct. He said that it would not help because he would not hear the same > thing as I did - maybe not hear it at all. > > So if different people hear different things from the exact same sound > source, it seems that being exposed to red and green things does not ensure > that the people will see, much less experience in their brains, the same > things. > > I have no background in the qualia problem as I have read being discussed > here, so my thinking may be way off. > > bill w > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:02 AM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> >> Good questions, John. We need to be clearer about what exactly this >> ?solution to the so-called hard problem? described in the ?Representational >> Qualia Theory? camp that has so much expert consensus is and is not: >> >> >> >> https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6? >> >> >> >> First off, many people think the ?had problem? is many different things. >> The specific ?hard problem? we are dealing with in both of these >> canonizer.com topics is just the ?explanatory gap?. How do you know >> what it is like to be a bat, what did Mary learn, when she experienced red >> for the first time even though she knew, abstractly, everything about red, >> before she experienced it for the first time? How do you ?eff the >> ineffable? and all that. In my opinion, this is the only hard problem. >> Everything else falls within what David Chalmers describes as easy >> problems. It?s surprising how so many people think the ?hard problem? is >> something completely different than the explanatory gap, or something >> different than the qualitative nature of consciousness problem. >> >> >> >> Second, this isn?t YET a solution to the hard problem. It is theoretical >> a meta approach to observing physics, in a new non-qualia-blind way (see >> the above camp for a description of qualia blindness). It is only a >> prediction that if experimentalists stop being qualia blind, they will soon >> be able to objectively detect if someone does or does not have something >> like red / green qualia inversion. >> >> >> >> In other words, what is required to bridge the explanatory gap, is to >> discover which set of our abstract descriptions of physics in the brain >> should be interpreted as a redness, and a greenness physical quality, and >> so on. Once an experimentalist does this, we will then be able to ?eff the >> ineffable? or bridge the explanatory gap. In other words, the prediction >> being made in the ?Representational Qualia Theory? camp needs to be >> verified by experimentalists, as the theory predicts is about to happen, >> before it will be a real solution to the qualitative hard problem. >> >> >> >> Does that help? >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM William Flynn Wallace < >> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy but coming up with a >>> theory of intelligence is not. John Clark >>> >>> Just what sort of theory do you want, John? Any abstract entity like >>> intelligence, love, hate, creativity, has to be dragged down to operational >>> definitions involving measurable things. For many years the operational >>> definition of intelligence has been the scores on an intelligence test, and >>> of course there are many different opinions as to what tests are >>> appropriate, meaning in essence that people differ on just what >>> intelligence is. >>> >>> The problem is that it is not anything. Oh, it is reducible in theory >>> to actions in the brain - neurons and hormones and who knows what from the >>> glia. So is love those actions as well, and every other thing you can >>> think of. But people have generally resisted reductionism in this area. >>> Me too, until someone can find a use for it. >>> >>> Look up the word 'nice' and you will find a trail of very different >>> meanings. Just what meaning is correct? All of them - at least they were >>> true at the time a particular use occurred. >>> >>> Intelligence is that way too - it is whatever we want to mean by the >>> word. Most want to use it in a way that means one thing (usually >>> determined by factor analysis). Some want to call it several things which >>> may intercorrelate to some extent. The first idea usually wins out. >>> >>> Whatever it is, it is the most useful test in existence because it >>> correlates with and thus predicts more things than any other test in >>> existence. >>> >>> So - the best theory is the one which predicts more things in the 'real' >>> world than any other, and the operational definition wins. And nobody is >>> really happy with that. I can't understand it. >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:08 PM Brent Allsop >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > *we've launched Canonizer 2.0.* >>>>> *My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video:* >>>>> >>>>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>>>> >>>> >>>> I notice that the third most popular topic on the Canonizer is "the >>>> hard problem" (beaten only by theories of consciousness and God). >>>> Apparently this too has something to do with consciousness but it would >>>> seem to me the first order of business should be to state exactly what >>>> general sort of evidence would be sufficient to consider the problem having >>>> been solved. I think the evidence from biological Evolution is overwhelming >>>> that if you'd solved the so called "easy problem" which deals with >>>> intelligence then you've come as close to solving the "hard problem" as >>>> anybody is ever going to get. >>>> >>>> I also note there is no listing at all for "theories of intelligence" >>>> and I think I know why, coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy >>>> but coming up with a theory of intelligence is not. It takes years of >>>> study to become an expert in the field of AI but anyone can talk about >>>> consciousness. >>>> >>>> However I think the Canonizer does a good job on specifying what >>>> "friendly AI" means, in fact it's the best definition of it I've seen: >>>> >>>> "*It means that the entity isn't blind to our interests. Notice that I >>>> didn't say that the entity has our interests at heart, or that they are its >>>> highest priority goal. Those might require intelligence with a human shape. >>>> But an SI that was ignorant or uncaring of our interests could do us >>>> enormous damage without intending it.*" >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Wed Dec 26 00:32:04 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 19:32:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 12:03 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > How do you know what it is like to be a bat, > That is easily answered, you can't. To do that you'd have to turn into a bat and even then you wouldn't know because you wouldn't be you, you'd be a bat that didn't know what it's like to be a human. > *> what did Mary learn, when she experienced red for the first time even > though she knew, abstractly, everything about red, before she experienced > it for the first time? How do you ?eff the ineffable? and all that. In my > opinion, this is the only hard problem. * > And suppose I gave you answers to all these questions, why would you believe me? What sort of supporting evidence could I give that would make anyone say "yes you must be correct"? I don't see how there could be anything. That's why I think the "easy" problem is far more profound than the hard one. If I have a idea and say if matter and energy are arranged in a certain way it will behave intelligently you can try it for yourself and see if it works. If it does then I'm right, if it doesn't then I'm wrong. It is impossible to do the same thing or anything close to it with consciousness, even in theory. > > *what is required to bridge the explanatory gap, is to discover which > set of our abstract descriptions of physics in the brain should be > interpreted as a redness, and a greenness physical quality, and so on. * > Once the "easy" problem is solved you could explain why red and green objects cause an intelligent being to behave differently, and that's as good as it's ever going to be if its a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed. And I don't think a chain of iterated "why?" questions can continue for infinity, I think eventually you reach a fundamental level and the sequence terminates in a brute fact. Every event need not have a cause. > *> Once an experimentalist does this, we will then be able to ?eff the > ineffable? or bridge the explanatory gap. * > Even if the explanation the experimentalist gives is correct there is no what for him to prove it is correct even to himself. Solving the so called hard problem would be equivalent to proving that solipsism is untrue, and I see no way to ever do that even theoretically. *> In other words, the prediction being made in the ?Representational > Qualia Theory? camp needs to be verified by experimentalists, as the theory > predicts is about to happen, before it will be a real solution to the > qualitative hard problem.* > If you could do that then you'd have proof the "easy" problem had been solved, not the hard one. John K Clark > > > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy but coming up with a >> theory of intelligence is not. John Clark >> >> Just what sort of theory do you want, John? Any abstract entity like >> intelligence, love, hate, creativity, has to be dragged down to operational >> definitions involving measurable things. For many years the operational >> definition of intelligence has been the scores on an intelligence test, and >> of course there are many different opinions as to what tests are >> appropriate, meaning in essence that people differ on just what >> intelligence is. >> >> The problem is that it is not anything. Oh, it is reducible in theory to >> actions in the brain - neurons and hormones and who knows what from the >> glia. So is love those actions as well, and every other thing you can >> think of. But people have generally resisted reductionism in this area. >> Me too, until someone can find a use for it. >> >> Look up the word 'nice' and you will find a trail of very different >> meanings. Just what meaning is correct? All of them - at least they were >> true at the time a particular use occurred. >> >> Intelligence is that way too - it is whatever we want to mean by the >> word. Most want to use it in a way that means one thing (usually >> determined by factor analysis). Some want to call it several things which >> may intercorrelate to some extent. The first idea usually wins out. >> >> Whatever it is, it is the most useful test in existence because it >> correlates with and thus predicts more things than any other test in >> existence. >> >> So - the best theory is the one which predicts more things in the 'real' >> world than any other, and the operational definition wins. And nobody is >> really happy with that. I can't understand it. >> >> bill w >> >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:08 PM Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>> > *we've launched Canonizer 2.0.* >>>> *My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video:* >>>> >>>> https://vimeo.com/307590745 >>>> >>> >>> I notice that the third most popular topic on the Canonizer is "the hard >>> problem" (beaten only by theories of consciousness and God). Apparently >>> this too has something to do with consciousness but it would seem to me the >>> first order of business should be to state exactly what general sort of >>> evidence would be sufficient to consider the problem having been solved. I >>> think the evidence from biological Evolution is overwhelming that if you'd >>> solved the so called "easy problem" which deals with intelligence then >>> you've come as close to solving the "hard problem" as anybody is ever going >>> to get. >>> >>> I also note there is no listing at all for "theories of intelligence" >>> and I think I know why, coming up with a theory of consciousness is easy >>> but coming up with a theory of intelligence is not. It takes years of >>> study to become an expert in the field of AI but anyone can talk about >>> consciousness. >>> >>> However I think the Canonizer does a good job on specifying what >>> "friendly AI" means, in fact it's the best definition of it I've seen: >>> >>> "*It means that the entity isn't blind to our interests. Notice that I >>> didn't say that the entity has our interests at heart, or that they are its >>> highest priority goal. Those might require intelligence with a human shape. >>> But an SI that was ignorant or uncaring of our interests could do us >>> enormous damage without intending it.*" >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >> > e > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 00:55:10 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 19:55:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:32 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > *Just what sort of theory do you want, John? Any abstract entity like > intelligence, love, hate, creativity, has to be dragged down to operational > definitions involving measurable things. * > We don't need a definition of intelligence if we have examples of it. A computer is intelligent if you'd call a human intelligent if he did the same thing. A machine should not be penalized just because its brain is hard and dry and not soft and squishy. *> Look up the word 'nice' and you will find a trail of very different > meanings.* > Most people have never looked up a word in a dictionary since the third grade when they were ordered to, and yet they manage to use the word "nice" without difficulty because they have examples of it. After all, examples are where lexicographers got the information to write the definitions in their dictionary in the first place. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 02:15:54 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 20:15:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: aeon article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 1960 physics video - 'cool' says Spike bill w ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: William Flynn Wallace Date: Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 3:05 PM Subject: aeon article To: spike 1960 physics lecture - no I did not view all of it but it seemed to be something you and others would like, so I am sending it to you to vet for the group. https://aeon.co/videos/this-clever-and-stylish-1960-film-is-the-most-fun-youll-ever-have-at-a-physics-lecture?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=39633e744c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_17_06_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-39633e744c-68993993 bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 03:02:17 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 20:02:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 5:34 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 12:03 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > > >> > How do you know what it is like to be a bat, >> > > That is easily answered, you can't. To do that you'd have to turn into a > bat and even then you wouldn't know because you wouldn't be you, you'd be a > bat that didn't know what it's like to be a human. > I agree. The theory predicts that you would need to become a bat, or at least become (or merge with as) a superset of a bat, to know the complete composite qualia experience of a bat. The theory also predicts that consciousness, including likely, that of a bat, is composed of elemental qualia, like redness and grenness, out of which composite conscious experience is composed. There is a chance that a bat could be using an elemental redness and grennes qualia to represent an elemental level of some of what it is sensing. This elemental level is what the theory is talking about. And of course, you are making a very testable claim, and the theory predicts we will eff the ineffable, on at least an elemental level - falsifying your claims. > > >> *> what did Mary learn, when she experienced red for the first time even >> though she knew, abstractly, everything about red, before she experienced >> it for the first time? How do you ?eff the ineffable? and all that. In my >> opinion, this is the only hard problem. * >> > > And suppose I gave you answers to all these questions, why would you > believe me? What sort of supporting evidence could I give that would make > anyone say "yes you must be correct"? I don't see how there could be > anything. > You need to ready the paper, through to the part where it talks about the week, stronger, and strongest form of effing the ineffable. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWUm3LzWVlY0ao5D9BFg4EQXGSopVDGPi-lVtCoJzzM/edit?usp=sharing The week and stronger form of effing the ineffable would be evidence, which descartes could doubt. The prediction is that we will be able to achieve a scientific consensus that agrees that this strongest form of effing the ineffable, first proposed by V.S. Ramachandran, will be more than just evidence. Just as Descartes could not doubt his existence, since he thinks, and just like we cannot doubt the physical qualities of our elemental redness and greenness knowledge, and how they are different, the strongest form of effing the ineffable would be similarly undeniable, because we would be directly experiencing the redness and greenness in another's brain, just as our two hemispheres can experience redness in one hemisphere, and grenness in the other, in a way you can not doubt. And just the way conjoined twins have already disproved solipsism, since each of the twins knows, in a way that is undeniable, that the other mind exists, and what it is like. They can both look out of each other's eyes, in some cases. *> Once an experimentalist does this, we will then be able to ?eff the >> ineffable? or bridge the explanatory gap. * >> > > Even if the explanation the experimentalist gives is correct there is no > what for him to prove it is correct even to himself. > Again, we are predicting that the strongest form of effing the ineffable is a proof that could not be denied. > Solving the so called hard problem would be equivalent to proving that > solipsism is untrue, and I see no way to ever do that even theoretically. > Again, the strongest form could do this, it could prove the existence of other conscious entities just as surely as you left hemisphere knows that your right hemisphere exists, and what redness and greenness are like, in each of them, in a way you cannot doubt. > > *> In other words, the prediction being made in the ?Representational >> Qualia Theory? camp needs to be verified by experimentalists, as the theory >> predicts is about to happen, before it will be a real solution to the >> qualitative hard problem.* >> > > If you could do that then you'd have proof the "easy" problem had been > solved, not the hard one. > I can't understand what you could mean by THE easy problem, as there is thousands and thousands of very difficult problems that still need to be figured out, about how the brain works. For example, we don't yet have any idea of how long term memory works. Is that THE easy problem, or is it any of the other thousands of easy problems? And, finally, these are all very testable predictions we are making. And 37 of the 54 total people that have participated in the consciousness survey are predicting we will achieve a scientific consensus that supports the idea that Solipsism will have been, or at least could be, falsified for many experts. If you have justifiable arguments against these views, it would sure be nice to get such represented in a camp, to see if anyone else would support them - in competition with the current 37 supporters of "Representational Qualia Theory". Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 26 15:41:36 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 07:41:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] virtual ptsd Message-ID: <002601d49d31\$7d1fc760\$775f5620\$@rainier66.com> BillW might know the answer to this given his professional background or anyone else here might know. We have a concept called PTSD which might be thought of as the memetic counterpart of cancer in a way: a tumor consists of cells that keep making copies of itself, but PTSD is where a memory (usually a bad one) makes copy after copy of itself until the mind is distracted: everywhere the thoughts wander, it encounters copies of the memory. Is that about how PTSD works? Most of us here have had one of those dreams that is so clear and so detailed we remember that dream nearly the same as actual events, or even more clearly than actual events. If so, it follows that one could get PTSD-like symptoms from an event which never occurred. Example: when I was much younger than I am today, my girl and I did something that was dangerous as all hell. We had to be very careful, and neither of us were scared at the time, but long after the fact I realized how dangerous that was, and even had a very real dream or vision about how that event could have gone very wrong. It didn't: the other party is alive and well, there were no injuries. But that event that never happened has somehow created multiple copies of itself in my mind. BillW, have you ever heard of this? Is there a name for it? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 26 18:53:12 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 10:53:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] virtual ptsd In-Reply-To: <002b01d49d31\$7e0dd0e0\$7a2972a0\$@rainier66.com> References: <002b01d49d31\$7e0dd0e0\$7a2972a0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001201d49d4c\$40f80b60\$c2e82220\$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com >...Most of us here have had one of those dreams that is so clear and so detailed we remember that dream nearly the same as actual events, or even more clearly than actual events. If so, it follows that one could get PTSD-like symptoms from an event which never occurred. ... spike There's a follow-up question or suggestion. Many of us who have seen virtual reality software perhaps noticed how good they have become. We might be able to modify old memories with a good simulation, perhaps overwrite a traumatic memory with a simulation of the event where nothing bad happened. If I have clearer mental pictures of a bad outcome that didn't happen than the good outcome that did not, it seems possible to reverse that scenario. spike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3762 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Wed Dec 26 19:14:02 2018 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 14:14:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] virtual ptsd In-Reply-To: <001201d49d4c\$40f80b60\$c2e82220\$@rainier66.com> References: <002b01d49d31\$7e0dd0e0\$7a2972a0\$@rainier66.com> <001201d49d4c\$40f80b60\$c2e82220\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Anything one perceives as life-threatening can become the source of ptsd or ptsd-like symptoms. Perception is reality. There are companies that sell virtual reality based therapy tools like Virtual Iraq where one can re-experience scenarios and become desensitized to them or play out different outcomes. Those systems include tactile surfaces to sit on that rumble, smells from battle, replica weapons, and the usual visual-audio VR. We have one of their older systems at my work for treating combat Vets: http://www.virtuallybetter.com/ > On Dec 26, 2018, at 1:53 PM, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: spike at rainier66.com > > > >> ...Most of us here have had one of those dreams that is so clear and so > detailed we remember that dream nearly the same as actual events, or even > more clearly than actual events. If so, it follows that one could get > PTSD-like symptoms from an event which never occurred. > > ... > > spike > > > > > > > > There's a follow-up question or suggestion. > > > > Many of us who have seen virtual reality software perhaps noticed how good > they have become. We might be able to modify old memories with a good > simulation, perhaps overwrite a traumatic memory with a simulation of the > event where nothing bad happened. If I have clearer mental pictures of a > bad outcome that didn't happen than the good outcome that did not, it seems > possible to reverse that scenario. > > > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 26 19:47:50 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:47:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] virtual ptsd In-Reply-To: References: <002b01d49d31\$7e0dd0e0\$7a2972a0\$@rainier66.com> <001201d49d4c\$40f80b60\$c2e82220\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002a01d49d53\$e296ff60\$a7c4fe20\$@rainier66.com> From: Henry Rivera Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:14 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: Re: [ExI] virtual ptsd >?Anything one perceives as life-threatening can become the source of ptsd or ptsd-like symptoms. Perception is reality. >?There are companies that sell virtual reality based therapy tools like Virtual Iraq where one can re-experience scenarios and become desensitized to them or play out different outcomes. Those systems include tactile surfaces to sit on that rumble, smells from battle, replica weapons, and the usual visual-audio VR? Henry Cool! Perhaps one can think of PTSD as the flip side of a crush, as one might have on a sweetheart. One?s brain gets so filled with images and virtual video, we end up with songs about it such as: Dree ee ee ee aam dreee ee ee am? when I want you? in my arms, when I want you and all your charms, whenever I waaaant you all I have to do is dree ee ee am... https://www.google.com/search?ei=oM0jXNjkCNC-0PEPpPun2Ac &q=dream+when+i+want+you+in+my+arms&oq=dream+when+I+wa&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l3j0i22i30l7.3298800.3303750..3305458...0.0..0.87.1011.15......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131j0i131i67j0i10.NOKuZQDfEPU Oh man there hasta be a way to make a buttload offa this notion. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 23:01:43 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:01:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 10:07 PM Brent Allsop wrote: >> you'd have to turn into a bat and even then you wouldn't know because >> you wouldn't be you, you'd be a bat that didn't know what it's like to be a >> human. >> > > > *I agree. The theory predicts that you would need to become a bat, or > at least become (or merge with as) a superset of a bat,* > If you merged you wouldn't know what it's like to be just a bat or just a human. > > *The theory also predicts that consciousness, including likely, that of > a bat, is composed of elemental qualia, like redness and grenness, out of > which composite conscious experience is composed. * > If so then whatever the bat's (or our) qualia generating system may be the key to it is the ability to recognize the difference between a red qualia and a green qualia, which at the fundamental level is no different than recognizing the difference between a one and a zero or the difference between on or off or the difference between a microscopic capacitor on a RAM chip that contains an electrical charge and a capacitor that contains no charge. > *> There is a chance that a bat could be using an elemental redness and > grennes qualia to represent an elemental level of some of what it is > sensing. This elemental level is what the theory is talking about. And of > course, you are making a very testable claim.* > I see no way that claim could ever be tested, > *and the theory predicts we will eff the ineffable, on at least an > elemental level - falsifying your claims.* You may be able to eff something but there is no way to prove the thing you're effing is anything like what the bat is effing or even that the bat is effing anything. And whatever the effing theory presented you're never going to be satisfied with it, even if by some miracle you proved that if matter and energy are put into configuration X it will always produce qualia Y you will then demand to know why that is true because matter configuration X is not qualia Y anymore than electromagnetic waves with a wavelength of 700 nanometers is the red qualia. > > *Just as Descartes could not doubt his existence, since he thinks, and > just like we cannot doubt the physical qualities of our elemental redness > and greenness knowledge, and how they are different, the strongest form of > effing the ineffable would be similarly undeniable, because we would be > directly experiencing the redness and greenness in another's brain,* > I would not doubt I was experiencing the red qualia but I already know I can do that, however I would doubt that my brain's interpretation of your brain's interpretation of electromagnetic waves with a wavelength of 700 nanometer was correct. And even if it was correct I'd have no way of ever proving it. > *> just as our two hemispheres can experience redness in one hemisphere, > and grenness in the other, in a way you can not doubt. * > That could only happen if the corpus callosum that connects the 2 hemispheres is severed and the right eye is shown a red light and the left eye a green light. And in that case one hemisphere does not know what the other hemisphere is experiencing. > *> And just the way conjoined twins have already disproved solipsism, > since each of the twins knows, in a way that is undeniable, that the other > mind exists,* > Conjoined twins? I see no reason why they'd know more about solipsism than anybody else. > They can both look out of each other's eyes, in some cases. > I never heard of that! But even if true the signals in the optic nerve produced by a red light are no more the qualia of red than electromagnetic waves with a wavelength of 700 nanometers are. > *> I can't understand what you could mean by THE easy problem, as there is > thousands and thousands of very difficult problems that still need to be > figured out,* > That's not my terminology it's your's. In fact I don't think solving the "easy" problem (figuring out how intelligence works) is very easy at all but I think we will accomplish it well before 2100 and it will be the last discovery the human race will ever make. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 00:10:23 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:10:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think solving the "easy" problem (figuring out how intelligence works) is very easy at all John Clark I still do not understand. Take all the subtests on the major IQ tests, such as Vocabulary, Block Design, and so on. Are you talking about figuring out how people are able to succeed at those? I cannot imagine that there are no people who can write code so that a computer can succeed at those tests, and then you will have a computer who has the intelligence of a person. bill w On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 5:06 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 10:07 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > > >> you'd have to turn into a bat and even then you wouldn't know because >>> you wouldn't be you, you'd be a bat that didn't know what it's like to be a >>> human. >>> >> >> > *I agree. The theory predicts that you would need to become a bat, or >> at least become (or merge with as) a superset of a bat,* >> > > If you merged you wouldn't know what it's like to be just a bat or just a > human. > > >> > *The theory also predicts that consciousness, including likely, that >> of a bat, is composed of elemental qualia, like redness and grenness, out >> of which composite conscious experience is composed. * >> > > If so then whatever the bat's (or our) qualia generating system may be > the key to it is the ability to recognize the difference between a red > qualia and a green qualia, which at the fundamental level is no different > than recognizing the difference between a one and a zero or the difference > between on or off or the difference between a microscopic capacitor on a > RAM chip that contains an electrical charge and a capacitor that contains > no charge. > > >> *> There is a chance that a bat could be using an elemental redness and >> grennes qualia to represent an elemental level of some of what it is >> sensing. This elemental level is what the theory is talking about. And of >> course, you are making a very testable claim.* >> > > I see no way that claim could ever be tested, > > > *and the theory predicts we will eff the ineffable, on at least an >> elemental level - falsifying your claims.* > > > You may be able to eff something but there is no way to prove the thing > you're effing is anything like what the bat is effing or even that the bat > is effing anything. And whatever the effing theory presented you're never > going to be satisfied with it, even if by some miracle you proved that if > matter and energy are put into configuration X it will always produce > qualia Y you will then demand to know why that is true because matter > configuration X is not qualia Y anymore than electromagnetic waves with a > wavelength of 700 nanometers is the red qualia. > > >> > *Just as Descartes could not doubt his existence, since he thinks, and >> just like we cannot doubt the physical qualities of our elemental redness >> and greenness knowledge, and how they are different, the strongest form of >> effing the ineffable would be similarly undeniable, because we would be >> directly experiencing the redness and greenness in another's brain,* >> > > I would not doubt I was experiencing the red qualia but I already know I > can do that, however I would doubt that my brain's interpretation of your > brain's interpretation of electromagnetic waves with a wavelength of 700 > nanometer was correct. And even if it was correct I'd have no way of ever > proving it. > > >> *> just as our two hemispheres can experience redness in one hemisphere, >> and grenness in the other, in a way you can not doubt. * >> > > That could only happen if the corpus callosum that connects the 2 > hemispheres is severed and the right eye is shown a red light and the left > eye a green light. And in that case one hemisphere does not know what the > other hemisphere is experiencing. > > >> *> And just the way conjoined twins have already disproved solipsism, >> since each of the twins knows, in a way that is undeniable, that the other >> mind exists,* >> > > Conjoined twins? I see no reason why they'd know more about solipsism > than anybody else. > > > They can both look out of each other's eyes, in some cases. >> > > I never heard of that! But even if true the signals in the optic nerve > produced by a red light are no more the qualia of red than electromagnetic > waves with a wavelength of 700 nanometers are. > > >> *> I can't understand what you could mean by THE easy problem, as there >> is thousands and thousands of very difficult problems that still need to be >> figured out,* >> > > That's not my terminology it's your's. In fact I don't think solving the > "easy" problem (figuring out how intelligence works) is very easy at all > but I think we will accomplish it well before 2100 and it will be the last > discovery the human race will ever make. > > 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 Fri Dec 28 17:35:38 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 11:35:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] contra Kahneman Message-ID: It's long but it's worth it. My question is: how can such a paper be written without the use of the concept of attention? Focus? I agree - what's out there is driven by what we expect to see. Without any ideas anything might be seen or not seen. Reinterpretaion of the invisible gorilla. bill w https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-basketball-court?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9ff28fd07e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_19_12_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-9ff28fd07e-68993993 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 21:34:52 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 13:34:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] contra Kahneman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > It's long but it's worth it. This is almost never true these days. Summary: it turns out that humans are much better at finding "obvious" stuff than thought - when they aren't trying to focus on one thing (thus excluding other stuff) and keeping in mind how much "obvious" stuff there generally is. On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > It's long but it's worth it. My question is: how can such a paper be written without the use of the concept of attention? Focus? I agree - what's out there is driven by what we expect to see. Without any ideas anything might be seen or not seen. Reinterpretaion of the invisible gorilla. bill w > > https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-basketball-court?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9ff28fd07e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_19_12_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-9ff28fd07e-68993993 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From avant at sollegro.com Fri Dec 28 23:47:55 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:47:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 Message-ID: Brent Allsop wrote: > Hi fellow extropians, > For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, we've > launched Canonizer 2.0. > > My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: > https://vimeo.com/307590745 > > If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it > donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token > offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. Hey Brent, This is the clearest explanation yet for what you are trying to do with the software. The new front end looks pretty slick. All in all, a massive improvement. Well done. :-) Stuart LaForge From avant at sollegro.com Fri Dec 28 23:48:20 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:48:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] contra Kahneman Message-ID: Bill Wallace wrote: > It's long but it's worth it.? My question is:? how can such a paper be > written without the use of the concept of attention?? Focus?? I agree - > what's out there is driven by what we expect to see.? Without any ideas > anything might be seen or not seen.? Reinterpretaion of the invisible > gorilla.? bill w I think too many many people including the original authors of the study are over-interpreting a single experimental result. We are not blind to the obvious, but instead we are blind to the irrelevant. More precisely, our brains subconsciously process sensory input and only relevant details are passed to our conscious attention. Thus the brains of those who failed to notice the "gorilla" were none-the-less operating up to evolutionary specs. Had they actually used a real gorilla instead of a guy in a gorilla suit, I am pretty sure almost everybody would have noticed it immediately. What your brain sees is an annoying guy in a gorilla suit, possibly a mascot for one of the basketball teams, intentionally blocking your view of the court in order to ham it up for the camera. Your brain knows he is no threat to you and is trying to distract you from your purpose of counting passes or whatever. Therefore your brain ignores him as irrelevant and does not pass the attention seeking man in a gorilla suit on to one's conscious awareness. With the real gorilla however, the movements and behavior would have been distinct. It would have triggered ones "dangerous animal" neural circuitry that would likely have succeeded in over-riding the goal-seeking behavior of counting passes. In other words, the experiment is not about people being blinded to the obvious, it is instead about how the brain censors out information which is irrelevant to an approximate hierarchy of informational importance: survival, accomplishing immediate goals, fulfilling basic needs, and entertainment. So I guess I agree with the essay's general critique of the experiment but for my own set of reasons. Stuart LaForge > https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-bask > etball-court?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9ff28fd07e-EMAIL_CAM > PAIGN_2018_12_19_12_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-9ff28fd07e- > 68993993 From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 00:45:57 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 18:45:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] contra Kahneman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In other words, the experiment is not about people being blinded to the obvious, it is instead about how the brain censors out information which is irrelevant to an approximate hierarchy of informational importance: survival, accomplishing immediate goals, fulfilling basic needs, and entertainment. stuart I totally agree with the hierarchy idea. There is always a list of things that our minds are set to attend to, which varies by situation, such as prompting. Of course we can prompt ourselves. No two people will see the same thing. They will filter out, or in, what is important to them. You go looking for something and find it, disregarding something right next to it that you also have been looking for. It may be obvious to someone else. An old saying occurs to me here: "If it had been a snake it would have bitten you." Someone is right in your face and talking to you, but you don't hear them. They are shut out because you see a person across the room you want to see right now. (ascending reticular formation acting here, rushing through important stuff and inhibiting the rest). So someone shouting in your face can be background noise that you don't process. You heard something but don't know what. Not in memory. You are thinking of what you are going to say next and don't process the other person's conversation, so when it's your turn you have to ask them to repeat what they said. The article is right: it's what your brain is doing that decides what gets processed and what doesn't, not what you are looking at, hearing, etc. Not seeing the gorilla is successful processing - basketball passes important- the rest not. Not seeing the gorilla is an asset, not a liability. bill w On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:03 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > Bill Wallace wrote: > > > It's long but it's worth it. My question is: how can such a paper be > > written without the use of the concept of attention? Focus? I agree - > > what's out there is driven by what we expect to see. Without any ideas > > anything might be seen or not seen. Reinterpretaion of the invisible > > gorilla. bill w > > I think too many many people including the original authors of the study > are over-interpreting a single experimental result. We are not blind to > the obvious, but instead we are blind to the irrelevant. More precisely, > our brains subconsciously process sensory input and only relevant details > are passed to our conscious attention. > > Thus the brains of those who failed to notice the "gorilla" were > none-the-less operating up to evolutionary specs. Had they actually used a > real gorilla instead of a guy in a gorilla suit, I am pretty sure almost > everybody would have noticed it immediately. > > What your brain sees is an annoying guy in a gorilla suit, possibly a > mascot for one of the basketball teams, intentionally blocking your view > of the court in order to ham it up for the camera. Your brain knows he is > no threat to you and is trying to distract you from your purpose of > counting passes or whatever. Therefore your brain ignores him as > irrelevant and does not pass the attention seeking man in a gorilla suit > on to one's conscious awareness. > > With the real gorilla however, the movements and behavior would have been > distinct. It would have triggered ones "dangerous animal" neural circuitry > that would likely have succeeded in over-riding the goal-seeking behavior > of counting passes. > > In other words, the experiment is not about people being blinded to the > obvious, it is instead about how the brain censors out information which > is irrelevant to an approximate hierarchy of informational importance: > survival, accomplishing immediate goals, fulfilling basic needs, and > entertainment. > > So I guess I agree with the essay's general critique of the experiment but > for my own set of reasons. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-bask > > etball-court?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9ff28fd07e-EMAIL_CAM > > PAIGN_2018_12_19_12_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-9ff28fd07e- > > 68993993 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 01:44:06 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 18:44:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Canonizer 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thx, Stuart! On Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 4:50 PM Stuart LaForge Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi fellow extropians, > > For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money, we've > > launched Canonizer 2.0. > > > > My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video: > > https://vimeo.com/307590745 > > > > If anyone is interested in "investing" (legally, we need to call it > > donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token > > offering.) to help move things forward, let me know. > > Hey Brent, > > This is the clearest explanation yet for what you are trying to do with > the software. The new front end looks pretty slick. All in all, a massive > improvement. Well done. :-) > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 frankmac at ripco.com Sat Dec 29 19:42:02 2018 From: frankmac at ripco.com (frank mcelligott) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 12:42:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] this day an age(gorilla and basketball) Message-ID: <6ADC3D646E0347F9B4B7C167C507BCA9@MININTPNDT1SD> This discussion must be read by a group of people over the age of 40 and do not see the racist tone to your posts. Howard Cosell once called a running back a little monkey at a football game and had that little remark on his tombstone . try this statement in the NBA at a game last night I saw a lot of gorilla?s but never saw the white guy. Happy new year to us all in this new normal Frank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 19:47:05 2018 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 06:47:05 +1100 Subject: [ExI] this day an age(gorilla and basketball) In-Reply-To: <6ADC3D646E0347F9B4B7C167C507BCA9@MININTPNDT1SD> References: <6ADC3D646E0347F9B4B7C167C507BCA9@MININTPNDT1SD> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 6:40 am, frank mcelligott wrote: > This discussion must be read by a group of people over the age of 40 and > do not see the racist tone to your posts. Howard Cosell once called a > running back a little monkey at a football game and had that little remark > on his tombstone . try this statement in the NBA at a game last night I > saw a lot of gorilla?s but never saw the white guy. > > Happy new year to us all in this new normal > It?s not racism. It?s a reference to this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 20:45:42 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 14:45:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] this day an age(gorilla and basketball) In-Reply-To: References: <6ADC3D646E0347F9B4B7C167C507BCA9@MININTPNDT1SD> Message-ID: <624039FC-8C4B-4382-8DC3-46799BAFEE2D@gmail.com> I?m literally laughing so hard right now. The gorilla/basketball experience is so standard when talking about selective attention that I didn?t realize people hadn?t heard of it. I was so confused when I read about the racism. SR Ballard > On Dec 29, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 6:40 am, frank mcelligott wrote: >> This discussion must be read by a group of people over the age of 40 and do not see the racist tone to your posts. Howard Cosell once called a running back a little monkey at a football game and had that little remark on his tombstone . try this statement in the NBA at a game last night I saw a lot of gorilla?s but never saw the white guy. >> >> Happy new year to us all in this new normal > > It?s not racism. It?s a reference to this: > > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo > > -- > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 21:01:26 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 13:01:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] this day an age(gorilla and basketball) In-Reply-To: <624039FC-8C4B-4382-8DC3-46799BAFEE2D@gmail.com> References: <6ADC3D646E0347F9B4B7C167C507BCA9@MININTPNDT1SD> <624039FC-8C4B-4382-8DC3-46799BAFEE2D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <82F66C00-32AD-4287-9609-A872A20408C3@gmail.com> Same here. I thought I?d missed something. ;) It might come as a lesson that before condemning people, one do a cursory research or even lower oneself to asking them ? you know, just to be sure. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Dec 29, 2018, at 12:45 PM, SR Ballard wrote: > > I?m literally laughing so hard right now. The gorilla/basketball experience is so standard when talking about selective attention that I didn?t realize people hadn?t heard of it. I was so confused when I read about the racism. > > SR Ballard > >> On Dec 29, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 6:40 am, frank mcelligott wrote: >>> This discussion must be read by a group of people over the age of 40 and do not see the racist tone to your posts. Howard Cosell once called a running back a little monkey at a football game and had that little remark on his tombstone . try this statement in the NBA at a game last night I saw a lot of gorilla?s but never saw the white guy. >>> >>> Happy new year to us all in this new normal >> >> It?s not racism. It?s a reference to this: >> >> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 avant at sollegro.com Sun Dec 30 19:11:33 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 11:11:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] contra Kahneman Message-ID: <1e41a29c63b7b3bfd68f8db19672053f.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Bill Wallace wrote: > I totally agree with the hierarchy idea. There is always a list of > things that our minds are set to attend to, which varies by situation, > such as prompting. Of course we can prompt ourselves. No two people will > see the same thing. They will filter out, or in, what is important to > them. You go looking for something and find it, disregarding something > right next to it that you also have been looking for. It may be obvious > to someone else. An old saying occurs to me here: "If it had been a > snake it would have bitten you." Yes. But to really fry your noodle, consider that physics at the fundamental quantum level caters to that same phenomenon! In the double-slit experiment, when you look for a particle (i.e. which-way information), you observe a particle. On the other hand, when you look for a wave, lo and behold, you see an interference pattern indicative of a wave having gone through both slits at once. Delayed-choice quantum eraser versions of the double-slit experiment seem to indicate that an experimenter's ability to observe which-way information after the fact can change data already recorded in the past. The implication is that one does to a large degree create ones one own subjective reality in full, and ones objective reality in part, through desire and expectation. One shapes and perceives ones experience of the universe filtered through ones own expectations whether fulfilled or foiled in the process. It is our minds that forge reality from chaos by assigning meaning to mere information. And information is a physical quantity. So it is possible that optimists create a better world simply by seeing it as already such. > Not seeing the gorilla is successful processing - basketball passes > important- the rest not. Not seeing the gorilla is an asset, not a > liability. Yes. Exactly. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 20:19:57 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 14:19:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] contra Kahneman In-Reply-To: <1e41a29c63b7b3bfd68f8db19672053f.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <1e41a29c63b7b3bfd68f8db19672053f.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: stuart wrote Delayed-choice quantum eraser versions of the double-slit experiment seem to indicate that an experimenter's ability to observe which-way information after the fact can change data already recorded in the past. Is it any wonder that many people think physicists are mentally living in LaLa Land? Reminds me of Feynman asking how many dimensions his colleagues were positing today. PLEASE do not respond to this email. I have made several failed attempts to understand quantum theory and I will not try again. It's as if totally obvious things are completely untrue, and way out, fantastic, impossible things are true. I just can't get my head around that. I am glad we agree. I think. bill w On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:16 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > Bill Wallace wrote: > > > > I totally agree with the hierarchy idea. There is always a list of > > things that our minds are set to attend to, which varies by situation, > > such as prompting. Of course we can prompt ourselves. No two people > will > > see the same thing. They will filter out, or in, what is important to > > them. You go looking for something and find it, disregarding something > > right next to it that you also have been looking for. It may be obvious > > to someone else. An old saying occurs to me here: "If it had been a > > snake it would have bitten you." > > Yes. But to really fry your noodle, consider that physics at the > fundamental quantum level caters to that same phenomenon! In the > double-slit experiment, when you look for a particle (i.e. which-way > information), you observe a particle. On the other hand, when you look for > a wave, lo and behold, you see an interference pattern indicative of a > wave having gone through both slits at once. > > Delayed-choice quantum eraser versions of the double-slit experiment seem > to indicate that an experimenter's ability to observe which-way > information after the fact can change data already recorded in the past. > > The implication is that one does to a large degree create ones one own > subjective reality in full, and ones objective reality in part, through > desire and expectation. One shapes and perceives ones experience of the > universe filtered through ones own expectations whether fulfilled or > foiled in the process. > > It is our minds that forge reality from chaos by assigning meaning to mere > information. And information is a physical quantity. So it is possible > that optimists create a better world simply by seeing it as already such. > > > Not seeing the gorilla is successful processing - basketball passes > > important- the rest not. Not seeing the gorilla is an asset, not a > > liability. > > Yes. Exactly. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Dec 30 20:24:52 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 20:24:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Every Year we lose more of the Universe Message-ID: The Inevitable Abyss: Each Year, We Lose Another Section of The Universe JOLENE CREIGHTON 29 DEC 2018 At the outer reaches of the known Universe, entire galaxies - and all of the stars, planets, and alien species they may contain - are disappearing. Of course, these objects aren't simply evaporating. They are being thrust out of the known Universe, forced into a mysterious expanse known as the "unobservable Universe." Quote: Now, if the expansion of the Universe wasn't accelerating, given enough time, we'd eventually be able to see everything in the cosmos. But this isn't the case. Because of accelerated expansion, regions of space that are sufficiently distant from Earth are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. This doesn't sound too alarming, until you stop and realise that light from these regions of the cosmos will never be able to reach us. At the present juncture, if a photon left our planet and started to travel out into the cosmos, it would never be able to reach any area of space that's more than 15 billion light-years away, as space beyond this point is expanding faster than the speed of light. Ultimately, this means that, even if we left today and were travelling at lightspeed, we'd only ever be able to reach a mere 3 percent of the total number of galaxies in our observable Universe. The other 97 percent are forever beyond our reach. ______________ Of course the implication is that 97% of the universe that we can see can never contact us. We'll have to make do with nearby galaxies. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 15:20:15 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:20:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone Message-ID: 1. Let?s say it?s 7.25pm and you?re going home (alone of course) after an unusually hard day on the job. 2. You?re really tired, upset and frustrated. 3 Suddenly you start experiencing severe pain in your chest that starts to drag out into your arm and up in to your jaw. You are only about five km from the hospital nearest your home. 4. Unfortunately you don?t know if you?ll be able to make it that far. 5. You have been trained in CPR, but the guy who taught the course did not tell you how to perform it on yourself. 6. HOW TO SURVIVE A HEART ATTACK WHEN ALONE? Since many people are alone when they suffer a heart attack without help, the person whose heart is beating improperly and who begins to feel faint, has only about 10 seconds left before losing consciousness. 7. However, these victims can help themselves by coughing repeatedly and very vigorously. A deep breath should be taken before each cough, and the cough must be deep and prolonged, as when producing sputum from deep inside the chest. A breath and a cough must be repeated about every two seconds without let-up until help arrives, or until the heart is felt to be beating normally again. 8. Deep breaths get oxygen into the lungs and coughing movements squeeze the heart and keep the blood circulating. The squeezing pressure on the heart also helps it regain normal rhythm. In this way, heart attack victims can get to a hospital. Few forwards save lives, but this may be one of them. 'bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 31 16:33:29 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 08:33:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003001d4a126\$904d20f0\$b0e762d0\$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 7:20 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone 1. Let?s say it?s 7.25pm and you?re going home (alone of course) after an unusually hard day on the job. 2. You?re really tired, upset and frustrated. 3 Suddenly you start experiencing severe pain in your chest that starts to drag out into your arm and up in to your jaw. You are only about five km from the hospital nearest your home. 4? Few forwards save lives, but this may be one of them. 'bill w Your best safety device is a phone. If you are driving, stop right in the middle of the lane. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 17:08:52 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 17:08:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone In-Reply-To: <003001d4a126\$904d20f0\$b0e762d0\$@rainier66.com> References: <003001d4a126\$904d20f0\$b0e762d0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 at 16:38, spike wrote: > > Your best safety device is a phone. > If you are driving, stop right in the middle of the lane. > That's right, Spike. Phone immediately for emergency assistance. You may only have seconds available before you lose consciousness. The cough-CPR email hoax has been going round since about 1999 and may kill you. Always check these 'advice' emails with Snopes or Hoax-slayer first. See: Quote: The message outlines a technique for surviving a heart attack while alone that involves vigorous coughing. According to the email, a cardiologist has advised forwarding the message to others in order to save lives. However, the alleged cardiologist is not named, nor is there any reference to a reputable medical institution. In my opinion, any life-critical ?medical advice? that is not supported by credible reference material should be used with extreme caution. It should be noted that the cough procedure outlined in the email is not, in itself, a hoax and has been researched and tested by medical experts. In fact, so called ?Cough CPR? might be beneficial under certain controlled circumstances. However, this does not mean that the advice in the email message is valid and useful. The most important factor to consider is that, according to medical experts, cough CPR should only be performed under strict professional supervision. Heart patient support organization Mended Hearts has also debunked the procedure: Despite a contagious rumor, coughing doesn?t prevent a heart attack. An e-mail that spread around the world like a contagious disease a few years ago claimed that anyone who feels heart attack symptoms while alone should cough ?repeatedly and very vigorously, repeating a breath about every two seconds?until help arrives, or (a normal heartbeat returns).? Wrong, says the American Heart Association. ?It?s right up there with voodoo as far as I?m concerned,? says Dr. Cary Fishbein, a cardiologist with the Dayton Heart Center. -------- BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 17:20:52 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 11:20:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone In-Reply-To: References: <003001d4a126\$904d20f0\$b0e762d0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: cough CPR should only be performed under strict professional supervision. Hard to have that when you are alone. Frankly if I thought I was having a heart attack, had called, stopped in the road, whatever, I would do it just in case. Nobody said it was harmful, did they? I would pray to every god who ever was named, including Chango. There is no superstition that I would not try. Including voodoo. Let's see, just where did I put my Voodoo Bible? bill w On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:13 AM BillK wrote: > On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 at 16:38, spike wrote: > > > > Your best safety device is a phone. > > If you are driving, stop right in the middle of the lane. > > > > That's right, Spike. Phone immediately for emergency assistance. You > may only have seconds available before you lose consciousness. > The cough-CPR email hoax has been going round since about 1999 and may > kill you. > Always check these 'advice' emails with Snopes or Hoax-slayer first. > > See: > > > Quote: > The message outlines a technique for surviving a heart attack while > alone that involves vigorous coughing. According to the email, a > cardiologist has advised forwarding the message to others in order to > save lives. However, the alleged cardiologist is not named, nor is > there any reference to a reputable medical institution. In my opinion, > any life-critical ?medical advice? that is not supported by credible > reference material should be used with extreme caution. > > It should be noted that the cough procedure outlined in the email is > not, in itself, a hoax and has been researched and tested by medical > experts. In fact, so called ?Cough CPR? might be beneficial under > certain controlled circumstances. However, this does not mean that the > advice in the email message is valid and useful. The most important > factor to consider is that, according to medical experts, cough CPR > should only be performed under strict professional supervision. > > Heart patient support organization Mended Hearts has also debunked the > procedure: > > Despite a contagious rumor, coughing doesn?t prevent a heart attack. > An e-mail that spread around the world like a contagious disease a few > years ago claimed that anyone who feels heart attack symptoms while > alone should cough ?repeatedly and very vigorously, repeating a breath > about every two seconds?until help arrives, or (a normal heartbeat > returns).? > > Wrong, says the American Heart Association. > ?It?s right up there with voodoo as far as I?m concerned,? says Dr. > Cary Fishbein, a cardiologist with the Dayton Heart Center. > -------- > > 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 Mon Dec 31 17:22:48 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 12:22:48 -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. ================ 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 eighth 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 me about 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 17:35:53 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:35:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Based on my paranormal powers; predict you will make this prediction around the same time next year. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Dec 31, 2018, at 9:22 AM, 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. > > ================ > > 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 eighth 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 me about 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 pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 18:01:13 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 18:01:13 +0000 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone In-Reply-To: References: <003001d4a126\$904d20f0\$b0e762d0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 at 17:25, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Hard to have that when you are alone. Frankly if I thought I was having a heart attack, had called, stopped in the road, whatever, I would do it just in case. Nobody said it was harmful, did they? I would pray to every god who ever was named, including Chango. There is no superstition that I would not try. Including voodoo. Let's see, just where did I put my Voodoo Bible? > All the reputable medical sources say it is harmful! Don't do it - you'll make your situation worse. Get correct advice on what to do! Your response shows why those hoax emails are so attractive to people who don't know what they should do. Do a search on Cough CPR hoax. Quote: A heart attack can lead to a cardiac arrest, when your heart stops pumping blood around your body. You would become unconscious, and without immediate CPR (chest compressions and rescue breaths), you would die. If you are still conscious (and you would have to be to do ?cough CPR?), then you are not in cardiac arrest and therefore CPR is not needed, but urgent medical help is vital. ------- BillK From avant at sollegro.com Mon Dec 31 18:09:31 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 10:09:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone Message-ID: Bill Wallace wrote: > cough CPR should only be performed under strict professional supervision. > > Hard to have that when you are alone. Frankly if I thought I was having > a heart attack, had called, stopped in the road, whatever, I would do it > just in case. Nobody said it was harmful, did they? I would pray to > every god who ever was named, including Chango. There is no superstition > that I would not try. Including voodoo. Let's see, just where did I put > my Voodoo Bible? The first thing you should do when you feel the symptoms of a heart attack is CHEW AND SWALLOW a full strength 325 mg aspirin tablet. Since most heart attacks happen in the morning, it might make sense to keep the bottle near your bed. Lots of good sources on this so take your pick. Here is Harvard: https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/aspirin-for-heart-attack-chew-or-swallow Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 18:16:25 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 12:16:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, and I have read that more than one is not needed. bill w On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 12:15 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > Bill Wallace wrote: > > > cough CPR should only be performed under strict professional supervision. > > > > Hard to have that when you are alone. Frankly if I thought I was having > > a heart attack, had called, stopped in the road, whatever, I would do it > > just in case. Nobody said it was harmful, did they? I would pray to > > every god who ever was named, including Chango. There is no superstition > > that I would not try. Including voodoo. Let's see, just where did I put > > my Voodoo Bible? > > The first thing you should do when you feel the symptoms of a heart attack > is CHEW AND SWALLOW a full strength 325 mg aspirin tablet. Since most > heart attacks happen in the morning, it might make sense to keep the > bottle near your bed. > > Lots of good sources on this so take your pick. Here is Harvard: > > > https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/aspirin-for-heart-attack-chew-or-swallow > > Stuart LaForge > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 31 18:26:01 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 12:26:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone In-Reply-To: References: <003001d4a126\$904d20f0\$b0e762d0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Hey - you are right in that I should have researched it. Sorry. But I never said that I would do nothing else. Phone first. Maybe it's a good idea to have one of those gadgets that make calls for you like Alexa. Oops - not Alexa, says the reviewers. (don't have an iPhone - have Samsung) OK, tech people - what's the best way to make a remote phone call? That is, just with my voice telling the gadget to call 911 or people on my contact list. bill w On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 12:05 PM BillK wrote: > On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 at 17:25, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > > Hard to have that when you are alone. Frankly if I thought I was having > a heart attack, had called, stopped in the road, whatever, I would do it > just in case. Nobody said it was harmful, did they? I would pray to every > god who ever was named, including Chango. There is no superstition that I > would not try. Including voodoo. Let's see, just where did I put my > Voodoo Bible? > > > > All the reputable medical sources say it is harmful! > Don't do it - you'll make your situation worse. > Get correct advice on what to do! > Your response shows why those hoax emails are so attractive to people > who don't know what they should do. > > Do a search on Cough CPR hoax. > < > https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/medical/ask-the-experts/cough-cpr > > > Quote: > A heart attack can lead to a cardiac arrest, when your heart stops > pumping blood around your body. You would become unconscious, and > without immediate CPR (chest compressions and rescue breaths), you > would die. > > If you are still conscious (and you would have to be to do ?cough > CPR?), then you are not in cardiac arrest and therefore CPR is not > needed, but urgent medical help is vital. > ------- > > 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 Dec 31 18:42:36 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 13:42:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone In-Reply-To: References: <003001d4a126\$904d20f0\$b0e762d0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 1:35 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > OK, tech people - what's the best way to make a remote phone call? That > is, just with my voice telling the gadget to call 911 or people on my > contact list. > "Hey Google, call 9-1-1. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 19:12:58 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 13:12:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] heart attack while alone In-Reply-To: References: <003001d4a126\$904d20f0\$b0e762d0\$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <7340B7FF-8932-4A3C-93F8-7E581543B7E4@gmail.com> ?All Senior Citizens Should Have Life Alert? Jokes aside, my grandma used one of these when she had her heart attack(s). SR Ballard > On Dec 31, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 1:35 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > >> >> OK, tech people - what's the best way to make a remote phone call? That is, just with my voice telling the gadget to call 911 or people on my contact list. > > "Hey Google, call 9-1-1. > > -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: