From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 1 05:32:55 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 22:32:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cern says it saw a higgs decay Message-ID: <003801d441b5$3c595340$b50bf9c0$@rainier66.com> Astonishing. I have been struggling with this, and hope it's true: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/higgs-boson-decay-bottom-quarks-lhc If so, the standard wins again, and we know who will win this year's Nobel in physics. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Sep 2 16:42:43 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:42:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electoral College and 1177 BCE Message-ID: John Clark wrote: > Real hourly wages in the USA peaked more than 45 years ago, in January 1973 the average person made $4.03 an hour which adjusted for inflation would be equivalent to $23.68 worth of purchasing power today, but today the average hourly wage is only $22.65. And yet the country is vastly wealthier than it was in January 1973. If anybody thinks this trend can continue indefinitely without horrific social upheaval they are deluding themselves. I said it before I'll say it again, one way or another *this will not stand*. I don't think the distribution of wealth is as much of a problem as a bleak outlook for identifiable subgroups of the population. In order to estimate the psychological/social effect, you have to map income per capita back to game and berries in the stone age. For a big sector of the population, predominately people who were union workers back in the 1970s, they have seen big declines in purchasing power and worse (from a social unrest standpoint) their future prospects look poor and the prospects for their children look even worse. In the stone age, a bleak outlook in the game and berry supply caused the rise of xenophobic memes and support for irrational leaders who would take the tribe into war with the neighbors. This reliably solved the resource crisis by war reducing the population. This maps well into the (US) current leader and supporters of the current leader. Not to say that the social entities (nations) of today have a lot in common with tiny tribes of 100,000 years ago. But then neither did Germany of the 1920s and 1930s. However, human psychological traits are probably very similar. Dave Sill wrote > *even if you could convince me that wealth disparity is a real problem,* Wealth is roughly the integral of income you don't spend. The concept mostly didn't exist in prior to storable food when income was food, shared out and eaten before it spoiled. It probably doesn't have a direct connection to the human psychological traits that lead to wars. On the other hand, it may have strong indirect connections if those who accumulate wealth increase the rate by actions that decrease income for others. The subject is complicated and needs modeling. The selection for the psychological traits to accumulate wealth may be relatively new. See the works of Gregory Clark. > I have learned something in the last few months, nobody around here really wants me to answer that. This is not the Extropian list of old, these days if I even attempted to address that question I would be attacked by nearly everybody on the list and be accused of spouting heresy and making shitposts. If you want to take such discussions off-list, that could be done. Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 2 20:10:55 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 15:10:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended Message-ID: Coincidentally, I have been reading Jane Austen, where the word 'condescension' is used in the original sense of treating an inferior like an equal - a desired act. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/magazine/thank-you-for-condescending.html bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Sep 2 21:03:31 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 14:03:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2018 1:11 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended Coincidentally, I have been reading Jane Austen, where the word 'condescension' is used in the original sense of treating an inferior like an equal - a desired act. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/magazine/thank-you-for-condescending.html bill w Thanks for that BillW. Jane Austen had so much fun with how the old timers got so tangled up with the notion of there being different classes of people, and that this was determined by how much property one owned. Think of the irony: in Austen?s day there was the common assumption that there were different classes of people. To treat someone of lower rank as an equal was a compliment to the lower ranking person and a kindness on the part of with higher social rank. Today we reject the notion of social rank, so to act condescending is to imply that one is higher ranking but one is reaching down to treat a lower-ranking person as an equal. Oh that is a fun paradox, but consider for a moment those who follow the big-name scientists and such. We go to a schmooze with them, work up the courage, go up and introduce oneself. In the science world (and math (and really every technical field)) there durn sure is something very much equivalent to the old social rank, but now you have to earn it rather than being born into it. Nobody gives a hoot about Richard Feynman?s son or Isaac Asimov?s son (both of whom are nice guys but they aren?t their fathers.) When we go to a science schmooze and meet a science god, a lot of them will treat me like their equal. This is a perfect example of a great form of condescension, for they really are my superior in every way I care about, and oh that feels good. I thank those who do that. Two excellent recent examples: Frank Drake and Sal Khan. Both of those guys do justly, live smartly and walk humbly. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sun Sep 2 21:48:34 2018 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 17:48:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Spike wrote: >Oh that is a fun paradox, but consider for a moment those who follow >the big-name scientists and such. We go to a schmooze with them, >work up the courage, go up and introduce oneself. In the science >world (and math (and really every technical field)) there durn sure >is something very much equivalent to the old social rank, but now >you have to earn it rather than being born into it. Nobody gives a >hoot about Richard Feynman's son or Isaac Asimov's son (both of whom >are nice guys but they aren't their fathers.) When we go to a >science schmooze and meet a science god, a lot of them will treat me >like their equal. This is a perfect example of a great form of >condescension, for they really are my superior in every way I care >about, and oh that feels good. I thank those who do that. Carl Feynman used to go to Sasha's parties; he is indeed a nice guy. David Asimov was caught with a very large stash of illegal naughty, so maybe not. But your point holds, even if your example doesn't. And I've found that, yes, the great minds are approachable. They don't (usually) mind discussing why they're right and you're wrong as if you were a junior colleague, so long as you aren't nasty in your disagreement. It's the ones who don't really know their stuff who lean on their status. -- David. From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sun Sep 2 22:54:01 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 17:54:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Electoral College and 1177 BCE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Wealth is roughly the integral of income you don't spend. The concept mostly didn't exist in prior to storable food when income was food, shared out and eaten before it spoiled. It probably doesn't have a direct connection to the human psychological traits that lead to wars. Well, maybe. But wealth is often used psychologically to determine "safety", and I think THAT (desire for feelings of safety) is well selected for. On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > John Clark wrote: > > > Real hourly wages in the USA peaked more than 45 years ago, in January > 1973 > the average person made $4.03 an hour which adjusted for inflation would be > equivalent to $23.68 worth of purchasing power today, but today the average > hourly wage is only $22.65. And yet the country is vastly wealthier than it > was in January 1973. If anybody thinks this trend can continue indefinitely > without horrific social upheaval they are deluding themselves. I said it > before I'll say it again, one way or another *this will not stand*. > > I don't think the distribution of wealth is as much of a problem as a > bleak outlook for identifiable subgroups of the population. In order > to estimate the psychological/social effect, you have to map income > per capita back to game and berries in the stone age. For a big > sector of the population, predominately people who were union workers > back in the 1970s, they have seen big declines in purchasing power and > worse (from a social unrest standpoint) their future prospects look > poor and the prospects for their children look even worse. > > In the stone age, a bleak outlook in the game and berry supply caused > the rise of xenophobic memes and support for irrational leaders who > would take the tribe into war with the neighbors. This reliably > solved the resource crisis by war reducing the population. > > This maps well into the (US) current leader and supporters of the > current leader. > > Not to say that the social entities (nations) of today have a lot in > common with tiny tribes of 100,000 years ago. But then neither did > Germany of the 1920s and 1930s. However, human psychological traits > are probably very similar. > > Dave Sill wrote > > > *even if you could convince me that wealth disparity is a real problem,* > > Wealth is roughly the integral of income you don't spend. The > concept mostly didn't exist in prior to storable food when income was > food, shared out and eaten before it spoiled. It probably doesn't > have a direct connection to the human psychological traits that lead > to wars. On the other hand, it may have strong indirect connections > if those who accumulate wealth increase the rate by actions that > decrease income for others. The subject is complicated and needs > modeling. > > The selection for the psychological traits to accumulate wealth may be > relatively new. See the works of Gregory Clark. > > > I have learned something in the last few months, nobody around here > really > wants me to answer that. This is not the Extropian list of old, these days > if I even attempted to address that question I would be attacked by nearly > everybody on the list and be accused of spouting heresy and making > shitposts. > > If you want to take such discussions off-list, that could be done. > > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 00:05:41 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 19:05:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: the great minds are approachable. They don't (usually) mind discussing why they're right and you're wrong as if you were a junior colleague, so long as you aren't nasty in your disagreement. It's the ones who don't really know their stuff who lean on their status. -- David. I have emailed and gotten replies - not just thanks for writing, but really addressing question of mine, from Pinker, Kahneman, and others. Some top writers too. I really do not know, but I suspect that the reason a Ph. D. is not a social title is to avoid pulling rank. Many people don't know this, and some doctorates I've known have gotten all in a snit because they weren't given a Dr. title. Pathetic. --------------- Today we reject the notion of social rank, so to act condescending is to imply that one is higher ranking but one is reaching down to treat a lower-ranking person as an equal. spike "Who is this 'we' Kemo Sabe?" Oh I really disagree with this. I think most people will too. Social rank will never go away, despite what some fluffy-headed liberals want. I treat my nearly illiterate gardener as an equal, but we both know who has the vast knowledge and who doesn't. I treated H. W. Bush as an equal and he treated me that way, but we both knew who had the prestige advantage, despite the intellectual disparity. Try to tell a CEO that he or she is a social equal to the janitor and get big laughs. In the 1st Amendment: bestowing noble titles is prohibited, but I'll bet a lot of people would like to see them back. bill w On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Lubkin wrote: > Spike wrote: > > Oh that is a fun paradox, but consider for a moment those who follow the >> big-name scientists and such. We go to a schmooze with them, work up the >> courage, go up and introduce oneself. In the science world (and math (and >> really every technical field)) there durn sure is something very much >> equivalent to the old social rank, but now you have to earn it rather than >> being born into it. Nobody gives a hoot about Richard Feynman's son or >> Isaac Asimov's son (both of whom are nice guys but they aren't their >> fathers.) When we go to a science schmooze and meet a science god, a lot >> of them will treat me like their equal. This is a perfect example of a >> great form of condescension, for they really are my superior in every way I >> care about, and oh that feels good. I thank those who do that. >> > > Carl Feynman used to go to Sasha's parties; he is indeed a nice guy. David > Asimov was caught with a very large stash of illegal naughty, so maybe not. > But your point holds, even if your example doesn't. > > And I've found that, yes, the great minds are approachable. They don't > (usually) mind discussing why they're right and you're wrong as if you were > a junior colleague, so long as you aren't nasty in your disagreement. It's > the ones who don't really know their stuff who lean on their status. > > > -- David. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 00:24:16 2018 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 00:24:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ExI] FIGHT AGING! TransVision 2018 Takes Place in Madrid this October In-Reply-To: <1952555566.20144.1535914087372@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1952555566.20144.1535914087372.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1952555566.20144.1535914087372@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <135996058.91913.1535934256224@mail.yahoo.com> Dear ExI friends, ? ? ?I hope that you enjoy this excellent article talking about transhumanism, TransVision and HumanityPlus, and we will be waiting for you in Madrid for our 20th anniversary, to review the last 20 years, and envision the next 20 years:?TransVision 2018 Takes Place in Madrid this October | | | TransVision 2018 Takes Place in Madrid this October If you are a recent arrival to the rejuvenation research community, then it is possible you do not know that you... | | | ? ? ? ?Futuristically yours, ? ? ?La vie est belle! Jose Cordeiro, MBA, PhD?(www.cordeiro.org) Vicechair, HumanityPlus (www.HumanityPlus.org)Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science (www.WorldAcademy.org)Director, The Millennium Project, Venezuela Node (www.Millennium-Project.org)Invited Professor, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia (www.mipt.ru)Founding Executive Director, Red Iberoamericana de Prospectiva, RIBER (www.riber.info)Founding Energy Advisor, Singularity University, NASA Research Park, California (www.su.org)Founder and President Emeritus, Sociedad Mundial del Futuro Venezuela (www.FuturoVenezuela.net) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 00:24:16 2018 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 00:24:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ExI] FIGHT AGING! TransVision 2018 Takes Place in Madrid this October In-Reply-To: <1952555566.20144.1535914087372@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1952555566.20144.1535914087372.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1952555566.20144.1535914087372@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <135996058.91913.1535934256224@mail.yahoo.com> Dear ExI friends, ? ? ?I hope that you enjoy this excellent article talking about transhumanism, TransVision and HumanityPlus, and we will be waiting for you in Madrid for our 20th anniversary, to review the last 20 years, and envision the next 20 years:?TransVision 2018 Takes Place in Madrid this October | | | TransVision 2018 Takes Place in Madrid this October If you are a recent arrival to the rejuvenation research community, then it is possible you do not know that you... | | | ? ? ? ?Futuristically yours, ? ? ?La vie est belle! Jose Cordeiro, MBA, PhD?(www.cordeiro.org) Vicechair, HumanityPlus (www.HumanityPlus.org)Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science (www.WorldAcademy.org)Director, The Millennium Project, Venezuela Node (www.Millennium-Project.org)Invited Professor, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia (www.mipt.ru)Founding Executive Director, Red Iberoamericana de Prospectiva, RIBER (www.riber.info)Founding Energy Advisor, Singularity University, NASA Research Park, California (www.su.org)Founder and President Emeritus, Sociedad Mundial del Futuro Venezuela (www.FuturoVenezuela.net) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 14:35:36 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 10:35:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 8:12 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > *>Try to tell a CEO that he or she is a social equal to the janitor and > get big laughs.* That is especially true today. In 1978 the CEO of one of the top 350 US corporations made on average 30 times as much as the average worker in their company, today its 271 times as much. It's a pity none of the Republicans in the current administration who just changed the tax laws to accelerate the acceleration in the growth of the wealth gap have never read anything about the French Revolution. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 16:51:23 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 11:51:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: I am thinking about what Spike said about no one believes in social ranks anymore. Intellectual ranks are always going to be apparent to just about everyone. My question is: are the two correlated? Social and intellectual? If so, then my statement contradicting Spike will stand: there will always be ranking and condescension of the good kind. bill w On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 9:35 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 8:12 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > >> *>Try to tell a CEO that he or she is a social equal to the janitor and >> get big laughs.* > > > That is especially true today. In 1978 the CEO of one of the top 350 US > corporations made on average 30 times as much as the average worker in > their company, today its 271 times as much. It's a pity none of the > Republicans in the current administration who just changed the tax laws to > accelerate the acceleration in the growth of the wealth gap have never read > anything about the French Revolution. > > 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 lubkin at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 3 17:51:57 2018 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:51:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: <201809031752.w83HqHTY003246@hlin.zia.io> John Clark wrote: >That is especially true today. In 1978 the CEO of one of the top 350 >US corporations made on average 30 times as much as the average >worker in their company, today its 271 times as much. I don't care if certain employees make vastly more than others *if* their income is proportional to their achievements for the company. I resent CEOs like Thomas Vanderslice, who was brought in to rescue the flagging Apollo Computer, took it further down, and left with a golden parachute of allegedly $16 million. I welcome companies paying employees a hefty royalty for lucrative suggestions they'd made, deals they landed, or technologies they invented, so long as the process is transparent enough that I as employee or stockholder can see that it was warranted. Bill W replied: >I am thinking about what Spike said about no one believes in social >ranks anymore. Intellectual ranks are always going to be apparent >to just about everyone. My question is: are the two >correlated? Social and intellectual? > >If so, then my statement contradicting Spike will stand: there will >always be ranking and condescension of the good kind. Whether it's wealth, looks, strength, intelligence, rank, height, talent, achievements, etc., we will always have differences that are consequential. And it will always matter how you treat your ostensible lessors. A wise manager will ask the receptionist how an applicant treated her. -- David. From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 21:24:02 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 17:24:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:58 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Intellectual ranks are always going to be apparent to just about > everyone. Yes because its obvious that some people are smarter than others, however intellectual rank does not correlate very well with social rank. Honey Boo Boo and Paris Hilton outrank most Nobel Prize winners and all Field Medal winners in the social hierarchy; there are no paparazzi camped out in front of a mathematician's house regardless of how smart he is. > My question is: are the two correlated? Social and intellectual? Generally I don't think so, at least not directly. Social rank is correlated with power and power is correlated with wealth, but intelligence is not strongly correlated with either. The wealth gap between today's CEO and the average worker in one of his factories is not 10 times what it was in 1978 because he's 10 times smarter than the CEO back then, its because the skills of the average worker are 10 times more common and thus less valued do to advances in technology. And this is just the start, its only a matter of time before machines are better at doing every job than any human, and that includes the job of being a CEO. Well before we reach that point the traditional libertarian repugnance of anything with even the slightest aroma of socialism will have to be modified because people get very angry and do stupid dangerous things when they lose their job if there is no economic safety net to fall back on. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Sep 3 22:24:17 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 15:24:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended Message-ID: <9b36b077f78baa7fd14a7340ecc33660.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> John Clark wrote: >> That is especially true today. In 1978 the CEO of one of the top 350 >> US corporations made on average 30 times as much as the average >> worker in their company, today its 271 times as much. As long as that present day CEO manages 9 times as many people as the 1978 CEO did, then he is absolutely worth it. You are conflating the role with the actor. David Lubkin wrote: > I don't care if certain employees make vastly more than others *if* > their income is proportional to their achievements for the company. I > resent CEOs like Thomas Vanderslice, who was brought in to rescue the > flagging Apollo Computer, took it further down, and left with a golden > parachute of allegedly $16 million. How do you feel about CEOs that give themselves fat bonuses for crashing the market and buying up the remains wholesale? In the run-up to the last big market crash, Lehman Brothers was the fall-guy for a large network of finance companies that dumped billions worth of mortgage-backed securities on the market before the news got out they were toxic. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 23:06:48 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 18:06:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: even the slightest aroma of socialism will have to be modified because people get very angry and do stupid dangerous things when they lose their job if there is no economic safety net to fall back on. John K Clark I don't follow this. What we need is a separation of socialism, which we have now in health, cops, fire, etc. and Socialism which takes over the means of production and has been a disaster ("Disaster, Hell, it damn near killed her!") everywhere it's been tried. I don't think these socialists are Socialists, as above - do you? I disagree. I think Paris Hilton is probably regarded as a buffoon (buffoonness? buffoonette? buffoonenne?) by the top New York socialites. But anyway, I think social rank rises with intellectual accomplishment. Ph. D.s, for example, are clearly middle class economically, but upper class socially. At least it's been that way. bill w On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:24 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:58 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > Intellectual ranks are always going to be apparent to just about >> everyone. > > > Yes because its obvious that some people are smarter than others, however > intellectual rank does not correlate very well with social rank. Honey > Boo Boo and Paris Hilton outrank most Nobel Prize winners and all Field > Medal winners in the social hierarchy; there are no paparazzi camped out in > front of a mathematician's house regardless of how smart he is. > > > My question is: are the two correlated? Social and intellectual? > > > Generally I don't think so, at least not directly. Social rank is > correlated with power and power is correlated with wealth, but intelligence > is not strongly correlated with either. The wealth gap between today's CEO > and the average worker in one of his factories is not 10 times what it was > in 1978 because he's 10 times smarter than the CEO back then, its because > the skills of the average worker are 10 times more common and thus less > valued do to advances in technology. And this is just the start, its only a > matter of time before machines are better at doing every job than any > human, and that includes the job of being a CEO. Well before we reach that > point the traditional libertarian repugnance of anything with even the > slightest aroma of socialism will have to be modified because people get > very angry and do stupid dangerous things when they lose their job if there > is no economic safety net to fall back on. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 02:13:59 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 22:13:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:21 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > >*What we need is a separation of socialism, which we have now in > health, cops, fire, etc. and Socialism which takes over the means of > production and has been a disaster ("Disaster, Hell, it damn near killed > her!") everywhere it's been tried.* > I certainly don't want or expect government to take over production, but today the problem is not lack of wealth generation and it will be even less of a problem in the future, the problem is how that wealth is distributed. Over the last 40 years almost all the increased wealth this society has created has gone to the very very rich so that today not the top 1% but the top 0.1% have as much wealth as the bottom 90%. The wealth gap wasn't just growing it was accelerating but then Trump changed to tax laws to accelerate the acceleration and that just isn't healthy, its not even good for the very very rich if they wish to continue haveing a connection between their head and their shoulders. > I think Paris Hilton is probably regarded as a buffoon (buffoonness? > buffoonette? buffoonenne?) by the top New York socialites. Paris Hilton may be a buffoon but the New York socialite is more likely to invite her to a cocktail party than a Field Medal winner because everybody has heard of her so if she's there it will increase the likelihood that other A class celebrities will attend the party; but no matter how good he is the mathematician is not famous, at least not in New York socialite circles. Even John Wayne Bobbit is more likely to be invited to that cocktail party than the mathematician, at least there is a reason he's famous, he's not famous just for being famous. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 9 16:48:17 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2018 11:48:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds Message-ID: OK, got your attention, since all of us, (ahem), in this group have them. My question: Do you subscribe to the genius view of scientific progress, or the inevitable finding view? Was it inevitable that someone would 'discover' zero and negative numbers if Brahmagupta hadn't done it? (that's my answer). Ditto evolution, Newton's laws, relativity, etc. Or am I just out of date (likely) and this is no longer a controversy? As someone said (I think it was me): without geniuses, 100 years of history has only 90 years of happenings (progress, inventions, etc). bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 13:45:37 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:45:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a certain way, I subscribe to both theories, but I don't hear it talked about much more. I think that the basic foundations of our modern science might have required geniuses. Not because non-geniuses would be incapable of discovering those things, but that non-geniuses require a modern-like education system and scientific apparatus in order to make the types of contributions that they do today. Without that framework, I'm not sure many non-geniuses would have the education or mindset to properly consider questions, and even less to formulate usable *scientific* answers. After an initial foundation of education and scientific methodology is established, I believe most of scientific progress is inevitable. I do, however think that the 90/100 view is too rosy. Genius is really not all that uncommon, I don't think, and it is concentrated in scientific and similar fields. If we take the easy way out and just define a "genius" as someone with an IQ over 145, then that's about 1 in every 1000 people, or 7M geniuses alive right now. Of course, depending on how we define genius there might be more, or less. But I also think that scientific progress is only inevitable as far as people looking in the same direction. For example, as long as people are trying to scientifically determine the origin of the species, then I think it is inevitable to end up with a theory somewhere near what we have today. But I'm not sure that the idea to look there is actually inevitable. And another issue, of course, would be that sometimes we lose knowledge. For example, how many brilliant minds were cut short by poverty, disease, alcoholism, and prisons? For example, we know that we have lost knowledge, sometimes quite significant knowledge, before. Some of it we have re-discovered (Roman Concrete) and some of it we have not (Damascus Steel). Even though I believe it is possible for us to rediscover Damascus Steel, I don't know if we actually will. Not because it is impossible, but because the focus of modern science is not on forging "magical" swords to slay our enemies. Weapons technology has moved in a completely different direction. On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 11:48 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > OK, got your attention, since all of us, (ahem), in this group have them. > My question: > > Do you subscribe to the genius view of scientific progress, or the > inevitable finding view? > > Was it inevitable that someone would 'discover' zero and negative numbers > if Brahmagupta hadn't done it? (that's my answer). Ditto evolution, > Newton's laws, relativity, etc. > > Or am I just out of date (likely) and this is no longer a controversy? > > As someone said (I think it was me): without geniuses, 100 years of > history has only 90 years of happenings (progress, inventions, etc). > > bill w > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 20:08:29 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:08:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OK, then, let's take a different slant - what is a genius? There are plenty of people who have IQs above 145, like me, who have done nothing. I realized very early that I was deficient in imagination, creativity, or whatever you want to call it. So I think we have to move beyond IQ. If we define genius in retrospect, anyone who makes a major contribution to the field could be called a genius, regardless of IQ. Musical elites have estimated Mozart's IQ to be around 190, but Beethoven's only around 120, and arguably Beethoven was more creative. Turning to math and science, I have no idea how to rate discoveries, but I'll bet some of you do. The main definition problem to me is the binary nature of how we are using the word genius - have it or don't. It's got to be more nuanced than that. It seems to me that the greatest genius is the one who has made the greatest leaps in intuition, relying less on previous people, like Darwin did on his grandfather Erasmus (how much is known of this?). bill w On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:45 AM, SR Ballard wrote: > In a certain way, I subscribe to both theories, but I don't hear it talked > about much more. > > I think that the basic foundations of our modern science might have > required geniuses. Not because non-geniuses would be incapable of > discovering those things, but that non-geniuses require a modern-like > education system and scientific apparatus in order to make the types of > contributions that they do today. Without that framework, I'm not sure many > non-geniuses would have the education or mindset to properly consider > questions, and even less to formulate usable *scientific* answers. > > After an initial foundation of education and scientific methodology is > established, I believe most of scientific progress is inevitable. I do, > however think that the 90/100 view is too rosy. Genius is really not all > that uncommon, I don't think, and it is concentrated in scientific and > similar fields. If we take the easy way out and just define a "genius" as > someone with an IQ over 145, then that's about 1 in every 1000 people, or > 7M geniuses alive right now. Of course, depending on how we define genius > there might be more, or less. > > But I also think that scientific progress is only inevitable as far as > people looking in the same direction. For example, as long as people are > trying to scientifically determine the origin of the species, then I think > it is inevitable to end up with a theory somewhere near what we have today. > But I'm not sure that the idea to look there is actually inevitable. > > And another issue, of course, would be that sometimes we lose knowledge. > For example, how many brilliant minds were cut short by poverty, disease, > alcoholism, and prisons? For example, we know that we have lost knowledge, > sometimes quite significant knowledge, before. Some of it we have > re-discovered (Roman Concrete) and some of it we have not (Damascus Steel). > Even though I believe it is possible for us to rediscover Damascus Steel, I > don't know if we actually will. Not because it is impossible, but because > the focus of modern science is not on forging "magical" swords to slay our > enemies. Weapons technology has moved in a completely different direction. > > > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 11:48 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> OK, got your attention, since all of us, (ahem), in this group have >> them. My question: >> >> Do you subscribe to the genius view of scientific progress, or the >> inevitable finding view? >> >> Was it inevitable that someone would 'discover' zero and negative numbers >> if Brahmagupta hadn't done it? (that's my answer). Ditto evolution, >> Newton's laws, relativity, etc. >> >> Or am I just out of date (likely) and this is no longer a controversy? >> >> As someone said (I think it was me): without geniuses, 100 years of >> history has only 90 years of happenings (progress, inventions, etc). >> >> bill w >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 10 22:58:03 2018 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ExI] Alcor makes UK media In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55999433.4242780.1536620283850@mail.yahoo.com> Cryogenics firm sued for freezing man's head instead of whole body | | | | | | | | | | | Cryogenics firm sued for freezing man's head instead of whole body A legal battle is brewing between a US cryogenics facility and the son of one of its clients after the company f... | | | Alegal battle is brewing between a US cryogenics facility and the son of one of its clients after the company froze his deceased father?s head instead of his entire body, filings seen by The Daily Telegraph show. The Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Phoenix, Arizona, is facing a $1million (UK 773,000) lawsuit after Kurt Pilgeram said he was sent a package from Alcor ?which purportedly contained his father?s cremated remains, except allegedly for his father?s head? which had been transported to a cooler for preservation.< From avant at sollegro.com Tue Sep 11 03:47:33 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:47:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds Message-ID: <05b369f072a76ae1ebce23d7c8104065.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Bill W wrote: > OK, then, let's take a different slant - what is a genius?? There are > plenty of people who have IQs above 145, like me, who have done nothing. Oh come on. You've done a lot of things but more to the point, everything you have ever done has been documented and logged by the laws of physics. You will exist as a smear of holographic information on the cosmic horizon for all of time. And that's just in *this* causal cell. In other causal cells you live on in every possible permutation of your life. Be merry. You have lived. The universe has noted this. ? > I realized very early that I was deficient in imagination, creativity, or > whatever you want to call it.? So I think we have to move beyond IQ. If we > define genius in retrospect, anyone who makes a major contribution to the > field could be called a genius, regardless of IQ.? Musical elites have > estimated Mozart's IQ to be around 190, but Beethoven's only around 120, > and arguably Beethoven was more creative. Intelligence and creativity are properties of individuals. Genius is a historical job description. Many are called to be geniuses, but few are chosen. History is the tale of the journey of billions told from the perspective of the few. Shit gets left out. It's just the way it works. > Turning to math and science, I > have no idea how to rate discoveries, but I'll bet some of you do.? The > main definition problem to me is the binary nature of how we are using > the word genius - have it or don't.? It's got to be more nuanced than > that. The way I see it, genius is something that can only be ascribed to someone after the fact. A fact that is often brought to light by sheer luck or grave necessity on the part of those geniuses. What this means is that not every smart talented person gets to be a genius, because genius is not the property of an individual but the union between a historic circumstance and the ability of individuals in that circumstance to discern opportunities in the noise of now. > It seems to me that the greatest genius is the one who has made > the greatest leaps in intuition, relying less on previous people, like > Darwin did on his grandfather Erasmus (how much is known of this?). Yes. But history is all too inclined to view scientific and technological achievement as some kind of winner-take-all sport where one man must rise above all others and push the world into the future. I am inclined to agree with Ms. Ballard on this one. Progress is a team sport and "genius" is a dumbed down story for the masses. Strange that you would invoke Charles Darwin and not Alfred Russell Wallace who may have even been your own kin. He independently discovered the mechanism of natural selection at about the same time as Darwin yet often gets forgotten due to the over-simplification of pop-culture history. That and maybe being Scottish or some such nonsense. ;-) Stuart LaForge > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:45 AM, SR Ballard wrote: > > > In a certain way, I subscribe to both theories, but I don't hear it > talked about much more. I think that the basic foundations of our modern > science might have required geniuses. Not because non-geniuses would be > incapable of discovering those things, but that non-geniuses require a > modern-like education system and scientific apparatus in order to make > the types of contributions that they do today. Without that framework, > I'm not sure many non-geniuses would have the education or mindset to > properly consider questions, and even less to formulate > usable?scientific?answers.? After an initial foundation of education and > scientific methodology is established, I believe most of scientific > progress is inevitable. I do, however think that the 90/100 view is too > rosy. Genius is really not all that uncommon, I don't think, and it is > concentrated in scientific and similar fields. From giulio at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 07:49:16 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:49:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Why Turing Church is a space religion Message-ID: Why Turing Church is a space religion Turing Church is not a cargo cult, and I don?t worship UFOs. But Turing Church IS a space religion in a more mature and more important sense... https://turingchurch.net/why-turing-church-is-a-space-religion-c3675fab633a From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 14:38:31 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:38:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds In-Reply-To: <05b369f072a76ae1ebce23d7c8104065.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <05b369f072a76ae1ebce23d7c8104065.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: genius is not the property of an individual but the union between a historic circumstance and the ability of individuals in that circumstance to discern opportunities in the noise of now. Stuart Yeah, I know old Wallace, who went a bit bats after meeting with Darwin. He would have been a great-grandfather of mine - not a lot of genes there. It may be argued that Wallace was a greater thinker than Darwin, since Wallace had no predecessors to get ideas from (that we know of), whereas Darwin has Erasmus. Darwin gets more credit because he had tons more data, not better ideas. So - the vote seems to be with zeitgeist - given enough smart people and communication and related discoveries, and genius happens. 'nuff said bill w On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > Bill W wrote: > > > OK, then, let's take a different slant - what is a genius? There are > > plenty of people who have IQs above 145, like me, who have done nothing. > > Oh come on. You've done a lot of things but more to the point, everything > you have ever done has been documented and logged by the laws of physics. > You will exist as a smear of holographic information on the cosmic horizon > for all of time. And that's just in *this* causal cell. In other causal > cells you live on in every possible permutation of your life. Be merry. > You have lived. The universe has noted this. > > > I realized very early that I was deficient in imagination, creativity, or > > whatever you want to call it. So I think we have to move beyond IQ. If > we > > define genius in retrospect, anyone who makes a major contribution to the > > field could be called a genius, regardless of IQ. Musical elites have > > estimated Mozart's IQ to be around 190, but Beethoven's only around 120, > > and arguably Beethoven was more creative. > > Intelligence and creativity are properties of individuals. Genius is a > historical job description. Many are called to be geniuses, but few are > chosen. History is the tale of the journey of billions told from the > perspective of the few. Shit gets left out. It's just the way it works. > > > Turning to math and science, I > > have no idea how to rate discoveries, but I'll bet some of you do. The > > main definition problem to me is the binary nature of how we are using > > the word genius - have it or don't. It's got to be more nuanced than > > that. > > The way I see it, genius is something that can only be ascribed to someone > after the fact. A fact that is often brought to light by sheer luck or > grave necessity on the part of those geniuses. What this means is that not > every smart talented person gets to be a genius, because genius is not the > property of an individual but the union between a historic circumstance > and the ability of individuals in that circumstance to discern > opportunities in the noise of now. > > > It seems to me that the greatest genius is the one who has made > > the greatest leaps in intuition, relying less on previous people, like > > Darwin did on his grandfather Erasmus (how much is known of this?). > > Yes. But history is all too inclined to view scientific and technological > achievement as some kind of winner-take-all sport where one man must rise > above all others and push the world into the future. > > I am inclined to agree with Ms. Ballard on this one. Progress is a team > sport and "genius" is a dumbed down story for the masses. > > Strange that you would invoke Charles Darwin and not Alfred Russell > Wallace who may have even been your own kin. He independently discovered > the mechanism of natural selection at about the same time as Darwin yet > often gets forgotten due to the over-simplification of pop-culture > history. That and maybe being Scottish or some such nonsense. ;-) > > Stuart LaForge > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:45 AM, SR Ballard wrote: > > > > > > In a certain way, I subscribe to both theories, but I don't hear it > > talked about much more. I think that the basic foundations of our modern > > science might have required geniuses. Not because non-geniuses would be > > incapable of discovering those things, but that non-geniuses require a > > modern-like education system and scientific apparatus in order to make > > the types of contributions that they do today. Without that framework, > > I'm not sure many non-geniuses would have the education or mindset to > > properly consider questions, and even less to formulate > > usable scientific answers. After an initial foundation of education and > > scientific methodology is established, I believe most of scientific > > progress is inevitable. I do, however think that the 90/100 view is too > > rosy. Genius is really not all that uncommon, I don't think, and it is > > concentrated in scientific and similar fields. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 11 15:05:19 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:05:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds In-Reply-To: References: <05b369f072a76ae1ebce23d7c8104065.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <007601d449e0$db5d6520$92182f60$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:39 AM To: ExI chat list >?Yeah, I know old Wallace, who went a bit bats after meeting with Darwin. He would have been a great-grandfather of mine - not a lot of genes there. ? 'nuff said bill w Wait, what? Are you saying you are a literal great grandson of Alfred Russel Wallace? Indeed? BillW! We have treated you with insufficient respect sir! Tell us again, is it true? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 15:48:03 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:48:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds In-Reply-To: <007601d449e0$db5d6520$92182f60$@rainier66.com> References: <05b369f072a76ae1ebce23d7c8104065.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <007601d449e0$db5d6520$92182f60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:05 AM, wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:39 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > > > > >?Yeah, I know old Wallace, who went a bit bats after meeting with > Darwin. He would have been a great-grandfather of mine - not a lot of > genes there. ? > > > > 'nuff said bill w > > > > > > > > Wait, what? Are you saying you are a literal great grandson of Alfred > Russel Wallace? Indeed? BillW! We have treated you with insufficient > respect sir! > > > > Tell us again, is it true? > > > > spike > Emphasis on 'would have been'. ACtually, I have no idea where my family came from before about 1870 or so. I think they were in Georgia and moved to Texas. Distant cousin? Who knows? Anyway, why respect someone for what their ancestors did? After grandchildren, Bach's family produced no exceptional people in music or anything else. bill w > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 17:23:41 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:23:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds Message-ID: This is really full of good ideas. Worth your time. bill w ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Clear Date: Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:10 AM Subject: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds To: foozler83 at gmail.com *Note 1:* My new book Atomic Habits is available to preorder now. Click here to learn more . *Note 2:* Have a Goodreads account? I'll be doing a private Q&A on Oct. 25 about how to build good habits, break bad ones, and any other questions you can think of. To get access to it, all you have to do is click this link and add *Atomic Habits* to your Want To Read shelf in Goodreads. Do that now and I'll follow up with more information as we get closer. Why Facts Don?t Change Our Minds *By James Clear* Read this on JamesClear.com The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, ?Faced with a choice between changing one?s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.? Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: ?The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.? What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? The Logic of False Beliefs Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. [1] However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong. In Atomic Habits , I wrote, ?Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe?or worse, being cast out?was a death sentence.? Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, ?People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.? [2] We don't always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, ?If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it's perfectly happy to do so, and doesn't much care where the reward comes from ? whether it's pragmatic (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one's peers), or some mix of the two.? [3] False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach ?factually false, but socially accurate.? [4] When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others. Facts Don't Change Our Minds. Friendship Does. Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can?t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome. The way to change people?s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially. The British philosopher Alain de Botton suggests that we simply share meals with those who disagree with us: ?Sitting down at a table with a group of strangers has the incomparable and odd benefit of making it a little more difficult to hate them with impunity. Prejudice and ethnic strife feed off abstraction. However, the proximity required by a meal ? something about handing dishes around, unfurling napkins at the same moment, even asking a stranger to pass the salt ? disrupts our ability to cling to the belief that the outsiders who wear unusual clothes and speak in distinctive accents deserve to be sent home or assaulted. For all the large-scale political solutions which have been proposed to salve ethnic conflict, there are few more effective ways to promote tolerance between suspicious neighbours than to force them to eat supper together.? [5] Perhaps it is not *difference*, but *distance* that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's quote, ?I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.? Facts don't change our minds. Friendship does. The Spectrum of Beliefs Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven't been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes an outlandish idea, well, it's easy to dismiss them as a crackpot. One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you're at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction. The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don't share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people's minds, it is very difficult to jump from one belief to another. You can't jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it. Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone's head and without the risk of being judged by others. It's easier to be open-minded when you aren't feeling defensive. Arguments are like a full frontal attack on a person's identity. Reading a book is like slipping the seed of an idea into a person's brain and letting it grow on their own terms. There's enough wrestling going on in someone's head when they are overcoming a pre-existing belief. They don't need to wrestle with you too. Why False Ideas Persist There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be *believed* when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here's a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you?re hoping people will forget?but, of course, people can?t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it. [6] Let's call this phenomenon *Clear's Law of Recurrence:* The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year?even if the idea is false. [7] Each time you attack a bad idea, you are feeding the very monster you are trying to destroy. As one Twitter employee wrote, ?Every time you retweet or quote tweet someone you?re angry with, it *helps* them. It disseminates their BS. Hell for the ideas you deplore is silence. Have the discipline to give it to them.? [8] Your time is better spent championing good ideas than tearing down bad ones. Don't waste time explaining why bad ideas are bad. You are simply fanning the flame of ignorance and stupidity. The best thing that can happen to a bad idea is that it is forgotten. The best thing that can happen to a good idea is that it is shared. It makes me think of Tyler Cowen's quote, ?Spend as little time as possible talking about how other people are wrong.? Feed the good ideas and let bad ideas die of starvation. The Intellectual Soldier I know what you might be thinking. ?James, are you serious right now? I'm just supposed to let these idiots *get away* with this?? Let me be clear. I'm not saying it's *never* useful to point out an error or criticize a bad idea. But you have to ask yourself, ?What is the goal?? Why do you want to criticize bad ideas in the first place? Presumably, you want to criticize bad ideas because you think the world would be better off if fewer people believed them. In other words, you think the world would improve if people changed their minds on a few important topics. If the goal is to actually change minds, then I don't believe criticizing the other side is the best approach. Most people argue to win, not to learn. As Julia Galef so aptly puts it: people often act like soldiers rather than scouts. Soldiers are on the intellectual attack, looking to defeat the people who differ from them. Victory is the operative emotion. Scouts, meanwhile, are like intellectual explorers, slowly trying to map the terrain with others. Curiosity is the driving force. [9] If you want people to adopt your beliefs, you need to act more like a scout and less like a soldier. At the center of this approach is a question Tiago Forte poses beautifully, ?Are you willing to not win in order to keep the conversation going?? Be Kind First, Be Right Later The brilliant Japanese writer Haruki Murakami once wrote, ?Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.? [10] When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. We are so caught up in winning that we forget about connecting. It's easy to spend your energy labeling people rather than working with them. The word ?kind? originated from the word ?kin.? When you are kind to someone it means you are treating them like family. This, I think, is a good method for actually changing someone's mind. Develop a friendship. Share a meal. Gift a book. Be kind first, be right later. [11] [image: Image] [image: Image] *FOOTNOTES* 1. Technically, your perception of the world is a hallucination. Every living being perceives the world differently and creates its own ?hallucination? of reality. But I would say most of us have a ?reasonably accurate? model of the actual physical reality of the universe. For example, when you drive down the road, you do not have full access to every aspect of reality, but your perception is accurate enough that you can avoid other cars and conduct the trip safely. 2. Language, Cognition, and Human Nature: Selected Articles by Steven Pinker 3. Crony Beliefs by Kevin Simler 4. I am reminded of a tweet I saw recently, which said, ?People say a lot of things that are factually false but socially affirmed. They're saying stupid things, but they are not stupid. It is intelligent (though often immoral) to affirm your position in a tribe and your deference to its taboos. This is conformity, not stupidity.? 5. Religion for Atheists by Alain de Botton 6. The linguist and philosopher George Lakoff refers to this as activating the frame . ?If you negate a frame, you have to activate the frame, because you have to know what you?re negating,? he says. ?If you use logic against something, you?re strengthening it.? 7. Clear's Law of Recurrence is really just a specialized version of the mere-exposure effect . But hey, I'm writing this article and now I have a law named after me, so that's cool. Plus, you can tell your family about Clear's Law of Recurrence over dinner and everyone will think you're brilliant. 8. Tweet by Nathan Hubbard . 9. ?Why you think you're right ? even if you're wrong? by Julia Galef. 10. I found this quote from Kazuki Yamada , but it is believed to have been originally from the Japanese version of Colourless Tsukuru Tazaki by Haruki Murakami. 11. I have been sitting on this article for over a year. Many months ago, I was getting readiy to publish it and what happens? The New Yorker publishes an article under the exact same title one week before and it goes on to become their most popular article of the week. What are the odds of that? In the meantime, I got busy writing Atomic Habits , ended up waiting a year, and gave The New Yorker their time to shine (as if they needed it). I thought about changing the title, but nobody is allowed to copyright titles and enough time has passed now, so I'm sticking with it. Now both articles can live happily in the world, like an insightful pair of fraternal twins. Enjoy that article? Here are three more things you might like: - Interesting articles : Read my best articles on topics like habits, goal setting, creativity, and productivity. - Online course : Master your habits with my best-selling Habits Academy, a self-paced course made for busy people. - Keynote speaking : Hire me to speak to your organization or team about habits, leadership, innovation, and motivation. You can get more of my thoughts on Facebook , Twitter , and Instagram . Un-subscribe from these emails. Manage subscriptions PO Box 181, Westerville, OH, USA 43086 Enjoy this email? Forward it to a friend or click here to send them a quick email . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 11 19:40:40 2018 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:40:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds In-Reply-To: References: <05b369f072a76ae1ebce23d7c8104065.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <007601d449e0$db5d6520$92182f60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <201809112019.w8BKJWww028714@hlin.zia.io> I am stingier about the word genius. If I can get there but they get there faster, it's not genius. A genius does what I can't fathom doing. And IQ is never a measure, except that I'd guess there's a threshold minimum below which someone could not possibly be genius. I would not use genius for anything other than an achievement of thought. There are no genius actors, musicians, dancers, athletes, painters, etc. They can be fantastic but they're not geniuses. Looking at the history of achievement, I'd say a genius is someone who is decades or centuries ahead of the rest of their field. That odds are enough lesser minds would eventually hit on the ideas; the genius short-circuits it. I stand by my previously shared canonical example of Lev Landau. His "Theoretical Minimum" exam, through which he determined if someone knew enough to be worth talking physics to, was so rigorous that only 43 people ever passed. It required a thorough knowledge of the whole of physics. Nobel Laureates were prouder of passing his test than of their Nobel. He didn't write many papers but each of them was Nobel-worthy. When he won, the prize was for his work on superfluidity, but it could easily have been for another area. In math, I can't help but look to precocity and to independent effort. Folks like Galois or Ramanujan. The only clear chess genius to me is Fischer, if only on the basis of his game at age 13 against IM Donald Byrne. He made, especially, two brilliant moves that for sixty years grandmasters have marveled that he could have spotted. -- David. From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 21:03:56 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:03:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds In-Reply-To: <201809112019.w8BKJWww028714@hlin.zia.io> References: <05b369f072a76ae1ebce23d7c8104065.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <007601d449e0$db5d6520$92182f60$@rainier66.com> <201809112019.w8BKJWww028714@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: would not use genius for anything other than an achievement of thought. There are no genius actors, musicians, dancers, athletes, painters, etc. They can be fantastic but they're not geniuses. lubkin I would certainly like to know how these achievements were done without thought. bill w On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:40 PM, David Lubkin wrote: > I am stingier about the word genius. If I can get there but they get there > faster, it's not genius. A genius does what I can't fathom doing. And IQ is > never a measure, except that I'd guess there's a threshold minimum below > which someone could not possibly be genius. > > I would not use genius for anything other than an achievement of thought. > There are no genius actors, musicians, dancers, athletes, painters, etc. > They can be fantastic but they're not geniuses. > > Looking at the history of achievement, I'd say a genius is someone who is > decades or centuries ahead of the rest of their field. That odds are enough > lesser minds would eventually hit on the ideas; the genius short-circuits > it. > > I stand by my previously shared canonical example of Lev Landau. His > "Theoretical Minimum" exam, through which he determined if someone knew > enough to be worth talking physics to, was so rigorous that only 43 people > ever passed. It required a thorough knowledge of the whole of physics. > Nobel Laureates were prouder of passing his test than of their Nobel. He > didn't write many papers but each of them was Nobel-worthy. When he won, > the prize was for his work on superfluidity, but it could easily have been > for another area. > > In math, I can't help but look to precocity and to independent effort. > Folks like Galois or Ramanujan. > > The only clear chess genius to me is Fischer, if only on the basis of his > game at age 13 against IM Donald Byrne. He made, especially, two brilliant > moves that for sixty years grandmasters have marveled that he could have > spotted. > > > -- David. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Wed Sep 12 00:55:46 2018 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:55:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds In-Reply-To: References: <05b369f072a76ae1ebce23d7c8104065.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <007601d449e0$db5d6520$92182f60$@rainier66.com> <201809112019.w8BKJWww028714@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: <201809120056.w8C0u13A027439@hlin.zia.io> I wrote: >I would not use genius for anything other than an achievement of >thought. There are no genius actors, musicians, dancers, athletes, >painters, etc. They can be fantastic but they're not geniuses. William Flynn Wallace replied: >I would certainly like to know how these achievements were done >without thought. I did not say they were. Any more than I said they were done without gas exchange or peristalsis. That thought was present doesn't make something an achievement *of* thought. Why did you pose your question if you were going to dismiss a thoughtful response with a smartass quip? -- David. From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 13:27:45 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:27:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] high quality minds In-Reply-To: <201809120056.w8C0u13A027439@hlin.zia.io> References: <05b369f072a76ae1ebce23d7c8104065.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <007601d449e0$db5d6520$92182f60$@rainier66.com> <201809112019.w8BKJWww028714@hlin.zia.io> <201809120056.w8C0u13A027439@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: > >> > >> That thought was present doesn't make something an achievement *of* > thought. David And you don't think this needs explaining? bill w > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 13 16:50:18 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:50:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] recommended book Message-ID: I never liked any history course. My first book that contained a lot of history that I really strongly liked was Connections, which all of you know, I am sure. This book, Paper, by Mark Kurlansky, is very similar in that many other inventions are brought in along the way. Very few parts are boring, very rare for me and history. He has several other best-selling books, like Salt, and Cod. Very pleased to have run across him. In it are some facts that few know: inventor of the internal combustion engine, who built one that powered a boat? Brothers Niepce in the 1790s. Other instances of the gradual rather than sudden invention of something validates the 'it takes a village' theory of genius Ballard proposed. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 15:06:04 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:06:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] dairy fat Message-ID: Most of us knew this for some time now, but glad to see medical journals catching up with us: https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2018/09/13/is-whole-fat-dairy-milk-cheese-and-yogurt-good-for-the-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-5026818 bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 16:17:01 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:17:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] evolution problems Message-ID: Here's what I don't get about evolution: a tiger moth developed the ability to make ultrasonic clicks, which just so happen to interfere with a bat's ability to locate them. Doesn't that seem suspicious to you, like someone is messing with the system? random mutation is random, right? 'Just so happens' - seems like a huge coincidence to me. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 17:56:01 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:56:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] evolution problems In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:25 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Here's what I don't get about evolution: a tiger moth developed the > ability to make ultrasonic clicks, which just so happen to interfere with a > bat's ability to locate them. > > Doesn't that seem suspicious to you, like someone is messing with the > system? random mutation is random, right? 'Just so happens' - seems like > a huge coincidence to me. > Not at all. Probably started with some mutation that caused minor, mostly ineffective clicking, but was effective enough to slightly enhance its owner's chances of reproducing. Over time, those moths whose clicking was more effective out-competed the others, and the "skill" was refined. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 19:27:05 2018 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:27:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] evolution problems In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bats and moths have evolved together, probably starting with normal sounds for both and escalation and arms race as the logical result. If it was a case of intelligent design we would se the usual signs of a design committee, inside out retinas, brains rotated and mirrored, air and fluid pathways crossing each other and so on. /Henrik Den fre 14 sep. 2018 19:59Dave Sill skrev: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:25 PM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Here's what I don't get about evolution: a tiger moth developed the >> ability to make ultrasonic clicks, which just so happen to interfere with a >> bat's ability to locate them. >> >> Doesn't that seem suspicious to you, like someone is messing with the >> system? random mutation is random, right? 'Just so happens' - seems like >> a huge coincidence to me. >> > > Not at all. Probably started with some mutation that caused minor, mostly > ineffective clicking, but was effective enough to slightly enhance its > owner's chances of reproducing. Over time, those moths whose clicking was > more effective out-competed the others, and the "skill" was refined. > > -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 dsunley at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 20:11:36 2018 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:11:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] evolution problems In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One thing that's always puzzled me about the standard abiogenesis narrative: how do unicellular creatures evolve into multi-cellular creatures with tissue differentiation, that also use gamete cells for reproduction that contain the DNA of all of the tissue types? It's easy to see how you can go from unicellular creatures to colony creatures with tissue differentiation. And it's easy to see how you go from unicellular creatures reproducing via fission to unicellular creatures reproducing sexually. The problem seem to be that, once you're a multi-cellular colony creature with differentiated tissues, it's very hard to see how you get the DNA from all the subspecies back into a single subspecies of gamete cell. Conversely, it's also difficult to see how, if you're a unicellular species that reproduces sexually, how to you accumulate and absorb other species for tissue differentiation? Summing up, it's easy to see how one feature (tissue differentiation) or the other (gametes) evolves, but I've never heard an even remotely convincing narrative about how you end up with both features in one species. Speculation: however it ended up happening, I strongly suspect it's the single innovation that caused the Cambrain explosion. And given how late the Cambrian explosion was in our planet's prehistory, it may have been a seriously difficult hump for evolution to get over. And may therefore be a prime candidate for the Great Filter. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Henrik Ohrstrom wrote: > Bats and moths have evolved together, probably starting with normal sounds > for both and escalation and arms race as the logical result. > If it was a case of intelligent design we would se the usual signs of a > design committee, inside out retinas, brains rotated and mirrored, air and > fluid pathways crossing each other and so on. > /Henrik > > Den fre 14 sep. 2018 19:59Dave Sill skrev: > >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:25 PM William Flynn Wallace < >> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Here's what I don't get about evolution: a tiger moth developed the >>> ability to make ultrasonic clicks, which just so happen to interfere with a >>> bat's ability to locate them. >>> >>> Doesn't that seem suspicious to you, like someone is messing with the >>> system? random mutation is random, right? 'Just so happens' - seems like >>> a huge coincidence to me. >>> >> >> Not at all. Probably started with some mutation that caused minor, mostly >> ineffective clicking, but was effective enough to slightly enhance its >> owner's chances of reproducing. Over time, those moths whose clicking was >> more effective out-competed the others, and the "skill" was refined. >> >> -Dave >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 20:12:41 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:12:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] evolution problems In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 14, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Henrik Ohrstrom wrote: > > Bats and moths have evolved together, probably starting with normal sounds for both and escalation and arms race as the logical result. > If it was a case of intelligent design we would se the usual signs of a design committee, inside out retinas, brains rotated and mirrored, air and fluid pathways crossing each other and so on. > /Henrik I was going to say something like that: bat ancestors likely didn?t start off with the highly developed echo-location, but had to coevolve this with prey (and others) that we?re trying to avoid being a meal. It was likely an arms race rather than the moths being plunked down with already sophisticated bats... However, this is simply a ?just so? story. To figure out how the moths evolved their countermeasures, one would have to actually look at and analyze what data there is on moth evolution. 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 Sep 14 20:33:43 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:33:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] evolution problems In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DC1C087-1FD5-403C-80EE-BDB71497E4B7@gmail.com> On Sep 14, 2018, at 1:11 PM, Darin Sunley wrote: > > One thing that's always puzzled me about the standard abiogenesis narrative: how do unicellular creatures evolve into multi-cellular creatures with tissue differentiation, that also use gamete cells for reproduction that contain the DNA of all of the tissue types? I wouldn?t call that abiogenesis ? which isn?t about how multicellular organisms evolve, but how life itself gets started. By the time you get to multicellular life, it seems the origination is (in the standard view) already more than a billion years old. But, yeah, the origins and development of multicellular life is puzzling and an active area of research ? no matter what the correct label is. > It's easy to see how you can go from unicellular creatures to colony creatures with tissue differentiation. And it's easy to see how you go from unicellular creatures reproducing via fission to unicellular creatures reproducing sexually. > > The problem seem to be that, once you're a multi-cellular colony creature with differentiated tissues, it's very hard to see how you get the DNA from all the subspecies back into a single subspecies of gamete cell. Conversely, it's also difficult to see how, if you're a unicellular species that reproduces sexually, how to you accumulate and absorb other species for tissue differentiation? > > Summing up, it's easy to see how one feature (tissue differentiation) or the other (gametes) evolves, but I've never heard an even remotely convincing narrative about how you end up with both features in one species. I believe the evolution of differentiated tissues and of germ line cells long predated the Cambrian Explosion. I believe the latter is more the evolution of easily preserved multicellular organisms... probably because of the evolution of protective layers and maybe if vision. However, this doesn?t answer how differentiated tissues themselves evolved. > Speculation: however it ended up happening, I strongly suspect it's the single innovation that caused the Cambrain explosion. And given how late the Cambrian explosion was in our planet's prehistory, it may have been a seriously difficult hump for evolution to get over. And may therefore be a prime candidate for the Great Filter. It might be, though the presumption then is life has to basically follow the same progression and timeline elsewhere as here. Given we don?t yet have any data on how life evolves elsewhere and our data on how it evolved here is fairly sketchy, it?s highly speculative. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 20:36:46 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:36:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] so many little bugs Message-ID: https://aeon.co/ideas/there-are-more-microbial-species-on-earth-than-stars-in-the-sky?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f4b6edeaaf-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_12_06_55&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-f4b6edeaaf-68993993 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Sep 14 20:26:05 2018 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:26:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] evolution problems Message-ID: <20180914132605.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.366f344790.wbe@email17.godaddy.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Sep 14 22:58:43 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:58:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] evolution problems Message-ID: <66cb15737233f83c9376c1e1ea29e4c5.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Darin Sunley wrote: > One thing that's always puzzled me about the standard [evolution] > narrative: how do unicellular creatures evolve into multi-cellular > creatures with tissue differentiation, that also use gamete cells for > reproduction that contain the DNA of all of the tissue types? Sexual reproduction predates multicellularity. If you want to understand sex by some of the first colonial microorganisms, a pre-cursor to true multicellular organism with differentiated gametes then check out volvox. It is a flagellated colonial algae predating the split between plants and animals with characteristics of both. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2004/06/sex-gets-algae-through-hard-times > It's easy to > see how you can go from unicellular creatures to colony creatures with > tissue differentiation. And it's easy to see how you go from unicellular > creatures reproducing via fission to unicellular creatures reproducing > sexually. The problem seem to be that, once you're a multi-cellular colony > creature with differentiated tissues, it's very hard to see how you get > the DNA from all the subspecies back into a single subspecies of gamete > cell. The chromosomes contain the DNA for all the cell types. Meiosis is how it is ensured that each gamete gets just one copy of each chromosomes. The full mechanism of meiosis is still a field of active study, but what we know so far is that there is some pretty sophisticated naturally-evolved molecular machinery that manages to sort your chromosomes during meiosis to make sure that each gamete gets one and just one of each type of chromosome from either mommy or daddy with a 50% chance of either. Spindle fibers are what actually do the separating of chromosomes. > Conversely, it's also difficult to see how, if you're a unicellular > species that reproduces sexually, how to you accumulate and absorb other > species for tissue differentiation? You accumulate the additional genetic information through sloppy DNA recombination that allows genes to occasionally get duplicated. Once a gene a gets duplicated, the cell can have one copy of the gene perform its original function while the other is free to evolve a whole new differentiated function. Microorganisms can also absorb novel genes from other species but gene duplication is equally if not more important to cell differentiation, multi-cellularity, and the evolution of novel traits in general. > Summing up, it's easy to see how one > feature (tissue differentiation) or the other (gametes) evolves, but I've > never heard an even remotely convincing narrative about how you end up > with both features in one species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(genus) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryophyte#/media/File:Moss_alternation_of_generations_03-2012.png In the most primitive of multicellular organisms, gametes are typically used to create diploid cells that become seeds or spores or other drought-resistant forms allowing for suspended animation of sorts. So the short answer to your question is that so those species could go into a dormant stress-resistant state to wait out hard times. > Speculation: however it ended up > happening, I strongly suspect it's the single innovation that caused the > Cambrian explosion. And given how late the Cambrian explosion was in our > planet's prehistory, it may have been a seriously difficult hump for > evolution to get over. And may therefore be a prime candidate for the > Great Filter. That is a feasible hypothesis. Stuart LaForge From avant at sollegro.com Sat Sep 15 05:30:17 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:30:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul Message-ID: You have a soul. This might sound shocking to an atheist but it is an inescapable conclusion if one accepts the current consensus of physicists that information is a physical quantity. This is because your soul or mind, both names for your cognitive agency, manifests as information. Information is made of bits, simple yes-no binary decisions leading to two possible states represented by the numerals 0 and 1 or equivalently true and false. And a bit of information is a real physical thing or at least computing the value of a bit is a real physical process no matter how abstract-seeming. We know this because of Landauer?s Principle. Landauer?s Principle states that erasing a single bit of information takes a minimum amount of energy that is quantified as E = kT*ln2 Where k is the Boltzmann Constant and T is the temperature in Kelvin. You see the energy that it takes to erase that bit is a real physical quantity so the bit that got erased must be a real physical object too. Otherwise one has the paradox that something that does not exist takes energy to destroy. Another way to reason about this is to assume dualism and examine the consequence. If information were non-physical or metaphysical, then one would be left with the two separate sets, one physical and the other abstract or Platonic that intersected only in living sentient agents. This would be a low probability coincidence but one that would not be necessary if information were solely physical. This could be rendered mathematically as P(?)*P(?) <= P(?), which is saying that the product of the probability of a you being a physical being (phi) and the probability of you being a psychic being (psi) is less than your probability of being a purely physical being (phi) no matter what those respective probabilities are. Therefore all information, including perception, thought, and other mental phenomena must be physical as well. It costs you energy to change your mind, therefore your soul is made of information and is physical. So how much information does your soul contain? Well let?s try an approximation. You have about 10^8 neurons in your brain. From Metcalf?s Law in network theory, we can estimate that there (10^8)( 10^8-1)/2, or approximately 5 thousand trillion possible neural connections in the brain. Because there are two kinds of neural connections, dendrites and axons, but the entropy of a network is maximized when every node is connected to approximately half of the other nodes, a couple of additional factors of two and ? thus cancel out and we are left where we started. Metcalf?s Law therefore actually gives us a workable first approximation for the information comprising your psyche or soul as it were which comes out to about 5*10^15 bits or 6.25 petabytes. So now that we have estimated the amount of information that is your soul, we can use Landauer?s Principle and Einstein?s E = mc^2 to calculate the weight of your soul. Which turns out to be about 2.4*10^-19 grams or about 140 kD or the weight of a typical protein molecule. That?s not much mind you but that is a theoretic minimum since real computers operate well above the Landauer limit and more energy per bit means more mass. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 22:12:30 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 18:12:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] evolution problems In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:14 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > One thing that's always puzzled me about the standard abiogenesis > narrative: how do unicellular creatures evolve into multi-cellular > creatures with tissue differentiation, that also use gamete cells for > reproduction that contain the DNA of all of the tissue types? > A single celled animal doesn't just keep getting bigger, when it gets to a certain size it divides in half, and then the 2 halves don't instantly divide again, they wait for it to get bigger. So even single cells must have some mechanism that tells it when it should and should not divide. I can imagine a mutation where the cell divides but the 2 halves don't separate but remain stuck together. However after a few doublings you'd have a roughly solid sphere of undifferentiated cells and after it got larger than a fraction of an inch or so diffusion would no longer be good enough for the cells in the interior to receive nutrients and so the creature would die. Thus another mutation would be necessary that keeps track of how many doublings have occured since it was a single cell (restricting the animals size) or have the ability to detect the presence of other cells around it and making the decision to divide or not based on that (restricting its shape). After that yet another mutation tells the cell that after N divisions, or N other cells in the immediate vicinity surrounding it, to develop differently. Now that all the cells are not identical and the creature has a definite shape and Evolution can treat the entire thing as a segment and say "repeat this entire segment N" times. Now you're starting to get structure and a body plan. You've probably noticed I haven't mentioned sex at all and that's because it's far more difficult to explain why Evolution came up with sex at all. Yes sex is good for the long term well being of the species but Evolution doesn't know that because Evolution has no foresight so every change must offer a immediate advantage or Evolution would not favor it. It takes a great deal of effort to find a mate and even then only half your genes get passed to the next generation, it would be so much less trouble to reproduce asexually. and then all your genes enter the next generation, and yet every multicellular creature engages in some sort of sexual reproduction, with one baffling exception. The Bdelloid Rotifers are a class of small (although big enough to be visible if you have good eyes) freshwater worms that reproduce asexually and only asexually and have been doing so for 80 million years. The Evolutionary mystery isn't why they are doing it but why doesn't everybody. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 20:14:02 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 21:14:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Financial Crisis Explained Message-ID: Bit of a rant here, but wholly justified! Read all the way to the final paragraph ----- Quote: Central bankers haven?t merely NOT saved the economy, they have used the financial crisis to feed additional insane amounts of money to those whose interests they represent, and who already made similarly insane amounts, which caused the crisis to begin with. They have not let a good crisis go to waste. But judging from the comments and ?analyses? on Lehman?s 10-year anniversary, the financial cabal still gets away with having people believe they?s actually trying to save the economy, and they just make mistakes every now and then, because they?re only human and uncharted territory, don?t you know?! Well, if you believe that, know that you?re being played for fools. Preferences and priorities are crystal clear here, and you?re not invited. -------------- BillK From spike at rainier66.com Sun Sep 16 20:30:33 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 13:30:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Financial Crisis Explained In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001201d44dfc$1ee9e790$5cbdb6b0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK Subject: [ExI] The Financial Crisis Explained < https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2018/09/ben-bernankes-waffle-house/> Quote: Central bankers haven?t merely NOT saved the economy, they have used the financial crisis to feed additional insane amounts of money to those whose interests they represent...BillK _______________________________________________ BillK, central bankers aren't trying to save the economy, they are trying to make money. It?s their job. Meanwhile we have mainstream politicians urging us to never let a crisis go to waste. So... they now have plenty more to not waste. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 20:30:28 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 15:30:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Financial Crisis Explained In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The New York Times has several pages on this today. Crisis not over. Did it ever occur to you that when a member of Congress or any legislative body votes for a bill, that they think of what that bill will do to their law practice? Why do we have so many regulations and laws that are eternally being challenged in court? And why are they so vague and yet infinitely detailed? Is it maybe so lawyers can benefit? Duh? A plurality of Congress - lawyers. Shakespeare was right. bill w On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:14 PM, BillK wrote: > Bit of a rant here, but wholly justified! > > > > Read all the way to the final paragraph ----- > > Quote: > > Central bankers haven?t merely NOT saved the economy, they have used > the financial crisis to feed additional insane amounts of money to > those whose interests they represent, and who already made similarly > insane amounts, which caused the crisis to begin with. They have not > let a good crisis go to waste. > > But judging from the comments and ?analyses? on Lehman?s 10-year > anniversary, the financial cabal still gets away with having people > believe they?s actually trying to save the economy, and they just make > mistakes every now and then, because they?re only human and uncharted > territory, don?t you know?! Well, if you believe that, know that > you?re being played for fools. > Preferences and priorities are crystal clear here, and you?re not invited. > -------------- > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 20:33:31 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 15:33:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] re congress - lawyers Message-ID: Lots of physicians too. Note the big story about a big time doctor who failed to reveal millions of income from Big Pharm. Is corruption an instinct? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 20:34:53 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 15:34:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Financial Crisis Explained In-Reply-To: <001201d44dfc$1ee9e790$5cbdb6b0$@rainier66.com> References: <001201d44dfc$1ee9e790$5cbdb6b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The NYT today has a whole page featuring the CEOs who spent some jail time, from the meltdown 10 years ago. It was blank. bill w On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:30 PM, wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > BillK > > Subject: [ExI] The Financial Crisis Explained > > > > > > > > > > Quote: > > > > Central bankers haven?t merely NOT saved the economy, they have used the > financial crisis to feed additional insane amounts of money to those whose > interests they represent...BillK > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > BillK, central bankers aren't trying to save the economy, they are trying > to make money. It?s their job. > > > > Meanwhile we have mainstream politicians urging us to never let a crisis > go to waste. So... they now have plenty more to not waste. > > > > 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 avant at sollegro.com Wed Sep 19 04:05:39 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 21:05:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Corruption (was congress-lawyers) Message-ID: BillW wrote: > Lots of physicians too. Note the big story about a big time doctor who > failed to reveal millions of income from Big Pharm. > Is corruption an instinct? It's called cheating. It's something even more primal than instinct. It's a survival strategy displayed in group settings by everything from bacteria and slime-molds to human and eusocial insect societies. It can happen within species or between species. It can even happen inside a single organism. Multicellular organisms must deal with cheating by their cells in the guise of cancer. In economics it is called "the Free Rider Problem". You can call it the curse of being social or the tragedy of the commons or networked prisoner's dilemma. It's all the same phenomenon playing out at different scales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_(biology) The only known strategy against it is to find it and punish it or otherwise eliminate it whenever possible. To this end do honeybees eat any eggs they find that were laid by workers and white blood cells roam your body looking for tumor antigens. Rhesus monkeys scream en masse at high-ranking cheaters and physically attack lower-ranking cheaters. The ancient Greek penalty for cheating or bribery in the Olympic Games was monetary fines, flogging, and banning from further competition. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 17:12:28 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Corruption (was congress-lawyers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great. I am imagining a hierarchy here: first, selfish needs and actions; second, actions related to supporting the tribe; third, actions relating to protecting food resources, such as game and cultivated crops; fourth actions defending all humans; fifth, ?? I am not a biologist, but this order seems right to me. Cheating, then, is the favoring of the first set of actions rather than the second set. In other words, perfectly normal. bill w On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > BillW wrote: > > > Lots of physicians too. Note the big story about a big time doctor who > > failed to reveal millions of income from Big Pharm. > > Is corruption an instinct? > > It's called cheating. It's something even more primal than instinct. It's > a survival strategy displayed in group settings by everything from > bacteria and slime-molds to human and eusocial insect societies. It can > happen within species or between species. It can even happen inside a > single organism. > > Multicellular organisms must deal with cheating by their cells in the > guise of cancer. In economics it is called "the Free Rider Problem". You > can call it the curse of being social or the tragedy of the commons or > networked prisoner's dilemma. It's all the same phenomenon playing out at > different scales. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_(biology) > > The only known strategy against it is to find it and punish it or > otherwise eliminate it whenever possible. To this end do honeybees eat any > eggs they find that were laid by workers and white blood cells roam your > body looking for tumor antigens. Rhesus monkeys scream en masse at > high-ranking cheaters and physically attack lower-ranking cheaters. > > The ancient Greek penalty for cheating or bribery in the Olympic Games was > monetary fines, flogging, and banning from further competition. > > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Wed Sep 19 17:25:53 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:25:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Corruption (was congress-lawyers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003701d4503d$d1ca9a10$755fce30$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >?I am not a biologist, but this order seems right to me. Cheating, then, is the favoring of the first set of actions rather than the second set. In other words, perfectly normal?bill w BillW, it is both perfectly normal and natural. Since humans evolved fair and square, anything humans do is both normal and natural. Actions aren?t necessarily right, but right vs wrong is not to be conflated with normal and natural, which is how the field of evolutionary psychology provides insights and understanding. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 19:47:14 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 12:47:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:33 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > You see the energy > that it takes to erase that bit is a real physical quantity so the bit > that got erased must be a real physical object too. Otherwise one has the > paradox that something that does not exist takes energy to destroy. Not so much. It takes energy to disrupt a pattern, even though the pattern itself has no mass - it's just an arrangement of the matter and energy within. > This could be rendered mathematically as P(?)*P(?) <= P(?), which is > saying that the product of the probability of a you being a physical > being (phi) and the probability of you being a psychic being (psi) is less > than your probability of being a purely physical being (phi) no matter > what those respective probabilities are. Therefore all information, > including perception, thought, and other mental phenomena must be physical > as well. This conclusion does not flow from the equation. P(?) and P(?) are each between 0 and 1, inclusive. Therefore P(?)*P(?) <= P(?) but also P(?)*P(?) <= P(?). And that says nothing about what P(?) and P(?) are, let alone that either of them is 1. It may be correct that the information that makes up a soul or mind has mass. But this fails to prove that. From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 19:47:51 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:47:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Corruption (was congress-lawyers) In-Reply-To: <003701d4503d$d1ca9a10$755fce30$@rainier66.com> References: <003701d4503d$d1ca9a10$755fce30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Yeah, just look at the wrongs perpetrated by hippies or whoever, thinking that natural and organic meant OK. So they ate any mushroom they saw........ bill w On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:25 PM, wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > > > >?I am not a biologist, but this order seems right to me. Cheating, > then, is the favoring of the first set of actions rather than the second > set. In other words, perfectly normal?bill w > > > > > > BillW, it is both perfectly normal and natural. Since humans evolved fair > and square, anything humans do is both normal and natural. Actions aren?t > necessarily right, but right vs wrong is not to be conflated with normal > and natural, which is how the field of evolutionary psychology provides > insights and understanding. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 19:59:23 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:59:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It may be correct that the information that makes up a soul or mind has mass. But this fails to prove that. Adrian C'mon - it is scientifically impossible to measure anything nonphysical, right? So if you can't study it, it ain't science! Or can't be. So why not just toss dualism into the trash with witchcraft and all, and bury the whole thing in horse manure? (or maybe I read something about massless particles, so.....) And toss the term 'soul' along with all of it. You will upset and confuse religious people, who are already confused enough. bill w On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:33 PM Stuart LaForge > wrote: > > You see the energy > > that it takes to erase that bit is a real physical quantity so the bit > > that got erased must be a real physical object too. Otherwise one has > the > > paradox that something that does not exist takes energy to destroy. > > Not so much. It takes energy to disrupt a pattern, even though the > pattern itself has no mass - it's just an arrangement of the matter > and energy within. > > > This could be rendered mathematically as P(?)*P(?) <= P(?), which is > > saying that the product of the probability of a you being a physical > > being (phi) and the probability of you being a psychic being (psi) is > less > > than your probability of being a purely physical being (phi) no matter > > what those respective probabilities are. Therefore all information, > > including perception, thought, and other mental phenomena must be > physical > > as well. > > This conclusion does not flow from the equation. > > P(?) and P(?) are each between 0 and 1, inclusive. Therefore > P(?)*P(?) <= P(?) but also P(?)*P(?) <= P(?). > > And that says nothing about what P(?) and P(?) are, let alone that > either of them is 1. > > It may be correct that the information that makes up a soul or mind > has mass. But this fails to prove that. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 08:26:10 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 01:26:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:08 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > C'mon - it is scientifically impossible to measure anything nonphysical, right? Stuart did at least give a definition of "soul" that corresponded to a discrete physical thing, rather than the usual supernatural immeasurables. > And toss the term 'soul' along with all of it. You will upset and confuse religious people, who are already confused enough. Is it possible to leave them so confused they have no more mental bandwidth for the upset? From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 14:01:20 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:01:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And just how it is better than Descartes' calling the soul the pineal gland? bill w On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:26 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:08 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > C'mon - it is scientifically impossible to measure anything nonphysical, > right? > > Stuart did at least give a definition of "soul" that corresponded to a > discrete physical thing, rather than the usual supernatural > immeasurables. > > > And toss the term 'soul' along with all of it. You will upset and > confuse religious people, who are already confused enough. > > Is it possible to leave them so confused they have no more mental > bandwidth for the upset? > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 20 14:18:59 2018 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:18:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stuart, Some people, (i.e. mormons at Brigham Young University for example) assume a soul has some weight. They weigh people, animals and bugs, and try to see if their is a decrease in weight, when they die (hopping to measure when a "soul" with physical weight leaves the body). You're not proposing this, right? It seems to me you are saying something just a bit more refined than our soul is the weight of our brain? You're not saying anything incompatible with "mind (er soul) brain identity theory" right? I get so frustrated with people that make claims like: "a bit of information is a real physical thing" or even worse when people say, fundamentally, all matter is just bits. A bit, is just some random physical thing or state, with a required interpretation mechanism, so you can get the 1, from any arbitrary different physical thing. In other words, a bit is just abstracted away from the physics, by a required interpretation mechanism. Souls, or minds, are made of physical stuff (qualia), that is not abstracted away from the physics. Consciousness runs directly on the qualitative nature of physics - no abstracts. In other words, to get a "1" from any physics, you need to interpret the particular set of physics, as a "1". But redness, is just pure physics - no interpretation required. In other words, can we not know, more surely that we know "I think therefor I am" what the physical quality of our redness is like. Since minds are not abstracted away form the physics, like 1s and 0s are, then the physical nature of our consciousness, can not be in some abstract simulation. Can we not know this more surely than we know anything. I experience the physical nature of redness, therefor I can not doubt it's fundamental, basement level, physical nature, right? Brent On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 2:28 AM Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:08 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > C'mon - it is scientifically impossible to measure anything nonphysical, > right? > > Stuart did at least give a definition of "soul" that corresponded to a > discrete physical thing, rather than the usual supernatural > immeasurables. > > > And toss the term 'soul' along with all of it. You will upset and > confuse religious people, who are already confused enough. > > Is it possible to leave them so confused they have no more mental > bandwidth for the upset? > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 20 14:49:15 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 07:49:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005601d450f1$1af82f00$50e88d00$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Brent Allsop Subject: Re: [ExI] Weighing the Soul Hi Stuart, >?Some people, (i.e. mormons at Brigham Young University for example) assume a soul has some weight. ?Brent It does, if you can estimate the equivalent amount of information in that soul. I will leave it to you to figure out or setimate the information equivalent of a connectome, but once you get that answer, you can estimate the minimum energy required to maintain a bit, using the second law of thermodynamics. Since an entropy level is associated with the number of possible random microstates, you use the old S = k(sub b) ln {omega} to get an energy level associated with maintaining that level of entropy (it is function of temperature.) Then once you have an energy, you divide by the speed of light squared and you have the mass of that soul. How much entropy is in your soul? It ain?t zero and it ain?t infinite. Conclusion: souls have mass. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Thu Sep 20 20:48:13 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:48:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul Message-ID: <45b25675175a320fc373c3853bc237ba.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >> You see the energy >> that it takes to erase that bit is a real physical quantity so the bit >> that got erased must be a real physical object too.? Otherwise one has >> the paradox that something that does not exist takes energy to destroy. > > Not so much.? It takes energy to disrupt a pattern, even though the > pattern itself has no mass - it's just an arrangement of the matter and > energy within. But the matter and energy that is arranged within the pattern *is* the pattern in any physically meaningful sense. So the pattern has mass even before it is disrupted. A pattern must be within or embodied by some kind of fabric, substrate, or medium and that medium has mass. Graphite, ink, paint, and chalk dust all have mass. Even if it is a pattern made out of pure light, then it still has mass according to SR; it just can't be at rest. Hell even the vacuum has mass these days thanks to dark energy. So where would massless patterns live? Your imagination? Even your synapses firing is about moving tiny masses like electrons and neurotransmitters around. Ditto anything that is on your computer screen. >> This could be rendered mathematically as P(?)*P(?) <= P(?), which is >> saying that the product of the? probability of a you being? a physical >> being (phi) and the probability of you being a psychic being (psi) is >> less than your probability of being a purely physical being (phi) no >> matter what those respective probabilities are. Therefore all >> information, including perception, thought, and other mental phenomena >> must be physical as well. > > This conclusion does not flow from the equation. > P(?) and P(?) are each between 0 and 1, inclusive.? Therefore > P(?)*P(?) <= P(?) but also P(?)*P(?) <= P(?). > And that says nothing about what P(?) and P(?) are, let alone that > either of them is 1. It doesn't matter what the probabilities are because dualism which is the joint probability is going to be less than or equal to either probability on its own. What your version of the inequality shows is that you are more likely to be made out of pure information than be some kind of fence-sitting hybrid between matter and information as dualism would entail. In other words idealism in a simulated reality completely composed of information is more likely than dualism. So both forms are monism, either physicalism or idealism, are more likely than dualism. I guess my argument mostly eliminates the middle ground. Either bits of information are a property of physical particles that are fundamental or particles are property of bits of information which are themselves fundamental. All I am really saying is energy and information are not fundamentally separate things. > It may be correct that the information that makes up a soul or mind > has mass.? But this fails to prove that. You are right, I can't prove something mathematically using probabilistic arguments. I did show however that physicalism was more likely than dualism. While you yourself showed that idealism was more likely than dualism. Either scenario would result in the soul being something that could be measured and manipulated by sufficiently advanced technology. So to me it seems like a win either way. Stuart LaForge From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 23:57:19 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:57:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:41 AM John Clark wrote: > > That is especially true today. In 1978 the CEO of one of the top 350 US > corporations made on average 30 times as much as the average worker in > their company, today its 271 times as much. > Don't repeat the words of our enemies. All what they say are lies. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 21 00:59:45 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:59:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] tv news reports Message-ID: <002b01d45146$6398dcf0$2aca96d0$@rainier66.com> The other day I saw one of those news trucks with the satellite antenna towers covering some trivial thing. There was a reporter there with a big microphone and those huge cameras the news people carry. Then it occurred to me to ask: why the heck do they still need all this stuff? https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/fox-news-truck-with-tv-antenna-park-in-str eet-gm601920488-103467627 We have cell phones which can transmit reasonably good video real time, no mobile satellite tower needed. No huge microphones needed: a simple Bluetooth phone with a boom mike makes it perfectly easy to understand what the reporter is saying with one of those. Those huuuuuge cameras they carry on their shoulders, why? So now we have left over from the old days what musta been a jillion dollars worth of equipment, none of it necessary anymore because we have video cell phones. Yet the old stuff is still in use at least occasionally. So puzzling. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Fri Sep 21 07:30:53 2018 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 00:30:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] tv news reports In-Reply-To: <002b01d45146$6398dcf0$2aca96d0$@rainier66.com> References: <002b01d45146$6398dcf0$2aca96d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Lurker Comment Equipment Is Uniform It's what separates the Crab Crowd from the appearance of professionals Just saying that back in the day when I had my my press card it always was easier when you had a quipment with you, though attitude trumps everything Like Gray t-shirts Smile On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:01 PM wrote: > > > The other day I saw one of those news trucks with the satellite antenna > towers covering some trivial thing. There was a reporter there with a big > microphone and those huge cameras the news people carry. > > > > Then it occurred to me to ask: why the heck do they still need all this > stuff? > > > > > https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/fox-news-truck-with-tv-antenna-park-in-street-gm601920488-103467627 > > > > We have cell phones which can transmit reasonably good video real time, no > mobile satellite tower needed. No huge microphones needed: a simple > Bluetooth phone with a boom mike makes it perfectly easy to understand what > the reporter is saying with one of those. Those huuuuuge cameras they > carry on their shoulders, why? > > > > So now we have left over from the old days what musta been a jillion > dollars worth of equipment, none of it necessary anymore because we have > video cell phones. Yet the old stuff is still in use at least occasionally. > > > > So puzzling. > > > > 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 henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Fri Sep 21 08:03:40 2018 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:03:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] tv news reports In-Reply-To: References: <002b01d45146$6398dcf0$2aca96d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Amen to that, also bigger optics gives better picture. Really good mics tend to be somewhat bigger. /Henrik Den fre 21 sep. 2018 09:34ilsa skrev: > Lurker Comment > > Equipment Is Uniform > > It's what separates the Crab Crowd from the appearance of professionals > Just saying that back in the day when I had my my press card it always was > easier when you had a quipment with you, though attitude trumps everything > Like Gray t-shirts > Smile > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:01 PM wrote: > >> >> >> The other day I saw one of those news trucks with the satellite antenna >> towers covering some trivial thing. There was a reporter there with a big >> microphone and those huge cameras the news people carry. >> >> >> >> Then it occurred to me to ask: why the heck do they still need all this >> stuff? >> >> >> >> >> https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/fox-news-truck-with-tv-antenna-park-in-street-gm601920488-103467627 >> >> >> >> We have cell phones which can transmit reasonably good video real time, >> no mobile satellite tower needed. No huge microphones needed: a simple >> Bluetooth phone with a boom mike makes it perfectly easy to understand what >> the reporter is saying with one of those. Those huuuuuge cameras they >> carry on their shoulders, why? >> >> >> >> So now we have left over from the old days what musta been a jillion >> dollars worth of equipment, none of it necessary anymore because we have >> video cell phones. Yet the old stuff is still in use at least occasionally. >> >> >> >> So puzzling. >> >> >> >> spike >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sat Sep 22 19:36:05 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:36:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul Message-ID: <3a7152caa316d448be3466c0f2d2ae63.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Brent Allsop wrote: > Some people, (i.e. mormons at Brigham Young University for example) > assume a soul has some weight. They weigh people, animals and bugs, and > try to see if their is a decrease in weight, when they die (hopping to > measure when a "soul" with physical weight leaves the body). You're not > proposing this, right? Not really. I do not think that a soul can leave the body any more than a printed word can leave the page it is printed on. Plus the synaptic links that trace out the soul are frangible and likely to be one of the first things that decays after death. It might be possible to copy the soul to a different substrate however. In regards to the mormons of BYU, if they ever get to the point where they can measure the approximately 66 nanograms of mass that a 100 kg human body loses when cooling from body temperature to room temperature after death then that would be huge technological achievement. But that still probably will not be sensitive enough to literally weigh the soul especially in the background of an intact body. > I get so frustrated with people that make claims like: "a bit of > information is a real physical thing" or even worse when people say, > fundamentally, all matter is just bits. A bit, is just some random > physical thing or state, with a required interpretation mechanism, so you > can get the 1, from any arbitrary different physical thing. Yes any arbitrary "thing" with more than a single state. But my point is there must be some thing. A bit of information cannot exist without some physical thing to embody it. One and zero are just arbitrary symbols for the underlying states. It is the underlying states that are the actual bit and thus physical. > In other > words, a bit is just abstracted away from the physics, by a required > interpretation mechanism. To have a bit you need at least one thing with at least two states. To give that bit meaning, you need at least two things. The observer and the observed. The observer does not have to be an intelligent agent. It merely has to be another thing with more than one state that can change its state in response to the state of the first thing. In this regard, a soccer ball observes your foot when you kick it. And the meaning of the signal is simply momentum. Thus the soccer ball interprets and "understands" your foot despite being an inanimate object. > Souls, or minds, are made of physical stuff > (qualia), that is not > abstracted away from the physics. Consciousness runs directly on the > qualitative nature of physics - no abstracts. In other words, to get a > "1" > from any physics, you need to interpret the particular set of physics, as > a "1". But redness, is just pure physics - no interpretation required. Every particle in the universe interprets every other particle it interacts with. Interpretation itself is a physical act. Your ribosomes literally interpret the genetic code in your messenger RNA to synthesize the proteins you need for survival. No brain is required for interpretation of information at the level of bits. A brain however does help with interpreting complex patterns of information. Redness is the internal symbol your brain uses to represent a particular frequency band of electromagnetic radiation that it understands because the way your retina is set up. Without appropriate technology, your brain cannot interpret radio waves. So radio waves don't have a color because your brain does not maintain symbols for what it doesn't understand. But since both symbols and interpretation are physical, you are right. It is just pure physics. Or it is just pure information. It depends on where you stand on chicken or egg type problems. > In other words, can we not know, more surely that we know "I think > therefor I am" what the physical quality of our redness is like. > Since minds are not abstracted away form the physics, like 1s and 0s are, > then the physical nature of our consciousness, can not be in some abstract > simulation. I am not entirely certain about that one way or the other. What I can say is that it is if our consciousness is physical, then everything is, and if our consciousness is abstract, then everything is. > Can we not know this more surely than we know anything. I > experience the physical nature of redness, therefor I can not doubt it's > fundamental, basement level, physical nature, right? Right, unless you doubt that physical nature itself is fundamental. But then again a chicken egg and a chicken are the same fundamental thing expressing different properties at different times. So maybe the distinction itself is without difference. Stuart LaForge From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 19:47:44 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:47:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] State of Mind is a sci-fi game for exploring perceptions on transhumanism Message-ID: I am so far, very impressed by this transhumanist themed game.... : ) "The game takes Richard in a world that?s a step away from transhumanist revolution. He loses everything, literally, ?even a part of his identity.? The gamer gets to find out about Richard in the journey: where does the character belong from and what are the choices that define him! Richard gets to face humanoid bots, artificial humans, and anti-tech terrorists. He will as well need to go through his own shortcomings: flaws, mistakes, lies, and bad calls. This is indeed an entire package of him being a human. Will he want to remain human or become an AI? How about playing a God maintaining responsibilities? While the home is always the sweetest as it builds the first definitions of an entity, evolution might just purposefully hold greater prospects for one and their surroundings. A notion of accomplishing happiness for self may involve caring for the world, and self-implementations based on the same is respecting progressive evolution. Having said that, intelligence is the greatest form of power, but power itself is not always only intelligence." https://www.techgenyz.com/2018/07/31/state-of-mind-a-sci-fi-game-on-transhumanism/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 19:50:51 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:50:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 42 Visions For Tomorrow From The Golden Age of Futurism Message-ID: I loved this article, especially for the terrific retro artwork, that shows sometimes dated, but always charming, views of the "future..." I'm old enough that I remember reading through books and magazines my mother and grandmother had, which showed such scenes... https://gizmodo.com/42-visions-for-tomorrow-from-the-golden-age-of-futurism-1683553063?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Gizmodo_facebook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 20:00:10 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:00:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Man Who Made Wildly Imaginative, Gloriously Disobedient Buildings Message-ID: I hope with the advent of advanced automated home manufacturing, and especially when mature nanotech arrives, that we will see many more homes like these... "Bruce Goff?s midcentury houses across the Midwest are symbols of both a heartland-born eccentricity and a distinct Modernism. So why has he been forgotten?" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/t-magazine/bruce-goff-architecture-midwest.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 20:04:23 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:04:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gartner Identifies Five Emerging Technology Trends That Will Blur the Lines Between Human and Machine Message-ID: "The Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies report is the longest-running annual Gartner Hype Cycle , providing a cross-industry perspective on the technologies and trends that business strategists, chief innovation officers, R&D leaders, entrepreneurs, global market developers and emerging-technology teams should consider in developing emerging-technology portfolios. The Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies is unique among most Gartner Hype Cycles because it garners insights from more than 2,000 technologies into a succinct set of 35 emerging technologies and trends. This Hype Cycle specifically focuses on the set of technologies that is showing promise in delivering a high degree of competitive advantage over the next five to 10 years" https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2018-08-20-gartner-identifies-five-emerging-technology-trends-that-will-blur-the-lines-between-human-and-machine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Sep 23 01:53:12 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 18:53:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Simulation Files Message-ID: <2c082dd6629a6352cd35440ff932d884.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Did Stephen Hawking sign his work? https://pm1.narvii.com/6706/db76d64a2219d8bc5a590e2798ccaa32c727ed81_hq.jpg Now forget you ever saw that and continue with your life as normal. ;-) Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 15:38:46 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 11:38:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:01 PM Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > In 1978 the CEO of one of the top 350 US corporations made on average 30 >> times as much as the average worker in their company, today its 271 times >> as much. >> > > *>Don't repeat the words of our enemies. All what they say are lies.* > My enemies are those who replace objective facts with "alternative facts" and believe a political ideology, ANY political ideology, can outrank the scientific method. That is the main reason I hate Donald Trump so much, I'd hate him almost as much even if he were a libertarian, which he most certainly is not. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 16:12:21 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 12:12:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:09 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > *C'mon - it is scientifically impossible to measure anything nonphysical, > right? So if you can't study it, it ain't science! * > Your right of course, but (and I've said all this before) I think information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific method. Consider the similarities: The soul is non material and so is information. It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the soul, and the same is true for information. The soul is the essential, must have, part of consciousness, exactly the same situation is true for information. The soul is immortal and potentially so is information. But there are important differences too. A soul is unique but information can be duplicated. The soul is and will always remain unfathomable, but information is understandable, in fact information is the ONLY thing that is understandable. Information unambiguously exists, I don't think anyone would deny that, but even if the soul exists it will never be proven scientifically. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 16:19:43 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 11:19:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: > > *Don't repeat the words of our enemies. All what they say are lies.* > That isn't true. A real pro at lying knows that the best lies are the ones that tell part of the truth. bill w On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 10:38 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:01 PM Rafal Smigrodzki < > rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > In 1978 the CEO of one of the top 350 US corporations made on average >>> 30 times as much as the average worker in their company, today its 271 >>> times as much. >>> >> >> *>Don't repeat the words of our enemies. All what they say are lies.* >> > > My enemies are those who replace objective facts with "alternative facts" > and believe a political ideology, ANY political ideology, can outrank the > scientific method. That is the main reason I hate Donald Trump so much, I'd > hate him almost as much even if he were a libertarian, which he most > certainly is not. > > 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 Sun Sep 23 16:32:14 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 11:32:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no information unless it is stored, right? In our brains that means physical changes occur when information is stored, and potentially it can be studied scientifically. When a PC stores information it changes the positive/negative aspects of the hard drive (tape, whatever), and so is a physical thing, able to be measured and dealt with scientifically. Soul, you say, is nonphysical, in contradiction to Descartes and some others and will never be measured or part of science. So why don't we quit using it? If you can't define it, if you can't measure, it simply does not exist to a physical monist like me, and so is just nonsense, like magic, witchcraft and many others that have mostly passed into history. And it just feels wrong for atheists (naturalists) to talk about souls as if they exist in some way. The only way they exist is in the beliefs of some people, and that is certainly no proof of the existence of anything. bill w On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:12 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:09 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > *C'mon - it is scientifically impossible to measure anything >> nonphysical, right? So if you can't study it, it ain't science! * >> > > Your right of course, but (and I've said all this before) > I think > information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept of the > soul and still remain within the scientific method. Consider the > similarities: > The soul is non material and so is > information. It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the > soul, and the same is true for information. The soul is the essential, must > have, part of consciousness, exactly the same situation is true for > information. The soul is immortal and potentially so is information. > > But there are important differences too. A soul is unique but information > can be duplicated. The soul is and will always remain unfathomable, but > information is understandable, in fact information is the ONLY thing that > is understandable. Information unambiguously exists, I don't think anyone > would deny that, but even if the soul exists it will never be proven > scientifically. > > > 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 avant at sollegro.com Sun Sep 23 19:03:40 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 12:03:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul Message-ID: <9bb009efbf8b0fc86e1d685f3d387366.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> BillW wrote: > And it just feels wrong for atheists (naturalists) to talk about > souls as if they exist in some way.? The only way they exist is in the > beliefs of some people, and that is certainly no proof of the existence > of anything.?? bill w Ok well that just sounds like a branding issue. We can change the name if "soul" bothers you. How does "eidolon" strike you as a technical term for what is clearly a physical thing? The physical "image" or pattern of a person's consciousness? Stuart LaForge From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 19:52:26 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 20:52:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23 September 2018 at 17:32, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > There is no information unless it is stored, right? In our brains that > means physical changes occur when information is stored, and potentially it > can be studied scientifically. > > When a PC stores information it changes the positive/negative aspects of the > hard drive (tape, whatever), and so is a physical thing, able to be measured > and dealt with scientifically. > > Soul, you say, is nonphysical, in contradiction to Descartes and some others > and will never be measured or part of science. So why don't we quit using > it? If you can't define it, if you can't measure, it simply does not exist > to a physical monist like me, and so is just nonsense, like magic, > witchcraft and many others that have mostly passed into history. > > And it just feels wrong for atheists (naturalists) to talk about souls as if > they exist in some way. The only way they exist is in the beliefs of some > people, and that is certainly no proof of the existence of anything. > Depends on what you mean by 'soul'. :) Our Western philosophy started with Judaism in the Old Testament and continued in the Christian New Testament. This period had a more primitive philosophy where 'soul' just meant something that had the breath of life. This included animals as well as humans. Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche. The Greek word psyche was used with the same meaning as the Hebrew nephesh. That 'soul' died when the body died. The term 'spirit' is also used in the Bible, Hebrew r?ach and the Greek equivalent pneuma. These are used with a similar meaning, referring to the life force within a body. But this also died when the body died. >From about Plato onwards, Greek dualism began to influence Western thought, where the 'mind' or 'soul' is considered like an immortal being from the spirit world temporarily inhabiting a human body. This is very different from the Biblical version, but has strongly influenced later Christian theology. To be clear, the concept of an immortal 'soul' surviving the body is not found in the Bible. That's why Christians need resurrection. :) To quote Wikipedia: In Patristic thought, towards the end of the 2nd century, ps?ch? had begun to be understood in a more Greek than a Hebrew way, contrasted with the body. By the 3rd century, with the influence of Origen, the traditions of the inherent immortality of the soul and its divine nature were established. As the new Encyclop?dia Britannica points out: ?The early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of the soul?s immortality and thought of the soul as being created by God and infused into the body at conception. So which 'soul' do you prefer? BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 20:11:16 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 15:11:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: <9bb009efbf8b0fc86e1d685f3d387366.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <9bb009efbf8b0fc86e1d685f3d387366.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > BillW wrote: > > > And it just feels wrong for atheists (naturalists) to talk about > > souls as if they exist in some way. The only way they exist is in the > > beliefs of some people, and that is certainly no proof of the existence > > of anything. bill w > > Ok well that just sounds like a branding issue. We can change the name if > "soul" bothers you. How does "eidolon" strike you as a technical term for > what is clearly a physical thing? The physical "image" or pattern of a > person's consciousness? > > Stuart LaForge > Sounds good to me. It will never be confused with soul by nonscientists. > We will never capture an image of it in full detail, I think. Sensory > images go through a lot of individualized processing before they reach the > cortex; recording what a person hears or sees is of little help, of course. > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 20:15:55 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 15:15:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weighing the Soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So which 'soul' do you prefer? billk I prefer any definition of soul that remains in the realm of religion, where it belongs. The most amazing thing about the history of human thinking, to me, is the creation of a category of things that have no physical existence, and nearly everyone buying into the concept. bill w On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 2:52 PM, BillK wrote: > On 23 September 2018 at 17:32, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > There is no information unless it is stored, right? In our brains that > > means physical changes occur when information is stored, and potentially > it > > can be studied scientifically. > > > > When a PC stores information it changes the positive/negative aspects of > the > > hard drive (tape, whatever), and so is a physical thing, able to be > measured > > and dealt with scientifically. > > > > Soul, you say, is nonphysical, in contradiction to Descartes and some > others > > and will never be measured or part of science. So why don't we quit > using > > it? If you can't define it, if you can't measure, it simply does not > exist > > to a physical monist like me, and so is just nonsense, like magic, > > witchcraft and many others that have mostly passed into history. > > > > And it just feels wrong for atheists (naturalists) to talk about souls > as if > > they exist in some way. The only way they exist is in the beliefs of > some > > people, and that is certainly no proof of the existence of anything. > > > > Depends on what you mean by 'soul'. :) > > Our Western philosophy started with Judaism in the Old Testament and > continued in the Christian New Testament. > This period had a more primitive philosophy where 'soul' just meant > something that had the breath of life. This included animals as well > as humans. > Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche. The Greek word psyche was used with > the same meaning as the Hebrew nephesh. > That 'soul' died when the body died. > > The term 'spirit' is also used in the Bible, Hebrew r?ach and the > Greek equivalent pneuma. These are used with a similar meaning, > referring to the life force within a body. But this also died when the > body died. > > From about Plato onwards, Greek dualism began to influence Western > thought, where the 'mind' or 'soul' is considered like an immortal > being from the spirit world temporarily inhabiting a human body. This > is very different from the Biblical version, but has strongly > influenced later Christian theology. > > To be clear, the concept of an immortal 'soul' surviving the body is > not found in the Bible. That's why Christians need resurrection. :) > > To quote Wikipedia: > In Patristic thought, towards the end of the 2nd century, ps?ch? had > begun to be understood in a more Greek than a Hebrew way, contrasted > with the body. By the 3rd century, with the influence of Origen, the > traditions of the inherent immortality of the soul and its divine > nature were established. As the new Encyclop?dia Britannica points > out: ?The early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of > the soul?s immortality and thought of the soul as being created by God > and infused into the body at conception. > > So which 'soul' do you prefer? > > 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 possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Sep 24 17:15:15 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:15:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Robert Stark interviews Alina Gorina about Soviet Futurism, Technocracy & Transhumanism Message-ID: I have always been fascinated by Russian futurism and transhumanism... http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=7487 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Sep 25 13:51:23 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 06:51:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] aren't you glad you took care of your health? Message-ID: <000601d454d6$d970f460$8c52dd20$@rainier66.com> All those health habits you took up rather than blow off, every cigarette you didn't smoke, every seat belt you buckled, it all paid off. Now we get to live in such fun times. It was all worth it. We lived long enough to see a debate on this topic: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/calls-mount-for-regulat ion-of-sex-robots Is this a fun time to be living or what? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 14:11:00 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 10:11:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality Message-ID: Funded by a $100,000,000 grant from Bill Gates biologists have found a way to make mosquitoes go extinct using CRISPR genetic engineering technology to connect a sterility gene to a Gene Driver: https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4245 Normally if you have a gene there is only a 50% chance one of your children will have it too, but with Gene Drive there is a 100% chance they will have that gene. There is a gene that makes female mosquitoes sterile and they hooked up that gene to a Gene Drive mechanism in a male mosquito. It would be illegal to release that mosquito into the wild but they found in the lab the gene was in 100% of the population in less than 11 generations making the entire population collapse. A generation in a mosquito is about 40 days. Mosquitoes carry many diseases, malaria alone killed 450,000 people last year and made many millions more very sick, nevertheless self styled guardians of morality are already calling for a moratorium on the use of this technology in the field and say we should wait decades before letting one of these insects go free if we ever do. If that's morality then I'm proud to be immoral. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Sep 25 14:27:33 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:27:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality >? biologists have found a way to make mosquitoes go extinct using CRISPR?: https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4245 >? It would be illegal to release that mosquito into the wild? self styled guardians of morality are already calling for a moratorium on the use of this ? If that's morality then I'm proud to be immoral. >?John K Clark If any lab anywhere finds this, there is no way to stop it using legal means. Anyone working at that lab could come to the same decision you (and I) did, then secretly release them. There would be no way to prove whodunnit and even if you somehow got a confession, I doubt anything serious would come of it. They will get loose. Let?s hope for the best, with confidence in this particular case. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 14:45:15 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:45:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality In-Reply-To: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> References: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I just have one question about the mosquitoes: what species will go extinct if all the mosquitoes disappear? bill On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:27 AM, wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark > > *Subject:* [ExI] Gene Drive and morality > > > > >? biologists have found a way to make mosquitoes go extinct using CRISPR?: > > > > https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4245 > > > > >? It would be illegal to release that mosquito into the wild? self styled > guardians of morality are already calling for a moratorium on the use of > this ? If that's morality then I'm proud to be immoral. > > > > >?John K Clark > > > > > > If any lab anywhere finds this, there is no way to stop it using legal > means. Anyone working at that lab could come to the same decision you (and > I) did, then secretly release them. There would be no way to prove > whodunnit and even if you somehow got a confession, I doubt anything > serious would come of it. They will get loose. > > > > Let?s hope for the best, with confidence in this particular case. > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 14:48:39 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:48:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] aren't you glad you took care of your health? In-Reply-To: <000601d454d6$d970f460$8c52dd20$@rainier66.com> References: <000601d454d6$d970f460$8c52dd20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Napoleon thought we already had sex robots: women. "Nature intended women to be slaves. They are our property. What a mad idea to demand equality for women! Women are nothing more than machines for producing children." bill w On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:51 AM, wrote: > > > All those health habits you took up rather than blow off, every cigarette > you didn?t smoke, every seat belt you buckled, it all paid off. Now we get > to live in such fun times. It was all worth it. We lived long enough to > see a debate on this topic: > > > > > > https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/calls-mount-for- > regulation-of-sex-robots > > > > Is this a fun time to be living or what? > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 15:02:12 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 10:02:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] math problem solved? Message-ID: https://www.sciencealert.com/top-mathematician-sir-michael-atiyah-solved-a-160-year-old-1-million-maths-problem-riemann-hypothesis in case y'all missed it bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 15:11:11 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:11:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality In-Reply-To: References: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:48 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >I just have one question about the mosquitoes: what species will go > extinct if all the mosquitoes disappear? > A male mosquito will normally not mate with a female of a different species and even if they do it will not produce viable offspring, if they did then it wouldn't be a different species because that is the very definition of a species. There are about 3500 species of mosquitoes but only 40 carry malaria. John K Clark > > bill > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:27 AM, wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *John Clark >> >> *Subject:* [ExI] Gene Drive and morality >> >> >> >> >? biologists have found a way to make mosquitoes go extinct using >> CRISPR?: >> >> >> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4245 >> >> >> >> >? It would be illegal to release that mosquito into the wild? self >> styled guardians of morality are already calling for a moratorium on the >> use of this ? If that's morality then I'm proud to be immoral. >> >> >> >> >?John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> If any lab anywhere finds this, there is no way to stop it using legal >> means. Anyone working at that lab could come to the same decision you (and >> I) did, then secretly release them. There would be no way to prove >> whodunnit and even if you somehow got a confession, I doubt anything >> serious would come of it. They will get loose. >> >> >> >> Let?s hope for the best, with confidence in this particular case. >> >> >> >> spike >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Sep 25 15:28:48 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:28:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] math problem solved? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The inability of the mathematical community to figure out if the proofs of the ABC conjecture and the Riemann hypothesis are valid makes me wonder if that could have implications for another unsolved problem, is P= NP? If they are not equal then you?d expect it would be fundamentally easier to check a proof than find a proof, but then why are world class mathematicians unable to check them? If I have a valid proof of the ABC conjecture but it would take you as much brain power to understand it as it would for you to find a proof of it on your own have I accomplished anything of value, would there be any point in you reading it? John K Clark On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:05 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > https://www.sciencealert.com/top-mathematician-sir-michael-atiyah-solved-a-160-year-old-1-million-maths-problem-riemann-hypothesis > > in case y'all missed it > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Sep 25 15:52:03 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:52:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] math problem solved? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006401d454e7$b4751ea0$1d5f5be0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 8:02 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] math problem solved? https://www.sciencealert.com/top-mathematician-sir-michael-atiyah-solved-a-160-year-old-1-million-maths-problem-riemann-hypothesis in case y'all missed it bill w BillW, I haven?t investigated yet, so take this prediction for what it is worth: I am betting against Atiyah. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 17:53:29 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 10:53:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] aren't you glad you took care of your health? In-Reply-To: References: <000601d454d6$d970f460$8c52dd20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I wonder what he would have thought of the artificial womb. On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:56 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Napoleon thought we already had sex robots: women. > > "Nature intended women to be slaves. They are our property. What a mad idea to demand equality for women! Women are nothing more than machines for producing children." > > bill w > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:51 AM, wrote: >> >> >> >> All those health habits you took up rather than blow off, every cigarette you didn?t smoke, every seat belt you buckled, it all paid off. Now we get to live in such fun times. It was all worth it. We lived long enough to see a debate on this topic: >> >> >> >> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/calls-mount-for-regulation-of-sex-robots >> >> >> >> Is this a fun time to be living or what? >> >> >> >> spike >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 18:02:00 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:02:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality In-Reply-To: References: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: > > >I just have one question about the mosquitoes: what species will go > extinct if all the mosquitoes disappear? > A male mosquito will normally not mate with a female of a different species and even if they do it will not produce viable offspring, if they did then it wouldn't be a different species because that is the very definition of a species. There are about 3500 species of mosquitoes but only 40 carry malaria. John K Clark Senior moment here: I meant the birds, bats, and whoever that depend on the mosquitoes for their main source of food. bill w On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:11 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:48 AM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > >I just have one question about the mosquitoes: what species will go >> extinct if all the mosquitoes disappear? >> > > A male mosquito will normally not mate with a female of a different > species and even if they do it will not produce viable offspring, if they > did then it wouldn't be a different species because that is the very > definition of a species. There are about 3500 species of mosquitoes but > only 40 carry malaria. > > John K Clark > > > > > > >> >> bill >> >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:27 AM, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>> Behalf Of *John Clark >>> >>> *Subject:* [ExI] Gene Drive and morality >>> >>> >>> >>> >? biologists have found a way to make mosquitoes go extinct using >>> CRISPR?: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4245 >>> >>> >>> >>> >? It would be illegal to release that mosquito into the wild? self >>> styled guardians of morality are already calling for a moratorium on the >>> use of this ? If that's morality then I'm proud to be immoral. >>> >>> >>> >>> >?John K Clark >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> If any lab anywhere finds this, there is no way to stop it using legal >>> means. Anyone working at that lab could come to the same decision you (and >>> I) did, then secretly release them. There would be no way to prove >>> whodunnit and even if you somehow got a confession, I doubt anything >>> serious would come of it. They will get loose. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let?s hope for the best, with confidence in this particular case. >>> >>> >>> >>> spike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 mrjones2020 at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 18:06:52 2018 From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (J.R. Jones) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:06:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality In-Reply-To: References: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 11:13 John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:48 AM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > >I just have one question about the mosquitoes: what species will go >> extinct if all the mosquitoes disappear? >> > > A male mosquito will normally not mate with a female of a different > species and even if they do it will not produce viable offspring, if they > did then it wouldn't be a different species because that is the very > definition of a species. There are about 3500 species of mosquitoes but > only 40 carry malaria. > > John K Clark > I believe he meant, what species outside mosquitos... An unintended consequence... Plankton extinction killing off whales kinda thing > > > > > >> >> bill >> >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:27 AM, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>> Behalf Of *John Clark >>> >>> *Subject:* [ExI] Gene Drive and morality >>> >>> >>> >>> >? biologists have found a way to make mosquitoes go extinct using >>> CRISPR?: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4245 >>> >>> >>> >>> >? It would be illegal to release that mosquito into the wild? self >>> styled guardians of morality are already calling for a moratorium on the >>> use of this ? If that's morality then I'm proud to be immoral. >>> >>> >>> >>> >?John K Clark >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> If any lab anywhere finds this, there is no way to stop it using legal >>> means. Anyone working at that lab could come to the same decision you (and >>> I) did, then secretly release them. There would be no way to prove >>> whodunnit and even if you somehow got a confession, I doubt anything >>> serious would come of it. They will get loose. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let?s hope for the best, with confidence in this particular case. >>> >>> >>> >>> spike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 atymes at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 18:37:54 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:37:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality In-Reply-To: References: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:05 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> >I just have one question about the mosquitoes: what species will go extinct if all the mosquitoes disappear? >> >> A male mosquito will normally not mate with a female of a different species and even if they do it will not produce viable offspring, if they did then it wouldn't be a different species because that is the very definition of a species. There are about 3500 species of mosquitoes but only 40 carry malaria. >> >> John K Clark > > Senior moment here: I meant the birds, bats, and whoever that depend on the mosquitoes for their main source of food. > > bill w Would the birds et al be able to subsist adequately on the remaining 3,460 species? And might those other species pick up the ability - does being able to carry malaria confer any evolutionary advantage? From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 23:43:00 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 19:43:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality In-Reply-To: References: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 2:41 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > > *Would the birds et al be able to subsist adequately on the remaining > 3,460 species? * Perhaps it would cause some harm if birds had only 3460 different types of mosquitoes to dine on rather than 3500, but I think more harm would be caused by 450,000 human beings dying every year from malaria. And remember, malaria is far from the only disease that insect is responsible for. > > *And might those other species pick up the ability -* > Maybe, but it that would take time and if it does happen we could deal with it the same way. > *> *does being able to carry malaria confer any evolutionary advantage? > Malaria is a parasite, it has a very complex life cycle and does neither the human or the mosquito any good. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 02:30:35 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:30:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gene Drive and morality In-Reply-To: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> References: <003b01d454db$e6376cb0$b2a64610$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:30 AM wrote: > > If any lab anywhere finds this, there is no way to stop it using legal > means. Anyone working at that lab could come to the same decision you (and > I) did, then secretly release them. There would be no way to prove > whodunnit and even if you somehow got a confession, I doubt anything > serious would come of it. They will get loose. > > > > Let?s hope for the best, with confidence in this particular case. > > > ### I also hope that somebody at the lab will have the guts to release the gene-drive mosquitoes in their African habitat but I am worried that the drive may not be sufficient to kill off all Anopheles gambiae. There is a big difference between killing a few hundred insects in a cage versus achieving a population-wide sweep in the wild. In the first case we have only a small risk of unusual mutations capable of circumventing the exon 5 functional restraint, and there is panmixis. In the latter there are trillions or quadrillions of A.gambiae, so the risk of mutations causing resistance to the drive is billions of times larger. Insects in the wild are not panmictic, which means that even if all insects infected by the gene drive die, there is a high chance that tiny isolated groups may avoid infection and then spread once all infected insects die off. Successful eradication of this species may require more than just a grad student opening a test tube with a couple of skeeters. You may need multi-gene drive drive to overcome rare mutations - I read an estimate of 5 gene drives working in parallel being theoretically sufficient to kill even very large populations. You may also need a monitoring program for re-emergence of the insects from refugia, and targeted deployment of additional infected insects to destroy such refugia before they manage to repopulate their full range. This would be similar to the smallpox eradication program. I hope it will happen. The prophecy of Saints Doudna and Zhang says: "We shall rise in righteous anger against the plague swarms thrown at us by our vicious creator, and we will grind them into the dust whence they came. Our enemies will dwindle before the weapons forged in the citadel-laboratory of the Imperial College. Our future will be bathed in numinous LED light, unmarred by flyspecks". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 02:51:17 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:51:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > *Don't repeat the words of our enemies. All what they say are lies.* >> > > That isn't true. A real pro at lying knows that the best lies are the > ones that tell part of the truth. > > ### A bit of truth in the service of deception is more like a lie, isn't it? If a liar mixes truth and lies in the service of his agenda, you cannot trust any single part of his statement. You need to seek an independent, trusted source and you must heavily discount everything the liar says. If Hitler says it's day, it doesn't mean it's actually night, it's just you need to look out the window to find truth. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 13:42:09 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:42:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: > > That isn't true. A real pro at lying knows that the best lies are the > ones that tell part of the truth. > > ### A bit of truth in the service of deception is more like a lie, isn't it? If a liar mixes truth and lies in the service of his agenda, you cannot trust any single part of his statement. You need to seek an independent, trusted source and you must heavily discount everything the liar says. If Hitler says it's day, it doesn't mean it's actually night, it's just you need to look out the window to find truth. Rafal So is the best strategy to regard everyone as a possible liar? We tend to judge by who it is, our relationship to them, whether they are trying to sell us things or ideas, and so on, and we may be not so good at judging those things. Our scientific stance is always to be skeptical. Maybe that is the best strategy in everyday life. Perhaps so. Would I lie to you? bill w On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> *Don't repeat the words of our enemies. All what they say are lies.* >>> >> >> That isn't true. A real pro at lying knows that the best lies are the >> ones that tell part of the truth. >> >> ### A bit of truth in the service of deception is more like a lie, isn't > it? > > If a liar mixes truth and lies in the service of his agenda, you cannot > trust any single part of his statement. You need to seek an independent, > trusted source and you must heavily discount everything the liar says. If > Hitler says it's day, it doesn't mean it's actually night, it's just you > need to look out the window to find truth. > > Rafal > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Sep 28 03:22:49 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 23:22:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] article highly recommended In-Reply-To: References: <002701d44300$679adb90$36d092b0$@rainier66.com> <201809022208.w82M8XcY009863@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:42 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > >> So is the best strategy to regard everyone as a possible liar? We tend > to judge by who it is, our relationship to them, whether they are trying to > sell us things or ideas, and so on, and we may be not so good at judging > those things. > ### In a political arena? Yes, of course, until you know they are an actual liar. In low-stakes games a bit of starry-eyed optimism regarding each other's virtue may be reasonable, though. ---------------------------------- > Our scientific stance is always to be skeptical. Maybe that is the best > strategy in everyday life. Perhaps so. Would I lie to you? > ### With enough at stake, you would. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Sep 28 21:24:58 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 16:24:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two Message-ID: 1968 - finished my course work and got a job teaching summer school. Had to have a master's degree before they would hire me in the fall. I taught for the first time ever, and was so nervous that I wrote out my lectures word for word (2 hour classes 6 times a week) and finished the master's. Whew. Have not been that busy since (nor have written out lectures). Am reading '1968' by Kurlansky to find out what I missed - student riots all over the world, Republican convention in Chicago where the protesters were beaten (along with everyone there, especially journalists with cameras). The police actually went to the 9th floor of a hotel, woke up some protesters, and beat them!! So anyway, fascinating book - highly recommended - worldwide coverage (you won't believe what the Mexicans did to put down protest at the Summer Olympics - the one where two black men - Americans - raised their fists in black gloves in protest). Here's the thought: police all over the world attacked journalists and smashed cameras in a effort to stop images of brutality. Now technology has changed all of that: can you imagine how many cell phones would be held up taking videos if something like that happened now? Along the same lines; hackers have opened up government some with their hacking, and put some sunlight into what the gov. is doing. Loss of personal privacy does not bother me like it does many. But loss of government privacy is a great and wonderful thing. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 15:15:52 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 10:15:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> I?m not bothered by the thought of loss of privacy? as long as it is some far distance, nameless, faceless government official. Or, more realistically, a computer program. What I would object to is if local enforcement, or people I know were given that same information. Not because I?ve done anything wrong, but because it would lead to embarrassing questions about my religious faith, sexuality, and identity, as well as my political, social, and moral positions. Where I live (and probably anywhere I lived) my personal thoughts and opinions on these things are probably not welcome. SR Ballard > On Sep 28, 2018, at 4:24 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > 1968 - finished my course work and got a job teaching summer school. Had to have a master's degree before they would hire me in the fall. I taught for the first time ever, and was so nervous that I wrote out my lectures word for word (2 hour classes 6 times a week) and finished the master's. Whew. Have not been that busy since (nor have written out lectures). > > Am reading '1968' by Kurlansky to find out what I missed - student riots all over the world, Republican convention in Chicago where the protesters were beaten (along with everyone there, especially journalists with cameras). The police actually went to the 9th floor of a hotel, woke up some protesters, and beat them!! > > So anyway, fascinating book - highly recommended - worldwide coverage (you won't believe what the Mexicans did to put down protest at the Summer Olympics - the one where two black men - Americans - raised their fists in black gloves in protest). > > Here's the thought: police all over the world attacked journalists and smashed cameras in a effort to stop images of brutality. > > Now technology has changed all of that: can you imagine how many cell phones would be held up taking videos if something like that happened now? > > Along the same lines; hackers have opened up government some with their hacking, and put some sunlight into what the gov. is doing. > > Loss of personal privacy does not bother me like it does many. But loss of government privacy is a great and wonderful thing. > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 29 15:34:25 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:34:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> References: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> Message-ID: <003301d45809$e77b6280$b6722780$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard Subject: Re: [ExI] just a thought or two >?What I would object to is if local enforcement, or people I know were given that same information. Not because I?ve done anything wrong, but because it would lead to embarrassing questions about my religious faith, sexuality, and identity, as well as my political, social, and moral positions. Where I live (and probably anywhere I lived) my personal thoughts and opinions on these things are probably not welcome. SR Ballard >>?Here's the thought: police all over the world attacked journalists and smashed cameras in a effort to stop images of brutality?.bill w _______________________________________________ Law enforcement and government already has everything that is public. My take on it is that our own former ExI poster Julian Assange was absolutely right: transparency is the best disinfectant. Now we have all these new tools to help fight crime, which can also be in government and law enforcement. Consider the case of Carter Page, where the FBI got a warrant to open his email on questionable evidence. As far as I know there has been no legal consequences for that (certainly consequences, but the perpetrators have not been indicted as far as I know.) Unlike any time in history, we get to see the inner workings as all that plays out, and we understand the importance of limiting the scope of government, in order to prevent corruption due to excess power. I am good with transparency: I will show them my life, all of it that is public. In return they must hold to the limits imposed by the constitution. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 16:15:40 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 17:15:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: <003301d45809$e77b6280$b6722780$@rainier66.com> References: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> <003301d45809$e77b6280$b6722780$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 16:37, spike wrote: > > Law enforcement and government already has everything that is public. My take on it is that our own former ExI poster Julian Assange was absolutely right: transparency is the best disinfectant. > > Now we have all these new tools to help fight crime, which can also be in government and law enforcement. Consider the case of Carter Page, where the FBI got a warrant to open his email on questionable evidence. As far as I know there has been no legal consequences for that (certainly consequences, but the perpetrators have not been indicted as far as I know.) > > Unlike any time in history, we get to see the inner workings as all that plays out, and we understand the importance of limiting the scope of government, in order to prevent corruption due to excess power. > > I am good with transparency: I will show them my life, all of it that is public. In return they must hold to the limits imposed by the constitution. > Too many laws makes too many criminals. Quote: There are so many regulations and criminal statutes on the books that a civil-liberties expert and lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, thinks that the average American commits three felonies a day, and they often are not even aware they are breaking the law. That is, not until a federal agency begins an investigation and they are indicted. ----- Look at the Kavanaugh circus. Apart from the three felonies per day, everyone has incidents from their 'wild-oats' period that must never be mentioned. Especially if social mores have changed over the years so that previous OK actions have now become violently non-PC. They are even disapproving famous people from centuries ago because they didn't conform to modern standards. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 16:28:27 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 11:28:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: References: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> <003301d45809$e77b6280$b6722780$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: They are even disapproving famous people from centuries ago because they didn't conform to modern standards. bill k I was chided awhile back for using modern morals to judge Odysseus. While he may have been a hero at the time, killing all the men, raping all the women, enslaving all the children in the villages he raided should be great crimes in any era. And poor Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress and partner in creating several children. It maybe was custom at the time to use slaves any way you wanted, but now - nope. I do think he should be forgiven for not freeing his slaves. He had put his estate and family into deep debt and probably could not bring himself to just give away all that money. And while George Washington did free his slaves, a bit of digging shows that his attitude towards slaves was terrible by modern standards (one in particular, if you know that story about a slave who ran away from him). The question Bill K raises: is one set of morals in some way better than another? I say, of course. bill w On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:19 AM BillK wrote: > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 16:37, spike wrote: > > > > Law enforcement and government already has everything that is public. > My take on it is that our own former ExI poster Julian Assange was > absolutely right: transparency is the best disinfectant. > > > > Now we have all these new tools to help fight crime, which can also be > in government and law enforcement. Consider the case of Carter Page, where > the FBI got a warrant to open his email on questionable evidence. As far > as I know there has been no legal consequences for that (certainly > consequences, but the perpetrators have not been indicted as far as I know.) > > > > Unlike any time in history, we get to see the inner workings as all that > plays out, and we understand the importance of limiting the scope of > government, in order to prevent corruption due to excess power. > > > > I am good with transparency: I will show them my life, all of it that is > public. In return they must hold to the limits imposed by the constitution. > > > > > Too many laws makes too many criminals. > > Quote: > There are so many regulations and criminal statutes on the books that > a civil-liberties expert and lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, thinks that > the average American commits three felonies a day, and they often are > not even aware they are breaking the law. That is, not until a federal > agency begins an investigation and they are indicted. > ----- > > Look at the Kavanaugh circus. Apart from the three felonies per day, > everyone has incidents from their 'wild-oats' period that must never > be mentioned. Especially if social mores have changed over the years > so that previous OK actions have now become violently non-PC. > > They are even disapproving famous people from centuries ago because > they didn't conform to modern standards. > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 16:35:23 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 11:35:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ancient demon Message-ID: In many places in the world for a very long time, people thought that demons invading the body were responsible for a variety of ills. The 'therapy' was to cause the person so much pain that the demon would go and find a better place to live. Hence the terms 'beat the hell out of', or 'beat the devil out of'. After nearly 40 years of backaches, I am pain free, or nearly so. Physical therapists, chiropractors, massage therapists, orthopedic surgeons (one surgery) - all have had their chances at my back and failed, except that last physical therapist. What he did was to make me want to kill him painfully. He worked at the knots in my back until I literally screamed (maybe that was the demon giving up and leaving), then told me to buy a baseball and sit or lie on it when I had a sore spot on my rear end. "No pain no gain" he said. (A tennis ball, suggested by many, is far too soft.) And it is a lot of pain to lie on that thing for 10 minutes. So I did, and greatly extended the time spent doing stretches. I have not had any serious pain since then, nearly two months. I use the TENS unit a bit in the evenings. Most of the time I feel no pain at all. I should be crying with joy. All this time and money and effort and the solution was simple to start with (though I still have to go to the chiropractor to straighten out my hips, which get rotated because of the scoliosis, and cause the knots in the first place). For all those years mainly I have wanted to just sit in my chair with ice and maybe the TENS unit and read. Now I am free to do things and hardly know what to do with myself. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Sep 29 17:32:56 2018 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 10:32:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New Book: "Transhumanism" - Need Layout Person re Amazon CreateSpace Message-ID: <011901d4581a$75b00190$611004b0$@natasha.cc> Hi All - I have a strict end-point to layout and print a new book on Transhumanism. It is written, but I need help to format it at Amazon CreateSpace. If you have experience with CreateSpace, please contact me right away. This is a paying job, so you will receive a few bucks plus credit in the book. The book is short - a 101, basics and there are graphics. Short, concise and visual. Thank you! Natasha Dr. Natasha Vita-More Executive Director, Humanity+, Inc. Author and Co-Editor: The Transhumanist Reader Lead Science Researcher: Memory Project Professor, Graduate and Undergraduate Departments, UAT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 29366 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1134 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 978 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 884 bytes Desc: not available URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 19:45:16 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 12:45:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: References: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> <003301d45809$e77b6280$b6722780$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: > On Sep 29, 2018, at 9:15 AM, BillK wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 16:37, spike wrote: >> >> Law enforcement and government already has everything that is public. My take on it is that our own former ExI poster Julian Assange was absolutely right: transparency is the best disinfectant. >> >> Now we have all these new tools to help fight crime, which can also be in government and law enforcement. Consider the case of Carter Page, where the FBI got a warrant to open his email on questionable evidence. As far as I know there has been no legal consequences for that (certainly consequences, but the perpetrators have not been indicted as far as I know.) >> >> Unlike any time in history, we get to see the inner workings as all that plays out, and we understand the importance of limiting the scope of government, in order to prevent corruption due to excess power. >> >> I am good with transparency: I will show them my life, all of it that is public. In return they must hold to the limits imposed by the constitution. > > Too many laws makes too many criminals. > > Quote: > There are so many regulations and criminal statutes on the books that > a civil-liberties expert and lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, thinks that > the average American commits three felonies a day, and they often are > not even aware they are breaking the law. That is, not until a federal > agency begins an investigation and they are indicted. > ----- > > Look at the Kavanaugh circus. Apart from the three felonies per day, > everyone has incidents from their 'wild-oats' period that must never > be mentioned. Especially if social mores have changed over the years > so that previous OK actions have now become violently non-PC. Regarding Kavanaugh, though, presuming Ford?s allegations were true, I don?t think in the early 1980s it was socially acceptable for a 17 year old boy to pin a 15 year old girl down, grope her, grind against her, and try to keep her silent while doing it. I bet if her father or responsible adults were in the room ? again, presuming Ford?s allegations were true ? back then I don?t they would?ve said, ?He?s just being a normal healthy boy,? and not interfered. > They are even disapproving famous people from centuries ago because > they didn't conform to modern standards. I don?t believe it?s always wrong to hold famous people from prior ages to current standards. Nor do I expect everyone else to adopt historical relativism with regard to us now. However, there are cases where ignorance influence outcomes. Even so, many famous cases can be easily analyzed not do much by some current supposedly universal standard but by looking at the total context of the times and also considering what seem to be universal standards like ?cruelty and viciousness are wrong? (which seems a tenet of most times, no?). To take two examples: Jefferson and Thomas More. Jefferson?s owning slavery was pretty bad because he both knew better and there were plenty of others in his society who didn?t hold slaves. Thus, he both knew it was wrong and had examples of other people putting the anti-slavery view into practice. (It seems to me that many of the Founders who kept slaves let financial incentives (Jefferson, for instance, has a lavish lifestyle) override ethics ? well, the ones who believed slavery was wrong at least.) The Jefferson case is more complicated not just because of Sally Hemings, he failed to carry out Ko?ciuszko?s will to free slaves and also seemed to have no problem hiring harsh overseers and treating his slaves as mere capital. See the work of Henry Wiencek on this. More?s case was well-treated by James Wood (not Woods;). More seems to have been also behind the curve ? not a religion tolerationist despite having both a humanist education and plenty of exemplars of such tolerance to choose from. Thus, I agree with Wood: he was worse than the historical context we find him placed in. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 29 21:55:13 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:55:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: References: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> <003301d45809$e77b6280$b6722780$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001401d4583f$1a02ebd0$4e08c370$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan >...Regarding Kavanaugh, though, presuming Ford?s allegations were true... >...Regards, >...Dan This is the real question: if an accusation without corroborating evidence is presumed true, does not this presume guilt of the accused? If we presume guilt, we throw out centuries of legal precedent and find ourselves right back where we left off with the witch trials. spike From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 22:35:17 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 15:35:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: <001401d4583f$1a02ebd0$4e08c370$@rainier66.com> References: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> <003301d45809$e77b6280$b6722780$@rainier66.com> <001401d4583f$1a02ebd0$4e08c370$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <71D7025B-65C4-4FC0-B4A2-9F0220542033@gmail.com> > On Sep 29, 2018, at 2:55 PM, wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan >> ...Regarding Kavanaugh, though, presuming Ford?s allegations were true... > >> ...Regards, > >> ...Dan > > > This is the real question: if an accusation without corroborating evidence is presumed true, does not this presume guilt of the accused? > > If we presume guilt, we throw out centuries of legal precedent and find ourselves right back where we left off with the witch trials. Wrong interpretation of my point and of the Kavanaugh hearings. On the former, there are literally thousands of years of arguing an issue by simply presuming for the sake of argument a premise is true and seeing where it leads. Did you even read my entire post? I was responding to judging someone by standards of their time ? the time in question being the early 1980s. On the hearing itself, it?s not a courtroom where he?s being tried. At best, it?s a job interview. In job interviews ? and I?ve been on both sides of the interviewing process ? generally the onus is on the interviewee. So it doesn?t analogies to a court trial. (Of course, this doesn?t mean any wild claim should knock an interviewee out, but it?s not a courtroom and he?s not going to jail if he doesn?t get the appointment ? just like the people I?ve rejected for hiring didn?t end up in prison.) All of this said, let?s presume Kavanaugh is completely innocent and go further to completely disregard Ford and anyone else who might come forward. Kavanaugh should be thrown out as a potential justice because of his stance on the Fourth Amendment ? where he seems enthralled with executive power. (In particular, see https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-fourth-amendment-blind/ ) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 23:37:42 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:37:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: References: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> <003301d45809$e77b6280$b6722780$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:48 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > *Regarding Kavanaugh, though, presuming Ford?s allegations were true,* I thought Ford's testimony was far more credible than Kavanaugh's but I don't think his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so if this were a criminal trial and I was on the jury I'd vote not guilty, but if was a civil trial that requires only a preponderance of the evidence I'd vote guilty. And this is not a trial of any sort and the standard is even lower, nobody is trying to take away Kavanaugh's life or liberty or even his money, this is a job interview for a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the country, and I think it is appreciate to reject a person from receiving such a promotion unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are fit for the job. And Kavanaugh has certainly not done that. > *I don?t think in the early 1980s it was socially acceptable for a 17 > year old boy to pin a 15 year old girl down, grope her, grind against her, > and try to keep her silent while doing it.* I could not agree more! And in the early 1980s it was expected that a judge should have a judicial temperament and at at least a pretense of being even handed and nonpartisan, but we saw none of that on Thursday, what we saw was rage, tears, self pity, and a lunatic conspiracy theory about Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Democrats and Dr. Ford concocted the entire thing in a sinister plot as revenge for losing the 2016 election. But that is pretty much the sort of person I'd expect Donald Trump to pick to sit on the highest court in the land. By the way, after Thursday I have no difficulty believing Kavanaugh is a mean drunk. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 29 23:39:21 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 16:39:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: <71D7025B-65C4-4FC0-B4A2-9F0220542033@gmail.com> References: <274B3956-E531-4184-9681-3B1A517CBC98@gmail.com> <003301d45809$e77b6280$b6722780$@rainier66.com> <001401d4583f$1a02ebd0$4e08c370$@rainier66.com> <71D7025B-65C4-4FC0-B4A2-9F0220542033@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601d4584d$a5cd2c80$f1678580$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan >?All of this said, let?s presume Kavanaugh is completely innocent and go further to completely disregard Ford and anyone else who might come forward. Kavanaugh should be thrown out as a potential justice because of his stance on the Fourth Amendment ? where he seems enthralled with executive power. (In particular, see https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-fourth-amendment-blind/ ) >?Regards, >?Dan Ja, I think the reason Kavanaugh?s detractors didn?t go down that road is that they don?t want to stick up for the 4th amendment either. That one is currently under attack more than the usual first and second. As soon as the executive branch can overrule the 4th amendment, nothing stops the them from spying on political opponents under some flimsy excuse. Then government as we know it comes to an end. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: