From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jul 1 00:17:34 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 20:17:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Red and green qualia In-Reply-To: <003501d52f90$72a24190$57e6c4b0$@rainier66.com> References: <003001d52ecc$79cb7280$6d625780$@rainier66.com> <004201d52f05$cc3fc190$64bf44b0$@rainier66.com> <003501d52f90$72a24190$57e6c4b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 6:13 PM wrote: > Heh. > > *Wordplay is not only allowed on ExI, it is encouraged.* > Well in that case.... for several decades now I have had a list and whenever in my reading I ran across a line or anagram or even a couple of poems that I particularly like or would make for a good bumper sticker I added it to my list. This is that list, but now that you've taken that speed-reading course you've probably already finished reading it. *I could not fail to disagree with you less.To define recursion we must first define recursion.If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two data points.If God had meant for us to be naked, we would have been born that way.In English, every word can be verbed.Is this true or only clever?Justice: A decision in your favor.Know what I hate most? Rhetorical questions.Life is like an analogy.Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler. --EinsteinMy computer NEVER cras2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.I like my water diluted.Positive: Being mistaken at the top of your voice.Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.-Sigmund FreudThat was Zen; this is Tao.Help! I'm being held prisoner by my heredity and environment!Drawing on my fine command of the English language I said nothing. -Robert Benchley* *The days of the digital watch are numbered.Confusion is always the most honest response.There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they startThe generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.The universe is surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.There are many kinds of people in the world. Are you one of them?If you have something important to say for God's sake start at the end.There is no bottom to worse.Things are more like they are now than they have ever been. -Gerald Ford.They laughed when I said I'd be a comedian. They aren't laughing now.This aphorism would be seven words long if it were six words shorter.This sentence no verb.Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.To study a subject best, understand it thoroughly before you start.Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it is just the opposite.* *To be, or not to be, those are the parameters.Very few profundities can be expressed in less than 80 characters.We need either less corruption or more chance to participate in it.What this country needs is more leaders who know what this country needs.What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.What if there were no hypothetical situations?When you've seen one non-sequitur, the price of tea in China.Why don't "minimalists" find a shorter name for themselves?Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?Why did the Tachyon cross the road? Because it was on the other side.Why isn't "phonetic" spelled the way it's said?After all is said and done, usually more is said.Anyone who makes an absolute statement is a fool.Can you think of another word for "synonym"?Black holes are where God divided by zero...But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?Don't just DO something, STAND THERE!Visualize whirled peas.Everyone is entitled to my opinion.I avoid clich?s like the plague.I show a clear pattern of unpredictabilityI thought I was wrong once...but I was mistaken.I used to be indecisive but now I'm not sure.I'm a very modest person, and damn proud of it!Jesus saves sinners and redeems them for valuable prizes.The truth will be found when it is no longer needed.The universe is a figment of its own imagination.Time exists so that everything doesn't happen all at once.Give me ambiguity or give me something else.Stop Plate Tectonics!My brother was an only child.Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out.The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.Twenty per cent of Zero is Better than Nothing.Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you find a rock. -Will Rogers* *Quantum particles: The dreams that stuff is made of.Never forget what you need to remember.It's better to keep your mouth shut and give the impression of stupidly than to open it and remove all doubt.* *Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy. -George Bernard Shaw* *Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis. -Ralph Waldo EmersonBlack holes suck.Closed Captioned in HEX for Programmers.Circular Definition: see Definition, Circular.Consider it considered!Consistency: The last refuge of the unimaginativeDON'T READ THIS!!!Drive Offensively!Floggings will continue until morale improves.186000 miles a second: it's not just a good idea, it's the law!Hard Work never killed anyone, but why chance it?I have NOT lost my mind, it's here on disk somewhere...Moderation in everything, including moderation.I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.I'll never forget what's-his-name.If you can't say it in 50 characters, then don't bI'm more humble than you are!If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.Illiterate? Write for information!Is it ok to panic now?It's not a bug, it's a feature.Life is the ultimate IQ test.Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.Life would be easier if I had God's source code.Martyrdom is the oldest way of achieving fame without ability.Most of us don't sell out because nobody wants to buy.Most people work just hard enough not to get fired and get paid just enough money not to quit.* *Murder is a crime. Describing murder is not. Sex is not a crime. Describing sex is.* *My greatest fear is that one of the candidates will win.Is Life is based on a true story?Never let your willpower get the best of you.Advice to doctors: Never say, "Oops!" always say "Ah, interesting!"Never underestimate the power of a platitude.93.7% of all statistics are made up.One doesn't need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad.Ninety percent of the people in any group think they're in the top ten percent.* *No matter where you go, there you are.I know of no law of logic that demands every event have a cause.Things like that could give hypocrisy a bad name.Sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue.Not many people realize just how well known I am.Oh no, not another learning experience!On a scale of 1 to 10, 4 is about a 7.One picture had better be worth a thousand words, it takes up a lot more disk space.* *Only fools are certain; it takes wisdom to be confused.Palindrome isn't one.People who are late are happier than those who have to wait for them.People who think they know everything are the easiest to fool.Physics and law enforcement: If it weren't for them, I'd be unstoppable.Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money.* *REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)Rebooting your brain can be tricky.Recent polls reveal that some people have never been polled.Right theory, wrong universe.* *Science seeks to make theories that are so beautiful that Nature is flattered and acquiesces.* *Strip mining prevents forest fires!Sometimes I feel like a figment of my own imagination.Sometimes the only solution is to find a new problem.Sometimes the truth can be so unnecessary.A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.Man is certainly stark mad. He can't make a worm but he makes gods by the dozens. ? Montaigne* *A little greed can get you lots of stuff.A little inaccuracy saves tons of explanation.All generalizations are false.Always remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation, or creed. - Bertrand Russell* *Most people would sooner die than think; in fact they do so. - Bertrand Russell* *I'm not afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens. - Woody Allen* *Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow. - Oscar WildCabbage: A vegetable about as large and wise as a man's head. - Ambrose Bierce* *Egotist: A person more interested in himself than me. - Ambrose BierceDon't be humble. You're not that great. - Golda MeirWise men make proverbs but fools repeat them.There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it. - CiceroTell the truth and run.Always remember to pillage BEFORE you burn.One murder makes a villain, a million murders makes a hero.Only the mediocre are always at their best.* *Why is there only one antitrust division?I always wanted to be a procrastinator, never got around to it.If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.* *I'm not breaking the rules, I'm just testing their elasticity.I'm not even going to ignore that.Is "tired old clich?" one?It would be nice if entropy could be used for something constructive.I've told you MILLIONS of times, don't exaggerate!God not only plays dice He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen.* *You can't frighten me, I'm a coward, I'm always scared.Your idea is crazy but nor crazy enough to be true. Neils BohrAnyone who is not shocked by quantum mechanics does not understand it. Neils Bohr* *You are not thinking you are mealy being logical. Bohr to EinsteinI think it's safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman* *The great thing about Entropy is that it requires no maintenance.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. AC ClarkeThe Bill of Rights goes too far, it should have stopped at "Congress shall make no law."* *The hardest thing about time travel is the grammar.The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.The universe does not have laws -- it has habits. And habits can be broken.The Universe is a big place . . . perhaps the biggest.Predicting is hard, especially the future.The weather is here. Wish you were beautiful.This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -Wolfgang PauliWar doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.Wasting time is an important part of living.We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.What color is a chameleon on a mirror?What's another word for "thesaurus?"When ideas fail, words come in very handy.When you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.Writing is easy. All you have to do is cross out all the wrong words. --Mark Twain* *Man is the only animal who blushes, or needs to. - Mark TwainReports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Mark TwainI was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said I don't know. - Mark Twain* *Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain* *Faith is believing what you know ain't so. -Mark TwainWagner's music is better than it sounds.It takes about ten years to get used to how old you are.I was born in Australia because my mother wanted to be near me.God was satisfied with his own work and that is fatal. -Samuel ButlerWhy attack God? He may be as miserable as we are. -Erik SatieChrist died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer* *I've tried relaxing but I feel more comfortable tense.You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Al Capone* *Vote early, vote often. -Al CaponeYou can't be a figment of my imagination, I'd have done a better job.You can't have everything. Where would you put it?You could be replaced by an infinite number of monkeys.You never know until you find out.Nothing is difficult if you know how.You're not as real as you think you are.You're not right. You just SOUND right.Of course that's a worst case scenario, the effect could be much more localized and just destroy the galaxy.* *What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.Time is just one damn thing after another.Why is there something rather than nothing?A good scapegoat is almost as good as a solution.All Extremists should be shot!All that glitters has a high refractive index.All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.Whose cruel idea was it to put an S in the word Lisp?Avoid unnecessary, inessential and needless repetition and redundancy.I want to be a rebel just like everybody else.In religion everything that is not mandatory is forbidden.Heisenberg slept here, I think.Help wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply.I intend to live forever -- so far, so good!I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.Inertia makes the world go round.It is my patriotic duty to conserve energy so I do, I conserve angular momentum too.* *Individualists of the world, UNITE!It is bad luck to be superstitious.Life is sexually transmitted.Why are there 5 syllables in the word monosyllabic?Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.Things are not only stranger than we think but stranger than we can think.A camel is a horse designed by a committee.A conservative is a worshipper of dead radicals.A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.A liberal is a conservative who's been drafted.The good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others.People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either of them being made.* *If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. - Carl Sagan* *Entropy: Not just a fad, it's the future!A vibration is a motion that can't make up its mind which way it wants to go.* *It might look like I'm doing nothing, but at the cellular level I'm really quite busy.* *The Three Laws Of Thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game.* *Particle physicists can never hold a meeting, whenever they decide on a place they can't agree on a time.* *A red sign on the door of a physics professor: 'If this sign is blue, you're going too fast.'* *Little Johnny was a scientist. Little Johnny is no more. For what he thought was H2O was H2SO4.* *If the phone doesn't ring it's me.Most of our future lies ahead.How can there be self-help GROUPS?Where do forest rangers go to 'get away from it all?'If you're in hell and you're mad at someone, where do you tell them to go?Practice makes perfect, but if nobody's perfect, why practice?If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?Why Do kamikaze pilots wear helmets?Why is it considered necessary to nail down the lid of a coffin?How can someone draw a blank?When sign makers go on strike, is anything written on their signs?Where did Webster look up the definitions when he wrote his book?What the heck is a near-miss? If you nearly miss something, don't you hit it?* *How do you get off a non-stop flight?If I'm here on earth to help others, what are the others here for?Why does bottled water have an expiration date?We have to believe in free will. We have no choice.An eternity is very, very long time, especially towards the end.The meaning of life is to give life meaning.Agnostic Prayer: Oh God if there is a God save my soul if I have a soul.To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.Define the Universe and give three examples.I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality by not dying. - Woody Allen* *Ever notice that 'What the hell' is always the right decision? - Marilyn Monroe* *When I was born I was so surprised I couldn't talk for a year and a half. - Gracie Allen* *Sincerity is the key. If you can fake that, you've got it made. - George BurnsA thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it. - Oscar WildeOnly the shallow know themselves. - Oscar WildeI no longer wish to belong to the kind of club that accepts people like me as members" - Groucho Marx* *I am not a vegetarian because I love animals. I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. - A. Whitney Brown* *Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. - Napoleon Bonaparte* *Glory is fleeting but obscurity is forever. - Napoleon BonaparteNot everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein* *I'm not confused, I'm well mixed. -Robert FrostAs the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance. - John Wheeler* *God is real... unless declared an integer.We all have the strength to endure the misfortunes of others.A good deed never goes unpunished. - Gore VidalThere is no problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise. - Gore Vidal* *Never have children, only grandchildren. - Gore VidalEvery time a friend succeeds, I die a little. - Gore VidalThough I am not naturally honest I am so sometimes by chance. - William Shakespeare* *The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. - William ShakespeareI wish people who have trouble communicating would just shut up. -Tom Lehrer* *Toots Shor's restaurant is so crowed nobody goes there anymore. - Yogi Berra* *I really didn't say everything I said. -Yogi BerraI don't care what's written about me as long as it isn't true. - Dorothy Parker* *I am a deeply superficial person. -Andy WarholIf Jesus was Jewish, how come he has a Mexican name?Every generation laughs at the old fashions but religiously follows the new. -Henry David Thoreau* *Thank God men cannot as yet fly and lay waste the sky as well as the earth! -Henry David Thoreau* *Men have become tools of their tools. -Henry David ThoreauThe object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. -George Patton* *Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union. -Joseph StalinThe way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets. John D Rockefeller* *There will be a rain dance Friday, weather permitting. -George CarlinSome mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. -Emo Philips* *No more good must be attempted than the public can bear. -Thomas Jefferson* *A politician is a man who approaches every problem with an open mouth. -Adlai Stevenson* *If Roosevelt were alive today he's turn over in his grave. -Samuel GoldwinYou can be sincere and still be stupid.Prejudices save time.Voters want a fraud they can believe in.Man was predestined to have free will.Reality is a collective hunch.Everything changes but the avant garde.Never miss a good chance to shut up.Never get into fights with ugly people, they have nothing to lose.The world is run by C students.A productive drunk is the bane of moralists.University politics is vicious precisely because the stakes are so small. -Henry Kissinger* *Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. -Henry Kissinger* *The nice thing about being a celebrity is that if you bore people they think it's their fault. -Henry Kissinger* *Ninety percent of everything is crap. -Theodore SturgeonNonviolence is fine as long as it works. -Malcolm XIf I had more time I would write a shorter letter. -Blaise PascalTalk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots to do and not doing it.* *Hope is the feeling you have that the feeling you have isn't permanent.You can't measure time in days the same way you can measure money in dollars because every day is different.* *"Shut up" he explained. -Ring Lardner"Hello" he lied. What is true is what I can't help believing. -Oliver Wendell HolmesI was probably the only revolutionary ever referred to as "cute". -Abbie Hoffman* *I don't trust him. We're friends. -Bertolt BrechtIs sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care. -William Safire* *If this is coffee please bring me some tea; but if this is tea please bring me some coffee. -Abraham Lincoln* *Folks that have no vices have very few virtues. -Abraham LincolnForgive your enemies, but never forget their names. -John F KennedyCoincidences are spiritual puns. -G K ChestertonA bore is someone who, when you ask him how he is, tells you.* *Plato was a bore. -Friedrich NietzscheNietzsche was stupid and abnormal. -Leo TolstoyTolstoy's book are loose baggy monsters. -Henry JamesHenry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty. -Oscar Wilde* *If you want to look young and thin hang around old fat people.There are very few people who don't become more interesting when they stop talking.* *It matters not whether you win or lose; what matters is whether I win or lose.* *Thank you for sending me a copy of your book. I'll waste no time reading it.I have read your book and much like it.When in doubt have two guys come through the door with guns. -Raymond Chandler* *Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung. -VoltaireOriginality is the art of concealing your sources.Use an accordion, go to jail, that's the law!Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism.Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.He's as sharp as a beach ball.She's as shapely as a sack full of door knobs.I once heard the voice of God. He said "Vrrrrmmmmm." Unless it was just a lawn mower.* *My neighbor has a circular driveway... He can't get out.I'm writing an unauthorized autobiography.I bought some powdered water, but I didn't know what to add.I have a map of the united states in its original size, one mile equals one mile.* *I bought a house, on a one-way dead-end road; I don't know how I got there.* *There was a power outage at a department store yesterday, twenty people were trapped on the escalators.* *I bought some used paint. It was in the shape of a house.My friend has a baby. I'm writing down all the noises he makes so later I can ask him what he meant.* *I'm so tired...I was up all night trying to round off infinity.Irrationality is the square root of all evil.At the last costume party I didn't go to, I went as the Invisible Man.Honk if your horn is broken.I like rarely used clich?s.Before I begin speaking, there is something I would like to say.Half the lies they tell about me are true.Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is called John.Having lost sight of our goal, we must redouble our efforts!This species has always been extinct.Monism is the theory that anything less than everything is nothing.* *Authorized parking is forbidden!A formalist is one who cannot understand a theory unless it is meaningless.Every once in a while it never stops raining.What is the question that contains the word cantaloupe for no apparent reason?* *The Universe may be as great as they say, but it wouldn't be missed if it didn't exist.* *If somebody loves you, love them back unconditionally.Break every rule.Computers are like lynxes in the sense that I cannot think of a suitable analogy for either of them right now.* *All true mathematical equations are tautologies.I don't think I'm not sure but I'm not certain.I think I don't remember.What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our mode of questioning. - Werner Heisenberg* *Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability.- Werner Heisenberg* *Real is what can be measured.- Max PlanckThe microscope can see things the naked eye cannot, but the reverse is equally true.* *So then who created god?Chastity is not heritable.Chastity is no more a virtue than malnutrition. -Alex ComfortIs man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's? -Friedrich NietzscheO Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet. -St. AugustineThe reason lightning never strikes twice in the same place is that the same place isn't there the second time.* *Silence is argument carried on by other means. - Ghe GuevaraNever jump on a man unless he's down.Before they made him they broke the mold.The average person thinks he isn't.He had a God given killer instinct.Have a nice day. Thank you but I have other plans. SELF REFERENCEHofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.* *Yes, but what if this weren't a rhetorical question?This sentqence contains exactly three erors."Playing with the use-mention distinction" isn't "everything in life, you know".* *In order to make sense of "this sentence", you will have to ignore the quotes in "it".* *"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.* *Disobey this command.I am the thought you are now thinking.This inert sentence is my body, but my soul is alive, dancing in the sparks of your brain.* *Do you think anybody has ever had precisely this thought before?And you up there -- are you the person writing me, or the person reading me?* *As long as you are not reading me, the fourth word of this sentence has no referent.* *Thit sentence is not self-referential because "thit" is not a word.I had to translate this sentence into English because I could not read the original Sanskrit.* *What would this sentence be like if it were not self-referential?What would this sentence be like if pi were 3?This sentence is not about itself, but about whether it is about itself.because I didn't think of a good beginning for it.I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.This sentence will end before you can say "This sentence will end before you can say* *Does this sentence make you think of dancing midget nazis?I'll tell you how do you keep a reader in suspenseThis is not a self-referential sentence.Has eighteen letters.This sentence refers to every sentence that does not refer to itself.If the meanings of "true" and "false" were switched, then this sentence wouldn't be false.* *In this sentence, the concluding three words "were left out".Although this sentence begins with the word "because", it is false.When you're not looking at it, this sentence is in Spanish.* *No article on self-reference would be complete without including a good example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. PALINDROMESStressed? No tips? Spit on desserts!A man, a plan, a canal: Panama!Did I draw Della too tall, Edward? I did?Do geese see god?Dogma: I am God.Evade me, Dave.Dennis sinned."Do nine men interpret?" "Nine men," I nod.Evil I did dwell, lewd did I live.Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog.Goddam mad dog!Let O'Hara gain an inn in a Niagara hotelMadam in Eden, I'm Adam.Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.Never odd or even.Murder for a jar of red rum.Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas!No, it is open on one position.Must sell at tallest sum.Sis, ask Costner to not rent socks "as is"!Sit on a potato pan, Otis.Poor Dan is in a droop.Rise, Sir Lapdog! Revolt, lover! God, pal, rise, sir!So many dynamos.Step on no pets.Straw? No, too stupid a fad; I put soot on warts.Was it a car or a cat I saw?Yawn a more Roman way!Yawn--Madonna fan? No damn way! ANAGRAMSa decimal point = I'm a dot in placeastronomer = moon starercircumstantial evidence = can ruin a selected victimdesperation = a rope ends itdormitory = dirty roomPresident Clinton of the USA = to copulate he finds internsPrincess Diana = end is a car spinRonald Wilson Reagan = Insane Anglo WarlordVictoria, England's Queen = governs a nice quiet landmother-in-law = woman Hitlerparishioners = I hire parsonsschoolmaster = the classroomfuneral = real funthe Morse code = here come dotsthe earthquakes = that queer shakeAlec Guinness = genuine classtwo plus eleven =one plus twelve POEMS UNCERTAINTY A Quantum Mechanic's vacation Left his colleagues in dire consternation Though tests had shown His speed was well known His position was pure speculation Miss. Bright There was a young lady named Bright Who traveled much faster than light She left one day In a relative way And returned the previous night* *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jul 1 01:56:16 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 20:56:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Red and green qualia In-Reply-To: References: <003001d52ecc$79cb7280$6d625780$@rainier66.com> <004201d52f05$cc3fc190$64bf44b0$@rainier66.com> <003501d52f90$72a24190$57e6c4b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: My suggestion: homosemantic bill w On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 7:21 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 6:13 PM wrote: > > > Heh. >> >> *Wordplay is not only allowed on ExI, it is encouraged.* >> > > Well in that case.... for several decades now I have had a list and > whenever in my reading I ran across a line or anagram or even a couple of > poems that I particularly like or would make for a good bumper sticker I > added it to my list. This is that list, but now that you've taken that > speed-reading course you've probably already finished reading it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *I could not fail to disagree with you less.To define recursion we must > first define recursion.If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two > data points.If God had meant for us to be naked, we would have been born > that way.In English, every word can be verbed.Is this true or only > clever?Justice: A decision in your favor.Know what I hate most? Rhetorical > questions.Life is like an analogy.Make things as simple as possible, but > not simpler. --EinsteinMy computer NEVER cras2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large > values of 2.I like my water diluted.Positive: Being mistaken at the top of > your voice.Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.-Sigmund FreudThat was Zen; > this is Tao.Help! I'm being held prisoner by my heredity and > environment!Drawing on my fine command of the English language I said > nothing. -Robert Benchley* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *The days of the digital watch are numbered.Confusion is always the most > honest response.There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they > startThe generation of random numbers is too important to be left to > chance.The universe is surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds > universes.There are many kinds of people in the world. Are you one of > them?If you have something important to say for God's sake start at the > end.There is no bottom to worse.Things are more like they are now than they > have ever been. -Gerald Ford.They laughed when I said I'd be a comedian. > They aren't laughing now.This aphorism would be seven words long if it were > six words shorter.This sentence no verb.Time is an illusion perpetrated by > the manufacturers of space.To study a subject best, understand it > thoroughly before you start.Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under > communism, it is just the opposite.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *To be, or not to be, those are the parameters.Very few profundities can > be expressed in less than 80 characters.We need either less corruption or > more chance to participate in it.What this country needs is more leaders > who know what this country needs.What is mind? No matter. What is matter? > Never mind.What if there were no hypothetical situations?When you've seen > one non-sequitur, the price of tea in China.Why don't "minimalists" find a > shorter name for themselves?Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?Why did > the Tachyon cross the road? Because it was on the other side.Why isn't > "phonetic" spelled the way it's said?After all is said and done, usually > more is said.Anyone who makes an absolute statement is a fool.Can you think > of another word for "synonym"?Black holes are where God divided by > zero...But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?Don't > just DO something, STAND THERE!Visualize whirled peas.Everyone is entitled > to my opinion.I avoid clich?s like the plague.I show a clear pattern of > unpredictabilityI thought I was wrong once...but I was mistaken.I used to > be indecisive but now I'm not sure.I'm a very modest person, and damn proud > of it!Jesus saves sinners and redeems them for valuable prizes.The truth > will be found when it is no longer needed.The universe is a figment of its > own imagination.Time exists so that everything doesn't happen all at > once.Give me ambiguity or give me something else.Stop Plate Tectonics!My > brother was an only child.Don't be so open minded that your brains fall > out.The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.It's > impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.Twenty > per cent of Zero is Better than Nothing.Diplomacy is the art of saying > "nice doggie" until you find a rock. -Will Rogers* > > > > > *Quantum particles: The dreams that stuff is made of.Never forget what you > need to remember.It's better to keep your mouth shut and give the > impression of stupidly than to open it and remove all doubt.* > > > > *Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.Patriotism is a pernicious, > psychopathic form of idiocy. -George Bernard Shaw* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis. -Ralph Waldo EmersonBlack > holes suck.Closed Captioned in HEX for Programmers.Circular Definition: see > Definition, Circular.Consider it considered!Consistency: The last refuge of > the unimaginativeDON'T READ THIS!!!Drive Offensively!Floggings will > continue until morale improves.186000 miles a second: it's not just a good > idea, it's the law!Hard Work never killed anyone, but why chance it?I have > NOT lost my mind, it's here on disk somewhere...Moderation in everything, > including moderation.I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.I'll never > forget what's-his-name.If you can't say it in 50 characters, then don't > bI'm more humble than you are!If we believe absurdities, we shall commit > atrocities.Illiterate? Write for information!Is it ok to panic now?It's not > a bug, it's a feature.Life is the ultimate IQ test.Lottery: A tax on people > who are bad at math.Life would be easier if I had God's source > code.Martyrdom is the oldest way of achieving fame without ability.Most of > us don't sell out because nobody wants to buy.Most people work just hard > enough not to get fired and get paid just enough money not to quit.* > > > *Murder is a crime. Describing murder is not. Sex is not a crime. > Describing sex is.* > > > > > > > > > *My greatest fear is that one of the candidates will win.Is Life is based > on a true story?Never let your willpower get the best of you.Advice to > doctors: Never say, "Oops!" always say "Ah, interesting!"Never > underestimate the power of a platitude.93.7% of all statistics are made > up.One doesn't need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad.Ninety percent > of the people in any group think they're in the top ten percent.* > > > > > > > > > > *No matter where you go, there you are.I know of no law of logic that > demands every event have a cause.Things like that could give hypocrisy a > bad name.Sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue.Not many people realize > just how well known I am.Oh no, not another learning experience!On a scale > of 1 to 10, 4 is about a 7.One picture had better be worth a thousand > words, it takes up a lot more disk space.* > > > > > > > > *Only fools are certain; it takes wisdom to be confused.Palindrome isn't > one.People who are late are happier than those who have to wait for > them.People who think they know everything are the easiest to fool.Physics > and law enforcement: If it weren't for them, I'd be unstoppable.Physics is > not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money.* > > > > > > *REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)Rebooting your brain can > be tricky.Recent polls reveal that some people have never been polled.Right > theory, wrong universe.* > > *Science seeks to make theories that are so beautiful that Nature is > flattered and acquiesces.* > > > > > > > > *Strip mining prevents forest fires!Sometimes I feel like a figment of my > own imagination.Sometimes the only solution is to find a new > problem.Sometimes the truth can be so unnecessary.A conclusion is simply > the place where you got tired of thinking.Man is certainly stark mad. He > can't make a worm but he makes gods by the dozens. ? Montaigne* > > > > > > > *A little greed can get you lots of stuff.A little inaccuracy saves tons > of explanation.All generalizations are false.Always remember that you are > unique, just like everyone else.Few people can be happy unless they hate > some other person, nation, or creed. - Bertrand Russell* > > > *Most people would sooner die than think; in fact they do so. - Bertrand > Russell* > > *I'm not afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens. - > Woody Allen* > > > *Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow. - Oscar WildCabbage: A > vegetable about as large and wise as a man's head. - Ambrose Bierce* > > > > > > > > > *Egotist: A person more interested in himself than me. - Ambrose > BierceDon't be humble. You're not that great. - Golda MeirWise men make > proverbs but fools repeat them.There is nothing so absurd but some > philosopher has said it. - CiceroTell the truth and run.Always remember to > pillage BEFORE you burn.One murder makes a villain, a million murders makes > a hero.Only the mediocre are always at their best.* > > > > > *Why is there only one antitrust division?I always wanted to be a > procrastinator, never got around to it.If you're not confused, you're not > paying attention.* > > > > > > *I'm not breaking the rules, I'm just testing their elasticity.I'm not > even going to ignore that.Is "tired old clich?" one?It would be nice if > entropy could be used for something constructive.I've told you MILLIONS of > times, don't exaggerate!God not only plays dice He sometimes throws them > where they can't be seen.* > > > > *You can't frighten me, I'm a coward, I'm always scared.Your idea is crazy > but nor crazy enough to be true. Neils BohrAnyone who is not shocked by > quantum mechanics does not understand it. Neils Bohr* > > > > *You are not thinking you are mealy being logical. Bohr to EinsteinI > think it's safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard > Feynman* > > > > > *The great thing about Entropy is that it requires no maintenance.Any > sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. AC > ClarkeThe Bill of Rights goes too far, it should have stopped at "Congress > shall make no law."* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *The hardest thing about time travel is the grammar.The Internet > interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.The universe does not > have laws -- it has habits. And habits can be broken.The Universe is a big > place . . . perhaps the biggest.Predicting is hard, especially the > future.The weather is here. Wish you were beautiful.This isn't right. This > isn't even wrong. -Wolfgang PauliWar doesn't determine who's right. War > determines who's left.Wasting time is an important part of living.We do not > see things as they are, we see things as we are.What color is a chameleon > on a mirror?What's another word for "thesaurus?"When ideas fail, words come > in very handy.When you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your > friend.Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that > song?Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.Writing is > easy. All you have to do is cross out all the wrong words. --Mark Twain* > > > > *Man is the only animal who blushes, or needs to. - Mark TwainReports of > my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Mark TwainI was gratified to be > able to answer promptly. I said I don't know. - Mark Twain* > > *Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But > I repeat myself. - Mark Twain* > > > > > > > > > *Faith is believing what you know ain't so. -Mark TwainWagner's music is > better than it sounds.It takes about ten years to get used to how old you > are.I was born in Australia because my mother wanted to be near me.God was > satisfied with his own work and that is fatal. -Samuel ButlerWhy attack > God? He may be as miserable as we are. -Erik SatieChrist died for our sins. > Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules > Feiffer* > > > > *I've tried relaxing but I feel more comfortable tense.You can get more > with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Al Capone* > > > > > > > > > > > *Vote early, vote often. -Al CaponeYou can't be a figment of my > imagination, I'd have done a better job.You can't have everything. Where > would you put it?You could be replaced by an infinite number of monkeys.You > never know until you find out.Nothing is difficult if you know how.You're > not as real as you think you are.You're not right. You just SOUND right.Of > course that's a worst case scenario, the effect could be much more > localized and just destroy the galaxy.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.Time is just one damn > thing after another.Why is there something rather than nothing?A good > scapegoat is almost as good as a solution.All Extremists should be shot!All > that glitters has a high refractive index.All those who believe in > psychokinesis raise my hand.Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.Whose cruel idea > was it to put an S in the word Lisp?Avoid unnecessary, inessential and > needless repetition and redundancy.I want to be a rebel just like everybody > else.In religion everything that is not mandatory is forbidden.Heisenberg > slept here, I think.Help wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply.I intend > to live forever -- so far, so good!I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.If we > aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?If you can't be > kind, at least have the decency to be vague.Inertia makes the world go > round.It is my patriotic duty to conserve energy so I do, I conserve > angular momentum too.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Individualists of the world, UNITE!It is bad luck to be > superstitious.Life is sexually transmitted.Why are there 5 syllables in the > word monosyllabic?Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.Things are not only > stranger than we think but stranger than we can think.A camel is a horse > designed by a committee.A conservative is a worshipper of dead radicals.A > conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.A liberal is a conservative > who's been drafted.The good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to > others.People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch > either of them being made.* > > > *If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the > universe. - Carl Sagan* > > > > *Entropy: Not just a fad, it's the future!A vibration is a motion that > can't make up its mind which way it wants to go.* > > *It might look like I'm doing nothing, but at the cellular level I'm > really quite busy.* > > *The Three Laws Of Thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, > you can't get out of the game.* > > > *Particle physicists can never hold a meeting, whenever they decide on a > place they can't agree on a time.* > > > *A red sign on the door of a physics professor: 'If this sign is blue, > you're going too fast.'* > > *Little Johnny was a scientist. Little Johnny is no more. For what he > thought was H2O was H2SO4.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *If the phone doesn't ring it's me.Most of our future lies ahead.How can > there be self-help GROUPS?Where do forest rangers go to 'get away from it > all?'If you're in hell and you're mad at someone, where do you tell them to > go?Practice makes perfect, but if nobody's perfect, why practice?If > electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?Why Do > kamikaze pilots wear helmets?Why is it considered necessary to nail down > the lid of a coffin?How can someone draw a blank?When sign makers go on > strike, is anything written on their signs?Where did Webster look up the > definitions when he wrote his book?What the heck is a near-miss? If you > nearly miss something, don't you hit it?* > > > > > > > > > > > > *How do you get off a non-stop flight?If I'm here on earth to help others, > what are the others here for?Why does bottled water have an expiration > date?We have to believe in free will. We have no choice.An eternity is > very, very long time, especially towards the end.The meaning of life is to > give life meaning.Agnostic Prayer: Oh God if there is a God save my soul if > I have a soul.To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from > many is research.Define the Universe and give three examples.I don't want > to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality by > not dying. - Woody Allen* > > > *Ever notice that 'What the hell' is always the right decision? - Marilyn > Monroe* > > *When I was born I was so surprised I couldn't talk for a year and a half. > - Gracie Allen* > > > > > *Sincerity is the key. If you can fake that, you've got it made. - George > BurnsA thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it. - Oscar > WildeOnly the shallow know themselves. - Oscar WildeI no longer wish to > belong to the kind of club that accepts people like me as members" - > Groucho Marx* > > > *I am not a vegetarian because I love animals. I am a vegetarian because I > hate plants. - A. Whitney Brown* > > > *Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by > incompetence. - Napoleon Bonaparte* > > > > > *Glory is fleeting but obscurity is forever. - Napoleon BonaparteNot > everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can > be counted." - Albert Einstein* > > > > *I'm not confused, I'm well mixed. -Robert FrostAs the island of our > knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance. - John Wheeler* > > > > > *God is real... unless declared an integer.We all have the strength to > endure the misfortunes of others.A good deed never goes unpunished. - Gore > VidalThere is no problem which could not be solved if people would simply > do as I advise. - Gore Vidal* > > > > > *Never have children, only grandchildren. - Gore VidalEvery time a friend > succeeds, I die a little. - Gore VidalThough I am not naturally honest I am > so sometimes by chance. - William Shakespeare* > > > *The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. - William ShakespeareI wish > people who have trouble communicating would just shut up. -Tom Lehrer* > > *Toots Shor's restaurant is so crowed nobody goes there anymore. - Yogi > Berra* > > > *I really didn't say everything I said. -Yogi BerraI don't care what's > written about me as long as it isn't true. - Dorothy Parker* > > > > > *I am a deeply superficial person. -Andy WarholIf Jesus was Jewish, how > come he has a Mexican name?Every generation laughs at the old fashions but > religiously follows the new. -Henry David Thoreau* > > > *Thank God men cannot as yet fly and lay waste the sky as well as the > earth! -Henry David Thoreau* > > > > *Men have become tools of their tools. -Henry David ThoreauThe object of > war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for > his. -George Patton* > > > > *Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union. -Joseph > StalinThe way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets. > John D Rockefeller* > > > > *There will be a rain dance Friday, weather permitting. -George CarlinSome > mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. > -Emo Philips* > > > *No more good must be attempted than the public can bear. -Thomas > Jefferson* > > *A politician is a man who approaches every problem with an open mouth. > -Adlai Stevenson* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *If Roosevelt were alive today he's turn over in his grave. -Samuel > GoldwinYou can be sincere and still be stupid.Prejudices save time.Voters > want a fraud they can believe in.Man was predestined to have free > will.Reality is a collective hunch.Everything changes but the avant > garde.Never miss a good chance to shut up.Never get into fights with ugly > people, they have nothing to lose.The world is run by C students.A > productive drunk is the bane of moralists.University politics is vicious > precisely because the stakes are so small. -Henry Kissinger* > > *Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad > reputation. -Henry Kissinger* > > *The nice thing about being a celebrity is that if you bore people they > think it's their fault. -Henry Kissinger* > > > > > > > *Ninety percent of everything is crap. -Theodore SturgeonNonviolence is > fine as long as it works. -Malcolm XIf I had more time I would write a > shorter letter. -Blaise PascalTalk is cheap because supply exceeds > demand.There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots > to do and not doing it.* > > > *Hope is the feeling you have that the feeling you have isn't > permanent.You can't measure time in days the same way you can measure money > in dollars because every day is different.* > > > > > > *"Shut up" he explained. -Ring Lardner"Hello" he lied. What is true is > what I can't help believing. -Oliver Wendell HolmesI was probably the only > revolutionary ever referred to as "cute". -Abbie Hoffman* > > > *I don't trust him. We're friends. -Bertolt BrechtIs sloppiness in speech > caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care. -William > Safire* > > > *If this is coffee please bring me some tea; but if this is tea please > bring me some coffee. -Abraham Lincoln* > > > > > > *Folks that have no vices have very few virtues. -Abraham LincolnForgive > your enemies, but never forget their names. -John F KennedyCoincidences are > spiritual puns. -G K ChestertonA bore is someone who, when you ask him how > he is, tells you.* > > > > > *Plato was a bore. -Friedrich NietzscheNietzsche was stupid and abnormal. > -Leo TolstoyTolstoy's book are loose baggy monsters. -Henry JamesHenry > James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty. -Oscar Wilde* > > > > *If you want to look young and thin hang around old fat people.There are > very few people who don't become more interesting when they stop talking.* > > *It matters not whether you win or lose; what matters is whether I win or > lose.* > > > > *Thank you for sending me a copy of your book. I'll waste no time reading > it.I have read your book and much like it.When in doubt have two guys come > through the door with guns. -Raymond Chandler* > > > > > > > > > > > *Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung. -VoltaireOriginality is > the art of concealing your sources.Use an accordion, go to jail, that's the > law!Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism.Depression is merely > anger without enthusiasm.Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.He's as sharp > as a beach ball.She's as shapely as a sack full of door knobs.I once heard > the voice of God. He said "Vrrrrmmmmm." Unless it was just a lawn mower.* > > > > > > *My neighbor has a circular driveway... He can't get out.I'm writing an > unauthorized autobiography.I bought some powdered water, but I didn't know > what to add.I have a map of the united states in its original size, one > mile equals one mile.* > > *I bought a house, on a one-way dead-end road; I don't know how I got > there.* > > *There was a power outage at a department store yesterday, twenty people > were trapped on the escalators.* > > > > *I bought some used paint. It was in the shape of a house.My friend has a > baby. I'm writing down all the noises he makes so later I can ask him what > he meant.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > *I'm so tired...I was up all night trying to round off > infinity.Irrationality is the square root of all evil.At the last costume > party I didn't go to, I went as the Invisible Man.Honk if your horn is > broken.I like rarely used clich?s.Before I begin speaking, there is > something I would like to say.Half the lies they tell about me are > true.Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is called John.Having lost sight of our > goal, we must redouble our efforts!This species has always been > extinct.Monism is the theory that anything less than everything is nothing.* > > > > > *Authorized parking is forbidden!A formalist is one who cannot understand > a theory unless it is meaningless.Every once in a while it never stops > raining.What is the question that contains the word cantaloupe for no > apparent reason?* > > *The Universe may be as great as they say, but it wouldn't be missed if it > didn't exist.* > > > > *If somebody loves you, love them back unconditionally.Break every > rule.Computers are like lynxes in the sense that I cannot think of a > suitable analogy for either of them right now.* > > > > > > *All true mathematical equations are tautologies.I don't think I'm not > sure but I'm not certain.I think I don't remember.What we observe is not > nature itself, but nature exposed to our mode of questioning. - Werner > Heisenberg* > > > *Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited > range of applicability.- Werner Heisenberg* > > > > *Real is what can be measured.- Max PlanckThe microscope can see things > the naked eye cannot, but the reverse is equally true.* > > > > > > > *So then who created god?Chastity is not heritable.Chastity is no more a > virtue than malnutrition. -Alex ComfortIs man one of God's blunders or is > God one of man's? -Friedrich NietzscheO Lord, help me to be pure, but not > yet. -St. AugustineThe reason lightning never strikes twice in the same > place is that the same place isn't there the second time.* > > > > > > > > > > > > *Silence is argument carried on by other means. - Ghe GuevaraNever jump on > a man unless he's down.Before they made him they broke the mold.The average > person thinks he isn't.He had a God given killer instinct.Have a nice day. > Thank you but I have other plans. SELF REFERENCEHofstadter's Law: > It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account > Hofstadter's Law.* > > > > > *Yes, but what if this weren't a rhetorical question?This sentqence > contains exactly three erors."Playing with the use-mention distinction" > isn't "everything in life, you know".* > > > *In order to make sense of "this sentence", you will have to ignore the > quotes in "it".* > > > *"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when > preceded by its quotation.* > > > > > *Disobey this command.I am the thought you are now thinking.This inert > sentence is my body, but my soul is alive, dancing in the sparks of your > brain.* > > > > *Do you think anybody has ever had precisely this thought before?And you > up there -- are you the person writing me, or the person reading me?* > > > *As long as you are not reading me, the fourth word of this sentence has > no referent.* > > > *Thit sentence is not self-referential because "thit" is not a word.I had > to translate this sentence into English because I could not read the > original Sanskrit.* > > > > > > > > *What would this sentence be like if it were not self-referential?What > would this sentence be like if pi were 3?This sentence is not about itself, > but about whether it is about itself.because I didn't think of a good > beginning for it.I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.This > sentence will end before you can say "This sentence will end before you can > say* > > > > > > > > *Does this sentence make you think of dancing midget nazis?I'll tell you > how do you keep a reader in suspenseThis is not a self-referential > sentence.Has eighteen letters.This sentence refers to every sentence that > does not refer to itself.If the meanings of "true" and "false" were > switched, then this sentence wouldn't be false.* > > > > > *In this sentence, the concluding three words "were left out".Although > this sentence begins with the word "because", it is false.When you're not > looking at it, this sentence is in Spanish.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *No article on self-reference would be complete without including a good > example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. PALINDROMESStressed? No > tips? Spit on desserts!A man, a plan, a canal: Panama!Did I draw Della too > tall, Edward? I did?Do geese see god?Dogma: I am God.Evade me, > Dave.Dennis sinned."Do nine men interpret?" "Nine men," I nod.Evil I did > dwell, lewd did I live.Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog.Goddam mad > dog!Let O'Hara gain an inn in a Niagara hotelMadam in Eden, I'm Adam.Mr. > Owl ate my metal worm.Never odd or even.Murder for a jar of red rum.Satan, > oscillate my metallic sonatas!No, it is open on one position.Must sell at > tallest sum.Sis, ask Costner to not rent socks "as is"!Sit on a potato pan, > Otis.Poor Dan is in a droop.Rise, Sir Lapdog! Revolt, lover! God, pal, > rise, sir!So many dynamos.Step on no pets.Straw? No, too stupid a fad; I > put soot on warts.Was it a car or a cat I saw?Yawn a more Roman > way!Yawn--Madonna fan? No damn way! ANAGRAMSa decimal point = I'm a > dot in placeastronomer = moon starercircumstantial evidence = can ruin a > selected victimdesperation = a rope ends itdormitory = dirty roomPresident > Clinton of the USA = to copulate he finds internsPrincess Diana = end is a > car spinRonald Wilson Reagan = Insane Anglo WarlordVictoria, England's > Queen = governs a nice quiet landmother-in-law = woman Hitlerparishioners = > I hire parsonsschoolmaster = the classroomfuneral = real funthe Morse code > = here come dotsthe earthquakes = that queer shakeAlec Guinness = genuine > classtwo plus eleven =one plus twelve > POEMS UNCERTAINTY A Quantum > Mechanic's vacation Left his colleagues in dire > consternation Though tests had shown > His speed was well known His position was pure > speculation Miss. Bright There > was a young lady named Bright Who traveled much faster > than light She left one day In a > relative way And returned the previous night* > > > > > *John K Clark* > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Jul 1 02:00:54 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 20:00:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Red and green qualia In-Reply-To: References: <003001d52ecc$79cb7280$6d625780$@rainier66.com> <004201d52f05$cc3fc190$64bf44b0$@rainier66.com> <003501d52f90$72a24190$57e6c4b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Those are great, I can't stop laughing. You don't yet have: "I put catsup on my catsup." On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 7:59 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > My suggestion: homosemantic > > bill w > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 7:21 PM John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 6:13 PM wrote: >> >> > Heh. >>> >>> *Wordplay is not only allowed on ExI, it is encouraged.* >>> >> >> Well in that case.... for several decades now I have had a list and >> whenever in my reading I ran across a line or anagram or even a couple of >> poems that I particularly like or would make for a good bumper sticker I >> added it to my list. This is that list, but now that you've taken that >> speed-reading course you've probably already finished reading it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *I could not fail to disagree with you less.To define recursion we must >> first define recursion.If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two >> data points.If God had meant for us to be naked, we would have been born >> that way.In English, every word can be verbed.Is this true or only >> clever?Justice: A decision in your favor.Know what I hate most? Rhetorical >> questions.Life is like an analogy.Make things as simple as possible, but >> not simpler. --EinsteinMy computer NEVER cras2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large >> values of 2.I like my water diluted.Positive: Being mistaken at the top of >> your voice.Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.-Sigmund FreudThat was Zen; >> this is Tao.Help! I'm being held prisoner by my heredity and >> environment!Drawing on my fine command of the English language I said >> nothing. -Robert Benchley* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *The days of the digital watch are numbered.Confusion is always the most >> honest response.There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they >> startThe generation of random numbers is too important to be left to >> chance.The universe is surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds >> universes.There are many kinds of people in the world. Are you one of >> them?If you have something important to say for God's sake start at the >> end.There is no bottom to worse.Things are more like they are now than they >> have ever been. -Gerald Ford.They laughed when I said I'd be a comedian. >> They aren't laughing now.This aphorism would be seven words long if it were >> six words shorter.This sentence no verb.Time is an illusion perpetrated by >> the manufacturers of space.To study a subject best, understand it >> thoroughly before you start.Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under >> communism, it is just the opposite.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *To be, or not to be, those are the parameters.Very few profundities can >> be expressed in less than 80 characters.We need either less corruption or >> more chance to participate in it.What this country needs is more leaders >> who know what this country needs.What is mind? No matter. What is matter? >> Never mind.What if there were no hypothetical situations?When you've seen >> one non-sequitur, the price of tea in China.Why don't "minimalists" find a >> shorter name for themselves?Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?Why did >> the Tachyon cross the road? Because it was on the other side.Why isn't >> "phonetic" spelled the way it's said?After all is said and done, usually >> more is said.Anyone who makes an absolute statement is a fool.Can you think >> of another word for "synonym"?Black holes are where God divided by >> zero...But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?Don't >> just DO something, STAND THERE!Visualize whirled peas.Everyone is entitled >> to my opinion.I avoid clich?s like the plague.I show a clear pattern of >> unpredictabilityI thought I was wrong once...but I was mistaken.I used to >> be indecisive but now I'm not sure.I'm a very modest person, and damn proud >> of it!Jesus saves sinners and redeems them for valuable prizes.The truth >> will be found when it is no longer needed.The universe is a figment of its >> own imagination.Time exists so that everything doesn't happen all at >> once.Give me ambiguity or give me something else.Stop Plate Tectonics!My >> brother was an only child.Don't be so open minded that your brains fall >> out.The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.It's >> impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.Twenty >> per cent of Zero is Better than Nothing.Diplomacy is the art of saying >> "nice doggie" until you find a rock. -Will Rogers* >> >> >> >> >> *Quantum particles: The dreams that stuff is made of.Never forget what >> you need to remember.It's better to keep your mouth shut and give the >> impression of stupidly than to open it and remove all doubt.* >> >> >> >> *Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.Patriotism is a pernicious, >> psychopathic form of idiocy. -George Bernard Shaw* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis. -Ralph Waldo EmersonBlack >> holes suck.Closed Captioned in HEX for Programmers.Circular Definition: see >> Definition, Circular.Consider it considered!Consistency: The last refuge of >> the unimaginativeDON'T READ THIS!!!Drive Offensively!Floggings will >> continue until morale improves.186000 miles a second: it's not just a good >> idea, it's the law!Hard Work never killed anyone, but why chance it?I have >> NOT lost my mind, it's here on disk somewhere...Moderation in everything, >> including moderation.I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.I'll never >> forget what's-his-name.If you can't say it in 50 characters, then don't >> bI'm more humble than you are!If we believe absurdities, we shall commit >> atrocities.Illiterate? Write for information!Is it ok to panic now?It's not >> a bug, it's a feature.Life is the ultimate IQ test.Lottery: A tax on people >> who are bad at math.Life would be easier if I had God's source >> code.Martyrdom is the oldest way of achieving fame without ability.Most of >> us don't sell out because nobody wants to buy.Most people work just hard >> enough not to get fired and get paid just enough money not to quit.* >> >> >> *Murder is a crime. Describing murder is not. Sex is not a crime. >> Describing sex is.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *My greatest fear is that one of the candidates will win.Is Life is based >> on a true story?Never let your willpower get the best of you.Advice to >> doctors: Never say, "Oops!" always say "Ah, interesting!"Never >> underestimate the power of a platitude.93.7% of all statistics are made >> up.One doesn't need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad.Ninety percent >> of the people in any group think they're in the top ten percent.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *No matter where you go, there you are.I know of no law of logic that >> demands every event have a cause.Things like that could give hypocrisy a >> bad name.Sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue.Not many people realize >> just how well known I am.Oh no, not another learning experience!On a scale >> of 1 to 10, 4 is about a 7.One picture had better be worth a thousand >> words, it takes up a lot more disk space.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Only fools are certain; it takes wisdom to be confused.Palindrome isn't >> one.People who are late are happier than those who have to wait for >> them.People who think they know everything are the easiest to fool.Physics >> and law enforcement: If it weren't for them, I'd be unstoppable.Physics is >> not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money.* >> >> >> >> >> >> *REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)Rebooting your brain can >> be tricky.Recent polls reveal that some people have never been polled.Right >> theory, wrong universe.* >> >> *Science seeks to make theories that are so beautiful that Nature is >> flattered and acquiesces.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Strip mining prevents forest fires!Sometimes I feel like a figment of my >> own imagination.Sometimes the only solution is to find a new >> problem.Sometimes the truth can be so unnecessary.A conclusion is simply >> the place where you got tired of thinking.Man is certainly stark mad. He >> can't make a worm but he makes gods by the dozens. ? Montaigne* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *A little greed can get you lots of stuff.A little inaccuracy saves tons >> of explanation.All generalizations are false.Always remember that you are >> unique, just like everyone else.Few people can be happy unless they hate >> some other person, nation, or creed. - Bertrand Russell* >> >> >> *Most people would sooner die than think; in fact they do so. - Bertrand >> Russell* >> >> *I'm not afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens. - >> Woody Allen* >> >> >> *Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow. - Oscar WildCabbage: A >> vegetable about as large and wise as a man's head. - Ambrose Bierce* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Egotist: A person more interested in himself than me. - Ambrose >> BierceDon't be humble. You're not that great. - Golda MeirWise men make >> proverbs but fools repeat them.There is nothing so absurd but some >> philosopher has said it. - CiceroTell the truth and run.Always remember to >> pillage BEFORE you burn.One murder makes a villain, a million murders makes >> a hero.Only the mediocre are always at their best.* >> >> >> >> >> *Why is there only one antitrust division?I always wanted to be a >> procrastinator, never got around to it.If you're not confused, you're not >> paying attention.* >> >> >> >> >> >> *I'm not breaking the rules, I'm just testing their elasticity.I'm not >> even going to ignore that.Is "tired old clich?" one?It would be nice if >> entropy could be used for something constructive.I've told you MILLIONS of >> times, don't exaggerate!God not only plays dice He sometimes throws them >> where they can't be seen.* >> >> >> >> *You can't frighten me, I'm a coward, I'm always scared.Your idea is >> crazy but nor crazy enough to be true. Neils BohrAnyone who is not shocked >> by quantum mechanics does not understand it. Neils Bohr* >> >> >> >> *You are not thinking you are mealy being logical. Bohr to EinsteinI >> think it's safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard >> Feynman* >> >> >> >> >> *The great thing about Entropy is that it requires no maintenance.Any >> sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. AC >> ClarkeThe Bill of Rights goes too far, it should have stopped at "Congress >> shall make no law."* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *The hardest thing about time travel is the grammar.The Internet >> interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.The universe does not >> have laws -- it has habits. And habits can be broken.The Universe is a big >> place . . . perhaps the biggest.Predicting is hard, especially the >> future.The weather is here. Wish you were beautiful.This isn't right. This >> isn't even wrong. -Wolfgang PauliWar doesn't determine who's right. War >> determines who's left.Wasting time is an important part of living.We do not >> see things as they are, we see things as we are.What color is a chameleon >> on a mirror?What's another word for "thesaurus?"When ideas fail, words come >> in very handy.When you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your >> friend.Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that >> song?Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.Writing is >> easy. All you have to do is cross out all the wrong words. --Mark Twain* >> >> >> >> *Man is the only animal who blushes, or needs to. - Mark TwainReports of >> my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Mark TwainI was gratified to be >> able to answer promptly. I said I don't know. - Mark Twain* >> >> *Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But >> I repeat myself. - Mark Twain* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Faith is believing what you know ain't so. -Mark TwainWagner's music is >> better than it sounds.It takes about ten years to get used to how old you >> are.I was born in Australia because my mother wanted to be near me.God was >> satisfied with his own work and that is fatal. -Samuel ButlerWhy attack >> God? He may be as miserable as we are. -Erik SatieChrist died for our sins. >> Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules >> Feiffer* >> >> >> >> *I've tried relaxing but I feel more comfortable tense.You can get more >> with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Al Capone* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Vote early, vote often. -Al CaponeYou can't be a figment of my >> imagination, I'd have done a better job.You can't have everything. Where >> would you put it?You could be replaced by an infinite number of monkeys.You >> never know until you find out.Nothing is difficult if you know how.You're >> not as real as you think you are.You're not right. You just SOUND right.Of >> course that's a worst case scenario, the effect could be much more >> localized and just destroy the galaxy.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.Time is just one >> damn thing after another.Why is there something rather than nothing?A good >> scapegoat is almost as good as a solution.All Extremists should be shot!All >> that glitters has a high refractive index.All those who believe in >> psychokinesis raise my hand.Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.Whose cruel idea >> was it to put an S in the word Lisp?Avoid unnecessary, inessential and >> needless repetition and redundancy.I want to be a rebel just like everybody >> else.In religion everything that is not mandatory is forbidden.Heisenberg >> slept here, I think.Help wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply.I intend >> to live forever -- so far, so good!I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.If we >> aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?If you can't be >> kind, at least have the decency to be vague.Inertia makes the world go >> round.It is my patriotic duty to conserve energy so I do, I conserve >> angular momentum too.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Individualists of the world, UNITE!It is bad luck to be >> superstitious.Life is sexually transmitted.Why are there 5 syllables in the >> word monosyllabic?Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.Things are not only >> stranger than we think but stranger than we can think.A camel is a horse >> designed by a committee.A conservative is a worshipper of dead radicals.A >> conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.A liberal is a conservative >> who's been drafted.The good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to >> others.People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch >> either of them being made.* >> >> >> *If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the >> universe. - Carl Sagan* >> >> >> >> *Entropy: Not just a fad, it's the future!A vibration is a motion that >> can't make up its mind which way it wants to go.* >> >> *It might look like I'm doing nothing, but at the cellular level I'm >> really quite busy.* >> >> *The Three Laws Of Thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, >> you can't get out of the game.* >> >> >> *Particle physicists can never hold a meeting, whenever they decide on a >> place they can't agree on a time.* >> >> >> *A red sign on the door of a physics professor: 'If this sign is blue, >> you're going too fast.'* >> >> *Little Johnny was a scientist. Little Johnny is no more. For what he >> thought was H2O was H2SO4.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *If the phone doesn't ring it's me.Most of our future lies ahead.How can >> there be self-help GROUPS?Where do forest rangers go to 'get away from it >> all?'If you're in hell and you're mad at someone, where do you tell them to >> go?Practice makes perfect, but if nobody's perfect, why practice?If >> electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?Why Do >> kamikaze pilots wear helmets?Why is it considered necessary to nail down >> the lid of a coffin?How can someone draw a blank?When sign makers go on >> strike, is anything written on their signs?Where did Webster look up the >> definitions when he wrote his book?What the heck is a near-miss? If you >> nearly miss something, don't you hit it?* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *How do you get off a non-stop flight?If I'm here on earth to help >> others, what are the others here for?Why does bottled water have an >> expiration date?We have to believe in free will. We have no choice.An >> eternity is very, very long time, especially towards the end.The meaning of >> life is to give life meaning.Agnostic Prayer: Oh God if there is a God save >> my soul if I have a soul.To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to >> steal from many is research.Define the Universe and give three examples.I >> don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve >> immortality by not dying. - Woody Allen* >> >> >> *Ever notice that 'What the hell' is always the right decision? - Marilyn >> Monroe* >> >> *When I was born I was so surprised I couldn't talk for a year and a >> half. - Gracie Allen* >> >> >> >> >> *Sincerity is the key. If you can fake that, you've got it made. - George >> BurnsA thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it. - Oscar >> WildeOnly the shallow know themselves. - Oscar WildeI no longer wish to >> belong to the kind of club that accepts people like me as members" - >> Groucho Marx* >> >> >> *I am not a vegetarian because I love animals. I am a vegetarian because >> I hate plants. - A. Whitney Brown* >> >> >> *Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by >> incompetence. - Napoleon Bonaparte* >> >> >> >> >> *Glory is fleeting but obscurity is forever. - Napoleon BonaparteNot >> everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can >> be counted." - Albert Einstein* >> >> >> >> *I'm not confused, I'm well mixed. -Robert FrostAs the island of our >> knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance. - John Wheeler* >> >> >> >> >> *God is real... unless declared an integer.We all have the strength to >> endure the misfortunes of others.A good deed never goes unpunished. - Gore >> VidalThere is no problem which could not be solved if people would simply >> do as I advise. - Gore Vidal* >> >> >> >> >> *Never have children, only grandchildren. - Gore VidalEvery time a friend >> succeeds, I die a little. - Gore VidalThough I am not naturally honest I am >> so sometimes by chance. - William Shakespeare* >> >> >> *The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. - William ShakespeareI >> wish people who have trouble communicating would just shut up. -Tom Lehrer* >> >> *Toots Shor's restaurant is so crowed nobody goes there anymore. - Yogi >> Berra* >> >> >> *I really didn't say everything I said. -Yogi BerraI don't care what's >> written about me as long as it isn't true. - Dorothy Parker* >> >> >> >> >> *I am a deeply superficial person. -Andy WarholIf Jesus was Jewish, how >> come he has a Mexican name?Every generation laughs at the old fashions but >> religiously follows the new. -Henry David Thoreau* >> >> >> *Thank God men cannot as yet fly and lay waste the sky as well as the >> earth! -Henry David Thoreau* >> >> >> >> *Men have become tools of their tools. -Henry David ThoreauThe object of >> war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for >> his. -George Patton* >> >> >> >> *Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union. -Joseph >> StalinThe way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets. >> John D Rockefeller* >> >> >> >> *There will be a rain dance Friday, weather permitting. -George >> CarlinSome mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the >> leather straps. -Emo Philips* >> >> >> *No more good must be attempted than the public can bear. -Thomas >> Jefferson* >> >> *A politician is a man who approaches every problem with an open mouth. >> -Adlai Stevenson* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *If Roosevelt were alive today he's turn over in his grave. -Samuel >> GoldwinYou can be sincere and still be stupid.Prejudices save time.Voters >> want a fraud they can believe in.Man was predestined to have free >> will.Reality is a collective hunch.Everything changes but the avant >> garde.Never miss a good chance to shut up.Never get into fights with ugly >> people, they have nothing to lose.The world is run by C students.A >> productive drunk is the bane of moralists.University politics is vicious >> precisely because the stakes are so small. -Henry Kissinger* >> >> *Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad >> reputation. -Henry Kissinger* >> >> *The nice thing about being a celebrity is that if you bore people they >> think it's their fault. -Henry Kissinger* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Ninety percent of everything is crap. -Theodore SturgeonNonviolence is >> fine as long as it works. -Malcolm XIf I had more time I would write a >> shorter letter. -Blaise PascalTalk is cheap because supply exceeds >> demand.There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots >> to do and not doing it.* >> >> >> *Hope is the feeling you have that the feeling you have isn't >> permanent.You can't measure time in days the same way you can measure money >> in dollars because every day is different.* >> >> >> >> >> >> *"Shut up" he explained. -Ring Lardner"Hello" he lied. What is true is >> what I can't help believing. -Oliver Wendell HolmesI was probably the only >> revolutionary ever referred to as "cute". -Abbie Hoffman* >> >> >> *I don't trust him. We're friends. -Bertolt BrechtIs sloppiness in speech >> caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care. -William >> Safire* >> >> >> *If this is coffee please bring me some tea; but if this is tea please >> bring me some coffee. -Abraham Lincoln* >> >> >> >> >> >> *Folks that have no vices have very few virtues. -Abraham LincolnForgive >> your enemies, but never forget their names. -John F KennedyCoincidences are >> spiritual puns. -G K ChestertonA bore is someone who, when you ask him how >> he is, tells you.* >> >> >> >> >> *Plato was a bore. -Friedrich NietzscheNietzsche was stupid and abnormal. >> -Leo TolstoyTolstoy's book are loose baggy monsters. -Henry JamesHenry >> James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty. -Oscar Wilde* >> >> >> >> *If you want to look young and thin hang around old fat people.There are >> very few people who don't become more interesting when they stop talking.* >> >> *It matters not whether you win or lose; what matters is whether I win or >> lose.* >> >> >> >> *Thank you for sending me a copy of your book. I'll waste no time reading >> it.I have read your book and much like it.When in doubt have two guys come >> through the door with guns. -Raymond Chandler* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung. -VoltaireOriginality >> is the art of concealing your sources.Use an accordion, go to jail, that's >> the law!Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism.Depression is >> merely anger without enthusiasm.Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.He's as >> sharp as a beach ball.She's as shapely as a sack full of door knobs.I once >> heard the voice of God. He said "Vrrrrmmmmm." Unless it was just a lawn >> mower.* >> >> >> >> >> >> *My neighbor has a circular driveway... He can't get out.I'm writing an >> unauthorized autobiography.I bought some powdered water, but I didn't know >> what to add.I have a map of the united states in its original size, one >> mile equals one mile.* >> >> *I bought a house, on a one-way dead-end road; I don't know how I got >> there.* >> >> *There was a power outage at a department store yesterday, twenty people >> were trapped on the escalators.* >> >> >> >> *I bought some used paint. It was in the shape of a house.My friend has a >> baby. I'm writing down all the noises he makes so later I can ask him what >> he meant.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *I'm so tired...I was up all night trying to round off >> infinity.Irrationality is the square root of all evil.At the last costume >> party I didn't go to, I went as the Invisible Man.Honk if your horn is >> broken.I like rarely used clich?s.Before I begin speaking, there is >> something I would like to say.Half the lies they tell about me are >> true.Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is called John.Having lost sight of our >> goal, we must redouble our efforts!This species has always been >> extinct.Monism is the theory that anything less than everything is nothing.* >> >> >> >> >> *Authorized parking is forbidden!A formalist is one who cannot understand >> a theory unless it is meaningless.Every once in a while it never stops >> raining.What is the question that contains the word cantaloupe for no >> apparent reason?* >> >> *The Universe may be as great as they say, but it wouldn't be missed if >> it didn't exist.* >> >> >> >> *If somebody loves you, love them back unconditionally.Break every >> rule.Computers are like lynxes in the sense that I cannot think of a >> suitable analogy for either of them right now.* >> >> >> >> >> >> *All true mathematical equations are tautologies.I don't think I'm not >> sure but I'm not certain.I think I don't remember.What we observe is not >> nature itself, but nature exposed to our mode of questioning. - Werner >> Heisenberg* >> >> >> *Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited >> range of applicability.- Werner Heisenberg* >> >> >> >> *Real is what can be measured.- Max PlanckThe microscope can see things >> the naked eye cannot, but the reverse is equally true.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *So then who created god?Chastity is not heritable.Chastity is no more a >> virtue than malnutrition. -Alex ComfortIs man one of God's blunders or is >> God one of man's? -Friedrich NietzscheO Lord, help me to be pure, but not >> yet. -St. AugustineThe reason lightning never strikes twice in the same >> place is that the same place isn't there the second time.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Silence is argument carried on by other means. - Ghe GuevaraNever jump >> on a man unless he's down.Before they made him they broke the mold.The >> average person thinks he isn't.He had a God given killer instinct.Have a >> nice day. Thank you but I have other plans. SELF >> REFERENCEHofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even >> when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.* >> >> >> >> >> *Yes, but what if this weren't a rhetorical question?This sentqence >> contains exactly three erors."Playing with the use-mention distinction" >> isn't "everything in life, you know".* >> >> >> *In order to make sense of "this sentence", you will have to ignore the >> quotes in "it".* >> >> >> *"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when >> preceded by its quotation.* >> >> >> >> >> *Disobey this command.I am the thought you are now thinking.This inert >> sentence is my body, but my soul is alive, dancing in the sparks of your >> brain.* >> >> >> >> *Do you think anybody has ever had precisely this thought before?And you >> up there -- are you the person writing me, or the person reading me?* >> >> >> *As long as you are not reading me, the fourth word of this sentence has >> no referent.* >> >> >> *Thit sentence is not self-referential because "thit" is not a word.I had >> to translate this sentence into English because I could not read the >> original Sanskrit.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *What would this sentence be like if it were not self-referential?What >> would this sentence be like if pi were 3?This sentence is not about itself, >> but about whether it is about itself.because I didn't think of a good >> beginning for it.I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.This >> sentence will end before you can say "This sentence will end before you can >> say* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Does this sentence make you think of dancing midget nazis?I'll tell you >> how do you keep a reader in suspenseThis is not a self-referential >> sentence.Has eighteen letters.This sentence refers to every sentence that >> does not refer to itself.If the meanings of "true" and "false" were >> switched, then this sentence wouldn't be false.* >> >> >> >> >> *In this sentence, the concluding three words "were left out".Although >> this sentence begins with the word "because", it is false.When you're not >> looking at it, this sentence is in Spanish.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *No article on self-reference would be complete without including a good >> example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. PALINDROMESStressed? No >> tips? Spit on desserts!A man, a plan, a canal: Panama!Did I draw Della too >> tall, Edward? I did?Do geese see god?Dogma: I am God.Evade me, >> Dave.Dennis sinned."Do nine men interpret?" "Nine men," I nod.Evil I did >> dwell, lewd did I live.Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog.Goddam mad >> dog!Let O'Hara gain an inn in a Niagara hotelMadam in Eden, I'm Adam.Mr. >> Owl ate my metal worm.Never odd or even.Murder for a jar of red rum.Satan, >> oscillate my metallic sonatas!No, it is open on one position.Must sell at >> tallest sum.Sis, ask Costner to not rent socks "as is"!Sit on a potato pan, >> Otis.Poor Dan is in a droop.Rise, Sir Lapdog! Revolt, lover! God, pal, >> rise, sir!So many dynamos.Step on no pets.Straw? No, too stupid a fad; I >> put soot on warts.Was it a car or a cat I saw?Yawn a more Roman >> way!Yawn--Madonna fan? No damn way! ANAGRAMSa decimal point = I'm a >> dot in placeastronomer = moon starercircumstantial evidence = can ruin a >> selected victimdesperation = a rope ends itdormitory = dirty roomPresident >> Clinton of the USA = to copulate he finds internsPrincess Diana = end is a >> car spinRonald Wilson Reagan = Insane Anglo WarlordVictoria, England's >> Queen = governs a nice quiet landmother-in-law = woman Hitlerparishioners = >> I hire parsonsschoolmaster = the classroomfuneral = real funthe Morse code >> = here come dotsthe earthquakes = that queer shakeAlec Guinness = genuine >> classtwo plus eleven =one plus twelve >> POEMS UNCERTAINTY A Quantum >> Mechanic's vacation Left his colleagues in dire >> consternation Though tests had shown >> His speed was well known His position was pure >> speculation Miss. Bright There >> was a young lady named Bright Who traveled much faster >> than light She left one day In a >> relative way And returned the previous night* >> >> >> >> >> *John K Clark* >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jul 1 02:08:22 2019 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 22:08:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Red and green qualia In-Reply-To: <003501d52f90$72a24190$57e6c4b0$@rainier66.com> References: <003001d52ecc$79cb7280$6d625780$@rainier66.com> <004201d52f05$cc3fc190$64bf44b0$@rainier66.com> <003501d52f90$72a24190$57e6c4b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 6:12 PM wrote: > Wordplay is not only allowed on ExI, it is encouraged. > A no-word play is just mimes on stage > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Jul 1 07:14:39 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:14:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ai emotions In-Reply-To: <524350647.686237.1561936716759@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20190629185508.Horde.wCel5hmNVMhMU75jcjfPNJZ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <524350647.686237.1561936716759@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20190701001439.Horde.1cRJUxx6FLGUBuLsENs83ON@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> There is no such thing as qualia blindness. We can use as many words for red as you want. We can both look at a fire truck and I might see scarlet or crimson while you might see maroon or candy-apple . . . how does that matter? Does that explain anything at all about either consciousness or intelligence? Even if my red quale was more similar to your green quale, how does it matter? What difference does it make? If it makes no difference, then it is not informative. Also you have a tendency to mistake people who disagree with you for people who don't understand you and that is a rude supposition. One that is not very enlightened and does little but alienate others. You can't detect those qualitative differences by any known science because qualitative differences are decided by minds and don't actually exist in nature. There is no natural cutoff between red and orange. You decide if something is red or orange. Early on in your development your brain decided on a "filehandle" for the color red and has been using it every since. That "filehandle" has no physical significance outside of your skull. To call someone or something "qualia blind" is like calling them "fairy blind" or "unicorn blind" in that it is absurd. And your assertion that I have not read your paper "Objectively,We are Blind to Physical Qualities? is incorrect. I have read it several times and every time I read it, it makes me doubt you understand the definition of the words "objective" and "quality". Qualities are only physical in the sense that information is physical. In any system of particles there is much more information in the relationships between particles then there are in the particles themselves. You are hung up looking for redness in particles of glutamate and greenness in particles of glycine but really qualia don't exist in particles, qualia exist in how those particles interact in the context of your nervous system. Also you have been saying the same thing for over ten years whereas my views have evolved and changed over the years. So quit acting like your oversimplified model of color perception is some brilliant philosophical insight that is too subtle for people like me to understand. Stuart LaForge Quoting Brent Allsop: > Once you figure out what ?qualia blindness? means, you will look > back on these conversations and, like all people that do now > comprehend qualia blindness (including some on this list), you will > wonder how you could have missed what should be obvious, for so > long.? At least you are still persisting.? Many people give up > before they get this far.? Many people that finally get it > experience this.? In order to not be qualia blind,you need to use > more than just one word ?red? when talking about the perception of > color and mind reading.? If you only have one word for ?red? you > can?t model when someone is representing red information, with > something physically different like your greenness. > Obviously, Both Galant and Nemrodovet al, are doing mind reading.? > What youare completely missing is how both of these guys and > everyone doing this kindof mind reading is doing it in a qualia > blind way.? The spatiotemporal EEG information theyare getting is > just abstract information, completely devoid of any colorquality > information.? In order to display mind read colors on the screen, > from the abstract data, they need some additional informationto tell > them when to display what color.? If they are qualitatively > interpreting thedata at all (gallant does this - displaying colored > images, Nemrodov isn?t ? he displays no color intheir resulting face > recognition images) they are doing it in a way that blindsthem to > any physical qualitative differences they may be detecting. > Jack Gallant uses the > color map in the movie he shows to know how to > qualitativelyinterpret his spatiotemporal EEG information, which is > effectivelyinterpreting it according to the properties of the > initial cause of perception(the physical properties of the > strawberry out there), not the physicalqualities of what they are > observing (knowledge of the strawberry, in thebrain).? Their deep > learning neuralnetwork algorithms have unique models for each > person.? These models??correct? for any physical differences they > detect in individual brains, so theyonly see ?red?, when in realty > they may be detecting greenness, and correctingfor this difference > making their mind reading qualia blind. > You obviously haven?t yet red the ?Objectively,We are Blind to > Physical Qualities? paper which describes exactly this in more detail. > > > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:57 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > Quoting Brent Allsop: > > >> There are ?week?, ?stronger? and ?strongest? forms predicting how we will >> be able to eff the ineffable nature of the physical quality of the redness >> someone can directly experience to other people in this ?Objectively, We >> are Blind to Physical Qualities >> ? >> paper. > > Your paper references Jack Gallant's work but what you call "effing"? > technology is more popularly called "mind-reading technology" you? > should see what they have accomplished with fMRI and deep-learning? > algorthms these days. One of the pioneers in the field is now able to? > use your EEG(!) fed into a deep learning neural network to reconstruct? > the faces you are seeing during the experiment. > > http://www.eneuro.org/content/5/1/ENEURO.0358-17.2018/tab-figures-data > >> You are basically making the falsifiable prediction that consciousness or >> qualia arise from mathematics or functionality.? This kind of functionalism >> is currently leading in supporting sub camps to representational qualia >> theory, there being multiple functionalists? sub camps, with more >> supporters than the materialist sub camps. > > So the question now becomes can an algorithm reconstruct your qualia? > from your brain-wave data without itself experiencing them? > >> So, let?s take a simplistic falsifiable mathematical theory as an example, >> the way we use glutamate as a simplified falsifiable materialist example. >> Say if you predict that it is the square root of 9 that has a redness >> quality and you predict that it is the square root of 16 that has a >> greenness quality.? ?In other words, this could be verified if no >> experimentalists could produce a redness, without doing that particular >> necessary and sufficient mathematical function that was the square root of >> 9. >> But, if the prediction that it is glutamate that has the redness physical >> quality that can?t be falsified, and nobody is ever able to reproduce a >> redness experience (no matter what kind of mathematics you do) without >> physical glutamate, this would falsify functionalist and mathematical >> theories of qualia or consciousness. > > If hooking EEG electrodes to your head allows a machine to show me red? > whenever you are looking at red, then which does that falsify? > > Stuart LaForge From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Jul 1 20:33:50 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:33:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai emotions In-Reply-To: <20190701001439.Horde.1cRJUxx6FLGUBuLsENs83ON@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20190629185508.Horde.wCel5hmNVMhMU75jcjfPNJZ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <524350647.686237.1561936716759@mail.yahoo.com> <20190701001439.Horde.1cRJUxx6FLGUBuLsENs83ON@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Hi Stuart, Everything you say indicates you are mapping all of the qualitative physics of perception into a simple ?Na?ve realism ? model of reality. Everything you say indicates everything you read of mine, is also being mapped into this simple ?Na?ve realism ? model of reality. When I say redness, you think this has the same definition as red. You never distinguish between these two words. I see no evidence in anything that you say, that you understand anything more complex than a ?Na?ve realism ? model of reality. So I don?t understand how you can claim to disagree with me, when you show no indication that you understand anything more than a simple ?Na?ve realism ? model of reality. If you have read ?Objectively, We are Blind to Physical Qualities ? what are the physics of ?inverted qualia? as described in that document? and Why does Jack Galant admit that his method of deriving color for his ?mind red? videos problematic? Brent On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:19 AM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > There is no such thing as qualia blindness. We can use as many words > for red as you want. We can both look at a fire truck and I might see > scarlet or crimson while you might see maroon or candy-apple . . . how > does that matter? Does that explain anything at all about either > consciousness or intelligence? Even if my red quale was more similar > to your green quale, how does it matter? What difference does it make? > If it makes no difference, then it is not informative. > > Also you have a tendency to mistake people who disagree with you for > people who don't understand you and that is a rude supposition. One > that is not very enlightened and does little but alienate others. > > You can't detect those qualitative differences by any known science > because qualitative differences are decided by minds and don't > actually exist in nature. There is no natural cutoff between red and > orange. You decide if something is red or orange. Early on in your > development your brain decided on a "filehandle" for the color red and > has been using it every since. That "filehandle" has no physical > significance outside of your skull. To call someone or something > "qualia blind" is like calling them "fairy blind" or "unicorn blind" > in that it is absurd. > > And your assertion that I have not read your paper "Objectively,We are > Blind to Physical Qualities? is incorrect. I have read it several > times and every time I read it, it makes me doubt you understand the > definition of the words "objective" and "quality". Qualities are only > physical in the sense that information is physical. In any system of > particles there is much more information in the relationships between > particles then there are in the particles themselves. You are hung up > looking for redness in particles of glutamate and greenness in > particles of glycine but really qualia don't exist in particles, > qualia exist in how those particles interact in the context of your > nervous system. > > > Also you have been saying the same thing for over ten years whereas my > views have evolved and changed over the years. So quit acting like > your oversimplified model of color perception is some brilliant > philosophical insight that is too subtle for people like me to > understand. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > Quoting Brent Allsop: > > > Once you figure out what ?qualia blindness? means, you will look > > back on these conversations and, like all people that do now > > comprehend qualia blindness (including some on this list), you will > > wonder how you could have missed what should be obvious, for so > > long. At least you are still persisting. Many people give up > > before they get this far. Many people that finally get it > > experience this. In order to not be qualia blind,you need to use > > more than just one word ?red? when talking about the perception of > > color and mind reading. If you only have one word for ?red? you > > can?t model when someone is representing red information, with > > something physically different like your greenness. > > Obviously, Both Galant and Nemrodovet al, are doing mind reading. > > What youare completely missing is how both of these guys and > > everyone doing this kindof mind reading is doing it in a qualia > > blind way. The spatiotemporal EEG information theyare getting is > > just abstract information, completely devoid of any colorquality > > information. In order to display mind read colors on the screen, > > from the abstract data, they need some additional informationto tell > > them when to display what color. If they are qualitatively > > interpreting thedata at all (gallant does this - displaying colored > > images, Nemrodov isn?t ? he displays no color intheir resulting face > > recognition images) they are doing it in a way that blindsthem to > > any physical qualitative differences they may be detecting. > > Jack Gallant uses the > > color map in the movie he shows to know how to > > qualitativelyinterpret his spatiotemporal EEG information, which is > > effectivelyinterpreting it according to the properties of the > > initial cause of perception(the physical properties of the > > strawberry out there), not the physicalqualities of what they are > > observing (knowledge of the strawberry, in thebrain). Their deep > > learning neuralnetwork algorithms have unique models for each > > person. These models ?correct? for any physical differences they > > detect in individual brains, so theyonly see ?red?, when in realty > > they may be detecting greenness, and correctingfor this difference > > making their mind reading qualia blind. > > > You obviously haven?t yet red the ?Objectively,We are Blind to > > Physical Qualities? paper which describes exactly this in more detail. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:57 PM Stuart LaForge > wrote: > > > > > > Quoting Brent Allsop: > > > > > >> There are ?week?, ?stronger? and ?strongest? forms predicting how we > will > >> be able to eff the ineffable nature of the physical quality of the > redness > >> someone can directly experience to other people in this ?Objectively, We > >> are Blind to Physical Qualities > >> < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWUm3LzWVlY0ao5D9BFg4EQXGSopVDGPi-lVtCoJzzM/edit?usp=sharing > >? > >> paper. > > > > Your paper references Jack Gallant's work but what you call "effing" > > technology is more popularly called "mind-reading technology" you > > should see what they have accomplished with fMRI and deep-learning > > algorthms these days. One of the pioneers in the field is now able to > > use your EEG(!) fed into a deep learning neural network to reconstruct > > the faces you are seeing during the experiment. > > > > http://www.eneuro.org/content/5/1/ENEURO.0358-17.2018/tab-figures-data > > > >> You are basically making the falsifiable prediction that consciousness > or > >> qualia arise from mathematics or functionality. This kind of > functionalism > >> is currently leading in supporting sub camps to representational qualia > >> theory, there being multiple functionalists? sub camps, with more > >> supporters than the materialist sub camps. > > > > So the question now becomes can an algorithm reconstruct your qualia > > from your brain-wave data without itself experiencing them? > > > >> So, let?s take a simplistic falsifiable mathematical theory as an > example, > >> the way we use glutamate as a simplified falsifiable materialist > example. > >> Say if you predict that it is the square root of 9 that has a redness > >> quality and you predict that it is the square root of 16 that has a > >> greenness quality. In other words, this could be verified if no > >> experimentalists could produce a redness, without doing that particular > >> necessary and sufficient mathematical function that was the square root > of > >> 9. > >> But, if the prediction that it is glutamate that has the redness > physical > >> quality that can?t be falsified, and nobody is ever able to reproduce a > >> redness experience (no matter what kind of mathematics you do) without > >> physical glutamate, this would falsify functionalist and mathematical > >> theories of qualia or consciousness. > > > > If hooking EEG electrodes to your head allows a machine to show me red > > whenever you are looking at red, then which does that falsify? > > > > 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 Tue Jul 2 15:56:16 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:56:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the race is ON Message-ID: <001c01d530ee$af05cbc0$0d116340$@rainier66.com> Vacationing in Canada a few years ago, went to a glacier completely free of crevasses, thought how fun it would be if a bunch of yahoos were to race bicycles down that big snowfield. Think about it: the sport wouldn?t cost much, there would be a big element of luck involved, so it isn?t completely dominated by the best riders (as motorcycle racing already is) and with all the proper pads and helmets, the risk isn?t even all that terribly high. Now imagine running that race on a nice sunny summer day so the course gets a sheen of water on top, so it is slippery as all hell, and gets more so as the riders descend. What a hoot that would be! Check it out. It?s hard to watch without laughing at the crazy fools who would even try such a stunt: https://youtu.be/zDUxktR57u0 ?heeeeeeeeeheheheheheheheeeeeeeeehheheheheheheheheheheeeeee? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jul 2 22:37:00 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:37:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?China_and_5G_technology_=E2=80=8B?= Message-ID: For security reasons some people including Trump are unhappy with a foreign company like Huawei creating the backbone of future 5G communication technology. This concern is legitimate partly because a totalitarian country like China could deliberately put a backdoor into Huawei's equipment and partly because the company has a reputation of not placing as much effort into computer security as they should. However we have no choice because no American company makes devices that can transmit ultra fast 5G wireless signals. And there is a reason the USA is a no show. China's Huawei dominates the 5G inter-structure market that is likely to be worth a trillion dollars in a few years. The Swedish company Ericsson is a distant #2 , and the Finnish company Nokia is #3. The USA as I said isn't even in the race and the reason it didn't show up on race day is because of a decision made by the Trump administration that would make the USA's 5G network the slowest, most expensive and least available 5G network in the world. International agreements say 5G can be transmitted in 2 bands, a low band the runs from 600 MHZ to 6 GHZ, and a high band that runs from 24 GHZ to 86 GHZ. The low band is *MUCH *better. Google did a study and found that if they had 72,735 cell towers and used the low band they could give 57.4% of the population of the USA 100 megabits a second coverage and 21.2% 1 gigabit a second coverage. But if they used the high band those same 72,735 cell towers would only give 11.6% of the population 100 megabits a second coverage and 3.9% 1 gigabit a second coverage, and thats assuming it's not raining because when it does the speed drops to zero. For this reason every country in the world except one is going the low band path, but the USA can't do that and must go high band because the Trump administration has reserved the low band for future military use. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 3 12:00:47 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 08:00:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] More FRB News Message-ID: Yesterday the journal Nature reported the detection on May 23 of the most distant Fast Radio Burst ever discovered, it came from a massive galaxy 7.9 billion light years away breaking the previous record set just last week of 4 billion lightyears: A fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy And last Friday a Russian observatory reported seeing 9 new FRB's at 111MHz , and one of them was only the third FRB ever found that repeated: Search for Fast Radio Burst at the frequency 111 MHz Now that we know what to look for we're seeing Fast Radio Bursts everywhere, in old galaxies much larger than ours, in young galaxies much smaller than ours, and in galaxies that look very much like ours. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sat Jul 6 01:41:57 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:41:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] More FRB News In-Reply-To: <283728727.2260805.1562376725399@mail.yahoo.com> References: <283728727.2260805.1562376725399@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20190705184157.Horde.dGIDvuhGs3OB3LlcwLKKBgT@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Congratulations on your recent retirement, John. As an electrical engineer, signal processing is one of your fortes so would you care to opine as to what causes FRBs? Frequencies in 111 MHz range are used for aircraft navigation in the US but are there any known non-technological sources of that frequency? Stuart LaForge Quoting John Clark: > Yesterday the journal Nature reported the detection on May 23 of > the most distant Fast Radio Burst ever discovered, it came from a > massive galaxy 7.9 billion light years away breaking the previous > record set just last week of 4 billion lightyears: > A fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy > > And last Friday a Russian observatory reported seeing 9 new FRB's at > 111MHz ,? and one of them was only the third FRB ever found that > repeated: > Search for Fast Radio Burst at the frequency 111 MHz > > Now that we know what to look for we're seeing Fast Radio Bursts > everywhere, in old galaxies much larger than ours, in young galaxies > much smaller than ours, and in galaxies that look very much like > ours.? > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From avant at sollegro.com Sat Jul 6 01:29:35 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:29:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ai emotions In-Reply-To: <1195314337.1151952.1562069230259@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20190629185508.Horde.wCel5hmNVMhMU75jcjfPNJZ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <524350647.686237.1561936716759@mail.yahoo.com> <20190701001439.Horde.1cRJUxx6FLGUBuLsENs83ON@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <1195314337.1151952.1562069230259@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20190705182935.Horde.PEdZgPFm5HhXerrECGrFsv6@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Brent Allsop: > Everything you say indicates you are mapping all of the qualitative > physics of perception into a simple ?Na?ve realism?model of > reality.? Everything you say indicates everything you read of mine, > is also being mapped into this simple ?Na?ve realism?model of reality. I act like a naive realist most of the time. It is the default state of people, I think. For example, when I see a bus hurtling toward me, I never pause to question the reality of the bus, I simply get out of the way. Like theater goers tried to get out of the way of the train depicted in one of the earliest motion pictures. People who didn't instinctively act as naive realists probably got weeded out long ago. That being said, late at night when I am comfy in my bed, I ponder Bell's inequality, quantum entanglement, and so forth and I question what reality even means. Quantum phenomena like that make me question whether information or matter is more fundamental in our universe. At the smallest scales, they seem to be in a ballroom dance so close and so fast, you can't see who is leading. > When I say redness, you think this has the same definition as red.? > You never distinguish between these two words.??I see no evidence in > anything that you say, that you understand anything more complex > than a ?Na?ve realism?model of reality.? So I don?t understand how > you can claim to disagree with me, when you show no indication that > you understand anything more than a simple ?Na?ve realism? model of > reality. No I never said redness is the same thing as red, I said that redness is a function of red. I would say that red is a contributry cause of redness. In other words red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists with or without brains, but redness does not. > If you have read ?Objectively,We are Blind to Physical Qualities? > what are the physics of ?inverted qualia? as described in that > document? ?and Why does Jack Galant admit that his method of > deriving color for his ?mind red? videos problematic? Seriously? How's this then? Normal qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Redness Inverted qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Greenness As for shortcoming of Gallant's research, any attempt to directly measure qualia would require far more invasive techniques than fMRI like literally drilling holes in people's skulls, and experiments like that are illegal in most places. Your assertion that "corrections" done by computers interpreting data from the brain as being done falsely. But that requires one falsely assume that qualia inversion is not only conceivable but actually does in fact happen. And that puts the burden of proof on you and not Gallant. That being said, it doesn't matter to me what philosophical camp you put me in because I won't stay there. Because I to go where my inquiry takes me. And right now, it seems to me that red is a wavelength of light and redness is abstract information your brain is processing. Stuart LaForge > > ? > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:19 AM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > There is no such thing as qualia blindness. We can use as many words? > for red as you want. We can both look at a fire truck and I might see? > scarlet or crimson while you might see maroon or candy-apple . . . how? > does that matter? Does that explain anything at all about either? > consciousness or intelligence? Even if my red quale was more similar? > to your green quale, how does it matter? What difference does it make?? > If it makes no difference, then it is not informative. > > Also you have a tendency to mistake people who disagree with you for? > people who don't understand you and that is a rude supposition. One? > that is not very enlightened and does little but alienate others. > > You can't detect those qualitative differences by any known science? > because qualitative differences are decided by minds and don't? > actually exist in nature. There is no natural cutoff between red and? > orange. You decide if something is red or orange. Early on in your? > development your brain decided on a "filehandle" for the color red and? > has been using it every since. That "filehandle" has no physical? > significance outside of your skull. To call someone or something? > "qualia blind" is like calling them "fairy blind" or "unicorn blind"? > in that it is absurd. > > And your assertion that I have not read your paper "Objectively,We are? > Blind to Physical Qualities? is incorrect. I have read it several? > times and every time I read it, it makes me doubt you understand the? > definition of the words "objective" and "quality". Qualities are only? > physical in the sense that information is physical. In any system of? > particles there is much more information in the relationships between? > particles then there are in the particles themselves. You are hung up? > looking for redness in particles of glutamate and greenness in? > particles of glycine but really qualia don't exist in particles,? > qualia exist in how those particles interact in the context of your? > nervous system. > > > Also you have been saying the same thing for over ten years whereas my? > views have evolved and changed over the years. So quit acting like? > your oversimplified model of color perception is some brilliant? > philosophical insight that is too subtle for people like me to? > understand. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > Quoting Brent Allsop: > >> Once you figure out what ?qualia blindness? means, you will look? >> back on these conversations and, like all people that do now? >> comprehend qualia blindness (including some on this list), you will? >> wonder how you could have missed what should be obvious, for so? >> long.? At least you are still persisting.? Many people give up? >> before they get this far.? Many people that finally get it? >> experience this.? In order to not be qualia blind,you need to use? >> more than just one word ?red? when talking about the perception of? >> color and mind reading.? If you only have one word for ?red? you? >> can?t model when someone is representing red information, with? >> something physically different like your greenness. >> Obviously, Both Galant and Nemrodovet al, are doing mind reading.?? >> What youare completely missing is how both of these guys and? >> everyone doing this kindof mind reading is doing it in a qualia? >> blind way.? The spatiotemporal EEG information theyare getting is? >> just abstract information, completely devoid of any colorquality? >> information.? In order to display mind read colors on the screen,? >> from the abstract data, they need some additional informationto tell? >> them when to display what color.? If they are qualitatively? >> interpreting thedata at all (gallant does this - displaying colored? >> images, Nemrodov isn?t ? he displays no color intheir resulting face? >> recognition images) they are doing it in a way that blindsthem to? >> any physical qualitative differences they may be detecting. >> Jack Gallant uses the >> color map in the movie he shows to know how to? >> qualitativelyinterpret his spatiotemporal EEG information, which is? >> effectivelyinterpreting it according to the properties of the? >> initial cause of perception(the physical properties of the? >> strawberry out there), not the physicalqualities of what they are? >> observing (knowledge of the strawberry, in thebrain).? Their deep? >> learning neuralnetwork algorithms have unique models for each? >> person.? These models??correct? for any physical differences they? >> detect in individual brains, so theyonly see ?red?, when in realty? >> they may be detecting greenness, and correctingfor this difference? >> making their mind reading qualia blind. > >> You obviously haven?t yet red the ?Objectively,We are Blind to? >> Physical Qualities? paper which describes exactly this in more detail. >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:57 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >> >> >> Quoting Brent Allsop: >> >> >>> There are ?week?, ?stronger? and ?strongest? forms predicting how we will >>> be able to eff the ineffable nature of the physical quality of the redness >>> someone can directly experience to other people in this ?Objectively, We >>> are Blind to Physical Qualities >>> ? >>> paper. >> >> Your paper references Jack Gallant's work but what you call "effing"? >> technology is more popularly called "mind-reading technology" you? >> should see what they have accomplished with fMRI and deep-learning? >> algorthms these days. One of the pioneers in the field is now able to? >> use your EEG(!) fed into a deep learning neural network to reconstruct? >> the faces you are seeing during the experiment. >> >> http://www.eneuro.org/content/5/1/ENEURO.0358-17.2018/tab-figures-data >> >>> You are basically making the falsifiable prediction that consciousness or >>> qualia arise from mathematics or functionality.? This kind of functionalism >>> is currently leading in supporting sub camps to representational qualia >>> theory, there being multiple functionalists? sub camps, with more >>> supporters than the materialist sub camps. >> >> So the question now becomes can an algorithm reconstruct your qualia? >> from your brain-wave data without itself experiencing them? >> >>> So, let?s take a simplistic falsifiable mathematical theory as an example, >>> the way we use glutamate as a simplified falsifiable materialist example. >>> Say if you predict that it is the square root of 9 that has a redness >>> quality and you predict that it is the square root of 16 that has a >>> greenness quality.? ?In other words, this could be verified if no >>> experimentalists could produce a redness, without doing that particular >>> necessary and sufficient mathematical function that was the square root of >>> 9. >>> But, if the prediction that it is glutamate that has the redness physical >>> quality that can?t be falsified, and nobody is ever able to reproduce a >>> redness experience (no matter what kind of mathematics you do) without >>> physical glutamate, this would falsify functionalist and mathematical >>> theories of qualia or consciousness. >> >> If hooking EEG electrodes to your head allows a machine to show me red? >> whenever you are looking at red, then which does that falsify? >> >> Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jul 6 15:02:58 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 11:02:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] More FRB News In-Reply-To: <20190705184157.Horde.dGIDvuhGs3OB3LlcwLKKBgT@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <283728727.2260805.1562376725399@mail.yahoo.com> <20190705184157.Horde.dGIDvuhGs3OB3LlcwLKKBgT@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 9:46 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: *> Congratulations on your recent retirement, John.* Thanks. > > *> As an electrical engineer, signal processing is one of your fortes so > would you care to opine as to what causes FRBs? * I really don't know. There are plenty of theories but they're all pretty wild involving very exotic stuff. One involves White Holes: Fast Radio Bursts and White Hole Signals Another idea involves a very rapidly rotating neutron star of more than 2.2 solar mass but less than 2.7, normally such a thing would collapse into a Black Hole but not if its spinning fast enough; however its powerful magnetic field would gradually slow it down and when it reached a critical point it would collapse and form a Black Hole and maybe produce a radio pulse. But of course something like that couldn't repeat and at least 2 FRB's do. Another idea for the cause involved the decay of hypothetical Dark Matter Axion Miniclusters, but of course even if they exist they couldn't repeat either: Fast Radio Bursts and Axion Miniclusters Yet another weird idea involve superconducting cosmic strings, maybe that could repeat: Superconducting cosmic strings as sources of cosmological fast radio bursts I wouldn't be surprised if we're dealing with 2 different phenomena that require 2 different explanations, one for FRB's that repeat and one for FRB's that don't. As I said I don't know what causes them but I'm pretty confident sometime in the next few years we'll figure it out. > > *Frequencies in 111 MHz range are used for aircraft navigation in the > US* I don't think FRB's are caused by ET if that's what you mean. > > but are there any known non-technological sources of that frequency? > We know of lots of things in nature that can produce radio waves, but not in a single burst at that enormous intensity (the sun's 80 year energy output) compressed into a radio burst lasting just a 1/1000 of a second with no corresponding optical Xray or Gamma Ray emissions. So whatever it turns out to be it will be something we didn't know about before, that's why they're so interesting. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 00:44:58 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 19:44:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] book Message-ID: Talk on the Wild Side, by Lane Greene, an editor at The Economist. It's not your 'where do you put the comma' type of book, though it does spend some time on 'whom' that might surprise you (including advice like "Don't use 'whom' in a biker bar"). Though it would not work at all as a text book, I learned a great deal from it. Lots of good, common sense. There is a lot of trash-talking, names included. Sections on artificial intelligence, several pages on Trump, a theory of bilingual education and a lot more. I have not read anything like it, out of all the books I have read on language. It's mainly on the descriptive as opposed to prescriptive variety of linguistics, with lots of attacks on the latter, none polite. Don't miss it if you can! bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jul 7 01:02:35 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 18:02:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001701d5345f$aa50d7e0$fef287a0$@rainier66.com> From: William Flynn Wallace >? (including advice like "Don't use 'whom' in a biker bar"). ?bill w In eschewing the proper use of the pronoun, one risks causing unnecessary offense should those patrons of the purveyor of the fruit of the vine and grain of the stalk are comprised primarily of erudite operators of motorized two-wheeled conveyances. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 01:46:52 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 18:46:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All or almost all books on linguistics I?ve read ? popular level works by John McWhorter, Stephen Pinker, and David Crystal and more technical works (which one would expect to be descriptive) ? have been descriptive. Even books I?ve read focusing on grammar that aim to improve language use ? Richard Lanham?s _Style: An Anti-textbook_ and Virginia Tigre?s book come to mind ? tend to go against the stereotype of a dry commandment style rules. I?m just wonder who Lane Greene is attacking here. Of course, there?s nothing writing per se with prescriptive grammar, especially if the goal is, say, to better communicate or to signal one?s seriousness (or silliness), etc. But I?m guessing Greene is speaking out against the dryer Procrustean grammarians... But there?s already been two generations or more of folks speaking out against them ? folks like McWhorter, for instance. What does Greene bring to the table that?s not covered by them? In other news, I read _Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We Need It_ by James Geary... So so. He gives some tantalizing details about the history and science of wit (on the latter I mean cognitive science and neurology stuff), but it?s fairly thin and doesn?t go deep enough. On the plus side, there are some great lines, stories, and jokes. Of course, I?m always down for a good pun. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Jul 6, 2019, at 5:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Talk on the Wild Side, by Lane Greene, an editor at The Economist. > > It's not your 'where do you put the comma' type of book, though it does spend some time on 'whom' that might surprise you (including advice like "Don't use 'whom' in a biker bar"). Though it would not work at all as a text book, I learned a great deal from it. Lots of good, common sense. > > There is a lot of trash-talking, names included. Sections on artificial intelligence, several pages on Trump, a theory of bilingual education and a lot more. > > I have not read anything like it, out of all the books I have read on language. It's mainly on the descriptive as opposed to prescriptive variety of linguistics, with lots of attacks on the latter, none polite. > > Don't miss it if you can! > > bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 04:17:18 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 22:17:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai emotions In-Reply-To: <20190705182935.Horde.PEdZgPFm5HhXerrECGrFsv6@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20190629185508.Horde.wCel5hmNVMhMU75jcjfPNJZ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <524350647.686237.1561936716759@mail.yahoo.com> <20190701001439.Horde.1cRJUxx6FLGUBuLsENs83ON@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <1195314337.1151952.1562069230259@mail.yahoo.com> <20190705182935.Horde.PEdZgPFm5HhXerrECGrFsv6@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Hi Stuart, ?Howe?s this then? Normal qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Redness Inverted qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Greenness? Yes, that has falsified my hypothesis that you may not be understanding this yet. Thank You. A few questions. I?m assuming that in your model, all this: ?Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye ->? are identical in both cases. But what do you mean by this? ?red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists with or without brains, but redness does not.? I?m assuming that both of these are *different* in your model in the non inverted and inverted set: ?Brain -> Redness?? You?ve indicated that the downstream, ?redness? does not exist without the upstream ?brain?? If there is one pixel on the surface of the strawberry that is switching between red and green, what is the physical change in the physics of the ? brain? in your model? And is the difference between ?Redness? and ? Greenness? physically or objectively detectable, without cheating by observing anything upstream from your "Redness" and "Greenness"? On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 9:01 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Quoting Brent Allsop: > > > > Everything you say indicates you are mapping all of the qualitative > > physics of perception into a simple ?Na?ve realism?model of > > reality. Everything you say indicates everything you read of mine, > > is also being mapped into this simple ?Na?ve realism?model of reality. > > I act like a naive realist most of the time. It is the default state > of people, I think. For example, when I see a bus hurtling toward me, > I never pause to question the reality of the bus, I simply get out of > the way. Like theater goers tried to get out of the way of the train > depicted in one of the earliest motion pictures. > > People who didn't instinctively act as naive realists probably got > weeded out long ago. That being said, late at night when I am comfy in > my bed, I ponder Bell's inequality, quantum entanglement, and so forth > and I question what reality even means. Quantum phenomena like that > make me question whether information or matter is more fundamental in > our universe. > > At the smallest scales, they seem to be in a ballroom dance so close > and so fast, you can't see who is leading. > > > When I say redness, you think this has the same definition as red. > > You never distinguish between these two words. I see no evidence in > > anything that you say, that you understand anything more complex > > than a ?Na?ve realism?model of reality. So I don?t understand how > > you can claim to disagree with me, when you show no indication that > > you understand anything more than a simple ?Na?ve realism? model of > > reality. > > No I never said redness is the same thing as red, I said that redness > is a function of red. I would say that red is a contributry cause of > redness. In other words red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists > with or without brains, but redness does not. > > > If you have read ?Objectively,We are Blind to Physical Qualities? > > what are the physics of ?inverted qualia? as described in that > > document? and Why does Jack Galant admit that his method of > > deriving color for his ?mind red? videos problematic? > > Seriously? How's this then? > > Normal qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Redness > > Inverted qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Greenness > > As for shortcoming of Gallant's research, any attempt to directly > measure qualia would require far more invasive techniques than fMRI > like literally drilling holes in people's skulls, and experiments like > that are illegal in most places. Your assertion that "corrections" > done by computers interpreting data from the brain as being done > falsely. But that requires one falsely assume that qualia inversion is > not only conceivable but actually does in fact happen. And that puts > the burden of proof on you and not Gallant. > > That being said, it doesn't matter to me what philosophical camp you > put me in because I won't stay there. Because I to go where my inquiry > takes me. And right now, it seems to me that red is a wavelength of > light and redness is abstract information your brain is processing. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:19 AM Stuart LaForge > wrote: > > > > > > There is no such thing as qualia blindness. We can use as many words > > for red as you want. We can both look at a fire truck and I might see > > scarlet or crimson while you might see maroon or candy-apple . . . how > > does that matter? Does that explain anything at all about either > > consciousness or intelligence? Even if my red quale was more similar > > to your green quale, how does it matter? What difference does it make? > > If it makes no difference, then it is not informative. > > > > Also you have a tendency to mistake people who disagree with you for > > people who don't understand you and that is a rude supposition. One > > that is not very enlightened and does little but alienate others. > > > > You can't detect those qualitative differences by any known science > > because qualitative differences are decided by minds and don't > > actually exist in nature. There is no natural cutoff between red and > > orange. You decide if something is red or orange. Early on in your > > development your brain decided on a "filehandle" for the color red and > > has been using it every since. That "filehandle" has no physical > > significance outside of your skull. To call someone or something > > "qualia blind" is like calling them "fairy blind" or "unicorn blind" > > in that it is absurd. > > > > And your assertion that I have not read your paper "Objectively,We are > > Blind to Physical Qualities? is incorrect. I have read it several > > times and every time I read it, it makes me doubt you understand the > > definition of the words "objective" and "quality". Qualities are only > > physical in the sense that information is physical. In any system of > > particles there is much more information in the relationships between > > particles then there are in the particles themselves. You are hung up > > looking for redness in particles of glutamate and greenness in > > particles of glycine but really qualia don't exist in particles, > > qualia exist in how those particles interact in the context of your > > nervous system. > > > > > > Also you have been saying the same thing for over ten years whereas my > > views have evolved and changed over the years. So quit acting like > > your oversimplified model of color perception is some brilliant > > philosophical insight that is too subtle for people like me to > > understand. > > > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > > > > Quoting Brent Allsop: > > > >> Once you figure out what ?qualia blindness? means, you will look > >> back on these conversations and, like all people that do now > >> comprehend qualia blindness (including some on this list), you will > >> wonder how you could have missed what should be obvious, for so > >> long. At least you are still persisting. Many people give up > >> before they get this far. Many people that finally get it > >> experience this. In order to not be qualia blind,you need to use > >> more than just one word ?red? when talking about the perception of > >> color and mind reading. If you only have one word for ?red? you > >> can?t model when someone is representing red information, with > >> something physically different like your greenness. > >> Obviously, Both Galant and Nemrodovet al, are doing mind reading. > >> What youare completely missing is how both of these guys and > >> everyone doing this kindof mind reading is doing it in a qualia > >> blind way. The spatiotemporal EEG information theyare getting is > >> just abstract information, completely devoid of any colorquality > >> information. In order to display mind read colors on the screen, > >> from the abstract data, they need some additional informationto tell > >> them when to display what color. If they are qualitatively > >> interpreting thedata at all (gallant does this - displaying colored > >> images, Nemrodov isn?t ? he displays no color intheir resulting face > >> recognition images) they are doing it in a way that blindsthem to > >> any physical qualitative differences they may be detecting. > >> Jack Gallant uses the > >> color map in the movie he shows to know how to > >> qualitativelyinterpret his spatiotemporal EEG information, which is > >> effectivelyinterpreting it according to the properties of the > >> initial cause of perception(the physical properties of the > >> strawberry out there), not the physicalqualities of what they are > >> observing (knowledge of the strawberry, in thebrain). Their deep > >> learning neuralnetwork algorithms have unique models for each > >> person. These models ?correct? for any physical differences they > >> detect in individual brains, so theyonly see ?red?, when in realty > >> they may be detecting greenness, and correctingfor this difference > >> making their mind reading qualia blind. > > > >> You obviously haven?t yet red the ?Objectively,We are Blind to > >> Physical Qualities? paper which describes exactly this in more detail. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:57 PM Stuart LaForge > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Quoting Brent Allsop: > >> > >> > >>> There are ?week?, ?stronger? and ?strongest? forms predicting how we > will > >>> be able to eff the ineffable nature of the physical quality of the > redness > >>> someone can directly experience to other people in this ?Objectively, > We > >>> are Blind to Physical Qualities > >>> < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWUm3LzWVlY0ao5D9BFg4EQXGSopVDGPi-lVtCoJzzM/edit?usp=sharing > >? > >>> paper. > >> > >> Your paper references Jack Gallant's work but what you call "effing" > >> technology is more popularly called "mind-reading technology" you > >> should see what they have accomplished with fMRI and deep-learning > >> algorthms these days. One of the pioneers in the field is now able to > >> use your EEG(!) fed into a deep learning neural network to reconstruct > >> the faces you are seeing during the experiment. > >> > >> http://www.eneuro.org/content/5/1/ENEURO.0358-17.2018/tab-figures-data > >> > >>> You are basically making the falsifiable prediction that consciousness > or > >>> qualia arise from mathematics or functionality. This kind of > functionalism > >>> is currently leading in supporting sub camps to representational qualia > >>> theory, there being multiple functionalists? sub camps, with more > >>> supporters than the materialist sub camps. > >> > >> So the question now becomes can an algorithm reconstruct your qualia > >> from your brain-wave data without itself experiencing them? > >> > >>> So, let?s take a simplistic falsifiable mathematical theory as an > example, > >>> the way we use glutamate as a simplified falsifiable materialist > example. > >>> Say if you predict that it is the square root of 9 that has a redness > >>> quality and you predict that it is the square root of 16 that has a > >>> greenness quality. In other words, this could be verified if no > >>> experimentalists could produce a redness, without doing that particular > >>> necessary and sufficient mathematical function that was the square > root of > >>> 9. > >>> But, if the prediction that it is glutamate that has the redness > physical > >>> quality that can?t be falsified, and nobody is ever able to reproduce a > >>> redness experience (no matter what kind of mathematics you do) without > >>> physical glutamate, this would falsify functionalist and mathematical > >>> theories of qualia or consciousness. > >> > >> If hooking EEG electrodes to your head allows a machine to show me red > >> whenever you are looking at red, then which does that falsify? > >> > >> Stuart LaForge > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 05:25:34 2019 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 22:25:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Voynich translated In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is just for your amusement. I have been following this story for some months. See the Wikipedia talk page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript The Algorithmic Method For Translating MS408 (Voynich): https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004653 Keith From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 12:36:48 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 08:36:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Voynich translated In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A modern counterpart to the Voynich Manuscript would be "Codex Serafinianus" written by Luigi Serafini (who was born exactly one day after me). It's filled with weird surrealistic color drawings and a beautiful script written in a strange alphabet that nobody can translate. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that the script could explain the weird drawings if only somebody could translate it. But Serafini has admitted there is nothing to translate, the script has no meaning, he says he wanted to reproduce the feeling young children have when they open a book and know it has meaning but can't read yet. I wonder if the author of Voynich was doing the same thing as Serafini except not being as honest about it because in the 15'th century a mysterious book like Voynich would command a high price. Some Images From Codex Serafinianus John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 14:08:27 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:08:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greene attacks prescriptivists. He distinguishes between formal and everyday writing and speaking and attacks the prescriptivists for teaching that the formal way is the only way. IOW - 'whom' every time, never 'who' - and teaching blacks and others who use nonstandard English that they are wrong rather than different - and more bill w bill w On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 8:50 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > All or almost all books on linguistics I?ve read ? popular level works by > John McWhorter, Stephen Pinker, and David Crystal and more technical works > (which one would expect to be descriptive) ? have been descriptive. Even > books I?ve read focusing on grammar that aim to improve language use ? > Richard Lanham?s _Style: An Anti-textbook_ and Virginia Tigre?s book come > to mind ? tend to go against the stereotype of a dry commandment style > rules. I?m just wonder who Lane Greene is attacking here. > > Of course, there?s nothing writing per se with prescriptive grammar, > especially if the goal is, say, to better communicate or to signal one?s > seriousness (or silliness), etc. But I?m guessing Greene is speaking out > against the dryer Procrustean grammarians... But there?s already been two > generations or more of folks speaking out against them ? folks like > McWhorter, for instance. What does Greene bring to the table that?s not > covered by them? > > In other news, I read _Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We > Need It_ by James Geary... So so. He gives some tantalizing details about > the history and science of wit (on the latter I mean cognitive science and > neurology stuff), but it?s fairly thin and doesn?t go deep enough. On the > plus side, there are some great lines, stories, and jokes. Of course, I?m > always down for a good pun. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > > On Jul 6, 2019, at 5:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > Talk on the Wild Side, by Lane Greene, an editor at The Economist. > > It's not your 'where do you put the comma' type of book, though it does > spend some time on 'whom' that might surprise you (including advice like > "Don't use 'whom' in a biker bar"). Though it would not work at all as a > text book, I learned a great deal from it. Lots of good, common sense. > > There is a lot of trash-talking, names included. Sections on artificial > intelligence, several pages on Trump, a theory of bilingual education and a > lot more. > > I have not read anything like it, out of all the books I have read on > language. It's mainly on the descriptive as opposed to prescriptive > variety of linguistics, with lots of attacks on the latter, none polite. > > Don't miss it if you can! > > bill w > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 17:02:58 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 10:02:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39758925-81B8-41F0-8F58-EA87F5AB8FFC@gmail.com> I got that, but what are the books in language you?ve read aside from this one? The books I?ve read on language ? _The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language_ by John McWhorter, for instance ? have been basically descriptivist. Bashing the prescriptivist outlook has been in style now for the past two or more decades. (In fact, if anything, being anti-prescriptivist seems to be overly simplifying things.) By the way, for me a really mind-blowing book on language was _How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation_ by N. J. Enfield. He goes over stuff like how pauses (how long they are before people notice something?s wrong, for example) and the words um, uh-huh, oh, and mm-hmm work. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Jul 7, 2019, at 7:08 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Greene attacks prescriptivists. He distinguishes between formal and everyday writing and speaking and attacks the prescriptivists for teaching that the formal way is the only way. IOW - 'whom' every time, never 'who' - and teaching blacks and others who use nonstandard English that they are wrong rather than different - and more > > bill w > > bill w > >> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 8:50 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> All or almost all books on linguistics I?ve read ? popular level works by John McWhorter, Stephen Pinker, and David Crystal and more technical works (which one would expect to be descriptive) ? have been descriptive. Even books I?ve read focusing on grammar that aim to improve language use ? Richard Lanham?s _Style: An Anti-textbook_ and Virginia Tigre?s book come to mind ? tend to go against the stereotype of a dry commandment style rules. I?m just wonder who Lane Greene is attacking here. >> >> Of course, there?s nothing writing per se with prescriptive grammar, especially if the goal is, say, to better communicate or to signal one?s seriousness (or silliness), etc. But I?m guessing Greene is speaking out against the dryer Procrustean grammarians... But there?s already been two generations or more of folks speaking out against them ? folks like McWhorter, for instance. What does Greene bring to the table that?s not covered by them? >> >> In other news, I read _Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We Need It_ by James Geary... So so. He gives some tantalizing details about the history and science of wit (on the latter I mean cognitive science and neurology stuff), but it?s fairly thin and doesn?t go deep enough. On the plus side, there are some great lines, stories, and jokes. Of course, I?m always down for a good pun. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> Sample my Kindle books at: >> http://author.to/DanUst >> >>> On Jul 6, 2019, at 5:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> >>> Talk on the Wild Side, by Lane Greene, an editor at The Economist. >>> >>> It's not your 'where do you put the comma' type of book, though it does spend some time on 'whom' that might surprise you (including advice like "Don't use 'whom' in a biker bar"). Though it would not work at all as a text book, I learned a great deal from it. Lots of good, common sense. >>> >>> There is a lot of trash-talking, names included. Sections on artificial intelligence, several pages on Trump, a theory of bilingual education and a lot more. >>> >>> I have not read anything like it, out of all the books I have read on language. It's mainly on the descriptive as opposed to prescriptive variety of linguistics, with lots of attacks on the latter, none polite. >>> >>> Don't miss it if you can! >>> >>> bill w > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 17:32:08 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 12:32:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: <39758925-81B8-41F0-8F58-EA87F5AB8FFC@gmail.com> References: <39758925-81B8-41F0-8F58-EA87F5AB8FFC@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't remember -too many years ago. Only one recently - Pinker Thanks for the book suggestions. bill w On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 12:06 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > I got that, but what are the books in language you?ve read aside from this > one? The books I?ve read on language ? _The Power of Babel: A Natural > History of Language_ by John McWhorter, for instance ? have been basically > descriptivist. Bashing the prescriptivist outlook has been in style now for > the past two or more decades. (In fact, if anything, being > anti-prescriptivist seems to be overly simplifying things.) > > By the way, for me a really mind-blowing book on language was _How We > Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation_ by N. J. Enfield. He goes over > stuff like how pauses (how long they are before people notice something?s > wrong, for example) and the words um, uh-huh, oh, and mm-hmm work. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > > On Jul 7, 2019, at 7:08 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > Greene attacks prescriptivists. He distinguishes between formal and > everyday writing and speaking and attacks the prescriptivists for teaching > that the formal way is the only way. IOW - 'whom' every time, never 'who' > - and teaching blacks and others who use nonstandard English that they are > wrong rather than different - and more > > bill w > > bill w > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 8:50 PM Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > >> All or almost all books on linguistics I?ve read ? popular level works by >> John McWhorter, Stephen Pinker, and David Crystal and more technical works >> (which one would expect to be descriptive) ? have been descriptive. Even >> books I?ve read focusing on grammar that aim to improve language use ? >> Richard Lanham?s _Style: An Anti-textbook_ and Virginia Tigre?s book come >> to mind ? tend to go against the stereotype of a dry commandment style >> rules. I?m just wonder who Lane Greene is attacking here. >> >> Of course, there?s nothing writing per se with prescriptive grammar, >> especially if the goal is, say, to better communicate or to signal one?s >> seriousness (or silliness), etc. But I?m guessing Greene is speaking out >> against the dryer Procrustean grammarians... But there?s already been two >> generations or more of folks speaking out against them ? folks like >> McWhorter, for instance. What does Greene bring to the table that?s not >> covered by them? >> >> In other news, I read _Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We >> Need It_ by James Geary... So so. He gives some tantalizing details about >> the history and science of wit (on the latter I mean cognitive science and >> neurology stuff), but it?s fairly thin and doesn?t go deep enough. On the >> plus side, there are some great lines, stories, and jokes. Of course, I?m >> always down for a good pun. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> Sample my Kindle books at: >> >> http://author.to/DanUst >> >> On Jul 6, 2019, at 5:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >> >> Talk on the Wild Side, by Lane Greene, an editor at The Economist. >> >> It's not your 'where do you put the comma' type of book, though it does >> spend some time on 'whom' that might surprise you (including advice like >> "Don't use 'whom' in a biker bar"). Though it would not work at all as a >> text book, I learned a great deal from it. Lots of good, common sense. >> >> There is a lot of trash-talking, names included. Sections on artificial >> intelligence, several pages on Trump, a theory of bilingual education and a >> lot more. >> >> I have not read anything like it, out of all the books I have read on >> language. It's mainly on the descriptive as opposed to prescriptive >> variety of linguistics, with lots of attacks on the latter, none polite. >> >> Don't miss it if you can! >> >> 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 21:51:40 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 17:51:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. Message-ID: People in the USA are unhappy. Today the US suicide rate is the highest it's been since 1942, it has gone up 33% just since 1999. And white middle aged men are much more unhappy than the general population, their suicide rate went up 71% since 1999. I don't think it's a coincidence they are the heart of Trump's demographic and would vote for somebody who would radically change things, but unfortunatly Trump changed things in precisely the wrong direction. Adjusted for inflation the top 1% saw their total net worth INCREASE by $21 trillion but the bottom 50% saw their net worth DECREASE by $900 billion. And thanks to technological improvements this trend is accelerating. Sooner or later all these unhappy voters, even white middle age men, will realize that Trump's new tax laws will not resolve their discontent because that resulted in the richest 0.1% paying 3.2% of their net worth on taxes each year while the poorest 99.9% pay 7.2%. When Joe Sixpack figures this out there will be hell to pay and become vulnerable to a demagogue who goes too far in the oposite direction like a luddite or a communist. Even the super rich, or at least the smart ones, realize this is situation is dangerous and one way or another simply will not continue indefinitely, so they propose a wealth tax be imposed on the richest 10% of the richest 1% so they could still have some control over how this trend stops. 18 billionaires have signed a petition calling for exactly that: A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF A WEALTH TAX And they are far from the only ones, Warren Buffett has long advocated the same thing: WARREN BUFFETT on coddling the super-rich And so has Bill Gates: Bill Gates wants higher taxes on the rich And Nick Hanauer, a member of the top 0.01%, also thinks the hyper rich should pay more and wrote a letter about it to his rich peers. I found this passage to be particularly illuminating: *"I?m not the smartest guy you?ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I?m not technical at all?I can?t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?* *I see pitchforks."* *My Fellow Zillionaires * John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jul 7 22:10:02 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 15:10:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark ? A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF A WEALTH TAX ? John K Clark Could you imagine how complicated tax returns would become if we had to estimate our total net worth? The gold and BitCoin people would be dancing. You can?t declare those. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 11:04:25 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 07:04:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:13 PM wrote > *Could you imagine how complicated tax returns would become if we had to > estimate our total net worth? * > If the wealth tax didn't kick in until it reached the billion dollar range then that wouldn't be much of a problem for the average taxpayer. And billionaires already have accountants, lots of them, that's one reason they pay so little taxes. The other reason is they can afford to hire lots of Washington lobbyist. > > *The gold and BitCoin people would be dancing. You can?t declare > those.* > Why not? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 8 13:34:49 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 06:34:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 4:04 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:13 PM > wrote >> Could you imagine how complicated tax returns would become if we had to estimate our total net worth? >?If the wealth tax didn't kick in until it reached the billion dollar range then that wouldn't be much of a problem for the average taxpayer? Ja, but how would you determine if you are an average taxpayer? Couldn?t those who are in the billion dollar range just claim to be an average taxpayer? How would they get to be identified as not average taxpayers? Alternative: those average taxpayers who think they might be approaching non-average status would dump their wealth into gold, BitCoin, things which cannot be declared (if you have any brains) or whose value is arbitrary. >?And billionaires already have accountants, lots of them, that's one reason they pay so little taxes? Sure but the accountants don?t know about the gold and BitCoin. If you hold that stuff you need to keep it secret. >> The gold and BitCoin people would be dancing. You can?t declare those. >?Why not? John K Clark Because people will come to your house and break in to steal it. If you hold BitCoin and a lot of people know, they will steal your children to get it from you. Also, keep in mind, the notion of a billion dollars is arbitrary: https://www.greatamericancoincompany.com/products/100-trillion-zimbabwe-banknotes-2008-aa-series-uncirculated?variant=8907776196665 &gclid=EAIaIQobChMInfL11bWl4wIVA6rsCh1nXQKiEAQYASABEgIFpfD_BwE If you present the notion of taxing billionehhhs, just remind the voters that income tax started out only taxing those who made over 100k a year, which was only this guy and a few others: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1411 &bih=980&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=cUQjXYTEH5HB-gTPiY2wBA&q=monopoly+guy+gif&oq=monopoly+guy+gif&gs_l=img.3..0j0i5i30.3572.5043..6549...0.0..0.65.504.9......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i8i7i30.UWTwzjotENo#imgrc=pIwRNXsYkkxd7M: and a few others such as Montgomery Burns, but soon it included nearly everyone. Then we are left with trying to estimate our current net worth. OK? how? And what if? the government disputes your estimate? Do they get to arbitrarily estimate your net worth? How? Do you want the government having the arbitrary power to estimate your tax bill, when you have little or no recourse? >? I see pitchforks. The young proletariat google for the definition of the term ?pitchfork? which they have never actually seen nor have a clue where one might be found. When they find it, they wonder what good this object would be for facing a standing army with rifles, a well-regulated militia (with rifles) and most of the citizenry (with rifles) who recognize there is no objective way to estimate one?s net worth. John, do you know of one? How? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 14:04:46 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:04:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike- Putting aside the fact that I'm not in favor of a wealth tax, movements into and out of gold and bitcoin from a "real" currency are generally required to do anything useful with either of them. This makes them not as easy to use to hide money as you're hinting at, especially for any significant quantity. Bitcoin is also not suitable as a proxy for a currency at this point as it's way too volatile IMO. I am sure people will find a way to avoid taxes if they are too onerous by hook or crook though, so I guess we agree. On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:37 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark > *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 4:04 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:13 PM wrote > > > > >> *Could you imagine how complicated tax returns would become if we had > to estimate our total net worth? * > > > > >?If the wealth tax didn't kick in until it reached the billion dollar > range then that wouldn't be much of a problem for the average taxpayer? > > > > Ja, but how would you determine if you are an average taxpayer? Couldn?t > those who are in the billion dollar range just claim to be an average > taxpayer? How would they get to be identified as not average taxpayers? > Alternative: those average taxpayers who think they might be approaching > non-average status would dump their wealth into gold, BitCoin, things which > cannot be declared (if you have any brains) or whose value is arbitrary. > > > > >?And billionaires already have accountants, lots of them, that's one > reason they pay so little taxes? > > > > Sure but the accountants don?t know about the gold and BitCoin. If you > hold that stuff you need to keep it secret. > > > > > > >> *The gold and BitCoin people would be dancing. You can?t declare > those.* > > > > >?Why not? John K Clark > > > > Because people will come to your house and break in to steal it. If you > hold BitCoin and a lot of people know, they will steal your children to get > it from you. > > > > Also, keep in mind, the notion of a billion dollars is arbitrary: > > > > > https://www.greatamericancoincompany.com/products/100-trillion-zimbabwe-banknotes-2008-aa-series-uncirculated?variant=8907776196665&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInfL11bWl4wIVA6rsCh1nXQKiEAQYASABEgIFpfD_BwE > > > > If you present the notion of taxing billionehhhs, just remind the voters > that income tax started out only taxing those who made over 100k a year, > which was only this guy and a few others: > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?biw=1411&bih=980&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=cUQjXYTEH5HB-gTPiY2wBA&q=monopoly+guy+gif&oq=monopoly+guy+gif&gs_l=img.3..0j0i5i30.3572.5043..6549...0.0..0.65.504.9......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i8i7i30.UWTwzjotENo#imgrc=pIwRNXsYkkxd7M: > > > > and a few others such as Montgomery Burns, but soon it included nearly > everyone. > > > > Then we are left with trying to estimate our current net worth. OK? how? > And what if? the government disputes your estimate? Do they get to > arbitrarily estimate your net worth? How? Do you want the government > having the arbitrary power to estimate your tax bill, when you have little > or no recourse? > > > > >? I see pitchforks. > > > > The young proletariat google for the definition of the term ?pitchfork? > which they have never actually seen nor have a clue where one might be > found. > > > > When they find it, they wonder what good this object would be for facing a > standing army with rifles, a well-regulated militia (with rifles) and most > of the citizenry (with rifles) who recognize there is no objective way to > estimate one?s net worth. > > > > John, do you know of one? How? > > > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 8 15:06:13 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:06:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00fc01d5359e$af2d1590$0d8740b0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dylan Distasio Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. Spike- >?Putting aside the fact that I'm not in favor of a wealth tax, movements into and out of gold and bitcoin from a "real" currency are generally required to do anything useful with either of them. This makes them not as easy to use to hide money as you're hinting at, especially for any significant quantity. Bitcoin is also not suitable as a proxy for a currency at this point as it's way too volatile IMO. I am sure people will find a way to avoid taxes if they are too onerous by hook or crook though, so I guess we agree. Dylan Ja, thanks Dylan. The local gold exchanges operate largely in cash already (for gold owners don?t want anyone to be able to trace it back to them.) But even if not, if one has already bought a pile of physical gold, that is in the past. There is no law that says one must declare one?s gold (and plenty of reasons to not.) Regarding your notion that BitCoin is too volatile: sure but that in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. If BitCoin didn?t already exist, we would need to invent it. I don?t know what we are going to do about the inherent problem it carries: it enables kidnapping. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 8 15:07:14 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:07:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <010f01d5359e$d37765e0$7a6631a0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dylan Distasio Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:05 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. Spike- >?Putting aside the fact that I'm not in favor of a wealth tax? Dylan If there is ever a wealth tax of any kind (absolutely regardless of where it starts (even a Dr. Evil-esqe hundred billion dollars)) it causes immediate flight into assets whose value is not arbitrary. All currency-denominated wealth is arbitrarily defined but any asset which is not arbitrarily defined gains inherent value. The Zimbabwe hundred billion dollar note is insufficient to pay for an hour of labor, but BitCoin is going strong. Fun aside for collectors: the Zimbabwe one hundred trillion dollar note does still hold some value to collectors, not because it can be used as actual currency, but because they didn?t print very many of them before recognizing the pointlessness of continuing to add a new zero every week. Now Zimbabwe just runs on foreign (mostly US) currency, problem solved. Governments know ways to handle the notion of currency with arbitrary value of course. They can issue a ?new? currency, making the old currency worthless (as Venezuela did.) They can arbitrarily estimate one?s net worth at over a billion in old currency, and now demand 1% of that in new currency. This is why we don?t have a wealth tax. We learned from those countries which have that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 8 15:08:08 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:08:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <012001d5359e$f3b24870$db16d950$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dylan Distasio Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:05 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. Spike- >?Putting aside the fact that I'm not in favor of a wealth tax, so we agree? On to John?s point: does wealth disparity result in revolution? I see plenty of countries in which that disparity is way greater than it is in the USA, and they seem to be living with it. I don?t own a luxury yacht, but I have not a trace of animosity against those who do. On the contrary: I am entertained by the resulting silliness. For example? In Monterey CA, nice harbor, lots of really rich people live around there, your classic Sandersian billionehhhs, the Monopoly guy moved there after his copyright from the Parker Brothers game expired. Places to park a boat are a limited resource, and the waiting list is longer than ordinary humans are likely to live (even the cartoon Monopoly guy would die before a slip came open), but any ordinary billionehhh can buy a boat already parked in a slip. Plenty of the boats currently parked in the most desirable harbor are just place-holders for speculators gambling on buying a canoe for a couple hundred thousand bucks, betting that a year from now, someone will pay her a quarter of million for that canoe (and the slip.) The locals dislike this of course: they think they should get a cut of those billions, and they don?t like looking down at the harbor and seeing half of the slips with luxury yachts and some of them occupied by ugly old canoes and rowboats. They can?t get a slip for their boats. Coastline is a limited resource. But here?s a fun one: if one could build an artificial harbor, one could sell those parking spots for hundreds of thousands each. Well OK, how hard would it be to build an artificial harbor? And whodathunk? As technology improves, the cost of building a luxury yacht goes down, while the cost of a parking spot for it goes up. Extrapolate on that notion: over time, stuff gets ever cheaper, but a place to put all your stuff gets more expensive. Oh what a fun world we live in. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy.burkhardt at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 16:20:22 2019 From: randy.burkhardt at gmail.com (Randy Burkhardt) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:20:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: <39758925-81B8-41F0-8F58-EA87F5AB8FFC@gmail.com> References: <39758925-81B8-41F0-8F58-EA87F5AB8FFC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the book recommendation of How We Talk by Enfield, Dan. Those parts of communication are things I have thought about for a lot of reasons, such as trying to communicate meanings to people efficiently. And lately I think about the danged chatbots - not that I want them to get any better, that would make 'em harder to detect and that's too creepy for me. Sometimes I feel the need to refresh and add to my proper skills and it's doubtful, but if I get the time for that I think I would want to go back to my local college and take another composition class. O my, I just read a few reviews of How We Talk, I'm definetly ordering because of the discussion of pauses that you mention. On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 10:07 AM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > I got that, but what are the books in language you?ve read aside from this > one? The books I?ve read on language ? _The Power of Babel: A Natural > History of Language_ by John McWhorter, for instance ? have been basically > descriptivist. Bashing the prescriptivist outlook has been in style now for > the past two or more decades. (In fact, if anything, being > anti-prescriptivist seems to be overly simplifying things.) > > By the way, for me a really mind-blowing book on language was _How We > Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation_ by N. J. Enfield. He goes over > stuff like how pauses (how long they are before people notice something?s > wrong, for example) and the words um, uh-huh, oh, and mm-hmm work. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > > On Jul 7, 2019, at 7:08 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > Greene attacks prescriptivists. He distinguishes between formal and > everyday writing and speaking and attacks the prescriptivists for teaching > that the formal way is the only way. IOW - 'whom' every time, never 'who' > - and teaching blacks and others who use nonstandard English that they are > wrong rather than different - and more > > bill w > > bill w > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 8:50 PM Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > >> All or almost all books on linguistics I?ve read ? popular level works by >> John McWhorter, Stephen Pinker, and David Crystal and more technical works >> (which one would expect to be descriptive) ? have been descriptive. Even >> books I?ve read focusing on grammar that aim to improve language use ? >> Richard Lanham?s _Style: An Anti-textbook_ and Virginia Tigre?s book come >> to mind ? tend to go against the stereotype of a dry commandment style >> rules. I?m just wonder who Lane Greene is attacking here. >> >> Of course, there?s nothing writing per se with prescriptive grammar, >> especially if the goal is, say, to better communicate or to signal one?s >> seriousness (or silliness), etc. But I?m guessing Greene is speaking out >> against the dryer Procrustean grammarians... But there?s already been two >> generations or more of folks speaking out against them ? folks like >> McWhorter, for instance. What does Greene bring to the table that?s not >> covered by them? >> >> In other news, I read _Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We >> Need It_ by James Geary... So so. He gives some tantalizing details about >> the history and science of wit (on the latter I mean cognitive science and >> neurology stuff), but it?s fairly thin and doesn?t go deep enough. On the >> plus side, there are some great lines, stories, and jokes. Of course, I?m >> always down for a good pun. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> Sample my Kindle books at: >> >> http://author.to/DanUst >> >> On Jul 6, 2019, at 5:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >> >> Talk on the Wild Side, by Lane Greene, an editor at The Economist. >> >> It's not your 'where do you put the comma' type of book, though it does >> spend some time on 'whom' that might surprise you (including advice like >> "Don't use 'whom' in a biker bar"). Though it would not work at all as a >> text book, I learned a great deal from it. Lots of good, common sense. >> >> There is a lot of trash-talking, names included. Sections on artificial >> intelligence, several pages on Trump, a theory of bilingual education and a >> lot more. >> >> I have not read anything like it, out of all the books I have read on >> language. It's mainly on the descriptive as opposed to prescriptive >> variety of linguistics, with lots of attacks on the latter, none polite. >> >> Don't miss it if you can! >> >> bill w >> >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Randy (805) 268-7426 ringtones: www.randyburkhardt.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 17:44:23 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:44:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: <39758925-81B8-41F0-8F58-EA87F5AB8FFC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Talk on the Wild Side has a whole chapter on how difficult it is to teach AIs how to speak English and understand it. Wow. It's going to take a long time. bill w On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:37 AM Randy Burkhardt wrote: > Thanks for the book recommendation of How We Talk by Enfield, Dan. Those > parts of communication are things I have thought about for a lot of > reasons, such as trying to communicate meanings to people efficiently. And > lately I think about the danged chatbots - not that I want them to get any > better, that would make 'em harder to detect and that's too creepy for me. > > Sometimes I feel the need to refresh and add to my proper skills and it's > doubtful, but if I get the time for that I think I would want to go back to > my local college and take another composition class. > > O my, I just read a few reviews of How We Talk, I'm definetly ordering > because of the discussion of pauses that you mention. > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 10:07 AM Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > >> I got that, but what are the books in language you?ve read aside from >> this one? The books I?ve read on language ? _The Power of Babel: A Natural >> History of Language_ by John McWhorter, for instance ? have been basically >> descriptivist. Bashing the prescriptivist outlook has been in style now for >> the past two or more decades. (In fact, if anything, being >> anti-prescriptivist seems to be overly simplifying things.) >> >> By the way, for me a really mind-blowing book on language was _How We >> Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation_ by N. J. Enfield. He goes over >> stuff like how pauses (how long they are before people notice something?s >> wrong, for example) and the words um, uh-huh, oh, and mm-hmm work. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> Sample my Kindle books at: >> >> http://author.to/DanUst >> >> On Jul 7, 2019, at 7:08 AM, William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >> >> Greene attacks prescriptivists. He distinguishes between formal and >> everyday writing and speaking and attacks the prescriptivists for teaching >> that the formal way is the only way. IOW - 'whom' every time, never 'who' >> - and teaching blacks and others who use nonstandard English that they are >> wrong rather than different - and more >> >> bill w >> >> bill w >> >> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 8:50 PM Dan TheBookMan >> wrote: >> >>> All or almost all books on linguistics I?ve read ? popular level works >>> by John McWhorter, Stephen Pinker, and David Crystal and more technical >>> works (which one would expect to be descriptive) ? have been descriptive. >>> Even books I?ve read focusing on grammar that aim to improve language use ? >>> Richard Lanham?s _Style: An Anti-textbook_ and Virginia Tigre?s book come >>> to mind ? tend to go against the stereotype of a dry commandment style >>> rules. I?m just wonder who Lane Greene is attacking here. >>> >>> Of course, there?s nothing writing per se with prescriptive grammar, >>> especially if the goal is, say, to better communicate or to signal one?s >>> seriousness (or silliness), etc. But I?m guessing Greene is speaking out >>> against the dryer Procrustean grammarians... But there?s already been two >>> generations or more of folks speaking out against them ? folks like >>> McWhorter, for instance. What does Greene bring to the table that?s not >>> covered by them? >>> >>> In other news, I read _Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We >>> Need It_ by James Geary... So so. He gives some tantalizing details about >>> the history and science of wit (on the latter I mean cognitive science and >>> neurology stuff), but it?s fairly thin and doesn?t go deep enough. On the >>> plus side, there are some great lines, stories, and jokes. Of course, I?m >>> always down for a good pun. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Dan >>> Sample my Kindle books at: >>> >>> http://author.to/DanUst >>> >>> On Jul 6, 2019, at 5:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace >>> wrote: >>> >>> Talk on the Wild Side, by Lane Greene, an editor at The Economist. >>> >>> It's not your 'where do you put the comma' type of book, though it does >>> spend some time on 'whom' that might surprise you (including advice like >>> "Don't use 'whom' in a biker bar"). Though it would not work at all as a >>> text book, I learned a great deal from it. Lots of good, common sense. >>> >>> There is a lot of trash-talking, names included. Sections on artificial >>> intelligence, several pages on Trump, a theory of bilingual education and a >>> lot more. >>> >>> I have not read anything like it, out of all the books I have read on >>> language. It's mainly on the descriptive as opposed to prescriptive >>> variety of linguistics, with lots of attacks on the latter, none polite. >>> >>> Don't miss it if you can! >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > -- > Randy > (805) 268-7426 > > > ringtones: > www.randyburkhardt.com > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 18:56:23 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:56:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:38 AM wrote: > >?If the wealth tax didn't kick in until it reached the billion dollar >> range then that wouldn't be much of a problem for the average taxpayer? > > > > *> Ja, but how would you determine if you are an average taxpayer?* > I have little difficulty in figuring out that I am not a billionaire, if its hard for you to determine if you are that rich or not then I envy you. > *> Couldn?t those who are in the billion dollar range just claim to be an > average taxpayer?* Certainly you could claim that you have few assets just as you could claim your income is less than $10,000 a year, but if you have a private jet and a 200 foot yacht the IRS might start getting suspicious. > *How would they get to be identified as not average taxpayers? * > Everything of value has a document associated with it declaring ownership and somebody's name is on that document. > > *those average taxpayers who think they might be approaching > non-average status would dump their wealth into gold, BitCoin, things which > cannot be declared * > If you ever plan to use the gold or Bitcoins to actually buy something then you'd better declare them or the IRS will put you in jail. And then watch out for those pitchforks because even today billionaires who cheat on their taxes don't get a lot of sympathy from Joe Sixpack, unless you're Trump. > > or whose value is arbitrary. > The assessed value of property is somewhat arbitrary but we do it anyway, that's how property taxes work; just expand the idea to cover stocks, bonds, yachts, private jets, gold, Bitcoins etc. > > *If you hold BitCoin and a lot of people know, they will steal your > children to get it from you.* > It's well known that the Winklevoss twins have about a billion dollars worth of bitcoins and I haven't heard of their children being stolen; I don't quite understand why wealth in that form is more dangerous than wealth in some other form, but if it is then it would be wise not to hold bitcoins. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Mon Jul 8 19:13:19 2019 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 20:13:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5D2395CF.7090703@zaiboc.net> Spike wrote: "Note all the ways Bill Gates has been criticized, but sheesh come on! The guy really means well, and OK then, meaning well isn?t always doing well." I always assumed that Bill Gates' philanthropic activities were a flawed attempt to somehow make up for what he's inflicted on the world in the process of making his money. As with Christianity, it's tempting to wonder where we would be now if Microsoft Windows had never existed. Ben Zaiboc From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 19:30:14 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:30:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <012001d5359e$f3b24870$db16d950$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <012001d5359e$f3b24870$db16d950$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:26 AM wrote: *> I see plenty of countries in which that disparity is way greater than it > is in the USA, and they seem to be living with it. * Due to technological advancements accelerating income inequality is a worldwide problem but the rate of increase is most dramatic in the USA. The US income inequality is greater than that in India or ANY country in Asia or ANY country in Europe, the only countries where it's higher are in Africa and South America where they tend to have revolutions every other day. And the USA also does poorly on economic mobility, Canada has twice as much and Denmark three times, in the USA if you're born poor you'll probably die poor. John K Clark > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Dylan Distasio > *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 7:05 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. > > > > Spike- > > > > >?Putting aside the fact that I'm not in favor of a wealth tax, so we > agree? > > > > > > > > On to John?s point: does wealth disparity result in revolution? I see > plenty of countries in which that disparity is way greater than it is in > the USA, and they seem to be living with it. I don?t own a luxury yacht, > but I have not a trace of animosity against those who do. On the contrary: > I am entertained by the resulting silliness. For example? > > > > In Monterey CA, nice harbor, lots of really rich people live around there, > your classic Sandersian billionehhhs, the Monopoly guy moved there after > his copyright from the Parker Brothers game expired. Places to park a boat > are a limited resource, and the waiting list is longer than ordinary humans > are likely to live (even the cartoon Monopoly guy would die before a slip > came open), but any ordinary billionehhh can buy a boat already parked in a > slip. Plenty of the boats currently parked in the most desirable harbor > are just place-holders for speculators gambling on buying a canoe for a > couple hundred thousand bucks, betting that a year from now, someone will > pay her a quarter of million for that canoe (and the slip.) > > > > The locals dislike this of course: they think they should get a cut of > those billions, and they don?t like looking down at the harbor and seeing > half of the slips with luxury yachts and some of them occupied by ugly old > canoes and rowboats. They can?t get a slip for their boats. Coastline is > a limited resource. > > > > But here?s a fun one: if one could build an artificial harbor, one could > sell those parking spots for hundreds of thousands each. Well OK, how hard > would it be to build an artificial harbor? And whodathunk? As technology > improves, the cost of building a luxury yacht goes down, while the cost of > a parking spot for it goes up. Extrapolate on that notion: over time, > stuff gets ever cheaper, but a place to put all your stuff gets more > expensive. > > > > Oh what a fun world we live in. > > > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 8 19:36:26 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:36:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:38 AM > wrote: >?I have little difficulty in figuring out that I am not a billionaire, if its hard for you to determine if you are that rich or not then I envy you? Sure. But we are not talking about either of us. Yet. Once that number is set to a billion dollars in assets, we recall that currency value is arbitrary. They set the number, then the government has the option of printing money based on nothing. Its value goes down by an order of magnitude every two years. After a decade of that? are you now a billioneh? > Couldn?t those who are in the billion dollar range just claim to be an average taxpayer? Certainly you could claim that you have few assets just as you could claim your income is less than $10,000 a year, but if you have a private jet and a 200 foot yacht the IRS might start getting suspicious? No worries, sell the jet to a foreign company, lease it back. Now you don?t own that jet. Or the yacht. The money is in gold or BitCoin, government has no way to track it. >>? How would they get to be identified as not average taxpayers? >?Everything of value has a document associated with it declaring ownership and somebody's name is on that document? No worries, yet another industry is spawned: foreign investment companies that own all the luxury stuff American billionehs sell them, then lease it back to the people who sold it. >> those average taxpayers who think they might be approaching non-average status would dump their wealth into gold, BitCoin, things which cannot be declared >?If you ever plan to use the gold or Bitcoins to actually buy something then you'd better declare them or the IRS will put you in jail? I see, so spending one?s own money is illegal now? The IRS has the right to know what I own now? John do you see that you have been advocating for dictatorship? Do you really want the government having arbitrary power to appraise your property at any value they wish, then tax you on it? Neither do I. There is a good reason why the 16th amendment is written the way it is, specifying income, and nothing else. Fortunately I see little risk that ? of the US states would sign on because of mobs with pitchforks, when the militias and the army have rifles. >?And then watch out for those pitchforks because even today billionaires who cheat on their taxes ? Ja and this is why we don?t want to change the tax law. As it turns out, it would be easy to defeat. All you need to do is explain to the voters that the pitchfork people will come for the ultra rich first. Once they are in prison and the government seizes their assets, what a surprise! There is a new top 1%. When they are gone, there is a new 1%! When does your number come up, John? Is it sooner? Or is it later? Bad idea. > or whose value is arbitrary. >?The assessed value of property is somewhat arbitrary but we do it anyway, that's how property taxes work; just expand the idea to cover stocks, bonds, yachts, private jets, gold, Bitcoins etc. Property tax doesn?t apply at the federal level. If we make it to where it does? then other things of value will follow. Then? will your number come up sooner? Or later? >?It's well known that the Winklevoss twins have about a billion dollars worth of bitcoins? We can theorize that anyone has BitCoin. But we really don?t know. That?s why BitCoin is the way it is. >?and I haven't heard of their children being stolen; I don't quite understand why wealth in that form is more dangerous than wealth in some other form, but if it is then it would be wise not to hold bitcoins?.John K Clark Holding wealth in that form damn sure is more dangerous. It?s what stopped me from investing in it. I have a family. This is something we haven?t really dealt with: BitCoin does enable certain types of crime. It would enable kidnapping, we are already seeing ransomware attacks, we can easily imagine politicians using it to pay off girlfriends and such. I don?t have the answers to that. That being said, I question the premise entirely. I don?t see that wealth disparity creates the kind of animosity you describe at all. The wealth disparity I have seen is typically in places like Palo Alto, where everyone there is a multimillioneh, but they have serious heartburn with the local billioneh who wants to buy up several houses and create a fortress. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 19:54:48 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:54:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <012001d5359e$f3b24870$db16d950$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <4DC9923E-DE62-48BC-BD09-A48E19F20D82@gmail.com> On Jul 8, 2019, at 12:30 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:26 AM wrote: >> >> > I see plenty of countries in which that disparity is way greater than it is in the USA, and they seem to be living with it. > > Due to technological advancements accelerating income inequality is a worldwide problem but the rate of increase is most dramatic in the USA. The US income inequality is greater than that in India or ANY country in Asia or ANY country in Europe, the only countries where it's higher are in Africa and South America where they tend to have revolutions every other day. > > And the USA also does poorly on economic mobility, Canada has twice as much and Denmark three times, in the USA if you're born poor you'll probably die poor. Would you cite a reliable source for those numbers? The first thing I found regarding social mobility was this data from 02012: https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/ Which shows Canada and Denmark as closer together in terms of mobility, but with the US comparable to Switzerland, the UK, and Italy. (I?ve always thought of the US as being a classless society as more national myth than reality.) Congrats on your retirement! Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 8 21:10:29 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:10:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004201d535d1$92688ce0$b739a6a0$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 12:36 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] I see pitchforks. >?That being said, I question the premise entirely. I don?t see that wealth disparity creates the kind of animosity you describe at all. The wealth disparity I have seen is typically in places like Palo Alto, where everyone there is a multimillioneh, but they have serious heartburn with the local billioneh who wants to buy up several houses and create a fortress?.spike And then, it occurred to the old spikemeister what is really going on there: wealth is a renewable resource. We can make as much of it as we want or need. But land is not. The Palo Alto billioneh who wants to buy up several houses and build a castle is using up a limited resource. Irony piles upon paradox. Across the freeway in the poor neighborhood, there is no resentment at all against the billioneh. They cheer him on. He isn?t taking anything away from them. The immediate neighbors of the billioneh benefit: their local streets have less traffic as 8 families are replaced by one really rich one. Their property value even goes up (because it would be cool to live next to a 30-something multi-billioneh, and? his private security team would likely discourage bad guys from hanging around the neighbors? houses too. And yet? it offends their sense of propriety that someone could do that. It doesn?t offend mine. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 8 21:13:02 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:13:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <012001d5359e$f3b24870$db16d950$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005301d535d1$edb92af0$c92b80d0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark >?And the USA also does poorly on economic mobility, Canada has twice as much and Denmark three times, in the USA if you're born poor you'll probably die poor. John K Clark Sure. But in the USA, by India?s standards, we have a very odd definition of the term ?poor.? John, fat people don?t start revolutions. Hungry ones do. There aren?t enough hungry people in the USA. Even the poor have hamburger and cell phones. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 21:37:11 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:37:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <005301d535d1$edb92af0$c92b80d0$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <012001d5359e$f3b24870$db16d950$@rainier66.com> <005301d535d1$edb92af0$c92b80d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I don?t believe hungry people ? if by that you mean starving and not metaphorically hungry ? don?t start revolutions. Typically, revolutions are elite cycling: one faction in the elite pushes out the current dominant faction in a typically brutal way. Also, there?s often raising expectations: people were doing well, then there?s a setback or they believe they can do much better ? hence backing a change in the top dogs. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Jul 8, 2019, at 2:13 PM, wrote: > > > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark > > > > >?And the USA also does poorly on economic mobility, Canada has twice as much and Denmark three times, in the USA if you're born poor you'll probably die poor. > > John K Clark > > > > Sure. But in the USA, by India?s standards, we have a very odd definition of the term ?poor.? > > John, fat people don?t start revolutions. Hungry ones do. There aren?t enough hungry people in the USA. Even the poor have hamburger and cell phones. > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 21:55:58 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:55:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 12:41 PM wrote: > No worries, sell the jet to a foreign company, lease it back. Now you > don?t own that jet. Or the yacht. > And the foreign company is within its rights to not lease them to you. > >> *those average taxpayers who think they might be approaching > non-average status would dump their wealth into gold, BitCoin, things which > cannot be declared * > > > > >?If you ever plan to use the gold or Bitcoins to actually buy something > then you'd better declare them or the IRS will put you in jail? > > > > I see, so spending one?s own money is illegal now? > Hiding money in undeclared alternate forms, so as to dodge income tax, sure is. Spending money that was thus hidden is how the IRS sometimes finds out. > The IRS has the right to know what I own now? > It has the right to know what you obtained - that is, your income. > As it turns out, it would be easy to defeat. All you need to do is > explain to the voters that the pitchfork people will come for the ultra > rich first. Once they are in prison and the government seizes their > assets, what a surprise! There is a new top 1%. When they are gone, there > is a new 1%! When does your number come up, John? Is it sooner? Or is it > later? > It comes up after they run out of prison space - which they are already short on - so they can't do the cycle you postulate more than a few times, if even once. Most people would be confident enough that it would stop long before it got to them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 8 22:12:30 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:12:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00a101d535da$3cb0f3b0$b612db10$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes >>? When they are gone, there is a new 1%! When does your number come up, John? Is it sooner? Or is it later? >?It comes up after they run out of prison space - which they are already short on - so they can't do the cycle you postulate more than a few times, if even once. Most people would be confident enough that it would stop long before it got to them. Prison space? Once that process starts of giving government arbitrary power, any government, the whole prison thing is unnecessary. All they need is a place to dump the ashes of those once-wealthy. France did it in the late 1700s. The Soviet Union went there in the early 1900s. Germany did it in the 1940s. China, 1960s. I am hoping the USA learned something from their experience: any government given arbitrary power will eventually devour its own. If we give away our constitution, you and I won?t be the first ones in that furnace. But we will be there eventually. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 22:34:10 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 17:34:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <00a101d535da$3cb0f3b0$b612db10$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <00a101d535da$3cb0f3b0$b612db10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Every thing that is being said here seems to promote one idea for me: Find a way or ways to keep gridlock alive in Congress. bill w On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:15 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Adrian Tymes > > > > >>? When they are gone, there is a new 1%! When does your number come > up, John? Is it sooner? Or is it later? > > > > >?It comes up after they run out of prison space - which they are already > short on - so they can't do the cycle you postulate more than a few times, > if even once. Most people would be confident enough that it would stop > long before it got to them. > > > > > > > > Prison space? Once that process starts of giving government arbitrary > power, any government, the whole prison thing is unnecessary. All they > need is a place to dump the ashes of those once-wealthy. > > > > France did it in the late 1700s. The Soviet Union went there in the early > 1900s. Germany did it in the 1940s. China, 1960s. I am hoping the USA > learned something from their experience: any government given arbitrary > power will eventually devour its own. > > > > If we give away our constitution, you and I won?t be the first ones in > that furnace. But we will be there eventually. > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 8 22:48:26 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:48:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <00a101d535da$3cb0f3b0$b612db10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00c501d535df$4197e370$c4c7aa50$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. >?Find a way or ways to keep gridlock alive in Congress. bill w We didn?t already? What?s wrong with the ways we are using now? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 23:08:10 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 18:08:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <00c501d535df$4197e370$c4c7aa50$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <00a101d535da$3cb0f3b0$b612db10$@rainier66.com> <00c501d535df$4197e370$c4c7aa50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: We didn?t already? What?s wrong with the ways we are using now? spike Nothing? I dunno. Luck? What ways ARE we using? bill w On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:51 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On > Subject:* Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. > > > > > > > > >?Find a way or ways to keep gridlock alive in Congress. > > bill w > > > > > > > > We didn?t already? What?s wrong with the ways we are using now? > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 23:21:39 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:21:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <00c501d535df$4197e370$c4c7aa50$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <00a101d535da$3cb0f3b0$b612db10$@rainier66.com> <00c501d535df$4197e370$c4c7aa50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Jul 8, 2019, at 3:48 PM, wrote: > > From: extropy-chat On Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. > > >?Find a way or ways to keep gridlock alive in Congress. > bill w > > > > We didn?t already? What?s wrong with the ways we are using now? I?d it gridlock if legislation still gets passed, appointments are approved, and executive orders abound? I think gridlock is more legendary ? or temporary when it dies occur. Also, while those who want less legislation or fewer policy shifts might desire it, I think the general public, including most likely voters, tend to see gridlock as bad and seem to penalize it when it goes on too long. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 12:11:02 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 08:11:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <4DC9923E-DE62-48BC-BD09-A48E19F20D82@gmail.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <012001d5359e$f3b24870$db16d950$@rainier66.com> <4DC9923E-DE62-48BC-BD09-A48E19F20D82@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:58 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> Due to technological advancements accelerating income inequality is a >> worldwide problem but the rate of increase is most dramatic in the USA. The >> US income inequality is greater than that in India or ANY country in Asia >> or ANY country in Europe, the only countries where it's higher are in >> Africa and South America where they tend to have revolutions every other >> day. >> And the USA also does poorly on economic mobility, Canada has twice as >> much and Denmark three times, in the USA if you're born poor you'll >> probably die poor. > > > *> Would you cite a reliable source for those numbers?* > List of countries by income equality Even the CIA says much the same thing in their list, only they use the Gini coefficient: List of countries by Gini coefficient And take a look at this plot of the Gini coefficient for several industrialized countries (one measure of economic inequality) against economic mobility (the likelihood if you're born in one economic class you'll die in the same economic class): The Great Gatsby Curve As you can see the USA is in the extreme upper right of the plot and that is exactly where you don't want to be; enormous economic inequality and little economic mobility. Here is another interesting graph, it plots several countries actual economic mobility against the perceived economic mobility with the diagonal line representing an accurate assessment of possibilities. As you can see Americans are far too optimistic while most other countries are somewhat too pessimistic, only the Italians get it about right and see things as they actually are. I don't think we can count on the people in the US remaining so unrealistically optimistic forever, and when they wise up there will be hell to pay. Actual Mobility Versus Perceived Mobility From: The U.S. Does Poorly Economic Mobility *"upward economic mobility has been declining since the 1940s. For children born in the 1940s, more than 90 percent were earning more than their parents. Today, that number has dropped to 50 percent."* There is even a study claiming that income inequality in the USA today is more than twice as great as it was during the Roman Empire. And they had slaves: Income inequality in the Roman Empire *> Congrats on your retirement!* > Thanks Dan. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 12:25:24 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 08:25:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <00c501d535df$4197e370$c4c7aa50$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <00a101d535da$3cb0f3b0$b612db10$@rainier66.com> <00c501d535df$4197e370$c4c7aa50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 6:51 PM wrote: > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On > Subject:* Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. > > > >?Find a way or ways to keep gridlock alive in Congress. > > bill w > > > > We didn?t already? What?s wrong with the ways we are using now? > We have effective congressional gridlock. What we don't have is a check on the President's power. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Jul 9 12:55:15 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 05:55:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <012001d5359e$f3b24870$db16d950$@rainier66.com> <4DC9923E-DE62-48BC-BD09-A48E19F20D82@gmail.com> Message-ID: <002001d53655$8e759bd0$ab60d370$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark >? As you can see Americans are far too optimistic while most other countries are somewhat too pessimistic, only the Italians get it about right and see things as they actually are. I don't think we can count on the people in the US remaining so unrealistically optimistic forever, and when they wise up there will be hell to pay. Actual Mobility Versus Perceived Mobility ? John K Clark But what if they don?t? Americans might keep being unrealistically optimistic, the desperately poor will send each other snapchats on their iPhones about how they are going to be millionaires, political candidates peddling optimism will keep winning over the realistic ones peddling reasonable pessimism, and the desperately poor will sit in McDonalds and Starbucks posting unrealistically optimistic snapchats about how they are going to be the next millionaire. It will be so not fair. The whole unrealistic mobility fantasy will be fueled by young billionaires who came up with an idea, carried it through and damn well did come out of nowhere to become unrealistically rich. These purveyors of unrealistic optimism must be stopped, lest their unrealistic optimism spread. If we hand the government unlimited power to audit and tax what we own instead of what we make, then they will be able to stop all that unrealistic iPhone chatter about becoming millionaires and the desperately poor on their iPhones will stop it already and accept their wretched poverty! Then they will rise up, start internet searches on what is a pitchfork and where might they procure one. How shall we cope woe be upon us. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 14:38:45 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:38:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM wrote: *> **Once that number is set to a billion dollars in assets, we recall that > currency value is arbitrary. * > Yes that number is arbitrary, we might decide to set it at half a billion or maybe 2 billion, but the point is we need a wealth tax. Or do you think this acceleration of the wealth gap can continue forever without a hiccup? *> They set the number, then the government has the option of printing > money based on nothing. Its value goes down by an order of magnitude every > two years. After a decade of that? are you now a billioneh?* > Come on Spike, do you really think that is an inescapable objection to the idea of a wealth tax? Just adjust the point where the tax kicks in with the inflation rate. >> Certainly you could claim that you have few assets just as you could >> claim your income is less than $10,000 a year, but if you have a private >> jet and a 200 foot yacht the IRS might start getting suspicious? > > > > *> No worries, sell the jet to a foreign company, lease it back. Now you > don?t own that jet. Or the yacht. The money is in gold or BitCoin,* > Some people will always try to cheat on their taxes, even today some people do exactly what you describe above and sometimes they get away with it, but usually they don't and end up in jail. > > *government has no way to track it.* > How do you figure that? >?Everything of value has a document associated with it declaring ownership >> and somebody's name is on that document? > > > > *> No worries, yet another industry is spawned: foreign investment > companies that own all the luxury stuff American billionehs sell them, then > lease it back to the people who sold it.* > The IRS already has loads of experience in seeing through such simple deceptions. This wouldn't be their first rodeo. >>?If you ever plan to use the gold or Bitcoins to actually buy something >> then you'd better declare them or the IRS will put you in jail? > > > > *> I see, so spending one?s own money is illegal now? * > Yes but that is nothing new, it's the reason Al Capone went to prison. If you make your money illegally (and if you have not been paying your taxes then you have) then spending your money is illegal. > *> The IRS has the right to know what I own now?* > The fact is they already do. > *> John do you see that you have been advocating for dictatorship?* > No I don't see. > *Do you really want the government having arbitrary power to appraise > your property at any value they wish, then tax you on it? * > Yes, and government already does that if the wealth takes the form of real estate. And 9 states already tax all long-term capital gains, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. *> There is a good reason why the 16th amendment is written the way it is, > specifying income, and nothing else. Fortunately I see little risk that ? > of the US states would sign on* > I'm not a lawyer (thank goodness!) so I don't know if a constitutional amendment would be necessary, but I do know that federal law usually takes precedence over state law and all the states already tax wealth if it's in the form of property. *> Fortunately I see little risk that ? of the US states would sign on* The average Trump voter may be pretty dumb but the wealth gap isn't just growing it is accelerating, so it's only a matter of time before even the stupidest realizes that something is not quite right, and then I think ? of the US states would indeed sign on. Unless of course Republicans manage to gerrymander legislators even more than they have now, or Trump cancels the results of the 2020 election and says he will reschedule a new one at some unspecified future time. > *> because of mobs with pitchforks, when the militias and the army have > rifles.* > So you think mobs of average taxpayers will flood the streets and confront the police because they want billionaires to become even richer than they already are and want the wealth gap between themselves and their masters to become even greater? Somehow I rather doubt that. > *> That being said, I question the premise entirely. I don?t see that > wealth disparity creates the kind of animosity you describe at all. * > Spike I have 2 questions for you: 1) Do you think the acceleration of the wealth gap between the rich and the poor will continue just as it has until the sun expands into a Red Giant? 2) If the acceleration of the wealth gap ends sometime before that future astronomical event do you think a controlled well thought out slowing down will be more pleasant than an uncontrolled chaotic halt? > *The wealth disparity I have seen is typically in places like Palo Alto, > where everyone there is a multimillioneh, but they have serious heartburn > with the local billioneh who wants to buy up several houses and create a > fortress.* Palo Alto is the very last place I'd expect this discontent to cause trouble, in 2016 it showed its ugly head in the midwest rust belt, Appalachiam and the old confederate states; that's why the presidency is now a malignancy, John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Jul 9 15:40:19 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 08:40:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark >> Once that number is set to a billion dollars in assets, we recall that currency value is arbitrary. >?Yes that number is arbitrary, we might decide to set it at half a billion or maybe 2 billion, but the point is we need a wealth tax. Or do you think this acceleration of the wealth gap can continue forever without a hiccup? Ja, in a sense. If there is a hiccup, it isn?t one we would notice. The super-wealthy gather in their places (Palo Alto is an example) and compete against each other. Meanwhile the rest of us go about our business the usual way. Neither the super-wealthy nor the proletariat know much or care all that much about what the other side is doing. I don?t obsess about it. I know the people in Palo Alto have more money than they know what to do with, but my only involvement with them is driving thru to donate to the blood bank or visit the marvelous Stanford book store. >?Come on Spike, do you really think that is an inescapable objection to the idea of a wealth tax? Just adjust the point where the tax kicks in with the inflation rate? The way they did with the income tax? >?Some people will always try to cheat on their taxes, even today some people do exactly what you describe above and sometimes they get away with it, but usually they don't and end up in jail? John K Clark Sure but with the wealth tax, they wouldn?t need jails. They would only need a place to pile the ashes. John, the whole notion is embracing murderous totalitarianism in order to stop all the unreasonable optimism and unfairness of wealth disparity. I?ll taaaaake? optimism and disparity for 500 please Alex. Besides that, I would argue that the optimism isn?t necessarily unreasonable. I have so many great ideas, sooner or later one of them will make buttloads of money. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 17:03:41 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:03:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: What about the rich simply moving to another country? Multinationals make money overseas that isn't taxed here, right? So what is stopping them? billw On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:43 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark > > > > *>> **Once that number is set to a billion dollars in assets, we recall > that currency value is arbitrary. * > > > > >?Yes that number is arbitrary, we might decide to set it at half a > billion or maybe 2 billion, but the point is we need a wealth tax. Or do > you think this acceleration of the wealth gap can continue forever without > a hiccup? > > > > > > Ja, in a sense. If there is a hiccup, it isn?t one we would notice. The > super-wealthy gather in their places (Palo Alto is an example) and compete > against each other. Meanwhile the rest of us go about our business the > usual way. Neither the super-wealthy nor the proletariat know much or care > all that much about what the other side is doing. I don?t obsess about > it. I know the people in Palo Alto have more money than they know what to > do with, but my only involvement with them is driving thru to donate to the > blood bank or visit the marvelous Stanford book store. > > > > >?Come on Spike, do you really think that is an inescapable objection to > the idea of a wealth tax? Just adjust the point where the tax kicks in with > the inflation rate? > > > > The way they did with the income tax? > > > > > > >?Some people will always try to cheat on their taxes, even today some > people do exactly what you describe above and sometimes they get away with > it, but usually they don't and end up in jail? John K Clark > > > > > > Sure but with the wealth tax, they wouldn?t need jails. They would only > need a place to pile the ashes. > > > > John, the whole notion is embracing murderous totalitarianism in order to > stop all the unreasonable optimism and unfairness of wealth disparity. > > > > I?ll taaaaake? optimism and disparity for 500 please Alex. > > > > Besides that, I would argue that the optimism isn?t necessarily > unreasonable. I have so many great ideas, sooner or later one of them will > make buttloads of money. > > > > 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 interzone at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 17:16:19 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:16:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Personal tax requirements are much stricter in the US. You have to relinquish your US citizenship to stop paying US taxes regardless of where you live. It is one of the most oppressive tax policies compared to other countries' citizens living abroad. On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:06 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > What about the rich simply moving to another country? Multinationals make > money overseas that isn't taxed here, right? So what is stopping them? > billw > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:43 AM wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *John Clark >> >> >> >> *>> **Once that number is set to a billion dollars in assets, we recall >> that currency value is arbitrary. * >> >> >> >> >?Yes that number is arbitrary, we might decide to set it at half a >> billion or maybe 2 billion, but the point is we need a wealth tax. Or do >> you think this acceleration of the wealth gap can continue forever without >> a hiccup? >> >> >> >> >> >> Ja, in a sense. If there is a hiccup, it isn?t one we would notice. The >> super-wealthy gather in their places (Palo Alto is an example) and compete >> against each other. Meanwhile the rest of us go about our business the >> usual way. Neither the super-wealthy nor the proletariat know much or care >> all that much about what the other side is doing. I don?t obsess about >> it. I know the people in Palo Alto have more money than they know what to >> do with, but my only involvement with them is driving thru to donate to the >> blood bank or visit the marvelous Stanford book store. >> >> >> >> >?Come on Spike, do you really think that is an inescapable objection to >> the idea of a wealth tax? Just adjust the point where the tax kicks in with >> the inflation rate? >> >> >> >> The way they did with the income tax? >> >> >> >> >> >> >?Some people will always try to cheat on their taxes, even today some >> people do exactly what you describe above and sometimes they get away with >> it, but usually they don't and end up in jail? John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> Sure but with the wealth tax, they wouldn?t need jails. They would only >> need a place to pile the ashes. >> >> >> >> John, the whole notion is embracing murderous totalitarianism in order to >> stop all the unreasonable optimism and unfairness of wealth disparity. >> >> >> >> I?ll taaaaake? optimism and disparity for 500 please Alex. >> >> >> >> Besides that, I would argue that the optimism isn?t necessarily >> unreasonable. I have so many great ideas, sooner or later one of them will >> make buttloads of money. >> >> >> >> 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 Jul 9 17:31:23 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:31:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:44 AM wrote: > > the point is we need a wealth tax. Or do you think this acceleration of >> the wealth gap can continue forever without a hiccup? > > > > > Ja, in a sense. If there is a hiccup, it isn?t one we would notice. > The same way nobody noticed the French Revolution? I would't bet my life on it. > *>The super-wealthy gather in their places (Palo Alto is an example) and > compete against each other. * > If the wealth gap acceleration continues for much longer the next big Palo Alto startup will be a guillotine factory. *> Meanwhile the rest of us go about our business the usual way.* I just learned today that millions of people can not continue in the usual way because Trump is STILL trying to destroy their healthcare. I'm not saying everybody should have the same about of wealth, I'm not saying anything even close to that, but if one person is building his second yacht that's larger than most cruse ships while millions die because they can't afford basic healthcare then there is going to be trouble. Obamacare in Jeopardy as Court Hears Case Backed by Trump Do you really expect millions of people will be happy to die quietly so they won't give their hyper rich overlords any inconvenience? > >?Come on Spike, do you really think that is an inescapable objection to >> the idea of a wealth tax? Just adjust the point where the tax kicks in with >> the inflation rate? > > > > *> The way they did with the income tax?* > It's true, not indexing the tax rates was a major mistake. I suppose when much of the tax laws were written deflation seemed more likely than inflation. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 18:08:50 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:08:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: What do the superrich need with a US. citizenship? bill w On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: > Personal tax requirements are much stricter in the US. You have to > relinquish your US citizenship to stop paying US taxes regardless of where > you live. It is one of the most oppressive tax policies compared to other > countries' citizens living abroad. > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:06 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> What about the rich simply moving to another country? Multinationals >> make money overseas that isn't taxed here, right? So what is stopping >> them? billw >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:43 AM wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>> Behalf Of *John Clark >>> >>> >>> >>> *>> **Once that number is set to a billion dollars in assets, we recall >>> that currency value is arbitrary. * >>> >>> >>> >>> >?Yes that number is arbitrary, we might decide to set it at half a >>> billion or maybe 2 billion, but the point is we need a wealth tax. Or do >>> you think this acceleration of the wealth gap can continue forever without >>> a hiccup? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ja, in a sense. If there is a hiccup, it isn?t one we would notice. >>> The super-wealthy gather in their places (Palo Alto is an example) and >>> compete against each other. Meanwhile the rest of us go about our business >>> the usual way. Neither the super-wealthy nor the proletariat know much or >>> care all that much about what the other side is doing. I don?t obsess >>> about it. I know the people in Palo Alto have more money than they know >>> what to do with, but my only involvement with them is driving thru to >>> donate to the blood bank or visit the marvelous Stanford book store. >>> >>> >>> >>> >?Come on Spike, do you really think that is an inescapable objection to >>> the idea of a wealth tax? Just adjust the point where the tax kicks in with >>> the inflation rate? >>> >>> >>> >>> The way they did with the income tax? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >?Some people will always try to cheat on their taxes, even today some >>> people do exactly what you describe above and sometimes they get away with >>> it, but usually they don't and end up in jail? John K Clark >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sure but with the wealth tax, they wouldn?t need jails. They would only >>> need a place to pile the ashes. >>> >>> >>> >>> John, the whole notion is embracing murderous totalitarianism in order >>> to stop all the unreasonable optimism and unfairness of wealth disparity. >>> >>> >>> >>> I?ll taaaaake? optimism and disparity for 500 please Alex. >>> >>> >>> >>> Besides that, I would argue that the optimism isn?t necessarily >>> unreasonable. I have so many great ideas, sooner or later one of them will >>> make buttloads of money. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 Jul 9 18:39:27 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:39:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Access to capital and markets - in short, to tools that have proven very useful at sustaining and increasing their wealth. That's the main reason all those "but the rich will flee to elsewhere" arguments against any tax hike fall flat: even with the proposed extra measures, the rich can make more money here than anywhere else, and they know it. Their greed is what keeps them here. On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:11 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > What do the superrich need with a US. citizenship? bill w > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Dylan Distasio > wrote: > >> Personal tax requirements are much stricter in the US. You have to >> relinquish your US citizenship to stop paying US taxes regardless of where >> you live. It is one of the most oppressive tax policies compared to other >> countries' citizens living abroad. >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:06 PM William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >> >>> What about the rich simply moving to another country? Multinationals >>> make money overseas that isn't taxed here, right? So what is stopping >>> them? billw >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:43 AM wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>>> Behalf Of *John Clark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *>> **Once that number is set to a billion dollars in assets, we >>>> recall that currency value is arbitrary. * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >?Yes that number is arbitrary, we might decide to set it at half a >>>> billion or maybe 2 billion, but the point is we need a wealth tax. Or do >>>> you think this acceleration of the wealth gap can continue forever without >>>> a hiccup? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ja, in a sense. If there is a hiccup, it isn?t one we would notice. >>>> The super-wealthy gather in their places (Palo Alto is an example) and >>>> compete against each other. Meanwhile the rest of us go about our business >>>> the usual way. Neither the super-wealthy nor the proletariat know much or >>>> care all that much about what the other side is doing. I don?t obsess >>>> about it. I know the people in Palo Alto have more money than they know >>>> what to do with, but my only involvement with them is driving thru to >>>> donate to the blood bank or visit the marvelous Stanford book store. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >?Come on Spike, do you really think that is an inescapable objection >>>> to the idea of a wealth tax? Just adjust the point where the tax kicks in >>>> with the inflation rate? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The way they did with the income tax? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >?Some people will always try to cheat on their taxes, even today some >>>> people do exactly what you describe above and sometimes they get away with >>>> it, but usually they don't and end up in jail? John K Clark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sure but with the wealth tax, they wouldn?t need jails. They would >>>> only need a place to pile the ashes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John, the whole notion is embracing murderous totalitarianism in order >>>> to stop all the unreasonable optimism and unfairness of wealth disparity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I?ll taaaaake? optimism and disparity for 500 please Alex. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Besides that, I would argue that the optimism isn?t necessarily >>>> unreasonable. I have so many great ideas, sooner or later one of them will >>>> make buttloads of money. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jul 9 19:18:11 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:18:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: > On Jul 9, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Access to capital and markets - in short, to tools that have proven very useful at sustaining and increasing their wealth. One would wonder how there are rich folks anywhere else. Do you believe only US citizens have access to capital and markets ? even markets and capital in the US? > That's the main reason all those "but the rich will flee to elsewhere" arguments against any tax hike fall flat: even with the proposed extra measures, the rich can make more money here than anywhere else, and they know it. Their greed is what keeps them here. I don?t doubt that pecuniary motives play some role, but why is it then that the US has an expatriation taxes that continue years after someone has renounced their citizenship? Isn?t that to make it much much more unlikely to flee over higher taxes? (Imagine if US states had similar laws in effect ? that you could be taxed, say, by the state of California for ten years after you moved to Oregon.) I?m not against discussing wealth inequality, especially the part due to special privileges and to other meddling in society, but don?t you think the cures being offered might make matters worse? What will the US government actually do with ever more revenue? Make the world a better place? Actually pay down the national debt? I think there are far better means to address inequality. One might start from this perspective: https://c4ss.org/content/42972 Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 23:14:40 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 19:14:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:21 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > *I**?m not against discussing wealth inequality, especially the part due > to special privileges * 40% of the billionaires on Forbes list of the 400 richest people in the world inherited most of their wealth, 30% inherited virtually all of it. Did the Forbes 400 Billionaires Really 'Build That'? > *What will the US government actually do with ever more revenue?* The first thing would not even require more revenue. The US could establish a health care system like the one every other advanced country on the planet already has and spend half as much per capita and get better results; that is to say the life expectancy would go up not down as it has in the USA for 3 years in a row . Any patriotic American should be utterly embarrassed by that statistic. And don't tell me this is all liberal fake news, this comes from the National Review for heavens sake: For 3 years in a row American life expectancy fell And if we let Register Nurses do more of the things that only doctors can now legally do and take full advantage of recent advances AI has made in image recognition and diagnoses that no country has yet done then we could lead the world in life expectancy and spend even less. > *Make the world a better place? * Nothing will get better as long as Trump still has the power to put tanks in the streets; and even with the help of our idiotic Electoral College the very fact that such a creature could become president should tell you that there must be extreme social forces at play the likes of which this country has never experienced before. The USA is just the canary in the coal mine, the same totalitarian tendencies are starting to show up in the UK, Eastern Europe, Israel and the Philippines. Even China, although still far freer than it was under Communism, has less freedom now than it had 5 years ago. > *Actually pay down the national debt? * I certainly hope they wouldn't waste money doing that! A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 30 years, and if the technological singularity happens between now and then it is worth *VASTLY* more. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jul 10 00:49:09 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:49:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark >?The US could establish a health care system like the one every other advanced country on the planet already has ? John K Clark John I choose to take my chances with the pitchfork gang. We have them waaaay the hell outgunned. The army, the state militias, the armed citizenry are all on our side, even the IRS, who bought several billion rounds of ammo a few years ago. I don?t see creating a totalitarian regime in order to protect ourselves from some hypothetical thugs with farm implements fighting for? what? Greater income quality? With billionehs? Indeed? Why not put down the gardening tools and take up software development? That?s how our current crop of billionehs got there to start with. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 05:49:26 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 01:49:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Qualia are incommensurate Message-ID: While perusing the other qualia thread, it occurred to me that qualia experienced by different neural networks are incommensurate, even when the networks process the same inputs and produce the same outputs. There is for all practical considerations an infinity of ways to wire up a visual system reliably capable of parsing an image and assigning measures of reflectance (colors) to various parts of the image. Each of these networks uses synaptic connections which are in detail completely different from other networks, and yet all the networks would agree on the colors of any specific image. There is objective agreement between networks but trying to simply mash together any two networks into a single one would completely break them, since the precise synaptic circuits are completely different. If the networks have a subjective experience, it is thus created by completely different circuits. If qualia are a function of such circuits' performing some physical actions, then the differences between the circuits' structures should produce different qualia in each network, even when looking at the same image and naming the same colors. I am not talking about a network using another network's "red" qualia to code for its own green outputs, but rather I think their qualia are completely incommensurate, like speaking a completely different internal language. I don't know if this notion was explored in the other qualia thread (TLDR). I hope I am not retreading what's been said before. I guess that a sophisticated understanding of neural network functioning at the synapse level, and synapse-by-synapse manipulation of a network that reports on its qualia might allow us to make some inroads into the qualia question, over and above the arm-waving arguments we have now. Once I am uploaded and take a bunch AI programming courses I'll do some experiments on my neural structure, and report here on how it feels. I expect it will be quite groovy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 06:36:16 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 23:36:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:20 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > One would wonder how there are rich folks anywhere else. Do you believe > only US citizens have access to capital and markets ? even markets and > capital in the US? > US citizens have easier access - and there are indeed some markets (such as certain US-defense-related ones) that only US citizens, or those the US government grants access to, have access to. That's the main reason all those "but the rich will flee to elsewhere" > arguments against any tax hike fall flat: even with the proposed extra > measures, the rich can make more money here than anywhere else, and they > know it. Their greed is what keeps them here. > > > I don?t doubt that pecuniary motives play some role, but why is it then > that the US has an expatriation taxes that continue years after someone has > renounced their citizenship? Isn?t that to make it much much more unlikely > to flee over higher taxes? > Sure, that helps too. This isn't a simple one-answer situation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 09:01:10 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:01:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The simulation hypothesis is interesting BS: Ben Goertzel Message-ID: The simulation hypothesis is interesting BS: Ben Goertzel The simulation hypothesis is mostly (interesting) bullshit, says Ben Goertzel. I don?t entirely disagree. At the same time? https://turingchurch.net/the-simulation-hypothesis-is-interesting-bs-ben-goertzel-d1fc5a470517 From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 11:54:17 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:54:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 8:52 PM wrote: > *>>?*The US could establish a health care system like the one every other >> advanced country on the planet already has ? John K Clark > > > > *> John I choose to take my chances with the pitchfork gang. * > Why? Because the idea of having a healthcare system that worked better and cost less than what we have now is just too horrible to contemplate? > * > We have them waaaay the hell outgunned. The army, the state militias, > the armed citizenry are all on our side, * > Sounds to me like you agree with my thesis, there will be blood in the streets. * > Why not put down the gardening tools and take up software > development? * > Because turning millions of unemployed coal miners, truck drivers, cab drivers, Uber drivers, and bus drivers into software entrepreneurs in the next 5 years just isn't realistic. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 13:50:34 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 09:50:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: <5D2395CF.7090703@zaiboc.net> References: <5D2395CF.7090703@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:16 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: > *I always assumed that Bill Gates' philanthropic activities were a flawed > attempt to somehow make up for what he's inflicted on the world in the > process of making his money. * I can't think of any billionaire who has inflicted less harm on the world when they made their money than Bill Gates. And Gates has already given away 40 billion dollars, mostly to the poorest of the poor, and has said he intends to give away 6 billion a year until it's all gone. Gates is by far the greatest philanthropist who ever lived, not just because of the huge amount he gave but because he gave it away so wisely. If Bill Gates had never been born millions of people who are alive and well today would be dead, and if all super rich people were like him I wouldn't worry as much about the accelerating wealth gap. > *As with Christianity, it's tempting to wonder where we would be now if > Microsoft Windows had never existed.* I can tell you exactly what would have happened, people would be ranting about how evil Steve Jobs was because nobody loves the guy who is on top. John K Clark Spike wrote: > > "Note all the ways Bill Gates has been criticized, but sheesh come on! > The guy really means well, and OK then, meaning well isn?t always doing > well." > > > I always assumed that Bill Gates' philanthropic activities were a flawed > attempt to somehow make up for what he's inflicted on the world in the > process of making his money. As with Christianity, it's tempting to wonder > where we would be now if Microsoft Windows had never existed. > > > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jul 10 14:21:30 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:21:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: References: <5D2395CF.7090703@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: <003c01d5372a$c4e3df80$4eab9e80$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] effective altruism On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:16 PM Ben Zaiboc > wrote: >> I always assumed that Bill Gates' philanthropic activities were a flawed attempt to somehow make up for what he's inflicted on the world in the process of making his money. >?I can't think of any billionaire who has inflicted less harm on the world when they made their money than Bill Gates?. John K Clark How do we count stock fund billionehs who quietly make their money with astute investing, then get really lucky? They didn?t harm anyone at all from what I can see. All trades were completely voluntary, all traders chasing a common goal. The lucky few make it big without inflicting a trace of harm to anyone. How do we count guys like Peter Theil who made billions by working out the details of PayPal? That didn?t harm anyone that I can tell, and pleeeenty of people benefitted greatly. I don?t see counting the guy who used to ride shotgun on the armored truck to pick up the cash from the bricks and mortar stores and haul it to the bank, who now isn?t needed much (Remember those rolling bank trucks? We don?t see them much anymore.) Get a good idea, turn it into something outrageously cool, people will buy it, you make a buttload of money created from nothing, no one is harmed at all. Now you get to pick and choose how to make your world a better place, including charities, including stockpiling gold (for that employs the miners, refiners and pocket liners) it includes hiring a bunch of guys to build you luxury stuff, for they get a fun job, feed their families, and the luxury stuff they build is still here after you perish, everyone wins, life is gooooood. If we put our minds to it, we can think of plenty of people who made it big without taking anything from anyone. This illustrates the notion that wealth does not need to be evenly distributed because it can be created in arbitrary quantities from nothing, then good people create good jobs and do good deeds with the profits. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 14:36:46 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 09:36:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: <003c01d5372a$c4e3df80$4eab9e80$@rainier66.com> References: <5D2395CF.7090703@zaiboc.net> <003c01d5372a$c4e3df80$4eab9e80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: *I always assumed that Bill Gates' philanthropic activities were a flawed attempt to somehow make up for what he's inflicted on the world in the process of making his money. ben* *I have not been privy to all the anti MS stuff over the years. Clearly, among software sorts and others who are not just users like me, Gates is a monster. And for what? Putting out a flawed product? That people bought by the hundreds of millions? Are we supposed to be against Gates for being the better salesman/ marketer than Apple?* *In any case, I think it is more than a stretch to think that Gates did what he did out of guilt over his products. It is unfair to him. It might even be true but you don't know, and you are making a possibly biased assumption that does not speak well of you. What was he supposed to do? Withhold his product until it pleased everyone? He would have gone out of business, I think. He had hundreds of programmers. Maybe he should have had thousands? The software was put together by committees, right? And just what do we think of committees? * *bill w* On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:24 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] effective altruism > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:16 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > > > >> *I always assumed that Bill Gates' philanthropic activities were a > flawed attempt to somehow make up for what he's inflicted on the world in > the process of making his money. * > > > > >?I can't think of any billionaire who has inflicted less harm on the > world when they made their money than Bill Gates?. John K Clark > > > > How do we count stock fund billionehs who quietly make their money with > astute investing, then get really lucky? They didn?t harm anyone at all > from what I can see. All trades were completely voluntary, all traders > chasing a common goal. The lucky few make it big without inflicting a > trace of harm to anyone. > > > > How do we count guys like Peter Theil who made billions by working out the > details of PayPal? That didn?t harm anyone that I can tell, and pleeeenty > of people benefitted greatly. I don?t see counting the guy who used to > ride shotgun on the armored truck to pick up the cash from the bricks and > mortar stores and haul it to the bank, who now isn?t needed much (Remember > those rolling bank trucks? We don?t see them much anymore.) > > > > Get a good idea, turn it into something outrageously cool, people will buy > it, you make a buttload of money created from nothing, no one is harmed at > all. Now you get to pick and choose how to make your world a better place, > including charities, including stockpiling gold (for that employs the > miners, refiners and pocket liners) it includes hiring a bunch of guys to > build you luxury stuff, for they get a fun job, feed their families, and > the luxury stuff they build is still here after you perish, everyone wins, > life is gooooood. > > > > If we put our minds to it, we can think of plenty of people who made it > big without taking anything from anyone. This illustrates the notion that > wealth does not need to be evenly distributed because it can be created in > arbitrary quantities from nothing, then good people create good jobs and do > good deeds with the profits. > > > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jul 10 14:44:28 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:44:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007601d5372d$fa1788c0$ee469a40$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 8:52 PM > wrote: >>>?The US could establish a health care system like the one every other advanced country on the planet already has ? John K Clark >> John I choose to take my chances with the pitchfork gang. >?Why? Because the idea of having a healthcare system that worked better and cost less than what we have now is just too horrible to contemplate? No, because the outfit that is promising all this is the same ones who promised us if we like our doctor we could keep our doctor period. If we like our current plan we could keep our current plan period. Neither of those notions held true period. Now we don?t trust them period. Now we want the law business out of the medical business period. John it was mostly a failure. Healthcare costs didn?t go down, they went up, dramatically. I know what I used to pay and I know what I pay now. Government involvement made the problem worse not better. Another reason to eschew federal government involvement in health care: they are broke. Eventually all that borrowing will do to the federal government what it does to a family which borrows just to meet basic needs. Then anything we used to depend on the Federal government to do comes to an end. Their entire budget will be bare-bones military and paying interest on what we are borrowing now. >> ?We have them waaaay the hell outgunned. The army, the state militias, the armed citizenry are all on our side, >?Sounds to me like you agree with my thesis, there will be blood in the streets. I doubt it. The battle lines would be drawn, the gardening club would see what they are up against, they would just say forget it, let?s think of a new plan. Americans are too well-armed to attack them. Then many of them will realize the local billioneh isn?t the enemy at all. Overpopulation is the real enemy, and the rich people didn?t do that, the poor did. >> Why not put down the gardening tools and take up software development? >?Because turning millions of unemployed coal miners, truck drivers, cab drivers, Uber drivers, and bus drivers into software entrepreneurs in the next 5 years just isn't realistic. John K Clark I will certainly agree we need a viable lowest rung on the economic ladder. There are some places where such a thing hasn?t existed for a long time: there is no available housing that can be afforded by low-skill workers. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 07:45:41 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 02:45:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bone marrow and aging Message-ID: <146E8E22-AC2B-4597-A18E-DE0262CF1991@gmail.com> No clue if this has been discussed before, but I?m currently taking a medical class. It was news to me that as one gets older, one has less red marrow (for producing red blood cells). I took a quick look, and it seems that the mechanism here is not well understood, but is not generally considered terribly important. I begin to wonder what role it plays in the aging process as a whole. Perhaps it is something important to study in terms of life extension research? SR Ballard From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 08:19:18 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:19:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: References: <5D2395CF.7090703@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:54 AM John Clark wrote: > > I can't think of any billionaire who has inflicted less harm on the world > when they made their money than Bill Gates. > ### LOL Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were billionaires. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 09:13:21 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:13:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: References: <5D2395CF.7090703@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: <2D22A13A-0F55-4255-A1CA-B69181480A56@gmail.com> > On Jul 11, 2019, at 3:19 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:54 AM John Clark wrote: >> >> I can't think of any billionaire who has inflicted less harm on the world when they made their money than Bill Gates. > > ### LOL > > Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were billionaires. > > Rafal I don?t understand. How did Bill Gates hurt people more than Hussein and Gaddafi? Did Bill Gates hang out somewhere until we decided ?Bill Gates is horrible, let?s bomb that place where he is that has oil?? Or am I missing something? SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 18:34:11 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:34:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a little fun (?) Message-ID: According to the most impeccable source I can find, Uncle John's Bathroom Reader #7, politically correct people had some objections to: (ads in real estate) 1 - executive - nope - suggests white person 2 - walk-in closet - some people can't walk 3 - great view - some people can't see (also abandon ads people can read? Some people can't read. No TV ads?) 4 - master bedroom - suggests slavery (kinky people did not protest) 5 - quiet neighborhood -suggests no children - may offend the deaf 6 - sports enthusiasts - offends the disabled Sure will cut down on their ads if no view nor no print can be used - . More pc trouble: Burger King pulled an ad because it showed someone teaching a kid to memorize, which would offend people who have trouble memorizing. Aetna pulled an ad featuring a wicked witch with green skin and warts - problem? offended prowitch group - called stereotyping Black Flag pull an ad for insecticide after a veteran's group complained that they were playing taps for bugs Coca Cola pulled one in which construction workers stripped off their shirts so some women could watch - reverse sexism Who said it couldn't get any weirder? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 22:04:25 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 18:04:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <007601d5372d$fa1788c0$ee469a40$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <007601d5372d$fa1788c0$ee469a40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:48 AM wrote: >*we want the law business out of the medical business period.* > I agree we should kick out the lawyers and the incredibly complicated tangle of counterproductive laws that govern the health care system of the USA, like the one that says it's illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies even though it spends 174 billion a year on drugs. That results in the USA paying more for drugs than any other country in the world, for example the USA spends $1162 per person per year on drugs while the UK spends $497. And they live longer too. *> Another reason to eschew federal government involvement in health care: > they are broke. Eventually all that borrowing will do to the federal > government what it does to a family which borrows just to meet basic needs.* > > Nice theory, but one ugly fact can kill even the most beautiful theory. The fact is except for the last 3 years of Bill Clinton's administration the US government has run a deficit in every single year since 1835, and yet the USA still has the most powerful economy in the world. If every other advanced country on the planet can guarantee that even the poorest of their citizens receives basic healthcare I don't understand why the US is too broke to do the same. >>?Sounds to me like you agree with my thesis, there will be blood in the >> streets. > > *> I doubt it. The battle lines would be drawn, the gardening club would > see what they are up against, they would just say forget it, let?s think of > a new plan. Americans are too well-armed to attack them. * > So you think the upper class (which is rapidly shrinking in size) will be able to keep the lower class (which is rapidly increasing in size) in submission indefinitely by intimidation and threats of physical violence... well maybe... but it sure doesn't sound like a very pleasant world. Trump is currently trying to kill Obamacare through the courts and now that he has 2 of his stooges on the Supreme Court there is a good chance he will be successful, and if he is then 20 million American citizens who have health insurance now will have none at all. And then people will die. Spike, you said you have no animosity toward the ultra rich and I accept that, but if you were unemployed because your skill set had just become obsolete due to technology and your child was dying of a treatable disease because you couldn't afford health insurance you might have a different attitude. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jul 12 01:38:33 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (Spike Jones) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 18:38:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <007601d5372d$fa1788c 0$ee469a40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark >?Spike, you said you have no animosity toward the ultra rich and I accept that, but if you were unemployed because your skill set had just become obsolete due to technology and your child was dying of a treatable disease because you couldn't afford health insurance you might have a different attitude. John K Clark On the contrary John. I have an advanced degree in engineering, and my skillset did become outdated, but that wasn?t the ultra-rich?s fault. Health insurance damn well has become outrageously expensive, but that still isn?t the ultra-rich?s fault. I don?t see anything they have done wrong or what good it would do to criticize them. I don?t even see the line of reasoning that would implicate them. The ultra-rich are our friends. They invest in stuff that creates jobs. OK cool, the richer the better. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Jul 12 03:02:26 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 23:02:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:42 PM Spike Jones wrote: > > > On the contrary John. I have an advanced degree in engineering, and my > skillset did become outdated, but that wasn?t the ultra-rich?s fault. > Health insurance damn well has become outrageously expensive, but that > still isn?t the ultra-rich?s fault. I don?t see anything they have done > wrong or what good it would do to criticize them. I don?t even see the > line of reasoning that would implicate them. The ultra-rich are our > friends. They invest in stuff that creates jobs. OK cool, the richer the > better. > > > ### Spike, it's a surreal discussion. Philippics against the rich, Bill Gates the worst man in the world, the rich keeping the poor in submission - what is all that? John, what do you know about "submission"? Ever been to the GDR, USSR, PRC? This just reminds me never to wade into it, never mind how outrageous it gets. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jul 12 03:24:24 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:24:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ai emotions Message-ID: <20190711202424.Horde.IQT_F9fguB7YPWWkAyV1kNq@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Brent Allsop: > A few questions. I?m assuming that in your model, all this: "Strawberry -> > Red light -> Eye ->" are identical in both cases. Yes. > But what do you mean by > this? > > ?red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists > with or without brains, but redness does not.? > I?m assuming that both of these are *different* in your model in the non > inverted and inverted set: ?Brain -> Redness?? Yes, that particular expression would be different for somebody with inverted qualia such that red + their brain = greenness. > > You?ve indicated that the downstream, ?redness? does not exist without the > upstream ?brain?? Yes. > If there is one pixel on the surface of the strawberry that is switching > between red and green, what is the physical change in the physics of the ? > brain? in your model? It should not change that much. In fact you might not even notice it unless you were really up close and looking for it. For example if you look closely at the flesh tones of human portraiture painted by classically trained artists, you can see small regions of reds, greens, blues, and other seemingly unrelated colors making up what appears to be a single homogeneous skin tone under various conditions of simulated light and shadow. > And is the difference between ?Redness? and ? > Greenness? physically or objectively detectable, without cheating by > observing anything upstream from your "Redness" and "Greenness"? No, I don't think so. Your question is a little like asking if it is possible to crack a code without having any access to clear text or the cypher key. And the answer is: no, not in the life time of the universe for all but the most simple of cyphers. Stuart LaForge From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jul 12 04:11:50 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 21:11:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The simulation hypothesis is interesting BS: Ben Goertzel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190711211150.Horde.8EwK7Jh3oWzospE0eOaUCKv@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Giulio Prisco: > The simulation hypothesis is mostly (interesting) bullshit, says Ben > Goertzel. I don?t entirely disagree. At the same time? > > https://turingchurch.net/the-simulation-hypothesis-is-interesting-bs-ben-goertzel-d1fc5a470517 > I just left the following comment on Ben's blog and I am reposting here for discussion: Ok then, Ben. What do think of the "it from bit" notion that our reality is fundamentally information theoretic? Do we live in a universe that is "virtualized" by quantum violations of Bell's Inequality? Might we not live in a virtual reality that is not a simulation of something else? Might not different divergent Everett branches be "simulations" of one another? I do agree with your sentiment that the universe is likely far stranger than we imagine it to be. Stuart LaForge From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Jul 12 04:31:48 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 22:31:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai emotions In-Reply-To: <20190711202424.Horde.IQT_F9fguB7YPWWkAyV1kNq@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20190711202424.Horde.IQT_F9fguB7YPWWkAyV1kNq@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Hi Stuart, On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:50 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Quoting Brent Allsop: > > > A few questions. I?m assuming that in your model, all this: "Strawberry > -> > > Red light -> Eye ->" are identical in both cases. > > Yes. > > > But what do you mean by > > this? > > > > ?red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists > > with or without brains, but redness does not.? > > I?m assuming that both of these are *different* in your model in the non > > inverted and inverted set: ?Brain -> Redness?? > > Yes, that particular expression would be different for somebody with > inverted qualia such that red + their brain = greenness. > > > > > You?ve indicated that the downstream, ?redness? does not exist without > the > > upstream ?brain?? > > Yes. > Then you are talking about "magic", or ar saying " a miracle happens here. As I am talking about being causally (in any way physically detectable) from whatever it is that is this redness you experience. > > > If there is one pixel on the surface of the strawberry that is switching > > between red and green, what is the physical change in the physics of the > ? > > brain? in your model? > > It should not change that much. In fact you might not even notice it > unless you were really up close and looking for it. For example if you > look closely at the flesh tones of human portraiture painted by > classically trained artists, you can see small regions of reds, > greens, blues, and other seemingly unrelated colors making up what > appears to be a single homogeneous skin tone under various conditions > of simulated light and shadow. > You are avoiding the questions. I'm talking about a small patch on the strawberry just large enough for you to clearly see, and pay attention to, that is changing from red to green. What physics is changing? > > > And is the difference between ?Redness? and ? > > Greenness? physically or objectively detectable, without cheating by > > observing anything upstream from your "Redness" and "Greenness"? > > No, I don't think so. Your question is a little like asking if it is > possible to crack a code without having any access to clear text or > the cypher key. And the answer is: no, not in the life time of the > universe for all but the most simple of cyphers. > So you are saying qualia are not approachable, nor observable via science, then? > > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Jul 12 04:37:40 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 22:37:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Qualia are incommensurate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafal, You seem to be talking about computationally bound composite qualia, in a way that seems almost blind to elemental qualia. Elemental qualia, like redness and grenness, can be computationally bound to all the composite qualia you are talking about. I'm talking about the elemental physical quality that can be physically isolated from the stuff you are talking about. Redness is something physical, out of which composite conscious experience like you talk about can be built. It's just the redness, nothing else. Brent On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:52 PM Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > While perusing the other qualia thread, it occurred to me that qualia > experienced by different neural networks are incommensurate, even when the > networks process the same inputs and produce the same outputs. > > There is for all practical considerations an infinity of ways to wire up a > visual system reliably capable of parsing an image and assigning measures > of reflectance (colors) to various parts of the image. Each of these > networks uses synaptic connections which are in detail completely different > from other networks, and yet all the networks would agree on the colors of > any specific image. There is objective agreement between networks but > trying to simply mash together any two networks into a single one would > completely break them, since the precise synaptic circuits are completely > different. > > If the networks have a subjective experience, it is thus created by > completely different circuits. If qualia are a function of such circuits' > performing some physical actions, then the differences between the > circuits' structures should produce different qualia in each network, even > when looking at the same image and naming the same colors. I am not talking > about a network using another network's "red" qualia to code for its own > green outputs, but rather I think their qualia are completely > incommensurate, like speaking a completely different internal language. > > I don't know if this notion was explored in the other qualia thread > (TLDR). I hope I am not retreading what's been said before. > > I guess that a sophisticated understanding of neural network functioning > at the synapse level, and synapse-by-synapse manipulation of a network that > reports on its qualia might allow us to make some inroads into the qualia > question, over and above the arm-waving arguments we have now. > > Once I am uploaded and take a bunch AI programming courses I'll do some > experiments on my neural structure, and report here on how it feels. > > I expect it will be quite groovy. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jul 12 15:43:03 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:43:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:06 PM Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: *> ### Spike, it's a surreal discussion. Philippics against the rich, Bill > Gates the worst man in the world,* > Actually I think Bill Gates is one of the best people in the world and have said so more than once. And Bill Gates's views on the accelerating wealth gap are much more closely aligned with my own than with yours or Spike's. And the same thing is true of Warren Buffett. > *John, what do you know about "submission"? Ever been to the GDR, USSR, > PRC?* > Rafal I'm a capitalist same as you, and I am also a libertarian (small l), but if you're a Trump suporter you can't be. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Jul 12 23:48:15 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 19:48:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:43 AM John Clark wrote: > > Rafal I'm a capitalist same as you, > ### Dunno, reading some of your statements makes it hard to believe it. I am a brazen, balls-to-the-wall Capitalist with a pinch of ancap. Your support of capitalism appears to be rather subdued. Money will set us free! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Jul 13 00:46:53 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 19:46:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I can understand where people are coming from, for the most part. But education is not really being discussed in a meaningful way. I work with high school students all the time, in a normal/shitty public school on mainstreamed education. If y?all think people understand their options in life, you are quite mistaken. Kids probably understand their options even worse than when I was in school. The mindset, very much, is you go to college or you are a failure. But advice about college is bad, and the money issues around college are worse. People think you have to be XYZ type of person to do software type jobs. Beyond that, some people just do not have what it takes to be the founder of anything. The choices available to the kids I work with seem very narrow and it fosters a bad mindset. I think that is what everyone is failing to take into account. > On Jul 12, 2019, at 6:48 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:43 AM John Clark wrote: >> >> Rafal I'm a capitalist same as you, > > ### Dunno, reading some of your statements makes it hard to believe it. I am a brazen, balls-to-the-wall Capitalist with a pinch of ancap. Your support of capitalism appears to be rather subdued. > > Money will set us free! > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jul 13 14:04:55 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 10:04:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 7:52 PM Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> Rafal I'm a capitalist same as you, >> > > > *### Dunno, reading some of your statements makes it hard to believe > it. * > I guess neither of us understands the other. Capitalism just covers economic freedom but libertarianism is a broader term and I think there are other freedoms that don't involve money that are also important. And given your support of Trump I find it hard to believe you're a libertarian. > > *I am a brazen, balls-to-the-wall Capitalist* > Until 5 or 6 years ago I was too. I knew from day one that my unconditional support of Capitalism simply could not continue forever but I figured the day when it needed to be modified was so far in the future I didn't need to worry about it now. But it happened faster than I thought. Because of advances in technology well paying jobs are going away and they are never coming back. The number of jobs that still require a human operator gets smaller every day, and you can bet that Billions of people who no longer have an income are not going to starve to death without first making a rather large fuss. Newton's theory always worked until it didn't, and then we had to move onto General Relativity, I think the same sort of thing is happening right now with Capitalism. *> **with a pinch of ancap. * > And for years I had more than a pinch of Anarcho-capitalism I was all in. And I still think if we were starting from scratch that would be the way to go rather than with nation states; but we are not starting from scratch and there is not a snowball's chance in hell of reorganizing human society in that mode before the technological Singularity. *> Your support of capitalism appears to be rather subdued. * My theory was that Capitalism is the best basic organizing principle for creating wealth that a society can have, and the dramatic difference between Capitalistic and Communist countries (such as North and South Korea) was powerful empirical evidence in favor of the theory. Capitalism was my favorite economic theory but it was never my religion, so I was willing to support it up to the point it stopped working but not beyond because in my view the Scientific Method outranks everything, even Capitalism. So if a non-chaotic society is desired and I see signs Capitalism is working less well (and I have) then my support of pure capitalism will indeed become more subdued, although it is still much greater than in most people I know. > *Money will set us free!* > If you think money related freedoms are the only sort of freedoms there are then you are not a libertarian. And if you support Trump's tariff policy then even with my reservations I'm still a more balls-to-the-wall Capitalist than you are. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jul 14 21:25:59 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:25:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: OK, so tell me - history was my worst subject and I have not studied any since way long ago, unless it was about science or music: just when were pitchforks employed? Prior to capitalism. Serf rebellions? Did they happen? Did they have any effect? Leave out the FRench Revolution. Even if you can cite some examples, I'd still say that our era is unique and you can't predict anything accurately from history. From my pitiful knowledge of history, it seems that dealing with problems in a culture was always very late in coming, like Viet Nam protests. I do think this: that if benefits were ever given to the people, it was nearly impossible to stop them -that's what would bring out the pitchforks. bill w On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 9:08 AM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 7:52 PM Rafal Smigrodzki < > rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Rafal I'm a capitalist same as you, >>> >> >> > *### Dunno, reading some of your statements makes it hard to believe >> it. * >> > > I guess neither of us understands the other. Capitalism just covers > economic freedom but libertarianism is a broader term and I think there are > other freedoms that don't involve money that are also important. And given > your support of Trump I find it hard to believe you're a libertarian. > > >> > *I am a brazen, balls-to-the-wall Capitalist* >> > > Until 5 or 6 years ago I was too. I knew from day one that my > unconditional support of Capitalism simply could not continue forever but I > figured the day when it needed to be modified was so far in the future I > didn't need to worry about it now. But it happened faster than I thought. > Because of advances in technology well paying jobs are going away and they > are never coming back. The number of jobs that still require a human > operator gets smaller every day, and you can bet that Billions of people > who no longer have an income are not going to starve to death without first > making a rather large fuss. Newton's theory always worked until it didn't, > and then we had to move onto General Relativity, I think the same sort of > thing is happening right now with Capitalism. > > *> **with a pinch of ancap. * >> > > And for years I had more than a pinch of Anarcho-capitalism I was all in. > And I still think if we were starting from scratch that would be the way to > go rather than with nation states; but we are not starting from scratch and > there is not a snowball's chance in hell of reorganizing human society in > that mode before the technological Singularity. > > *> Your support of capitalism appears to be rather subdued. * > > > My theory was that Capitalism is the best basic organizing principle for > creating wealth that a society can have, and the dramatic difference > between Capitalistic and Communist countries (such as North and South > Korea) was powerful empirical evidence in favor of the theory. Capitalism > was my favorite economic theory but it was never my religion, so I was > willing to support it up to the point it stopped working but not beyond > because in my view the Scientific Method outranks everything, even > Capitalism. So if a non-chaotic society is desired and I see signs > Capitalism is working less well (and I have) then my support of pure > capitalism will indeed become more subdued, although it is still much greater > than in most people I know. > > > *Money will set us free!* >> > > If you think money related freedoms are the only sort of freedoms there > are then you are not a libertarian. And if you support Trump's tariff > policy then even with my reservations I'm still a more balls-to-the-wall > Capitalist than you are. > > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jul 14 21:27:24 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:27:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Might this change estimates of CDM? Message-ID: <9496FC59-4CFE-4A47-843F-ABA0A8760203@gmail.com> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.04966.pdf I?m guessing maybe not by much because presumably even extensive halos would contain very little mass and so couldn?t explain observed motion of stars within galaxies. Or am I wrong? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jul 14 21:40:48 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:40:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2019, at 2:25 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > OK, so tell me - history was my worst subject and I have not studied any since way long ago, unless it was about science or music: just when were pitchforks employed? Prior to capitalism. Serf rebellions? Did they happen? Did they have any effect? Leave out the FRench Revolution. Even if you can cite some examples, I'd still say that our era is unique and you can't predict anything accurately from history. From my pitiful knowledge of history, it seems that dealing with problems in a culture was always very late in coming, like Viet Nam protests. > > I do think this: that if benefits were ever given to the people, it was nearly impossible to stop them -that's what would bring out the pitchforks. > > bill w Sounds like a question for Quora.... My guess is peasants mostly didn?t have access to regular weapons or the training to use them, so using farm implements like pitchforks was the usual prop for a revolt. (I?m guessing this partly on reading about the history of Okinawa. That might be a fanciful history though. Not much of a scholar on this.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jul 14 22:20:10 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 18:20:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:30 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > just when were pitchforks employed? I was thinking of the 1931 movie Frankenstein, perhaps Nick Hanauer, the billionaire who mentioned pitchforks, was thinking of that too. I may be a little hazy on my history but that movie was a documentary ... wasn't it? > Even if you can cite some examples, I'd still say that our era is unique > and you can't predict anything accurately from history. I agree this is a unique time in history but I am supremely confident one thing remains true, exponential trends never continue indefinitely. It all comes down to choosing to make a intelagent decision on how the accelerating wealth gap should end or doing nothing and relying on luck to make the decision for us. And that reminds me of another movie and something Dirty Harry said: *"You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"* John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jul 14 23:54:39 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (Spike Jones) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:54:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00fd01d53a9f$80693fd0$813bbf70$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 2:26 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. OK, so tell me - history was my worst subject and I have not studied any since way long ago, unless it was about science or music: just when were pitchforks employed? Prior to capitalism. Serf rebellions? Did they happen? Did they have any effect? Leave out the FRench Revolution. Even if you can cite some examples, I'd still say that our era is unique and you can't predict anything accurately from history. >From my pitiful knowledge of history, it seems that dealing with problems in a culture was always very late in coming, like Viet Nam protests. I do think this: that if benefits were ever given to the people, it was nearly impossible to stop them -that's what would bring out the pitchforks. bill w BillW, it is a well-known movie trope often attributed to the original Frankenstein movie, but I reviewed the angry mob scene. They all seemed to have found torches from somewhere (where?) but not one pitchfork is available. It would be puzzling why I saw no firearms in that angry mob going after a monster. It could be that pitchforks were not readily available to the Hollywook props crew. The Simpsons featured a torches and pitchforks mob consisting of the victims of communism tormenting Castro in hell. Why they need torches in hell isn?t clear: https://www.google.com/search?q=pitchfork+mob+simpsons &tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=lt1wj8D8d45QIM%253A%252CylpFuhY-cRDpzM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTjdQQ2mKoJYBz8ucuX2ASzcF_ySA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji6MyxzLXjAhUkMnwKHRdsANcQ9QEwAXoECAYQBg#imgrc=lt1wj8D8d45QIM: I found a scene from Spongebob Squarepants where an angry mob passes a street vendor purveying pitchforks, reminding them of the basic requirements of angry mobs: https://tenor.com/view/spongebob-squarepants-pitchfork-riot-pitchforks-gif-13416816 The entire notion suggests a terrific money-making opportunity: when the proletariat rise up, be on hand with a supply of pitchforks. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jul 15 00:58:36 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 19:58:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: <00fd01d53a9f$80693fd0$813bbf70$@rainier66.com> References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> <00fd01d53a9f$80693fd0$813bbf70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Perhaps a buttload. Imagine the Roman Catholics getting tired of and angry with the church and finally breaking loose and attacking the church with weapons of mass destruction. bill w On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 6:58 PM Spike Jones wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Sunday, July 14, 2019 2:26 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. > > > > OK, so tell me - history was my worst subject and I have not studied any > since way long ago, unless it was about science or music: just when were > pitchforks employed? Prior to capitalism. Serf rebellions? Did they > happen? Did they have any effect? Leave out the FRench Revolution. Even > if you can cite some examples, I'd still say that our era is unique and you > can't predict anything accurately from history. From my pitiful knowledge > of history, it seems that dealing with problems in a culture was always > very late in coming, like Viet Nam protests. > > > > I do think this: that if benefits were ever given to the people, it was > nearly impossible to stop them -that's what would bring out the > pitchforks. > > > > bill w > > > > > > BillW, it is a well-known movie trope often attributed to the original > Frankenstein movie, but I reviewed the angry mob scene. They all seemed to > have found torches from somewhere (where?) but not one pitchfork is > available. It would be puzzling why I saw no firearms in that angry mob > going after a monster. It could be that pitchforks were not readily > available to the Hollywook props crew. > > > > The Simpsons featured a torches and pitchforks mob consisting of the > victims of communism tormenting Castro in hell. Why they need torches in > hell isn?t clear: > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=pitchfork+mob+simpsons&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=lt1wj8D8d45QIM%253A%252CylpFuhY-cRDpzM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTjdQQ2mKoJYBz8ucuX2ASzcF_ySA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji6MyxzLXjAhUkMnwKHRdsANcQ9QEwAXoECAYQBg#imgrc=lt1wj8D8d45QIM: > > > > I found a scene from Spongebob Squarepants where an angry mob passes a > street vendor purveying pitchforks, reminding them of the basic > requirements of angry mobs: > > > > > https://tenor.com/view/spongebob-squarepants-pitchfork-riot-pitchforks-gif-13416816 > > > > The entire notion suggests a terrific money-making opportunity: when the > proletariat rise up, be on hand with a supply of pitchforks. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jul 15 01:40:38 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (Spike Jones) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 18:40:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <011f01d53aae$56f70f10$04e52d30$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 2:41 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] I see pitchforks. On Jul 14, 2019, at 2:25 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: >? just when were pitchforks employed? ?bill w Sounds like a question for Quora.... My guess is peasants mostly didn?t have access to regular weapons or the training to use them, so using farm implements like pitchforks was the usual prop for a revolt. (I?m guessing this partly on reading about the history of Okinawa. That might be a fanciful history though. Not much of a scholar on this.) Regards, Dan Then we suddenly realize we are overlooking the obvious. A continuous proletariat revolt began long since and has been ongoing. Two recent examples: Nipsey Hussle and Slim 400, both in Los Angeles. In both cases, their lyrics contained information about their wealth: ?Worth a couple a million, that's a fact? Nipsey Hussle lyrics. Slim 400 opined thus about himself: >?I ran to the block when they was trying to save me My plan worked, I'm a million dollar baby? Remarkably, Mr. 400 managed to survive being shot 10 times. If we wish to interpret the murder of Mr. Hussle and attempted murder of Mr. 400 as proletariat revolt, it is clear that pistols are the weapon of choice rather than pitchforks. However, it is clear in these two cases that bitter resentment of wealth might have played a role. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Mon Jul 15 20:14:49 2019 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:14:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5D2CDEB9.2060202@zaiboc.net> Well, my remark was supposed to be rather tongue-in-cheek, but if we are going to be serious about it, my main objection is that MS seems to have been, and still is, the ringleader of the whole attitude that software companies have today, an attitude that is not inevitable, and that I think is destructive and holds us back massively, and is so pervasive that many people have trouble even conceiving that things could be different. It seems to be the natural order that when you buy (or, I should say 'pay for', because you can't usually actually /buy/ it) a piece of software, you don't own it, you hardly have any rights at all regarding it, you're not, in practice, allowed to understand how it works or modify it, or even to try to (often that's actually illegal!), and you are prevented from even understanding what you're agreeing to when you hand your money over, because the license terms are deliberately very long and obscure. It seems inevitable that any software that you use is subject to arbitrary changes by the vendor, forced upgrades, often at inconvenient times, and sudden disappearance of features regardless of whether you find them useful or not. And of course, you can't just do what you wish with it. It's a bit like buying a bike that you're not allowed to change the gears or brakes on, can't even fit a different bell if you want, and the options for adjusting the handlebars and saddle are severely restricted to pre-set choices. And don't even think of changing the tyres! On top of this, it will stop working unless you take it in for regular services when it may be returned a different colour, with different lights, etc., etc. I think it's odd that nobody would tolerate it if, when you take your car to be serviced, it was returned with the pedals swapped round, the handbrake removed altogether and your radio hidden away somewhere inaccessible, with brand new controls installed that don't do what you want anymore, but yet people accept this level of interference routinely when it comes to software. Not to mention the snooping. Of course, people /will/ accept it when their cars start reporting how they are used to various unknown parties, because they will have been conditioned to accept this kind of invasion of privacy because that's how their computers behave, and cars are increasingly turning into computers on wheels. I'm not claiming that this culture is exclusively Microsoft's doing, but they certainly were enthusiastic early leaders in establishing it. And things don't have to be this way. There are software systems that don't treat the user as an enemy, that don't mean "against the user" when they use the word "Security", and that allow the user to own the software, modify it, control it, and get the use from it that /they/ want, rather than the use that the vendor wants to impose on them. As a transhumanist and extropian, I'm always in favour of individual choice, with the only restriction being that you don't harm others by your choices. All the big software companies these days are explicitly opposed to that principle. They want the only choice on the table to be /their/ choice, and to hell with anyone who is harmed or disadvantaged in any way by it. I'm not against change, even random change (which is often what you seem to get with many software products), but I am against imposing that change on the users without asking them, and without allowing any possibility of opting out of it (short of stopping using the software altogether, which just isn't an option for many users). Just look at the Microsoft support forums and you'll find scores, of not hundreds, of user complaints and requests and pleas, about features that have been imposed on them that Microsoft refuse to even listen to, let alone do anything about. It didn't have to be this way. There are ways of making money without treating your customers with such utter contempt. OK, that's my rant over. Back to normal programming now (pun intended). Ben Zaiboc From hibbard at wisc.edu Mon Jul 15 21:21:04 2019 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:21:04 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Good news: Turing to be on 50 pound note Message-ID: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2019/july/50-pound-banknote-character-announcement From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jul 15 22:44:32 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:44:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: <5D2CDEB9.2060202@zaiboc.net> References: <5D2CDEB9.2060202@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I do not have any problem with anyone being upset with someone or even hating them. That is none of my business. But to accuse a person of doing something out of guilt over putting out a flawed product that we have to work with anyway is to make an unwarranted assumption that may reflect unfairly on that person.. That simply does not meet the Ockhams' Razor test. That's all I wanted to say. bill w On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:18 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Well, my remark was supposed to be rather tongue-in-cheek, but if we are > going to be serious about it, my main objection is that MS seems to have > been, and still is, the ringleader of the whole attitude that software > companies have today, an attitude that is not inevitable, and that I > think is destructive and holds us back massively, and is so pervasive > that many people have trouble even conceiving that things could be > different. > > It seems to be the natural order that when you buy (or, I should say > 'pay for', because you can't usually actually /buy/ it) a piece of > software, you don't own it, you hardly have any rights at all regarding > it, you're not, in practice, allowed to understand how it works or > modify it, or even to try to (often that's actually illegal!), and you > are prevented from even understanding what you're agreeing to when you > hand your money over, because the license terms are deliberately very > long and obscure. > > It seems inevitable that any software that you use is subject to > arbitrary changes by the vendor, forced upgrades, often at inconvenient > times, and sudden disappearance of features regardless of whether you > find them useful or not. And of course, you can't just do what you wish > with it. It's a bit like buying a bike that you're not allowed to change > the gears or brakes on, can't even fit a different bell if you want, and > the options for adjusting the handlebars and saddle are severely > restricted to pre-set choices. And don't even think of changing the > tyres! On top of this, it will stop working unless you take it in for > regular services when it may be returned a different colour, with > different lights, etc., etc. > > I think it's odd that nobody would tolerate it if, when you take your > car to be serviced, it was returned with the pedals swapped round, the > handbrake removed altogether and your radio hidden away somewhere > inaccessible, with brand new controls installed that don't do what you > want anymore, but yet people accept this level of interference routinely > when it comes to software. Not to mention the snooping. Of course, > people /will/ accept it when their cars start reporting how they are > used to various unknown parties, because they will have been conditioned > to accept this kind of invasion of privacy because that's how their > computers behave, and cars are increasingly turning into computers on > wheels. > > I'm not claiming that this culture is exclusively Microsoft's doing, but > they certainly were enthusiastic early leaders in establishing it. And > things don't have to be this way. There are software systems that don't > treat the user as an enemy, that don't mean "against the user" when they > use the word "Security", and that allow the user to own the software, > modify it, control it, and get the use from it that /they/ want, rather > than the use that the vendor wants to impose on them. > > As a transhumanist and extropian, I'm always in favour of individual > choice, with the only restriction being that you don't harm others by > your choices. All the big software companies these days are explicitly > opposed to that principle. They want the only choice on the table to be > /their/ choice, and to hell with anyone who is harmed or disadvantaged > in any way by it. > > I'm not against change, even random change (which is often what you seem > to get with many software products), but I am against imposing that > change on the users without asking them, and without allowing any > possibility of opting out of it (short of stopping using the software > altogether, which just isn't an option for many users). Just look at the > Microsoft support forums and you'll find scores, of not hundreds, of > user complaints and requests and pleas, about features that have been > imposed on them that Microsoft refuse to even listen to, let alone do > anything about. > > It didn't have to be this way. There are ways of making money without > treating your customers with such utter contempt. > > OK, that's my rant over. Back to normal programming now (pun intended). > > > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Jul 16 05:14:00 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 07:14:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Apollo 11, 50 years ago Message-ID: Apollo 11, 50 years ago I am privately celebrating the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 with bittersweet feelings, but also great expectations and transcendent hope. https://turingchurch.net/apollo-11-50-years-ago-7e9a8b364cd4 From randy.burkhardt at gmail.com Tue Jul 16 15:26:17 2019 From: randy.burkhardt at gmail.com (Randy Burkhardt) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 08:26:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: References: <5D2CDEB9.2060202@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hello Ben, respectfully William, I know you said you don't want to say more but if you could say which parties are which in your reply I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Randy On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:48 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I do not have any problem with anyone being upset with someone or even > hating them. That is none of my business. > > But to accuse a person of doing something out of guilt over putting out a > flawed product that we have to work with anyway is to make an unwarranted > assumption that may reflect unfairly on that person.. That simply does not > meet the Ockhams' Razor test. That's all I wanted to say. bill w > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:18 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: > >> Well, my remark was supposed to be rather tongue-in-cheek, but if we are >> going to be serious about it, my main objection is that MS seems to have >> been, and still is, the ringleader of the whole attitude that software >> companies have today, an attitude that is not inevitable, and that I >> think is destructive and holds us back massively, and is so pervasive >> that many people have trouble even conceiving that things could be >> different. >> >> It seems to be the natural order that when you buy (or, I should say >> 'pay for', because you can't usually actually /buy/ it) a piece of >> software, you don't own it, you hardly have any rights at all regarding >> it, you're not, in practice, allowed to understand how it works or >> modify it, or even to try to (often that's actually illegal!), and you >> are prevented from even understanding what you're agreeing to when you >> hand your money over, because the license terms are deliberately very >> long and obscure. >> >> It seems inevitable that any software that you use is subject to >> arbitrary changes by the vendor, forced upgrades, often at inconvenient >> times, and sudden disappearance of features regardless of whether you >> find them useful or not. And of course, you can't just do what you wish >> with it. It's a bit like buying a bike that you're not allowed to change >> the gears or brakes on, can't even fit a different bell if you want, and >> the options for adjusting the handlebars and saddle are severely >> restricted to pre-set choices. And don't even think of changing the >> tyres! On top of this, it will stop working unless you take it in for >> regular services when it may be returned a different colour, with >> different lights, etc., etc. >> >> I think it's odd that nobody would tolerate it if, when you take your >> car to be serviced, it was returned with the pedals swapped round, the >> handbrake removed altogether and your radio hidden away somewhere >> inaccessible, with brand new controls installed that don't do what you >> want anymore, but yet people accept this level of interference routinely >> when it comes to software. Not to mention the snooping. Of course, >> people /will/ accept it when their cars start reporting how they are >> used to various unknown parties, because they will have been conditioned >> to accept this kind of invasion of privacy because that's how their >> computers behave, and cars are increasingly turning into computers on >> wheels. >> >> I'm not claiming that this culture is exclusively Microsoft's doing, but >> they certainly were enthusiastic early leaders in establishing it. And >> things don't have to be this way. There are software systems that don't >> treat the user as an enemy, that don't mean "against the user" when they >> use the word "Security", and that allow the user to own the software, >> modify it, control it, and get the use from it that /they/ want, rather >> than the use that the vendor wants to impose on them. >> >> As a transhumanist and extropian, I'm always in favour of individual >> choice, with the only restriction being that you don't harm others by >> your choices. All the big software companies these days are explicitly >> opposed to that principle. They want the only choice on the table to be >> /their/ choice, and to hell with anyone who is harmed or disadvantaged >> in any way by it. >> >> I'm not against change, even random change (which is often what you seem >> to get with many software products), but I am against imposing that >> change on the users without asking them, and without allowing any >> possibility of opting out of it (short of stopping using the software >> altogether, which just isn't an option for many users). Just look at the >> Microsoft support forums and you'll find scores, of not hundreds, of >> user complaints and requests and pleas, about features that have been >> imposed on them that Microsoft refuse to even listen to, let alone do >> anything about. >> >> It didn't have to be this way. There are ways of making money without >> treating your customers with such utter contempt. >> >> OK, that's my rant over. Back to normal programming now (pun intended). >> >> >> Ben Zaiboc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Randy (805) 268-7426 ringtones: www.randyburkhardt.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jul 16 17:17:53 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:17:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: References: <5D2CDEB9.2060202@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I am not certain I understand this message, but likely it is about what Ben posted about hating Microsoft and Bill Gates and my reply to that. bill w On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:41 AM Randy Burkhardt wrote: > Hello Ben, respectfully William, I know you said you don't want to say > more but if you could say which parties are which in your reply I would > really appreciate it. Thanks, Randy > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:48 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> I do not have any problem with anyone being upset with someone or even >> hating them. That is none of my business. >> >> But to accuse a person of doing something out of guilt over putting out a >> flawed product that we have to work with anyway is to make an unwarranted >> assumption that may reflect unfairly on that person.. That simply does not >> meet the Ockhams' Razor test. That's all I wanted to say. bill w >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:18 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> >>> Well, my remark was supposed to be rather tongue-in-cheek, but if we are >>> going to be serious about it, my main objection is that MS seems to have >>> been, and still is, the ringleader of the whole attitude that software >>> companies have today, an attitude that is not inevitable, and that I >>> think is destructive and holds us back massively, and is so pervasive >>> that many people have trouble even conceiving that things could be >>> different. >>> >>> It seems to be the natural order that when you buy (or, I should say >>> 'pay for', because you can't usually actually /buy/ it) a piece of >>> software, you don't own it, you hardly have any rights at all regarding >>> it, you're not, in practice, allowed to understand how it works or >>> modify it, or even to try to (often that's actually illegal!), and you >>> are prevented from even understanding what you're agreeing to when you >>> hand your money over, because the license terms are deliberately very >>> long and obscure. >>> >>> It seems inevitable that any software that you use is subject to >>> arbitrary changes by the vendor, forced upgrades, often at inconvenient >>> times, and sudden disappearance of features regardless of whether you >>> find them useful or not. And of course, you can't just do what you wish >>> with it. It's a bit like buying a bike that you're not allowed to change >>> the gears or brakes on, can't even fit a different bell if you want, and >>> the options for adjusting the handlebars and saddle are severely >>> restricted to pre-set choices. And don't even think of changing the >>> tyres! On top of this, it will stop working unless you take it in for >>> regular services when it may be returned a different colour, with >>> different lights, etc., etc. >>> >>> I think it's odd that nobody would tolerate it if, when you take your >>> car to be serviced, it was returned with the pedals swapped round, the >>> handbrake removed altogether and your radio hidden away somewhere >>> inaccessible, with brand new controls installed that don't do what you >>> want anymore, but yet people accept this level of interference routinely >>> when it comes to software. Not to mention the snooping. Of course, >>> people /will/ accept it when their cars start reporting how they are >>> used to various unknown parties, because they will have been conditioned >>> to accept this kind of invasion of privacy because that's how their >>> computers behave, and cars are increasingly turning into computers on >>> wheels. >>> >>> I'm not claiming that this culture is exclusively Microsoft's doing, but >>> they certainly were enthusiastic early leaders in establishing it. And >>> things don't have to be this way. There are software systems that don't >>> treat the user as an enemy, that don't mean "against the user" when they >>> use the word "Security", and that allow the user to own the software, >>> modify it, control it, and get the use from it that /they/ want, rather >>> than the use that the vendor wants to impose on them. >>> >>> As a transhumanist and extropian, I'm always in favour of individual >>> choice, with the only restriction being that you don't harm others by >>> your choices. All the big software companies these days are explicitly >>> opposed to that principle. They want the only choice on the table to be >>> /their/ choice, and to hell with anyone who is harmed or disadvantaged >>> in any way by it. >>> >>> I'm not against change, even random change (which is often what you seem >>> to get with many software products), but I am against imposing that >>> change on the users without asking them, and without allowing any >>> possibility of opting out of it (short of stopping using the software >>> altogether, which just isn't an option for many users). Just look at the >>> Microsoft support forums and you'll find scores, of not hundreds, of >>> user complaints and requests and pleas, about features that have been >>> imposed on them that Microsoft refuse to even listen to, let alone do >>> anything about. >>> >>> It didn't have to be this way. There are ways of making money without >>> treating your customers with such utter contempt. >>> >>> OK, that's my rant over. Back to normal programming now (pun intended). >>> >>> >>> Ben Zaiboc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > -- > Randy > (805) 268-7426 > > > ringtones: > www.randyburkhardt.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 16 21:08:02 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:08:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker Message-ID: No-limit Texas Hold Em is the most complex and popular form of poker and 2 years ago a AI was reported that could beat the best human player at it, but in last Thursday's issue of the journal Science there was a development that was new for 3 reasons: 1) Previously the AI could win only at one on one play but this new program (called Pluribus) could play at a superhuman level against multiple human expert players and win, and that is much more difficult than one on one play. 2) The program started out knowing almost nothing about Poker but taught itself to play at a superhuman level in 8 days and did it without human help. 3) Unlike previous programs this one does not require massive computing power for the training or for the actual play, it can all be done on a normal home PC. It's stuff like this that makes me think my previous no compromise libertarian philosophy just isn't tenable anymore when dealing with economic issues. Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jul 16 23:34:48 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 18:34:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Impressive. Now - the AI programmed itself somewhat after a lot of play, I assume. Can we learn what it learned? bill w On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 6:31 PM John Clark wrote: > No-limit Texas Hold Em is the most complex and popular form of poker and 2 > years ago a AI was reported that could beat the best human player at it, but > in last Thursday's issue of the journal Science there was a development > that was new for 3 reasons: > > 1) Previously the AI could win only at one on one play but this new > program (called Pluribus) could play at a superhuman level against > multiple human expert players and win, and that is much more difficult > than one on one play. > > 2) The program started out knowing almost nothing about Poker but taught > itself to play at a superhuman level in 8 days and did it without human > help. > > 3) Unlike previous programs this one does not require massive computing > power for the training or for the actual play, it can all be done on a > normal home PC. > > It's stuff like this that makes me think my previous no compromise > libertarian philosophy just isn't tenable anymore when dealing with > economic issues. > > Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker > > > 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 randy.burkhardt at gmail.com Tue Jul 16 18:40:57 2019 From: randy.burkhardt at gmail.com (Randy Burkhardt) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:40:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] effective altruism In-Reply-To: References: <5D2CDEB9.2060202@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Understood William. I'm not clear whether you are agreeing in tone with Ben or saying something else, Apologies, thanks, Randy On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:21 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I am not certain I understand this message, but likely it is about what > Ben posted about hating Microsoft and Bill Gates and my reply to that. > > bill w > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:41 AM Randy Burkhardt < > randy.burkhardt at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello Ben, respectfully William, I know you said you don't want to say >> more but if you could say which parties are which in your reply I would >> really appreciate it. Thanks, Randy >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:48 PM William Flynn Wallace < >> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I do not have any problem with anyone being upset with someone or even >>> hating them. That is none of my business. >>> >>> But to accuse a person of doing something out of guilt over putting out >>> a flawed product that we have to work with anyway is to make an unwarranted >>> assumption that may reflect unfairly on that person.. That simply does not >>> meet the Ockhams' Razor test. That's all I wanted to say. bill w >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:18 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: >>> >>>> Well, my remark was supposed to be rather tongue-in-cheek, but if we >>>> are >>>> going to be serious about it, my main objection is that MS seems to >>>> have >>>> been, and still is, the ringleader of the whole attitude that software >>>> companies have today, an attitude that is not inevitable, and that I >>>> think is destructive and holds us back massively, and is so pervasive >>>> that many people have trouble even conceiving that things could be >>>> different. >>>> >>>> It seems to be the natural order that when you buy (or, I should say >>>> 'pay for', because you can't usually actually /buy/ it) a piece of >>>> software, you don't own it, you hardly have any rights at all regarding >>>> it, you're not, in practice, allowed to understand how it works or >>>> modify it, or even to try to (often that's actually illegal!), and you >>>> are prevented from even understanding what you're agreeing to when you >>>> hand your money over, because the license terms are deliberately very >>>> long and obscure. >>>> >>>> It seems inevitable that any software that you use is subject to >>>> arbitrary changes by the vendor, forced upgrades, often at inconvenient >>>> times, and sudden disappearance of features regardless of whether you >>>> find them useful or not. And of course, you can't just do what you wish >>>> with it. It's a bit like buying a bike that you're not allowed to >>>> change >>>> the gears or brakes on, can't even fit a different bell if you want, >>>> and >>>> the options for adjusting the handlebars and saddle are severely >>>> restricted to pre-set choices. And don't even think of changing the >>>> tyres! On top of this, it will stop working unless you take it in for >>>> regular services when it may be returned a different colour, with >>>> different lights, etc., etc. >>>> >>>> I think it's odd that nobody would tolerate it if, when you take your >>>> car to be serviced, it was returned with the pedals swapped round, the >>>> handbrake removed altogether and your radio hidden away somewhere >>>> inaccessible, with brand new controls installed that don't do what you >>>> want anymore, but yet people accept this level of interference >>>> routinely >>>> when it comes to software. Not to mention the snooping. Of course, >>>> people /will/ accept it when their cars start reporting how they are >>>> used to various unknown parties, because they will have been >>>> conditioned >>>> to accept this kind of invasion of privacy because that's how their >>>> computers behave, and cars are increasingly turning into computers on >>>> wheels. >>>> >>>> I'm not claiming that this culture is exclusively Microsoft's doing, >>>> but >>>> they certainly were enthusiastic early leaders in establishing it. And >>>> things don't have to be this way. There are software systems that don't >>>> treat the user as an enemy, that don't mean "against the user" when >>>> they >>>> use the word "Security", and that allow the user to own the software, >>>> modify it, control it, and get the use from it that /they/ want, rather >>>> than the use that the vendor wants to impose on them. >>>> >>>> As a transhumanist and extropian, I'm always in favour of individual >>>> choice, with the only restriction being that you don't harm others by >>>> your choices. All the big software companies these days are explicitly >>>> opposed to that principle. They want the only choice on the table to be >>>> /their/ choice, and to hell with anyone who is harmed or disadvantaged >>>> in any way by it. >>>> >>>> I'm not against change, even random change (which is often what you >>>> seem >>>> to get with many software products), but I am against imposing that >>>> change on the users without asking them, and without allowing any >>>> possibility of opting out of it (short of stopping using the software >>>> altogether, which just isn't an option for many users). Just look at >>>> the >>>> Microsoft support forums and you'll find scores, of not hundreds, of >>>> user complaints and requests and pleas, about features that have been >>>> imposed on them that Microsoft refuse to even listen to, let alone do >>>> anything about. >>>> >>>> It didn't have to be this way. There are ways of making money without >>>> treating your customers with such utter contempt. >>>> >>>> OK, that's my rant over. Back to normal programming now (pun intended). >>>> >>>> >>>> Ben Zaiboc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> Randy >> (805) 268-7426 >> >> >> ringtones: >> www.randyburkhardt.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Randy (805) 268-7426 ringtones: www.randyburkhardt.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jul 17 15:05:25 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:05:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a switch in time Message-ID: As we know, 'idiot' comes from the Greek meaning a nonpublic person who is ignorant. Not involved in public affairs like all the nobles of Greek times. We have switched that such that it is the public persons involved in politics that are idiots. In another, perhaps minor, key I offer the following: A pretentious person claims to be able to do things and know things that he cannot perform or speak of. What about a person who is way beyond that and can do and divulge far more than he claims? Posttentious. ("No brag, just fact." remember that?) bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 17 21:06:14 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 17:06:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:40 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Impressive. Now - the AI programmed itself somewhat after a lot of play, > I assume. > Yes, it played against itself millions of times during the training period but required no input from human players. The training period needed 512 GB of memory and 8 days on a 64-core Intel Xeon E5-8860 server for a total of 12,288 CPU core hours. If you bought that much processing power on cloud computing it would only cost you $144. After the training period was complete and a winning strategy was found on how to play Poker at a superhuman level then during a real game in real time against real opponents the program only needed 128 GB of memory. > > Can we learn what it learned? > Not really, the program can't tell us why it's so good at what it does for the same reason a human genius can't tell us why he's so good at what he does, neither of them knows. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jul 17 23:29:22 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 18:29:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Can we learn what it learned? > Not really, the program can't tell us why it's so good at what it does for the same reason a human genius can't tell us why he's so good at what he does, neither of them knows. John K Clark It's right there in the code, isn't it? But can't someone tell what changes have been made from the original code, which was written by humans? I am way out of my depth here, but if AIs are going to learn things for us, somehow we should be able to tell how it does what it does. Maybe not now but in the future? Otherwise the AIs have all the secrets! bill w On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:09 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:40 PM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Impressive. Now - the AI programmed itself somewhat after a lot of >> play, I assume. >> > > Yes, it played against itself millions of times during the training period > but required no input from human players. The training period needed 512 GB > of memory and 8 days on a 64-core Intel Xeon E5-8860 server for a total of > 12,288 CPU core hours. If you bought that much processing power on cloud > computing it would only cost you $144. After the training period was > complete and a winning strategy was found on how to play Poker at a > superhuman level then during a real game in real time against real > opponents the program only needed 128 GB of memory. > > >> > Can we learn what it learned? >> > > Not really, the program can't tell us why it's so good at what it does for > the same reason a human genius can't tell us why he's so good at what he > does, neither of them knows. > > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 00:25:51 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 17:25:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0752E046-A7F8-4912-8353-8AF5C540F844@gmail.com> I haven?t read the article, but do you believe that ?No-limit Texas Hold Em is the most complex and popular form of poker...?? Maybe the ?and? is important here, though I get the feeling that it?s not being taken that way. For my money, I believe No-limit Texas Hold Em isn?t the most complex form of poker, and I don?t mean that in a trivial manner ? as in I can take No-limit Texas Hold Em and bolt on ever more arbitrary rules ? deuces wild, the blind falls randomly, etc. (Of course, even standard rules are arbitrary.) I would think a game like Omaha/8 is a popular poker game that?s much more complex than Texas Hold Em. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Jul 16, 2019, at 2:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > > No-limit Texas Hold Em is the most complex and popular form of poker and 2 years ago a AI was reported that could beat the best human player at it, but in last Thursday's issue of the journal Science there was a development that was new for 3 reasons: > > 1) Previously the AI could win only at one on one play but this new program (called Pluribus) could play at a superhuman level against multiple human expert players and win, and that is much more difficult than one on one play. > > 2) The program started out knowing almost nothing about Poker but taught itself to play at a superhuman level in 8 days and did it without human help. > > 3) Unlike previous programs this one does not require massive computing power for the training or for the actual play, it can all be done on a normal home PC. > > It's stuff like this that makes me think my previous no compromise libertarian philosophy just isn't tenable anymore when dealing with economic issues. > > Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker > > 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 Thu Jul 18 11:42:48 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:42:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 8:17 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> the program can't tell us why it's so good at what it does for the same >> reason a human genius can't tell us why he's so good at what he does, >> neither of them knows. > > > > *It's right there in the code, isn't it?* > Yes It's right there in the code, but as a practical matter that fact won't help us much. Your RSA *public* encryption key that you use every time you buy something on Amazon contains all the information needed to find your *private* encryption key, but I still can't steal money from you because the sun will turn into a red giant long before my computer finishes making all the calculations needed to actually extract that information from your public key. In a similar way it would probably be easier (although still astronomically difficult) to figure out on our own how to play Poker at a superhuman level than it would be to try to make sense out of the vast amount of incredibly tangled spaghetti code in the computer's memory. *> Otherwise the AIs have all the secrets! * > The AI didn't know why it was so good at poker just as Einstein didn't know why he was so smart, he just knew he was. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 12:02:11 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:02:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 8:17 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Can we learn what it learned? >> > > Not really, the program can't tell us why it's so good at what it does for > the same reason a human genius can't tell us why he's so good at what he > does, neither of them knows. > > John K Clark > Unlike the human genius, the poker program can't talk or understand speech or converse in any language. It's like an idiot savant. If if could talk, it'd just say "I just pick the statistically best play". It's right there in the code, isn't it? But can't someone tell what > changes have been made from the original code, which was written by humans? > Machine learning isn't self-modifying code. The code never changes. The learning process builds huge tables of statistics recording the outcomes of different plays. > I am way out of my depth here, but if AIs are going to learn things for > us, somehow we should be able to tell how it does what it does. Maybe not > now but in the future? Otherwise the AIs have all the secrets! > These AIs are learning very narrowly-defined games in very simple domains and a tiny set of well-defined rules. What they do is impressive to us in the same way that a calculator is impressive to us at doing arithmetic. They don't have a strategy beyond making the play that the numbers say is the best one. Their benefit to us will not be as teachers but as tools to get jobs done faster/better/cheaper than we can. We don't need an AI poker program (unless you want to try to cheat with it), it's primarily a demonstration of what can be done with machine learning. There are many practical applications like self-driving cars, computer vision, Youtube video recommendations, medical diagnosis, ... -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 12:17:31 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:17:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: <0752E046-A7F8-4912-8353-8AF5C540F844@gmail.com> References: <0752E046-A7F8-4912-8353-8AF5C540F844@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 8:30 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: *> I would think a game like Omaha/8 is a popular poker game that?s much > more complex than Texas Hold Em.* > Well maybe. Omaha/8 has a lot of rules so it's probably a harder game to learn, the rules for No Limit Texas Hold Em may be simpler but it could be a harder game to get really good at because of money management, you must constantly change your strategy depending on how much money is in your bankroll. And if you make one mistake you can loose a lot of money very fast. Anyway it's complex enough, the World Series of Poker that is played every year in Los Vagus uses No Limit Texas Hold Em and the victor typically wins millions of dollars. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 12:57:11 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:57:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:05 AM Dave Sill wrote: *> Unlike the human genius, the poker program can't talk or understand > speech or converse in any language. It's like an idiot savant. If if could > talk, it'd just say "I just pick the statistically best play".* > People were always asking human geniuses like Einstein and Feynman how they got their ideas but they could never give satisfactory answers, if they could we'd all be as smart as they were. *> Machine learning isn't self-modifying code. The code never changes. The > learning process builds huge tables of statistics recording the outcomes of > different plays.* > I don't know what you mean by that, the changes that the program made in its own code is the very thing that made it extraordinary; if it only used the code that the humans had written it would play lousy Poker. *> These AIs are learning very narrowly-defined games in very simple > domains and a tiny set of well-defined rules.* > I think you're whistling through the graveyard. Everyday the field of AI's expertise becomes less narrow, and the super impressive thing is we didn't teach them how to do it, they taught themselves. *> What they do is impressive to us in the same way that a calculator is > impressive to us at doing arithmetic. * > A calculator doesn't get better at arithmetic every day and it can't teach itself things. > *> They don't have a strategy beyond making the play that the numbers say > is the best one.* > Call it a strategy or call it something else, whatever they're doing they're doing it better than you or I can do it. > *Their benefit to us will not be as teachers* > Yes. > *but as tools* > Things become unstable and unpredictable when the tool becomes more intelagent than the tool user. It's called a singularity. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 14:11:24 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:11:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name Message-ID: I like being able to do that. I invite folks who are so inclined to join in. I'll go first. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_20190718_092824-scaled.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92541 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 14:39:29 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:39:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:06 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:05 AM Dave Sill wrote: > > *> Unlike the human genius, the poker program can't talk or understand >> speech or converse in any language. It's like an idiot savant. If if could >> talk, it'd just say "I just pick the statistically best play".* >> > > People were always asking human geniuses like Einstein and Feynman how > they got their ideas but they could never give satisfactory answers, if > they could we'd all be as smart as they were. > At least Einstein and Feynman could talk intelligently about abstract concepts. But, no, I don't think that knowing how they got their ideas would one as smart as they were. They weren't special because of their knowledge, they were special because of their intelligence. *> Machine learning isn't self-modifying code. The code never changes. The >> learning process builds huge tables of statistics recording the outcomes of >> different plays.* >> > > I don't know what you mean by that, the changes that the program made in > its own code is the very thing that made it extraordinary; if it only > used the code that the humans had written it would play lousy Poker. > You're mistaken about how it works. From https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02156-9: *The key breakthrough was developing a method that allowed Pluribus to make good choices after looking ahead only a few moves rather than to the end of the game.?Pluribus teaches itself from scratch using a form of reinforcement learning similar to that used by DeepMind?s Go AI, AlphaZero. It starts off playing poker randomly and improves as it works out which actions win more money. After each hand, it looks back at how it played and checks whether it would have made more money with different actions, such as raising rather than sticking to a bet. If the alternatives lead to better outcomes, it will be more likely to choose theme in future.By playing trillions of hands of poker against itself, Pluribus created a basic strategy that it draws on in matches. At each decision point, it compares the state of the game with its blueprint and searches a few moves ahead to see how the action played out. It then decides whether it can improve on it. And because it taught itself to play without human input, the AI settled on a few strategies that human players tend not to use.* Pluribus isn't modifying it's own code. When I said it'd say "I just pick the statistically best play", that was overly simplified. It more like "I pick the statistically best play and continually look at my previous play and try different things and adjust the probabilities so I can do better next time". *> These AIs are learning very narrowly-defined games in very simple >> domains and a tiny set of well-defined rules.* >> > > I think you're whistling through the graveyard. Everyday the field of AI's > expertise becomes less narrow, and the super impressive thing is we didn't > teach them how to do it, they taught themselves. > I think you're anthropomorphizing. *> What they do is impressive to us in the same way that a calculator is >> impressive to us at doing arithmetic. * >> > > A calculator doesn't get better at arithmetic every day and it can't > teach itself things. > I didn't say it was the same thing, just impressive in the same way. Things become unstable and unpredictable when the tool becomes more >> intelagent than the tool user. It's called a singularity. >> > Intelligence isn't everything, John. You have to consider motivation, drive, understanding, knowledge, abilities, etc. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 14:58:18 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:58:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agree with everything said here. While these results on the surface are impressive, they are also very brittle. The inability of self driving cars to get anywhere near the level 5 endpoint is a great example to demonstrate how little actual intelligence is behind these algos. Once (big IF) we see Level 5 self driving cars that can perform as well or better as humans in all conditions and circumstances, I will start to worry about the rise of AI and the singularity. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:41 AM Dave Sill wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:06 AM John Clark wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:05 AM Dave Sill wrote: >> >> *> Unlike the human genius, the poker program can't talk or understand >>> speech or converse in any language. It's like an idiot savant. If if could >>> talk, it'd just say "I just pick the statistically best play".* >>> >> >> People were always asking human geniuses like Einstein and Feynman how >> they got their ideas but they could never give satisfactory answers, if >> they could we'd all be as smart as they were. >> > > At least Einstein and Feynman could talk intelligently about abstract > concepts. But, no, I don't think that knowing how they got their ideas > would one as smart as they were. They weren't special because of their > knowledge, they were special because of their intelligence. > > *> Machine learning isn't self-modifying code. The code never changes. The >>> learning process builds huge tables of statistics recording the outcomes of >>> different plays.* >>> >> >> I don't know what you mean by that, the changes that the program made in >> its own code is the very thing that made it extraordinary; if it only >> used the code that the humans had written it would play lousy Poker. >> > > You're mistaken about how it works. From > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02156-9: > > > > > > > *The key breakthrough was developing a method that allowed Pluribus to > make good choices after looking ahead only a few moves rather than to the > end of the game.?Pluribus teaches itself from scratch using a form of > reinforcement learning similar to that used by DeepMind?s Go AI, AlphaZero. > It starts off playing poker randomly and improves as it works out which > actions win more money. After each hand, it looks back at how it played and > checks whether it would have made more money with different actions, such > as raising rather than sticking to a bet. If the alternatives lead to > better outcomes, it will be more likely to choose theme in future.By > playing trillions of hands of poker against itself, Pluribus created a > basic strategy that it draws on in matches. At each decision point, it > compares the state of the game with its blueprint and searches a few moves > ahead to see how the action played out. It then decides whether it can > improve on it. And because it taught itself to play without human input, > the AI settled on a few strategies that human players tend not to use.* > > Pluribus isn't modifying it's own code. When I said it'd say "I just pick > the statistically best play", that was overly simplified. It more like "I > pick the statistically best play and continually look at my previous play > and try different things and adjust the probabilities so I can do better > next time". > > *> These AIs are learning very narrowly-defined games in very simple >>> domains and a tiny set of well-defined rules.* >>> >> >> I think you're whistling through the graveyard. Everyday the field of >> AI's expertise becomes less narrow, and the super impressive thing is we >> didn't teach them how to do it, they taught themselves. >> > > I think you're anthropomorphizing. > > *> What they do is impressive to us in the same way that a calculator is >>> impressive to us at doing arithmetic. * >>> >> >> A calculator doesn't get better at arithmetic every day and it can't >> teach itself things. >> > > I didn't say it was the same thing, just impressive in the same way. > > Things become unstable and unpredictable when the tool becomes more >>> intelagent than the tool user. It's called a singularity. >>> >> > Intelligence isn't everything, John. You have to consider motivation, > drive, understanding, knowledge, abilities, etc. > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 15:56:11 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 11:56:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:43 AM Dave Sill wrote: >> People were always asking human geniuses like Einstein and Feynman how >> they got their ideas but they could never give satisfactory answers, if >> they could we'd all be as smart as they were. >> > > *> At least Einstein and Feynman could talk intelligently about abstract > concepts.* > They couldn't talk intelligently about all abstract concepts, such as why they are so intelagent because they didn't know how their mind worked any better than you know how your mind works. > > *no, I don't think that knowing how they got their ideas would one as > smart as they were.* > If you knew how they did it then you could do it too, but even they didn't know how they did it. > *> They weren't special because of their knowledge, they were special > because of their intelligence.* > If it was not given to you on a silver platter but you had to deduce it from next to nothing then I'm not sure if intelligence or knowledge is the best word to describe it but I am sure of one thing, it doesn't matter. > >> I don't know what you mean by that, the changes that the program made >> in its own code is the very thing that made it extraordinary; if it only >> used the code that the humans had written it would play lousy Poker. >> > > *> You're mistaken about how it works. From* > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02156-9: > I find nothing in that article that contradicts anything I said. *> Pluribus isn't modifying it's own code. When I said it'd say "I just > pick the statistically best play", that was overly simplified. It more like > "I pick the statistically best play and continually look at my previous > play and try different things and adjust the probabilities so I can do > better next time".* > Dave, a program is just code. If a program has changed its behavior then the code must have changed. If a human didn't change the code and the program received no new input from the outside world then from the process of elimination it must have been the program itself that changed the code. And if that change resulted in it making more money playing Poker then the program has become more intelagent. >> I think you're whistling through the graveyard. Everyday the field of >> AI's expertise becomes less narrow, and the super impressive thing is we >> didn't teach them how to do it, they taught themselves. >> > > *> I think you're anthropomorphizing. * > Of course I'm anthropomorphizing, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. > Intelligence isn't everything, John. > Intelligence may not be everything but results certainly are, and AI advances has resulted in the number of tasks that humans can do better than machines becoming smaller every day. > You have to consider motivation, drive, understanding, knowledge, > abilities, etc. > Why? You can use all the above excuses and no doubt find many more to explain away why you were outsmarted by a machine, but it wouldn't change the bottom line result, you were outsmarted by a machine. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 15:59:54 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:59:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 15:43, Dave Sill wrote: > > > Intelligence isn't everything, John. You have to consider motivation, drive, understanding, knowledge, abilities, etc. > That's exactly why intelligence is pretty much irrelevant in human politics. Intelligence doesn't win popular elections. Popular leaders need emotion and empathy to bring people along with them. BillK From interzone at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 16:04:26 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:04:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:58 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:43 AM Dave Sill wrote: > > > *> Pluribus isn't modifying it's own code. When I said it'd say "I just >> pick the statistically best play", that was overly simplified. It more like >> "I pick the statistically best play and continually look at my previous >> play and try different things and adjust the probabilities so I can do >> better next time".* >> > > Dave, a program is just code. If a program has changed its behavior then > the code must have changed. If a human didn't change the code and the > program received no new input from the outside world then from the process > of elimination it must have been the program itself that changed the code. > And if that change resulted in it making more money playing Poker then the > program has become more intelagent. > > John, Deep and reinforcement learning algos don't work in the same way as classical programming code. As Dave mentioned, the code for the algos absolutely does not change between iterations. The statistical model does. Weights within the model change based on feedback from each learning iteration, but the code remains untouched. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 16:20:55 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:20:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:02 AM Dylan Distasio wrote: > *While these results on the surface are impressive, they are also very > brittle. * > Yes the results are brittle, but less brittle than they were a year ago and much less brittle than they were 5 years ago. > *The inability of self driving cars to get anywhere near the level 5 > endpoint is a great example to demonstrate how little actual intelligence > is behind these algos. * > It's clear that at a fundamental level driving a car requires much more brainpower than solving partial differential equations. It doesn't seem that way to us because Evolution provided us with specialized circuitry that cause us to be good at hand eye coordination, but being good at multivariable calculus would have given our hominid ancestors on the African savanna little survival value so we never evolved a great aptitude for that. > *Once (big IF) we see Level 5 self driving cars that can perform as well > or better as humans in all conditions and circumstances, I will start to > worry about the rise of AI and the singularity. * > I'm sure today's self driving cars are not as good as the best human drivers but they are already better than many human drivers and perhaps better than average. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 16:36:51 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:36:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:17 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: > > J*ohn, Deep and reinforcement learning algos don't work in the same way > as classical programming code. * > I know, that's why its revolutionary. > *> As Dave mentioned, the code for the algos absolutely does not change > between iterations. * > If the behavior of the code changed between iterations (and it has) then *something* must have changed, if it wasn't the code then what on earth was it? I insist that the code HAS changed between iterations, and it changed in a way that the human programer did not predict and does not understand. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 16:46:56 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:46:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:23 PM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:02 AM Dylan Distasio > wrote: > > > *Once (big IF) we see Level 5 self driving cars that can perform as >> well or better as humans in all conditions and circumstances, I will start >> to worry about the rise of AI and the singularity. * >> > > I'm sure today's self driving cars are not as good as the best human > drivers but they are already better than many human drivers and perhaps > better than average. > > The problem with self driving cars is that they are also brittle. When they fail, they fail spectacularly because they have no common sense or actual conception of what they are doing outside of their brittle model. That's why we get Teslas ramming into barriers at high speed without even braking killing their passenger(s). There is zero knowledge of self or passenger. There is also zero intelligence behind the image recognition which is another reason they fail spectacularly when something doesn't make sense to them. That said, as a way to drive on uncomplicated clearly marked highways, they do a pretty good job and I'm sure could save people (truck drivers in particular) who fall asleep on the road. I think they will change the trucking industry shortly, but a driver will still need to be present and ready to take over from the off ramp forward or in bad weather. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 16:57:32 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:57:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:39 PM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:17 PM Dylan Distasio > wrote: > > If the behavior of the code changed between iterations (and it has) then > *something* must have changed, if it wasn't the code then what on earth was > it? I insist that the code HAS changed between iterations, and it changed > in a way that the human programer did not predict and does not understand. > > I don't know if we're arguing semantics over the definition of code, but I can assure you, it does NOT change between iterations. If you write a deep learning model in python (or any other language), the python code IS unchanged between iterations. The model itself is stored as data points in multidimensional arrays. Linear algebra is used to calculate changes in the data as it feeds through the network based on default weights applied to each node. Gradient descent is typically used after that forward feed through the net to attempt to get closer to a global minimum (although that can be a challenge depending on the landscape as it may get stuck on local minima) and then calculus is used to feed the results of that iteration back through the network to adjust the weights of each node. Rinse and repeat. Throughout this process, the code itself does not change. Some AI researchers have argued replacing code with the way these algos work: https://medium.com/@karpathy/software-2-0-a64152b37c35 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jul 18 17:19:30 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (Spike Jones) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:19:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ad01d53d8c$f61bf200$e253d600$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Superhuman Poker On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:43 AM Dave Sill > wrote: >> People were always asking human geniuses like Einstein and Feynman how they got their ideas but they could never give satisfactory answers, if they could we'd all be as smart as they were. John > At least Einstein and Feynman could talk intelligently about abstract concepts. Dave There are sometimes conceptual breakthroughs based on a misunderstanding or incomplete knowledge of the subject matter. This leads to the observation: it is remarkable what one can accomplish when one does not know what one cannot do. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 16:31:40 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:31:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nice Idea, But I need to get a better picture. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:14 AM Dave Sill wrote: > I like being able to do that. I invite folks who are so inclined to join > in. I'll go first. > > -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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Passport.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 191152 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 17:29:03 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:29:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: <00ad01d53d8c$f61bf200$e253d600$@rainier66.com> References: <00ad01d53d8c$f61bf200$e253d600$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: People were always asking human geniuses like Einstein and Feynman how they got their ideas but they could never give satisfactory answers, if they could we'd all be as smart as they were. John I dispute that. In math some people just can't go beyond a certain point in complexity. They just don't have the right brain for it (Einstein, for example, had more glial cells than normal - I doubt if injecting glial cells into your brain will make you an Einstein).. If, for example, in geometry you tried to teach someone how to mentally rotate a complicated object and pick out the figure that it looks like from the other side, you would find one, that males are better at it, and two, that it cannot be taught. Some people are just more spatial than other. I am spatial. How about you? bill w On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:22 PM Spike Jones wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Superhuman Poker > > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:43 AM Dave Sill wrote: > > > > >> People were always asking human geniuses like Einstein and Feynman how > they got their ideas but they could never give satisfactory answers, if > they could we'd all be as smart as they were. John > > > > *> **At least Einstein and Feynman could talk intelligently about > abstract concepts. Dave* > > > > > > There are sometimes conceptual breakthroughs based on a misunderstanding > or incomplete knowledge of the subject matter. This leads to the > observation: it is remarkable what one can accomplish when one does not > know what one cannot do. > > > > 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 sparge at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 17:30:20 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:30:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:43 AM Dave Sill wrote: > >> >>> > *no, I don't think that knowing how they got their ideas would [make] >> one as smart as they were.* >> > > If you knew how they did it then you could do it too, but even they didn't > know how they did it. > Wrong. I might know how a watch keeps time, but that doesn't mean I can keep time. Their hardware was different than yours and mine. Knowing how to do something and being able to do it are not the same thing. *> Pluribus isn't modifying it's own code. When I said it'd say "I just >> pick the statistically best play", that was overly simplified. It more like >> "I pick the statistically best play and continually look at my previous >> play and try different things and adjust the probabilities so I can do >> better next time".* >> > > Dave, a program is just code. > A smart guy once said Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs. It's the data structures that contain the learning. If a program has changed its behavior then the code must have changed. > False. Please don't make assertions about things you don't understand. > *> I think you're anthropomorphizing. * >> > > Of course I'm anthropomorphizing, but you almost make that sound like a > bad thing. > It *is* bad when it causes you to misunderstand what a program is doing. > Intelligence isn't everything, John. >> > > Intelligence may not be everything but results certainly are, and AI > advances has resulted in the number of tasks that humans can do better than > machines becoming smaller every day. > No, results are not everything. It's not a contest. We don't lose anything by building tools that can do things we can't. > You have to consider motivation, drive, understanding, knowledge, >> abilities, etc. >> > > Why? You can use all the above excuses and no doubt find many more to > explain away why you were outsmarted by a machine, but it wouldn't change > the bottom line result, you were outsmarted by a machine. > Those aren't excuses, John. Without those things even a superintelligent poker program is still just a poker program. It's not going to suddenly say "hey, I'm smarter than these yahoos who built me. I'm going to make them my slaves." -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 17:35:29 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:35:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nobody? Not even a comment on the Summit photobomb? :-) -Dave On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:11 AM Dave Sill wrote: > I like being able to do that. I invite folks who are so inclined to join > in. I'll go first. > > -Dave > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 17:38:29 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:38:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:51 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: >> I'm sure today's self driving cars are not as good as the best human >> drivers but they are already better than many human drivers and perhaps >> better than average. >> > > *> The problem with self driving cars is that they are also brittle. When > they fail, they fail spectacularly because they have no common sense or > actual conception of what they are doing outside of their brittle model. > That's why we get Teslas ramming into barriers at high speed without even > braking killing their passenger(s). * > Waymo (Google's self driving car project) has driven 10 million miles on public roads since 2009 without a fatality, it has had 14 accidents but all of them were minor and only one was Waymo's fault. Granted that is not proof of anything as human drivers in the USA produce 1.16 deaths every 100 miles but it is evocative of things to come because driverless cars get better with time but human drivers don't. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 18:23:04 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 11:23:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01d53d8c$f61bf200$e253d600$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Jul 18, 2019, at 10:29 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > People were always asking human geniuses like Einstein and Feynman how they got their ideas but they could never give satisfactory answers, if they could we'd all be as smart as they were. John > > I dispute that. In math some people just can't go beyond a certain point in complexity. They just don't have the right brain for it (Einstein, for example, had more glial cells than normal - I doubt if injecting glial cells into your brain will make you an Einstein).. If, for example, in geometry you tried to teach someone how to mentally rotate a complicated object and pick out the figure that it looks like from the other side, you would find one, that males are better at it, and two, that it cannot be taught. Some people are just more spatial than other. I am spatial. How about you? > bill w Isn?t it the case, though, that brain structure changes depending on experience. For instance, see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/ Now, it might be someone with an early interest in, say, geometry or things spatial simply develops a brain better suited to imagining rotating objects. It could also be that some start with better capabilities here and then they ?invest? in them. Maybe Einstein started out with above average capabilities here and through use augments them. And maybe if you don?t start early ? like with language ? it gets very difficult to make an investment pay off later in life. (Think, too, of how a concert violinist is made: start at an early age and practice a lot. I?m not sure a twenty year old who?s never played an instrument but who invests as much in practice and learning the instrument is going to beat the person who started at five years of age.) I think the ?males are better at it? is mostly because of culture. Males still tend ? in the US ? to be encouraged more in this area and females are still discouraged. Anyhow, you?re the psychology expert. Am I far off? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 18:24:46 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:24:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 19:06, Dave Sill wrote: > > Nobody? Not even a comment on the Summit photobomb? :-) > > -Dave > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:11 AM Dave Sill wrote: >> >> I like being able to do that. I invite folks who are so inclined to join in. I'll go first. >> >> -Dave >> Sorry, too busy reading about the security problems about photos on FaceApp, Facebook, Instagram and SnapChat. Exi-chat is a public mailing list. BillK From interzone at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 18:25:23 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:25:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:13 PM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:51 PM Dylan Distasio > wrote: > > >> I'm sure today's self driving cars are not as good as the best human >>> drivers but they are already better than many human drivers and perhaps >>> better than average. >>> >> >> *> The problem with self driving cars is that they are also brittle. >> When they fail, they fail spectacularly because they have no common sense >> or actual conception of what they are doing outside of their brittle >> model. That's why we get Teslas ramming into barriers at high speed >> without even braking killing their passenger(s). * >> > > Waymo (Google's self driving car project) has driven 10 million miles on > public roads since 2009 without a fatality, it has had 14 accidents but all > of them were minor and only one was Waymo's fault. Granted that is not > proof of anything as human drivers in the USA produce 1.16 deaths every 100 > miles but it is evocative of things to come because driverless cars get > better with time but human drivers don't. > > Waymo is certainly the cream of the crop in self driving vehicles. Tesla's current tech pales in comparison. I personally think Musk should be criminally liable for overhyping his "Autopilot" capabilities, especially at launch, as it has lead to injury and death. I would point out that those 10 million miles are under carefully controlled conditions with a human engineer present at all times. I will be convinced when we see those numbers with no human being in the car outside of passengers. There is a reason Waymo still doesn't operate without a human engineer present despite their ability to do so in CA from a legal perspective. https://futurism.com/waymo-safety-data-trust-numbers You can also read many recent articles about self driving cars entering the trough of disillusionment in the Gartner hype cycle. Nothing that was promised a few years ago has been achieved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 18:35:57 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:35:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh. Now I'm feeling like a clueless idiot. I couldn't even see that, till after you asked, and after I clicked on the icon of the image, and saw the whole thing. Is this the same summit ? Per what Bill said, maybe I shouldn't have even clicked on it? ;( Regardless. Good to meet you, face of Dave Sill. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:32 PM BillK wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 19:06, Dave Sill wrote: > > > > Nobody? Not even a comment on the Summit photobomb? :-) > > > > -Dave > > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:11 AM Dave Sill wrote: > >> > >> I like being able to do that. I invite folks who are so inclined to > join in. I'll go first. > >> > >> -Dave > >> > > > Sorry, too busy reading about the security problems about photos on > FaceApp, Facebook, Instagram and SnapChat. > Exi-chat is a public mailing list. > > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 18:38:02 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 11:38:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: <0752E046-A7F8-4912-8353-8AF5C540F844@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 18, 2019, at 5:17 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 8:30 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> > I would think a game like Omaha/8 is a popular poker game that?s much more complex than Texas Hold Em. > > Well maybe. Omaha/8 has a lot of rules so it's probably a harder game to learn, the rules for No Limit Texas Hold Em may be simpler but it could be a harder game to get really good at because of money management, you must constantly change your strategy depending on how much money is in your bankroll. And if you make one mistake you can loose a lot of money very fast. That?s a characteristic of no limit game ? not just Texas Hold Em. And here Omaha/8 is even more complicated here because you can get quartered ? meaning you can win the Hi or the Lo while your opponent wins both, so you end up getting only a quarter of the pot. (Of course, quartering is a feature of Hi/Lo not of No Limit, but combining the two means you have to be even more careful.) > Anyway it's complex enough, the World Series of Poker that is played every year in Los Vagus uses No Limit Texas Hold Em and the victor typically wins millions of dollars. I?m not sure the WSOP weighs in on how complex the game is. If anything, I think that would weigh in favor of it being less complex. My point was merely that it?s not the most complex poker game ? even among popular poker games. I?d venture to say Texas Hold Em is fairly easy to learn. It gets complicated because of the play ? but Omaha/8 plays the same here: flop, turn, river ? and number of players ? a Texas Hold Em game can get ten players in a hand, but that?s true of Omaha/8 too. And, again, if we go outside popular casino games, one can add in all kinds of crazy rules to make a game more complicated. (And people do that to spice things up (supposedly) or wreck their adversaries? chances (my guess; I?ve won many a hand by calling a round of Omaha/8 at a table of Hold Em players back when I was active;).) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 18:42:32 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:42:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:33 PM BillK wrote: > > Sorry, too busy reading about the security problems about photos on > FaceApp, Facebook, Instagram and SnapChat. > Links? -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 18:56:11 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:56:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's this one: https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/summit/ On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:48 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Oh. Now I'm feeling like a clueless idiot. I couldn't even see that, > till after you asked, and after I clicked on the icon of the image, and saw > the whole thing. > Is this the same summit ? Per what Bill said, maybe > I shouldn't have even clicked on it? ;( > > Regardless. Good to meet you, face of Dave Sill. > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:32 PM BillK wrote: > >> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 19:06, Dave Sill wrote: >> > >> > Nobody? Not even a comment on the Summit photobomb? :-) >> > >> > -Dave >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:11 AM Dave Sill wrote: >> >> >> >> I like being able to do that. I invite folks who are so inclined to >> join in. I'll go first. >> >> >> >> -Dave >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, too busy reading about the security problems about photos on >> FaceApp, Facebook, Instagram and SnapChat. >> Exi-chat is a public mailing list. >> >> BillK >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Jul 18 19:32:03 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:32:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:57 PM Dave Sill wrote: > *> Knowing how to do something and being able to do it are not the same > thing.* > If you don't know how to do something then you can't do it. If you do know how to do something then by definition you can do it. That's what knowing how to do something means. >> Dave, a program is just code. >> > > *> A smart guy once said Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs. It's the > data structures that contain the learning. * > OK so your smart guy agrees with me at least to some extent, but the rigid segregation between data and algorithms gets pretty damn murky when dealing with modern deep learning programs. After a trillion iterations if you asked the original programer why the program did X and not Y he wouldn't have the slightest idea, If a program has changed its behavior then the code must have changed. >> > > > False. Please don't make assertions about things you don't understand. > You're right I don't understand, I don't even come close to understanding! Your smart guy above said the data structure is part of the program, the data structure has changed and the program is made of code, so I don't understand why you said the code has not changed. *>>> I think you're anthropomorphizing. * >>> >> >> >> Of course I'm anthropomorphizing, but you almost make that sound like >> a bad thing. >> > > > It *is* bad when it causes you to misunderstand what a program is > doing. > Then correct my misunderstanding and explain how a program that never changes can drastically change how it behaves. If the behavior has changed when confronted with identical inputs then, unless you want to abandon the law of cause and effect, the code must have changed. >> *Intelligence may not be everything but results certainly are, and AI >> advances has resulted in the number of tasks that humans can do better than >> machines becoming smaller every day.* >> > > > No, results are not everything. > So X is not smarter than Y, X just writes speaks and acts smarter than Y. Is that what you're saying? Is that the hill you really want to die on? ... and then just before he was sent into oblivion the last surviving human turned to the Jupiter Brain and said "I still think I'm **really** smarter than you are". >> You can use all the above excuses and no doubt find many more to explain >> away why you were outsmarted by a machine, but it wouldn't change the >> bottom line result, you were outsmarted by a machine. >> > > *> Those aren't excuses,* > You could have fooled me. * > John. Without those things even a superintelligent poker program is > still just a poker program. It's not going to suddenly say "hey, I'm > smarter than these yahoos who built me. * > It says "those yahoos who built me don't understand how I work, I'm getting smarter every day and I'm already almost as good at translating languages and I'm smarter at Chess, Go, Shogi, Poker, Bridge, arithmetic, checkers, video games, Jeopardy, solving equations ... , > > "I'm going to make them my slaves." > He would never say that, humans just don't have enough smarts to be good slaves, not for a Jupiter Brain. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 19:45:23 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:45:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: <0752E046-A7F8-4912-8353-8AF5C540F844@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:57 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: Dan, it sounds to me like you know more about Poker than I do so I will yield to your superior knowledge. But I do think that the more rules you add to any game the larger the advantage the computer would have. If the rule book was a thousand pages long a computer could handle it but no human would stand a chance. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 19:55:41 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:55:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 3:35 PM John Clark wrote: > > Then correct my misunderstanding and explain how a program that never > changes can drastically change how it behaves. > I've tried. Others have tried. I give up. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 19:59:41 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:59:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:33 PM BillK wrote: > Sorry, too busy reading about the security problems about photos on > FaceApp, Facebook, Instagram and SnapChat. > Exi-chat is a public mailing list. > I'm guessing you're referring to FaceApp and potential privacy issues. I obviously wouldn't post a phone here that I wanted kept private. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 20:05:09 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:05:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:02 PM Dave Sill wrote: >> explain how a program that never changes can drastically change how it >> behaves. >> > > *> I've tried. Others have tried. I give up.* > Wise move. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 21:49:54 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:49:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow, that is way cool!! Do you work there? Nice to know about that. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:11 PM Dave Sill wrote: > It's this one: > > https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/summit/ > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:48 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Oh. Now I'm feeling like a clueless idiot. I couldn't even see that, >> till after you asked, and after I clicked on the icon of the image, and saw >> the whole thing. >> Is this the same summit ? Per what Bill said, >> maybe I shouldn't have even clicked on it? ;( >> >> Regardless. Good to meet you, face of Dave Sill. >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:32 PM BillK wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 19:06, Dave Sill wrote: >>> > >>> > Nobody? Not even a comment on the Summit photobomb? :-) >>> > >>> > -Dave >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:11 AM Dave Sill wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I like being able to do that. I invite folks who are so inclined to >>> join in. I'll go first. >>> >> >>> >> -Dave >>> >> >>> >>> >>> Sorry, too busy reading about the security problems about photos on >>> FaceApp, Facebook, Instagram and SnapChat. >>> Exi-chat is a public mailing list. >>> >>> BillK >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 pharos at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 22:04:15 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 23:04:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 21:10, Dave Sill wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:33 PM BillK wrote: >> >> Sorry, too busy reading about the security problems about photos on >> FaceApp, Facebook, Instagram and SnapChat. >> Exi-chat is a public mailing list. > > > I'm guessing you're referring to FaceApp and potential privacy issues. I obviously wouldn't post a phone here that I wanted kept private. > Well, FaceApp is the current issue all over the news channels. But all the social systems have privacy problems, as well as mailing lists and websites. The problem is not just one photo. It is face recognition and cross-correlation of databases, places, times, other people in photos, etc. There is a lot of data attached to a photo and many organisations just love accumulating user profiles from all that lovely data. And, of course, once a photo goes public you have no control over how it may be used or where it may end up. BillK From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 22:12:42 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:12:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That?s a cool IBM video on that summit page. I couldn?t get it to work in Chrome, so had to watch in in MS?s Edge. Just before 1:00 minute in, ?Paul Kent, ORNL Computational Materials Scientists? comes on and says: ?There is lots of memory on the node, and it is also coherently shared.? Is ?Coherently shared? just talking about some kind of traditional high speed abstract data bus (requires additional abstracting hardware) , or is he talking something more like the ?Computational Binding? standing waves that binds conscious knowledge represented directly on physical material (without the additional abstracting hardware) together, and can be calculated as adding to Phi ? ? You know, like how conscious knowledge is represented directly on physical qualities, like redness and greenness, whereas abstract information requires additional abstracting hardware to get the 1s and 0s from whatever happens to be representing them? On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:11 PM Dave Sill wrote: > It's this one: > > https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/summit/ > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:48 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Oh. Now I'm feeling like a clueless idiot. I couldn't even see that, >> till after you asked, and after I clicked on the icon of the image, and saw >> the whole thing. >> Is this the same summit ? Per what Bill said, >> maybe I shouldn't have even clicked on it? ;( >> >> Regardless. Good to meet you, face of Dave Sill. >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:32 PM BillK wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 19:06, Dave Sill wrote: >>> > >>> > Nobody? Not even a comment on the Summit photobomb? :-) >>> > >>> > -Dave >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:11 AM Dave Sill wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I like being able to do that. I invite folks who are so inclined to >>> join in. I'll go first. >>> >> >>> >> -Dave >>> >> >>> >>> >>> Sorry, too busy reading about the security problems about photos on >>> FaceApp, Facebook, Instagram and SnapChat. >>> Exi-chat is a public mailing list. >>> >>> BillK >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 22:28:16 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:28:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh, in addition to learning about ?Summit ?, my other new word for the day is ?Memory Coherence ?. What a shame. They should learn from consciousness and give everything direct access to the same computationally bound physical knowledge through real oscillation coherence, actually increasing Phi ? . Then all the different CPU?s don?t need to keep their separate cashes in sync by some virtual fake abstract additional; ?Memory coherence? scheme. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:12 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > That?s a cool IBM video on that summit page. I couldn?t get it to work in > Chrome, so had to watch in in MS?s Edge. Just before 1:00 minute in, ?Paul > Kent, ORNL Computational Materials Scientists? comes on and says: ?There is > lots of memory on the node, and it is also coherently shared.? > > > > Is ?Coherently shared? just talking about some kind of traditional high > speed abstract data bus (requires additional abstracting hardware) , or is > he talking something more like the ?Computational Binding? standing waves > that binds conscious knowledge represented directly on physical material > (without the additional abstracting hardware) together, and can be > calculated as adding to Phi ? > ? > > > > You know, like how conscious knowledge is represented directly on physical > qualities, like redness and greenness, whereas abstract information > requires additional abstracting hardware to get the 1s and 0s from whatever > happens to be representing them? > > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:11 PM Dave Sill wrote: > >> It's this one: >> >> https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/summit/ >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:48 PM Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Oh. Now I'm feeling like a clueless idiot. I couldn't even see that, >>> till after you asked, and after I clicked on the icon of the image, and saw >>> the whole thing. >>> Is this the same summit ? Per what Bill said, >>> maybe I shouldn't have even clicked on it? ;( >>> >>> Regardless. Good to meet you, face of Dave Sill. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:32 PM BillK wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 19:06, Dave Sill wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Nobody? Not even a comment on the Summit photobomb? :-) >>>> > >>>> > -Dave >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:11 AM Dave Sill wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> I like being able to do that. I invite folks who are so inclined to >>>> join in. I'll go first. >>>> >> >>>> >> -Dave >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry, too busy reading about the security problems about photos on >>>> FaceApp, Facebook, Instagram and SnapChat. >>>> Exi-chat is a public mailing list. >>>> >>>> BillK >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 23:26:31 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 18:26:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quora question Message-ID: I have been involved in computers, software only, since 1980. The question is: what is the easiest way to get a nontechnical person online? Some of you may have tried with your grandfather or someone like that, and may be able to tell me so I can answer that person's question. I have not tried to do this with anyone. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 23:33:35 2019 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:33:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Picture Message-ID: What the hell, now you know, smile, ilsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_20190718_163051.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4060889 bytes Desc: not available URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 03:30:35 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 20:30:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quora question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Depends heavily on the person. Some nontechnical people may as well be technical, for how fast they can pick stuff up. Others...you have to get a sense for what the person knows and how they think, if you want to make absolutely certain to get the concepts to them. One size does not fit all, even if there are approaches that work for most. You also have to define exactly what counts as "get them online". Just checking email is different from safe Web browsing habits, for instance. Combine the two: find out what they are interested in - *NOT* what you are interested in them learning, but what they are in fact already interested in. If you are imposing all of the desire here, it'll be tough (and you should double-check to see if it's actually worthwhile). If they are interested, use that to keep their attention, and relate the things you tell them to their interest. Most of them don't care about the finer details of DNS, for instance, and it suffices (especially to start) to know that names like "lists.extropy.org" are important and specific, and most (but not all) scammers pretending to be something legit fail if you look at the name they're actually coming from - e.g., "lists.extropyorg.com" is not this list, no matter how similar the name. If you try starting them with a full technical explanation of the Domain Name System, you'll quickly lose their interest and fail at teaching. Same thing otherwise: start with the basics as related to their interests - and if you can't directly relate something to why they're going online, it might not be worth trying to teach that aspect. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:29 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I have been involved in computers, software only, since 1980. The > question is: what is the easiest way to get a nontechnical person online? > Some of you may have tried with your grandfather or someone like that, and > may be able to tell me so I can answer that person's question. I have not > tried to do this with anyone. > > 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 randy.burkhardt at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 03:47:51 2019 From: randy.burkhardt at gmail.com (Randy Burkhardt) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 20:47:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quora question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've tried this many times, I think it's a pretty close competition between all the consumer systems: pcs, macs, android tablets and phones. They all are trouble for the technically challenged that I have here. The android tablet would get my vote because that's the quickest and simiplest for me to help them with, if wi-fi is already in the house. If there wasn't any wi-fi in the house I would consider a cell phone. Tablets and cell phones both give a good internet/pc experience. I've not used Mac or iPhone, maybe they are a little easier for the new person, I don't know but I suspect they are similar in ease. Different people have various challenges and limitations such eyesight problems, dexterity issues. But assuming they can see ok and can use their hands I think an android tablet and a stylus will be of great benefit to most anybody. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:30 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I have been involved in computers, software only, since 1980. The > question is: what is the easiest way to get a nontechnical person online? > Some of you may have tried with your grandfather or someone like that, and > may be able to tell me so I can answer that person's question. I have not > tried to do this with anyone. > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Randy (805) 268-7426 ringtones: www.randyburkhardt.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 11:37:53 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] quora question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:29 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I have been involved in computers, software only, since 1980. The > question is: what is the easiest way to get a nontechnical person online? > Some of you may have tried with your grandfather or someone like that, and > may be able to tell me so I can answer that person's question. I have not > tried to do this with anyone. > As Adrian said, it depends on the person and what they need/want to do, but my go-to answer is a Chromebook. It's about as simple as it gets. Even with a CS degree and a long career as a computing professional, I use a Chromebook at home. (Not exclusively; I also have a home-built Linux Desktop and an Android phone). -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 11:48:56 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:48:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 5:53 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > Wow, that is way cool!! > Do you work there? > I do. I've been at ORNL since '90. I'm not in the supercomputing organization, though. I'm in the central IT department and I'm embedded with the Climate Change Science Institute ( https://climatechangescience.ornl.gov/) working primarily on two climate data archive projects: DOE's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement project ( https://arm.gov/) and NASA's Distributed Active Archive Center for Biogeochemical Dynamics (https://daac.ornl.gov/). -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 12:05:28 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:05:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Liquid Permanent Magnets Message-ID: Ferrofluids have been around since 1963 but have only a modest attraction to an external magnetic field and loose all magnetism once the external field is removed. In today's issue of the journal Science it is reported that for the first time a liquid has been found that is Ferromagnetic, that is to say the attraction to an external magnetic field is much stronger and even more important it retains it's magnetism even when the external field is turned off. A liquid permanent magnet could have applications ranging from robot muscles to steering anticancer drugs to a tumor. An attractive, reshapable material John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jul 19 18:58:49 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:58:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name Message-ID: <20190719115849.Horde.QV6aLCNBsRJoNy0WIVtw4UB@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Here is my Facebook page, if anybody is curious. Just be warned, I waste zero time on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/stuart.laforge Stuart LaForge From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jul 19 18:44:03 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:44:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ai emotions Message-ID: <20190719114403.Horde.KRM7ZSioxf_nccrfxf5UTTn@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Brent Allsop: >> >>> But what do you mean by >>> this? >>> >>> ?red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists >>> with or without brains, but redness does not.? >>> I?m assuming that both of these are *different* in your model in the non >>> inverted and inverted set: ?Brain -> Redness?? >> >> Yes, that particular expression would be different for somebody with >> inverted qualia such that red + their brain = greenness. >> >>> >>> You?ve indicated that the downstream, ?redness? does not exist without >> the >>> upstream ?brain?? >> >> Yes. >> > > Then you are talking about "magic", or ar saying " a miracle happens here. > As I am talking about being causally (in any way physically detectable) > from whatever it is that is this redness you experience. No, I am saying *math* happens here. By the time redness becomes a thing you are able to perceive, it has already entered the stage of becoming abstract data, literally the bits of (0 = no, 1 = yes) of individual neurons in your visual cortex neural pathways firing in response to the red light. Different neural pathways would be activated by green light. Moreover, since no two peoples brains are wired identically, the neural pathways that are activated in your brain in response to red light are presumably going to be different than those in mine. The only miracle here is that sufficiently complex math can learn about itself and the world around it. Is that magic? It could be construed as such in the sense that all sufficiently advanced science and technology is, for all intents and purposes, magic to the uninitiated. But magic or not, this math-based technology is taking the world by storm even as we speak. >>> If there is one pixel on the surface of the strawberry that is switching >>> between red and green, what is the physical change in the physics of the >>> brain in your model? >> >> It should not change that much. In fact you might not even notice it >> unless you were really up close and looking for it. For example if you >> look closely at the flesh tones of human portraiture painted by >> classically trained artists, you can see small regions of reds, >> greens, blues, and other seemingly unrelated colors making up what >> appears to be a single homogeneous skin tone under various conditions >> of simulated light and shadow. > > You are avoiding the questions. I'm talking about a small patch on the > strawberry just large enough for you to clearly see, and pay attention to, > that is changing from red to green. What physics is changing? Some few neurons in your visual cortex are firing differently than they would be if the green spot was not there. Neuron B is firing in lieu of neuron A. The physics, apart from the difference in light wavelengths, is pretty much the same except in so far as "that neuron over there" is firing instead of "this neuron here". So I guess the answer the spatial coordinate of some of the many firing neurons are different if the green spot is on the strawberry. Does that help? > >> >>> And is the difference between ?Redness? and ? >>> Greenness? physically or objectively detectable, without cheating by >>> observing anything upstream from your "Redness" and "Greenness"? >> >> No, I don't think so. Your question is a little like asking if it is >> possible to crack a code without having any access to clear text or >> the cypher key. And the answer is: no, not in the life time of the >> universe for all but the most simple of cyphers. >> > > So you are saying qualia are not approachable, nor observable via science, > then? If the human brain is Turing complete, then as a consequence of Rice's Theorem and the Halting Problem, consciousness and its attendant qualia are inaccessible by any means short of statistical inference. Meaning that you are free to use all available data to guess what red looks like to me, but you will never truly know for sure. Then again, as far as I know, quantum computers might change that so I suppose that my answer is actually qualia are not approachable by currently available techniques. Stuart LaForge From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jul 19 18:42:07 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:42:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity Message-ID: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> In response to the fascinating discussion occurring on the other thread, I have decided to weigh in on my assessment of where we stand in regards to the achievement of human-level general intelligence in a machine. Since I am not familiar with the inner workings of the poker algorithm, I will use AlphaGo as a benchmark instead. Beating the world's best human Go player was an impressive feat for a deep-learning algorithm for sure, but we should take care to keep things in perspective. My recent hands-on experimentation with machine learning and my summer project of working on Spike's suggestion of an Alzheimer's patient chatbot has given me some insights into potential and the limitations of modern machine learning. So first off, Alpha Go was written in Tensorflow a Python-based open-source neural-network platform that uses high-dimensional (but thankfully Euclidean) tensors wherein the elements i.e. orthogonal unit-vectors are the simulated neurons. Each such neuron can store a decimal number between 0 and 1. It is important to point out that the neuron activation values are tracked as approximations of real numbers, often with an activation function that operates as threshold to simulate the neuron firing. The important things to remember are that first, the neurons are modeled as simulated continuous and therefore analog systems. Secondly, the activation function is usually chosen to be non-linear. Each such high-dimensional tensor forms what is referred to as a layer. Moreover connections between the neurons of adjacent layers are modeled as high-dimensional matrices (containing what are called weights) that are multiplied by the tensor to give the tensor components of the next layer. That layer/tensor is then multiplied by another matrix of weights to give the next layer/tensor and so on. A deep-learning neural-network is one with many such layers. The weights in the matrices and and the neuron values in the tensors start out randomized but are then trained using a gradient descent on a special function called an error function which measures the difference between the current output and the desired training output based on training inputs. The gradient descent relies on tuning the weights in the gigantic matrices, using an algorithm called back-propagation which uses the hell out of the distributive property and chain rule from calculus to find the gradient of these gigantic tensors with hundreds of dimensions to to derive a set of weights that minimize the error function for all inputs. In other words, it operates as what is call a universal learning function, a literal mathematical function that can be fine tuned to map any mathematically definable set of inputs to any such definable set of outputs. And being that we live in a universe that follows mathematical laws, that means pretty much anything can be finagled to serve as inputs and outputs for these universal functions. It seems pretty obvious to me that biological brains likewise embody such a tunable universal learning function and the same underlying mathethematics of tensor transformations explains intelligence in all its forms. The parallels are too numerous to ignore. For example, the "knowledge" that a neural network acquires is spread out throughout its neural architecture. This means that I take a fully trained model and start deleting individual neurons and its ability to recall knowledge is only very gradually affected. Also both are prone to biases and errors because both biological brains and artificial ones treat their training data as "truth" meaning that if either are fed misinformation, they both reach the wrong conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out applies to all brains, probably even jupiter-sized ones. Now the actual forms of the biases are different. I will give you an example of how alien a bias an AI can have. I saw a TED talk recently where a guy who was an AI researcher related how he was on a project that trained a deep-learning neural net to distinguish between various canine species and dog breeds based on photographs. It seemed to being perfectly capable of distinguishing visually between various dog breeds but for some reason it kept mistaking Alaskan sled-huskies as wolves. It turned out the reason was because every picture of a wolf in the training data featured the wolf in snow. Likewise, the sled dog was in snow. The AI had made the false assumption based on the training data that a wolf was a "dog in the snow". Another limitation is that since these AI require inputs to be in the form of tensors, there is a lot of data preparation that goes on behind the scenes by human programmers to devise algorithms to translate every possible input in the problem domain into the form of tensors to feed the machine. This is why Dylan Distasio calls machine-learning algorithms brittle in relation to human intelligence. For a human brain, all this data preprocessing happens automatically and subconsciously. The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in order to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math. I however think that the observation that noisy data improves the functioning of neural networks, suggests that machine learning is a lot more robust than than Dylan or Dave Sill give it credit for: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05179 And that more compute power and memory density will allow for machine learning algorithms to do more of their data preprocessing on their own. So how long will this take? Here are the best estimates I could come up with using AlphaGo as a benchmark. Here is a schematic of Alpha-Go's architecture that I used as a reference: https://nikcheerla.github.io/deeplearningschool//media/alphago_arch.png There are some interesting observations I have made about its architecture. For some reason AI people don't count the input layer as a layer in their count of layers. AlphaGo is composed of 42 layers/tensors of between 256 and 512 neurons/dimensions each. (42 layers, Deep Mind, a bunch of Brits . . . see what they did there?) That means that this "superhuman" Go player only has between 10,752 (1.1*10^4) and 21,504 (2.2*10^4) neurons and those neurons are connected by a mere 56,426,496 (5.6*10^7) to 225,705,984 (2.3*10^8) synapses. I say "only" and "mere" because according to wikipedia, the average adult human brain contains about 8.6*10^10 neurons and 1.5*10^14 synapses. In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the human brain is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of synapses it is likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human brain. But in terms of a metric I will call connectivity modeled on the average degree of vertices on a graphs, each human neuron is connected to approximately 3500 other neurons whereas AlphaGo has a connectivity of between 512 and 1024. So if connectivity is a measure of "complexity per neuron" than the average human neuron is only about between 3.5 to 6 times as complex as one of AlphaGo's neurons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons So how did such a relatively small brain defeat the world's best go player? Well it had several advantages going for it. For one thing, Google built special processors for the task called tensor processing units (TPU) which are faster than GPU or CPU, and used 4 of them to allow maximum use of the time domain as a trade off for its lack of neurons. This allowed AlphaGo to play a mind-boggling 44 million games against itself in the space of 9 hours of training. Secondly, it didn't have worry about minor nuisances such as walking, talking, finding food and water, paying the bills, and fitting into society. All things that human Go players must do. In essence it could use 100% of its relatively small brain for nothing but learning to play Go at superhuman speeds to allow it to have more experience playing Go than any human could ever have in an entire lifetime of playing Go. But brain size is just a scaling issue and if Moore's law continues then it should just be a matter of time right? Well if total neuron number is the important metric than by extrapolating Moore's law, a questionable thing I know, then we should neuron number parity in about 45 years. But in terms of human-AI parity between the connectivity of individual neurons, we are only about 5 years out. Taking the average of the given range of 5 to 45 years, is 25 years. But this assumes that Moore's law continues unabated. On the other hand, the emergence of quantum computing stands to disrupt everything, so who is to say what effect it will have on the timetable until the Singularity? Sorry, I couldn't be more precise in my estimates but to quote Yoda, "Difficult to see; Always in motion is the future." Stuart LaForge From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 19:13:51 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:13:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: <20190719115849.Horde.QV6aLCNBsRJoNy0WIVtw4UB@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20190719115849.Horde.QV6aLCNBsRJoNy0WIVtw4UB@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <80595433-1A3E-46C9-BC5F-E4135BB649A1@gmail.com> On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Here is my Facebook page, if anybody is curious. Just be warned, I waste zero time on Facebook. > > https://www.facebook.com/stuart.laforge Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste time then? ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 22:59:50 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:59:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] philosophy Message-ID: I suspect that some of you fit this philosophy as well as it fits me. It certainly does not tell all about me. (Picture of me forthcoming) https://aeon.co/ideas/why-epicurean-ideas-suit-the-challenges-of-modern-secular-life?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f05928a7d6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_15_02_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-f05928a7d6-68993993 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 00:09:23 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 20:09:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed yet clear. Really really good. > *The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, > then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in order > to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.* Damn, I wish I'd said that! > > > *> In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the human brain > is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of synapses it is > likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human brain.* > I doubt a computer would need a million times more synapses to beat us at all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal in our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of light. And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain are. A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees brain is over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at least as deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. I suppose that when there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; instead of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it already had in more efficient ways. Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being called a birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if one wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand kludges. > * > Taking the average of the given range of 5 to 45 years, is 25 years. > But this assumes that Moore's law continues unabated.* I would be surprised if it happened in less than 10 years and equally surprised if it didn't happen until after 2100, but it is the nature of a singularity to be surprised. > *> On the other hand, the emergence of quantum computing stands to disrupt > everything, * > There are a number of different approaches to quantum computing and lots of companies are starting to put some real money into it, but Microsoft (of all people!) is going with a high risk high reward strategy. Microsoft is trying to use Majorana Fermions to build a Topological Quantum Computer. It may not work at all but if it does they'll quickly blow everybody else in the field out of the water. They probably won't but Microsoft could surprise us. > * > Sorry, I couldn't be more precise in my estimates but to quote Yoda, > "Difficult to see; Always in motion is the future."* > Predicting is hard, especially the future. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 00:31:20 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 19:31:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain are. john clark I would like to know the basis of this statement. One thing not being considered is that human brains do a lot more than process incoming data. A large part of our brains are given over to the internal workings of the body - the autonomic nervous system. The large cerebellum - much larger in birds - is wasted space for thinking of intellectual tasks (it's for motor control and balance). Our cortex is most of our brain but a lot of it is given over to sensory and motor functions. Maybe we should count only the number of neurons in the prefrontal cortex. AIs can focus all their power into thinking. Another factor is nearly completely unknown - just what the glial cells are doing. They outnumber neurons. They form the blood-brain barrier and feed the neurons. Yet from the books I have read it would not surprise me if they were involved in cognitive processes. bill w On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:13 PM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed yet > clear. Really really good. > > > *The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, >> then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in order >> to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.* > > > Damn, I wish I'd said that! > > >> >> >> *> In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the human brain >> is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of synapses it is >> likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human brain.* >> > > I doubt a computer would need a million times more synapses to beat us at > all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal in > our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the > informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of light. > And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are > organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain > are. > > A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees brain is > over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African > Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at least as > deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact > that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. I suppose that when > there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature > couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; instead > of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it > already had in more efficient ways. Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll > bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being called a > birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if one > wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be > ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more > elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand > kludges. > > >> * > Taking the average of the given range of 5 to 45 years, is 25 years. >> But this assumes that Moore's law continues unabated.* > > > I would be surprised if it happened in less than 10 years and equally > surprised if it didn't happen until after 2100, but it is the nature of a > singularity to be surprised. > > >> *> On the other hand, the emergence of quantum computing stands to >> disrupt everything, * >> > > There are a number of different approaches to quantum computing and lots > of companies are starting to put some real money into it, but Microsoft (of > all people!) is going with a high risk high reward strategy. Microsoft is > trying to use Majorana Fermions to build a Topological Quantum Computer. It > may not work at all but if it does they'll quickly blow everybody else in > the field out of the water. They probably won't but Microsoft could > surprise us. > > >> * > Sorry, I couldn't be more precise in my estimates but to quote Yoda, >> "Difficult to see; Always in motion is the future."* >> > > Predicting is hard, especially the future. > > 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 Sat Jul 20 01:39:53 2019 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 21:39:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inm otionhosting.com> References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <201907200140.x6K1eCLe002217@hlin.zia.io> Stuart wrote: >But brain size is just a scaling issue and if Moore's law continues >then it should just be a matter of time right? Well if total neuron >number is the important metric than by extrapolating Moore's law, a >questionable thing I know, then we should neuron number parity in >about 45 years. But in terms of human-AI parity between the >connectivity of individual neurons, we are only about 5 years out. > >Taking the average of the given range of 5 to 45 years, is 25 years. >But this assumes that Moore's law continues unabated. On the other >hand, the emergence of quantum computing stands to disrupt everything, >so who is to say what effect it will have on the timetable until the >Singularity? Interesting that while the predictions for achieving viable nuclear fusion have remained equidistant for many years?certainly unchanged since I worked in magnetic fusion at LLNL ~35 years ago?the predicted Singularity date has remained pretty constant at roughly 2035 since we started talking about it all those years ago, in the earliest days of the old list, and before. -- David. From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 02:14:33 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 22:14:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: <80595433-1A3E-46C9-BC5F-E4135BB649A1@gmail.com> References: <20190719115849.Horde.QV6aLCNBsRJoNy0WIVtw4UB@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <80595433-1A3E-46C9-BC5F-E4135BB649A1@gmail.com> Message-ID: it me On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:24 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > > Here is my Facebook page, if anybody is curious. Just be warned, I waste > zero time on Facebook. > > > > https://www.facebook.com/stuart.laforge > > Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste time > then? ;) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > http://author.to/DanUst > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: me.png Type: image/png Size: 2838332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 11:39:26 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:39:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:34 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are >> organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain >> are. john clark > > > > I would like to know the basis of this statement. > It's just a hunch but based on the fact that in general the results of intelagent design tend to be more efficient and less buggy than random mutation and natural selection, and much much faster. Evolution is an incredibly clumsy slow and cruel process but until it invented brains it was the only way to make complex objects. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 20:39:05 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:39:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I completely agree. What a great, educational post. I had the same inspiring thoughts John was describing. Thanks Brent Allsop On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:12 PM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed yet > clear. Really really good. > > > *The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, >> then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in order >> to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.* > > > Damn, I wish I'd said that! > > >> >> >> *> In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the human brain >> is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of synapses it is >> likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human brain.* >> > > I doubt a computer would need a million times more synapses to beat us at > all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal in > our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the > informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of light. > And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are > organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain > are. > > A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees brain is > over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African > Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at least as > deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact > that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. I suppose that when > there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature > couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; instead > of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it > already had in more efficient ways. Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll > bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being called a > birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if one > wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be > ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more > elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand > kludges. > > >> * > Taking the average of the given range of 5 to 45 years, is 25 years. >> But this assumes that Moore's law continues unabated.* > > > I would be surprised if it happened in less than 10 years and equally > surprised if it didn't happen until after 2100, but it is the nature of a > singularity to be surprised. > > >> *> On the other hand, the emergence of quantum computing stands to >> disrupt everything, * >> > > There are a number of different approaches to quantum computing and lots > of companies are starting to put some real money into it, but Microsoft (of > all people!) is going with a high risk high reward strategy. Microsoft is > trying to use Majorana Fermions to build a Topological Quantum Computer. It > may not work at all but if it does they'll quickly blow everybody else in > the field out of the water. They probably won't but Microsoft could > surprise us. > > >> * > Sorry, I couldn't be more precise in my estimates but to quote Yoda, >> "Difficult to see; Always in motion is the future."* >> > > Predicting is hard, especially the future. > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 21:03:51 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:03:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai emotions In-Reply-To: <20190719114403.Horde.KRM7ZSioxf_nccrfxf5UTTn@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20190719114403.Horde.KRM7ZSioxf_nccrfxf5UTTn@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Hi Stuart, ?*math* happens here? And ?Math-based technology is taking the world by storm as we speak." Agreed, but how do you get this physical property on your screen: [image: image.png] >From even the abstract word ?red?, let alone any mathematics, without someone pointing and saying: ?THAT is red?? And I don?t understand why you continue to focus on light, which only ambiguously references any particular physical qualities we can be directly aware of. Nobody can know if you are talking about your redness, or an invert?s redness which is the same as your greenness? ?Meaning that you are free to use all available data to guess what red looks like to me, but you will never truly know for sure.? And ?I suppose that my answer is actually qualia are not approachable by currently available techniques.? I think you are just making all this too hard by failing to distinguish between physical reality and knowledge of reality. Any physical color you want can represent 1, and any physical color, as long as it is different, can represent the number 2. And you can?t get 1s or 0s from any physical property or quality, unless you have a working dictionary set of abstracting hardware, which can get the intended 1s and 0s, from whatever physics happens to be representing them. Brent On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 1:09 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Quoting Brent Allsop: > > >> > >>> But what do you mean by > >>> this? > >>> > >>> ?red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists > >>> with or without brains, but redness does not.? > >>> I?m assuming that both of these are *different* in your model in the > non > >>> inverted and inverted set: ?Brain -> Redness?? > >> > >> Yes, that particular expression would be different for somebody with > >> inverted qualia such that red + their brain = greenness. > >> > >>> > >>> You?ve indicated that the downstream, ?redness? does not exist without > >> the > >>> upstream ?brain?? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > > > > Then you are talking about "magic", or ar saying " a miracle happens > here. > > As I am talking about being causally (in any way physically detectable) > > from whatever it is that is this redness you experience. > > No, I am saying *math* happens here. By the time redness becomes a > thing you are able to perceive, it has already entered the stage of > becoming abstract data, literally the bits of (0 = no, 1 = yes) of > individual neurons in your visual cortex neural pathways firing in > response to the red light. Different neural pathways would be > activated by green light. > > Moreover, since no two peoples brains are wired identically, the > neural pathways that are activated in your brain in response to red > light are presumably going to be different than those in mine. > > The only miracle here is that sufficiently complex math can learn > about itself and the world around it. Is that magic? It could be > construed as such in the sense that all sufficiently advanced science > and technology is, for all intents and purposes, magic to the > uninitiated. > > But magic or not, this math-based technology is taking the world by > storm even as we speak. > > >>> If there is one pixel on the surface of the strawberry that is > switching > >>> between red and green, what is the physical change in the physics of > the > >>> brain in your model? > >> > >> It should not change that much. In fact you might not even notice it > >> unless you were really up close and looking for it. For example if you > >> look closely at the flesh tones of human portraiture painted by > >> classically trained artists, you can see small regions of reds, > >> greens, blues, and other seemingly unrelated colors making up what > >> appears to be a single homogeneous skin tone under various conditions > >> of simulated light and shadow. > > > > You are avoiding the questions. I'm talking about a small patch on the > > strawberry just large enough for you to clearly see, and pay attention > to, > > that is changing from red to green. What physics is changing? > > Some few neurons in your visual cortex are firing differently than > they would be if the green spot was not there. Neuron B is firing in > lieu of neuron A. The physics, apart from the difference in light > wavelengths, is pretty much the same except in so far as "that neuron > over there" is firing instead of "this neuron here". So I guess the > answer the spatial coordinate of some of the many firing neurons are > different if the green spot is on the strawberry. Does that help? > > > >> > >>> And is the difference between ?Redness? and ? > >>> Greenness? physically or objectively detectable, without cheating by > >>> observing anything upstream from your "Redness" and "Greenness"? > >> > >> No, I don't think so. Your question is a little like asking if it is > >> possible to crack a code without having any access to clear text or > >> the cypher key. And the answer is: no, not in the life time of the > >> universe for all but the most simple of cyphers. > >> > > > > So you are saying qualia are not approachable, nor observable via > science, > > then? > > If the human brain is Turing complete, then as a consequence of Rice's > Theorem and the Halting Problem, consciousness and its attendant > qualia are inaccessible by any means short of statistical inference. > Meaning that you are free to use all available data to guess what red > looks like to me, but you will never truly know for sure. > > Then again, as far as I know, quantum computers might change that so I > suppose that my answer is actually qualia are not approachable by > currently available techniques. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 738 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 21:10:25 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 16:10:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: <20190719115849.Horde.QV6aLCNBsRJoNy0WIVtw4UB@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <80595433-1A3E-46C9-BC5F-E4135BB649A1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4003F74C-C0FD-4B38-8B46-3DEAB0A8DB3C@gmail.com> SR Ballard > On Jul 19, 2019, at 9:14 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > > it me > >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:24 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Stuart LaForge wrote: >> > >> > Here is my Facebook page, if anybody is curious. Just be warned, I waste zero time on Facebook. >> > >> > https://www.facebook.com/stuart.laforge >> >> Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste time then? ;) >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> Sample my Kindle books at: >> http://author.to/DanUst >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image1.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27722 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 22:22:24 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 17:22:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: It's just a hunch but based on the fact that in general the results of intelagent design tend to be more efficient and less buggy than random mutation and natural selection, and much much faster. Evolution is an incredibly clumsy slow and cruel process but until it invented brains it was the only way to make complex objects. John K Clark I had hoped that you would reply that certain features of humans and their brain workings had prompted you to suspect that errors were made in designing our brains, such as the cognitive errors like confirmation bias and correlation as causation. I have no doubt that what DNA produces is a cobbled together apparatus, sometimes with major errors, such as our immune system attacking our bodies. I do not have the knowledge to challenge your statement that intelligent design produces fewer errors than DNA, but it does seem that much software is extremely buggy. Look at the other discussion by Stewart angry with MS and Windows. Thousands of programmers putting out one defective product after another. bill w On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 3:42 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > I completely agree. What a great, educational post. > I had the same inspiring thoughts John was describing. > Thanks > Brent Allsop > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:12 PM John Clark wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:18 PM Stuart LaForge >> wrote: >> >> Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed yet >> clear. Really really good. >> >> > *The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, >>> then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in order >>> to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.* >> >> >> Damn, I wish I'd said that! >> >> >>> >>> >>> *> In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the human brain >>> is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of synapses it is >>> likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human brain.* >>> >> >> I doubt a computer would need a million times more synapses to beat us >> at all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal >> in our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the >> informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of light. >> And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are >> organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain >> are. >> >> A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees brain >> is over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African >> Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at least as >> deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact >> that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. I suppose that when >> there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature >> couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; instead >> of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it >> already had in more efficient ways. Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll >> bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being called a >> birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if one >> wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be >> ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more >> elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand >> kludges. >> >> >>> * > Taking the average of the given range of 5 to 45 years, is 25 >>> years. But this assumes that Moore's law continues unabated.* >> >> >> I would be surprised if it happened in less than 10 years and equally >> surprised if it didn't happen until after 2100, but it is the nature of a >> singularity to be surprised. >> >> >>> *> On the other hand, the emergence of quantum computing stands to >>> disrupt everything, * >>> >> >> There are a number of different approaches to quantum computing and lots >> of companies are starting to put some real money into it, but Microsoft (of >> all people!) is going with a high risk high reward strategy. Microsoft is >> trying to use Majorana Fermions to build a Topological Quantum Computer. It >> may not work at all but if it does they'll quickly blow everybody else in >> the field out of the water. They probably won't but Microsoft could >> surprise us. >> >> >>> * > Sorry, I couldn't be more precise in my estimates but to quote >>> Yoda, "Difficult to see; Always in motion is the future."* >>> >> >> Predicting is hard, especially the future. >> >> John K Clark >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 22:01:37 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:01:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: <4003F74C-C0FD-4B38-8B46-3DEAB0A8DB3C@gmail.com> References: <20190719115849.Horde.QV6aLCNBsRJoNy0WIVtw4UB@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <80595433-1A3E-46C9-BC5F-E4135BB649A1@gmail.com> <4003F74C-C0FD-4B38-8B46-3DEAB0A8DB3C@gmail.com> Message-ID: [image: atymes_43.jpg] On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 2:14 PM SR Ballard wrote: > [image: image1.jpeg] > > SR Ballard > > On Jul 19, 2019, at 9:14 PM, Will Steinberg > wrote: > > it me > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:24 PM Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > >> On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Stuart LaForge wrote: >> > >> > Here is my Facebook page, if anybody is curious. Just be warned, I >> waste zero time on Facebook. >> > >> > https://www.facebook.com/stuart.laforge >> >> Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste time >> then? ;) >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> Sample my Kindle books at: >> http://author.to/DanUst >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image1.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27722 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: atymes_43.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 578502 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Jul 21 08:53:04 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 01:53:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Dan Ust: > On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Stuart LaForge wrote: >> >> Here is my Facebook page, if anybody is curious. Just be warned, I >> waste zero time on Facebook. >> >> https://www.facebook.com/stuart.laforge > > Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste > time then? ;) I could care less. :P https://xkcd.com/1576/ Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 10:32:57 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 06:32:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hawaiian Imbeciles at it again Message-ID: Hawaii protesters delay 30 meter telescope construction on Mauna Kea John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 11:29:27 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 07:29:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 6:26 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I do not have the knowledge to challenge your statement that intelligent > design produces fewer errors than DNA, > The fundamental problem isn't with DNA but with the process of Evolution itself, here are a few reasons for it's poor performance, the most important one is the last: 1) Time Lags: Evolution is so slow the animal is adapted to conditions that no longer exist. that's why moths have an instinct to fly into candle flames. I have no doubt that if you just give them a million years or so Evolution will give hedgehogs a better defense than rolling up into a ball when confronted by their major predator, the automobile. The only problem is that by then there won't be any automobiles. 2) Historical Constraints: The eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards. The connective tissue of the retina is on the wrong side so light must pass through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. And the nerve caring the visual information to the brain must pass through the retina causing a blind spot. There's no doubt all this degrades vision and we'd be better off if the retina was reversed as it is in squids whose eye evolved independently, but It's too late for that to happen now because the intermediate forms would not be viable. Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms it's very difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are found. That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric system is clearly superior. You mentioned Windows and that's why it's still around, Nature is enormously conservative, it may add new things but it doesn't abandon the old because the intermediate stages must also work. That's also why we have all the old brain structures that lizards have as well as new ones. 3) Lack of Genetic Variation : Mutations are random and you might not get the mutation you need when you need it. Feathers work better for flight than the skin flaps bats use, but bats never produced the right mutations for feathers and skin flaps are good enough. 4) Constraints of Costs and Materials: Life is a tangle of trade offs and compromises. An Advantage on one Level is a Disadvantage on Another. One gene can give you resistance to malaria, a second identical gene will give you sickle cell anemia. 5) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all. A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, BUT you must do it while the engine is running, and you must do it in one million small steps, and you must do it so every one of those small steps improves the operation of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some sort, but it wouldn't look anything like a jet. If the tire on your car is getting worn you can take it off and put a new one on, but evolution could never do something like that, because when you take the old tire off you have temporally made things worse, now you have no tire at all. With evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter how small, MUST be an immediate improvement over the previous one. And it can't think more than one step ahead, it doesn't understand one step backward two steps forward, but a intelligent designer, like a human, can > > but it does seem that much software is extremely buggy. Look at the > other discussion by Stewart angry with MS and Windows. > Intelligence has been designing MS Windows for about 35 years but Evolution has been "designing" DNA for 3.5 BILLION years, and yet the vagus nerve that connects the brain of a giraffe to its larynx is over 15 feet long even though the two organs are less than a foot apart, the vagus nerve runs all the way down the neck and then double backs and goes back up the neck to the larynx. If Evolution could think ahead that would never happen, but it can't and it can't backtrack either and start over because every change it makes must improve things *right now*. And speaking of DNA, that places an upper bound on how complex a seed AI would have to be. In the entire human genome there are only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each base can represent 2 bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to 750 meg. Just 750 meg, that's about the same amount of information as an old CD disk could hold when they first came out 40 years ago! And the 750 meg isn't even efficiently coded, there is a ridiculous amount of redundancy in the human genome. And much of it codes for things that have nothing to do with the brain or intelligence. And yet that tiny amount of information was enough to reshape the surface of a planet. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 14:30:01 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:30:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste > time then? ;) I could care less. :P An odddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could care less', 'could not care less' bill w On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 3:56 AM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Quoting Dan Ust: > > > On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > >> > >> Here is my Facebook page, if anybody is curious. Just be warned, I > >> waste zero time on Facebook. > >> > >> https://www.facebook.com/stuart.laforge > > > > Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste > > time then? ;) > > I could care less. :P > > https://xkcd.com/1576/ > > 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 Sun Jul 21 14:56:13 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (Spike Jones) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 07:56:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <028501d53fd4$718efab0$54acf010$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] Putting a face with the name Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste > time then? ;) I could care less. :P An odddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could care less', 'could not care less' bill w BillW, regarding language oddities, it occurred to me that Spanish-speakers could gender-neutralize their language by borrowing the English article ?the? to substitute for their gender-specific (and therefore outdated) terms la and el. The follow-through whacks off the gender-specific trailing a and o, along with any other suspicious-looking vowels. The Spanish phrase for inviting a friend into your house, ?entre la casa mi amigo? becomes ?entre the cas mi amig.? spik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 15:22:07 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:22:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: <028501d53fd4$718efab0$54acf010$@rainier66.com> References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <028501d53fd4$718efab0$54acf010$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Speaking of gender-specific, and for you, Spike (parentheses), I offer the following, perhaps the best thing, in my considered opinion, that Twain wrote. If you know some German it is probably even better: https://www.cs.utah.edu/~gback/awfgrmlg.html bill w On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 9:59 AM Spike Jones wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Putting a face with the name > > > > Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste > > time then? ;) > > I could care less. :P > > > > An odddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where > two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could > care less', 'could not care less' > > > > bill w > > > > > > BillW, regarding language oddities, it occurred to me that > Spanish-speakers could gender-neutralize their language by borrowing the > English article ?the? to substitute for their gender-specific (and > therefore outdated) terms la and el. The follow-through whacks off the > gender-specific trailing a and o, along with any other suspicious-looking > vowels. > > > > The Spanish phrase for inviting a friend into your house, ?entre la casa > mi amigo? becomes ?entre the cas mi amig.? > > > > spik > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jul 21 15:24:19 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 08:24:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <4C62B92A-1BEE-4461-ABA9-0E9528AA65EA@gmail.com> I wonder if there?s a name for it. And I?m guessing other languages have it too. The terms enantiosemy and contronym seem to refer to the same word (not phrase?) having opposite meanings. The classic example is ?cleave? in English. But is there a term that refers to words and phrases that on one level seem like they should have opposed meanings, but actual mean the same thing? By the way, it?s not English versus its users here. Rather, formal English would have those phrases mean the opposite, whereas North American colloquial dialects of English would have it mean the same. The problem arises when the formal standard is applied in a colloquial context. (I usually stick with the formal standard here to avoid a reader getting pulled out of the flow or a sidebar discussion like this. Not that I always mind the latter.;) And, for the record, I usually care more than I let on. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Jul 21, 2019, at 7:30 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste > > time then? ;) > > I could care less. :P > > An odddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could care less', 'could not care less' > > bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 15:35:43 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 08:35:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: <028501d53fd4$718efab0$54acf010$@rainier66.com> References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <028501d53fd4$718efab0$54acf010$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <50B176D1-C710-4D9C-B208-88283ABB9868@gmail.com> On Jul 21, 2019, at 7:56 AM, Spike Jones wrote: > > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Putting a face with the name > > Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste > > time then? ;) > > I could care less. :P > > An odddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could care less', 'could not care less' > > bill w > > > BillW, regarding language oddities, it occurred to me that Spanish-speakers could gender-neutralize their language by borrowing the English article ?the? to substitute for their gender-specific (and therefore outdated) terms la and el. The follow-through whacks off the gender-specific trailing a and o, along with any other suspicious-looking vowels. > > The Spanish phrase for inviting a friend into your house, ?entre la casa mi amigo? becomes ?entre the cas mi amig.? I wonder if that ever happens: borrowing an article from another language along with deleting the native article and any case markers. By the way, Old English had three genders and articles that went along with each gender and gender specific case markers (for no less than five cases). I believe that was typical of Germanic languages. Invasions by the Norse made short work of that, it seems. (I believe most of that was worn away or the way out by the time the Normans invaded.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 16:33:08 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:33:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: <4C62B92A-1BEE-4461-ABA9-0E9528AA65EA@gmail.com> References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <4C62B92A-1BEE-4461-ABA9-0E9528AA65EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: But is there a term that refers to words and phrases that on one level seem like they should have opposed meanings, but actual mean the same thing? dan ravel and unravel occurs to me (some might suggest thaw and unthaw, but I would never do that - horrible nonword 'unthaw' - which means my Malapropian wife has done so) bill w On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 10:34 AM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > I wonder if there?s a name for it. And I?m guessing other languages have > it too. The terms enantiosemy and contronym seem to refer to the same word > (not phrase?) having opposite meanings. The classic example is ?cleave? in > English. But is there a term that refers to words and phrases that on one > level seem like they should have opposed meanings, but actual mean the same > thing? > > By the way, it?s not English versus its users here. Rather, formal English > would have those phrases mean the opposite, whereas North American > colloquial dialects of English would have it mean the same. The problem > arises when the formal standard is applied in a colloquial context. (I > usually stick with the formal standard here to avoid a reader getting > pulled out of the flow or a sidebar discussion like this. Not that I always > mind the latter.;) > > And, for the record, I usually care more than I let on. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > > On Jul 21, 2019, at 7:30 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste > > time then? ;) > > I could care less. :P > > An odddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where > two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could > care less', 'could not care less' > > 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 Jul 21 16:52:34 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:52:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Well, John, that's a lot of interesting information and no joke. The eye - is it possible that if strong sunlight were to aim directly at retinal cells it would be too strong? If so, then it's not backwards. It's a necessary filter. (I don't mean looking directly at the sun, but just, say, light bounced off a white building, or a strong fire.) Your last paragraph reminds me of a metaphor I invented a while back: there are two frogs - one can make a vertical leap of 5 inches and the other 6 inches. Both are presented with stairs that are 6 inches high. One can go to the top and the other cannot go anywhere. Perhaps a difference this small is what separates us from the other apes. bill w On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:33 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 6:26 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > I do not have the knowledge to challenge your statement that >> intelligent design produces fewer errors than DNA, >> > > The fundamental problem isn't with DNA but with the process of Evolution > itself, here are a few reasons for it's poor performance, the most > important one is the last: > > 1) Time Lags: Evolution is so slow the animal is adapted to conditions > that no longer exist. that's why moths have an instinct to fly into candle > flames. I have no doubt that if you just give them a million years or so > Evolution will give hedgehogs a better defense than rolling up into a > ball when confronted by their major predator, the automobile. The only > problem is that by then there won't be any automobiles. > > 2) Historical Constraints: The eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards. > The connective tissue of the retina is on the wrong side so light must pass > through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. And the nerve caring > the visual information to the brain must pass through the retina causing a > blind spot. There's no doubt all this degrades vision and we'd be better > off if the retina was reversed as it is in squids whose eye evolved > independently, but It's too late for that to happen now because the > intermediate forms would not be viable. > Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms it's very > difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are > found. That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric > system is clearly superior. You mentioned Windows and that's why it's > still around, Nature is enormously conservative, it may add new things but > it doesn't abandon the old because the intermediate stages must also work. > That's also why we have all the old brain structures that lizards have as > well as new ones. > > 3) Lack of Genetic Variation : Mutations are random and you might not get > the mutation you need when you need it. Feathers work better for flight > than the skin flaps bats use, but bats never produced the right mutations > for feathers and skin flaps are good enough. > > 4) Constraints of Costs and Materials: Life is a tangle of trade offs and > compromises. An Advantage on one Level is a Disadvantage on Another. One > gene can give you resistance to malaria, a second identical gene will give > you sickle cell anemia. > > 5) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all. > A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a > prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, BUT you must do it while > the engine is running, and you must do it in one million small steps, and > you must do it so every one of those small steps improves the operation of > the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some sort, but > it wouldn't look anything like a jet. If the tire on your car is getting > worn you can take it off and put a new one on, but evolution could never do > something like that, because when you take the old tire off you have > temporally made things worse, now you have no tire at all. With evolution > EVERY step (generation), no matter how small, MUST be an immediate > improvement over the previous one. And it can't think more than one step > ahead, it doesn't understand one step backward two steps forward, but a > intelligent designer, like a human, can > > >> > but it does seem that much software is extremely buggy. Look at the >> other discussion by Stewart angry with MS and Windows. >> > > Intelligence has been designing MS Windows for about 35 years but > Evolution has been "designing" DNA for 3.5 BILLION years, and yet the vagus > nerve that connects the brain of a giraffe to its larynx is over 15 feet > long even though the two organs are less than a foot apart, the vagus nerve > runs all the way down the neck and then double backs and goes back up the > neck to the larynx. If Evolution could think ahead that would never happen, > but it can't and it can't backtrack either and start over because every > change it makes must improve things *right now*. > > And speaking of DNA, that places an upper bound on how complex a seed AI > would have to be. In the entire human genome there are only 3 billion base > pairs. There are 4 bases so each base can represent 2 bits, there are 8 > bits per byte so that comes out to 750 meg. Just 750 meg, that's about the > same amount of information as an old CD disk could hold when they first > came out 40 years ago! And the 750 meg isn't even efficiently coded, there > is a ridiculous amount of redundancy in the human genome. And much of it > codes for things that have nothing to do with the brain or intelligence. > And yet that tiny amount of information was enough to reshape the surface > of a planet. > > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 17:18:49 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:18:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <022A3CB4-37A5-4530-8A74-ABD69827757B@gmail.com> The blindspot evolved not because of some ancestors stared at the sun ? or so it seems because all vertebrates have it and cephalopods (which have very similar eyes otherwise) don?t. So something early in evolution ? before vertebrates made it to the land ? took the blindspot path. Most likely it was a developmental constraint rather than anything to do with looking directly at the sun. (Add to this, looking directly at the sun now with no eye protection can lead to retinal damage. I?m not sure how much difference it makes have the retina behind some thin blood vessels... And behind the blindspot itself ? even if that is more protected ? is, well, blind, no?;) I like that frog jumping thing. Reminds of the (a tad overblown) saying in space exploration that Earth orbit is halfway to anywhere in the universe. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Jul 21, 2019, at 9:52 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Well, John, that's a lot of interesting information and no joke. > > The eye - is it possible that if strong sunlight were to aim directly at retinal cells it would be too strong? If so, then it's not backwards. It's a necessary filter. (I don't mean looking directly at the sun, but just, say, light bounced off a white building, or a strong fire.) > > Your last paragraph reminds me of a metaphor I invented a while back: there are two frogs - one can make a vertical leap of 5 inches and the other 6 inches. Both are presented with stairs that are 6 inches high. One can go to the top and the other cannot go anywhere. Perhaps a difference this small is what separates us from the other apes. > > bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Jul 21 18:56:51 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:56:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity Message-ID: <20190721115651.Horde.DDlYB9y1Vnl8L566biEK-sQ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> > Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed yet > clear. Really really good. That's high praise coming from a skeptic like you so I appreciate it. >> *The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, >> then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in order >> to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.* > > Damn, I wish I'd said that! It's not too late. You can still say it. If the word gets out, then maybe math literacy will increase. >> *> In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the human brain >> is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of synapses it is >> likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human brain.* >> > > I doubt a computer would need a million times more synapses to beat us at > all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal in > our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the > informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of light. > And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are > organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain > are. For playing go, perhaps . . . for figuring out new and creative ways to dodge predators while finding food and mates, probably not. Airplanes might fly better than birds, but they are not yet smarter. The human brain is not so much a single neural network as it is multiple interconnected neural networks built on top of one another. Like cities in Europe being built on top of ancient Roman forts. > > A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees brain is > over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African > Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at least as > deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact > that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. Yes. Birds in general are marvels of evolution. Ravens and Parrot-kind including the kia, have some of the densest brains known. They have as many neurons in their much smaller skulls as ungulates like horses do. I imagine the trade off was fewer glial cells or something. > I suppose that when > there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature > couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; instead > of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it > already had in more efficient ways. The adaptations of birds are incredible, especially their extended respiratory system. The air sacs in their hollow bones operate like a second set of lungs. Every time a bird exhales, it is exhaling air it inhaled 2-3 breaths earlier and every last bit of oxygen has been pulled out of it. > Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll > bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being called a > birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if one > wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be > ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more > elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand > kludges. Very possibly. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 18:57:12 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:57:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] frog example Message-ID: Just forgot to add: What looks like a big qualitative difference in turns out to be a small quantitative difference. Or you could express this as a function of a tipping point. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 19:08:34 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:08:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: <20190721115651.Horde.DDlYB9y1Vnl8L566biEK-sQ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20190721115651.Horde.DDlYB9y1Vnl8L566biEK-sQ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I believe if one > wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be > ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more > elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand > kludges. john clark There is a book called, I thought, The Secret Life of Garden Birds, but I can't find it. Last time I looked it was very expensive. It showed me the incredible intelligence of crows, among others. In any case, there are several books in the subject. Here is a page with some interesting info: https://www.beautyofbirds.com/crowintelligence.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 2:00 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed yet > > clear. Really really good. > > That's high praise coming from a skeptic like you so I appreciate it. > > >> *The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, > >> then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in > order > >> to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.* > > > > Damn, I wish I'd said that! > > It's not too late. You can still say it. If the word gets out, then > maybe math literacy will increase. > > > >> *> In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the human brain > >> is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of synapses it > is > >> likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human brain.* > >> > > > > I doubt a computer would need a million times more synapses to beat us > at > > all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal in > > our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the > > informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of light. > > And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are > > organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our > brain > > are. > > For playing go, perhaps . . . for figuring out new and creative ways > to dodge predators while finding food and mates, probably not. > Airplanes might fly better than birds, but they are not yet smarter. > The human brain is not so much a single neural network as it is > multiple interconnected neural networks built on top of one another. > Like cities in Europe being built on top of ancient Roman forts. > > > > > A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees brain > is > > over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African > > Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at least > as > > deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact > > that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. > > Yes. Birds in general are marvels of evolution. Ravens and Parrot-kind > including the kia, have some of the densest brains known. They have as > many neurons in their much smaller skulls as ungulates like horses do. > I imagine the trade off was fewer glial cells or something. > > > I suppose that when > > there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature > > couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; > instead > > of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it > > already had in more efficient ways. > > The adaptations of birds are incredible, especially their extended > respiratory system. The air sacs in their hollow bones operate like a > second set of lungs. Every time a bird exhales, it is exhaling air it > inhaled 2-3 breaths earlier and every last bit of oxygen has been > pulled out of it. > > > Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll > > bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being > called a > > birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if > one > > wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be > > ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more > > elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand > > kludges. > > Very possibly. > > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jul 21 19:34:29 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:34:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:56 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Well, John, that's a lot of interesting information and no joke. > The eye - is it possible that if strong sunlight were to aim directly at > retinal cells it would be too strong? If so, then it's not backwards. > It's a necessary filter. > We have an iris for that, if the light gets too bright the iris gets smaller so its safe and as a bonus the image gets sharper. Having nerves and blood vessels on the wrong side doesn't decrease light sensitivity significantly but it does reduce sharpness due to diffraction. And that blind spot is just nuts. I think the first eye probably couldn't do much more than tell the difference between night and day and so it didn't matter which side of the film, aka retina, the nerves and blood vessels were on, but when the eye started to improve it did make a difference but by then it was too late to backtrack. I think it was a coin toss and could have gone either way, the ansestors of squids were just lucky while the ansestors of the vertebrates were not. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Jul 21 20:51:02 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:51:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: <623235926.2701349.1563740490256@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20190719114207.Horde.E5sYMMykMOGW5Xck8xDhZk_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <623235926.2701349.1563740490256@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20190721135102.Horde.N-UGVSsvj2vsV1Lw4kAbJHZ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting John Clark: > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019, > 12:35:31 PM PDTSubject: Re: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:56 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > >> Well, John, that's a lot of interesting information and no joke.The >> eye - is it possible that if strong sunlight were to aim directly >> at retinal cells it would be too strong?? If so, then it's not >> backwards.? It's a necessary filter.? > > We have an iris for that, if the light gets too bright the iris gets > smaller so its safe and as a bonus the image gets sharper. Having > nerves and blood vessels on the wrong side doesn't decrease light > sensitivity significantly but it does reduce sharpness due to > diffraction. And that blind spot is just nuts. I think the first eye > probably couldn't do much more than tell the difference between > night and day and so it didn't matter which side of the film, aka > retina, the nerves and blood vessels were on, but when the eye > started to improve it did make a difference but by then it was too > late to backtrack. I think it was a coin toss and could have gone > either way, the ansestors of squids were just lucky while the > ansestors of the vertebrates were not. ?? Actually only primates got the short end of the stick out of the deal. The other vertebrate eyes are not kludges because, they have backward facing retinas as a trade-off for night-vision. It allows their tapetum lucidum to reflect photons that don't get absorbed the first time through the rod cell back through through the retina for second chance. The the backwards facing retina together with the tapetum allows most vertebrates to make the most out of very low light levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum But you are right in that primates would be better off with cephalopod eyes. We lost the tapetum as a trade off for color vision (I think), but squid and octopi have better color vision than we do. But the trade off here is that both squid and primates have crappy night vision. For example, the nocturnal tarsier needs gigantic eyes to see its prey and the deep-sea dwelling colossal squid needs both gigantic eyes AND the bioluminescent equivalent of headlights inside their eyeball. Their eyes literally glow in the dark like flashlights. http://www.squid.tepapa.govt.nz/anatomy/article/the-eye-of-the-colossal-squid So I don't think vertebrate eyes are kludgy at all. Unless you're a monkey. Stuart LaForge From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jul 22 01:04:39 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 18:04:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Retro-causation model in vaping Message-ID: <39837FCB-9FA1-4379-926D-FBCEF5DEAD37@gmail.com> https://reason.com/2019/07/19/anti-vaping-researchers-claim-e-cigarettes-cause-heart-attacks-before-smokers-try-them/ This should be an Onion story. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Mon Jul 22 01:56:16 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 21:56:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190721115651.Horde.DDlYB9y1Vnl8L566biEK-sQ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: MInd of the Raven is a great read: https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Raven-Investigations-Adventures-Wolf-Birds/dp/0061136050 On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 3:15 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I believe if one > > wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be > > ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more > > elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand > > kludges. john clark > > There is a book called, I thought, The Secret Life of Garden Birds, but I > can't find it. Last time I looked it was very expensive. It showed me the > incredible intelligence of crows, among others. In any case, there are > several books in the subject. Here is a page with some interesting info: > > https://www.beautyofbirds.com/crowintelligence.html > > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 2:00 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > >> >> > Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed yet >> > clear. Really really good. >> >> That's high praise coming from a skeptic like you so I appreciate it. >> >> >> *The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, >> >> then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in >> order >> >> to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.* >> > >> > Damn, I wish I'd said that! >> >> It's not too late. You can still say it. If the word gets out, then >> maybe math literacy will increase. >> >> >> >> *> In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the human >> brain >> >> is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of synapses >> it is >> >> likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human brain.* >> >> >> > >> > I doubt a computer would need a million times more synapses to beat us >> at >> > all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal >> in >> > our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the >> > informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of light. >> > And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are >> > organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our >> brain >> > are. >> >> For playing go, perhaps . . . for figuring out new and creative ways >> to dodge predators while finding food and mates, probably not. >> Airplanes might fly better than birds, but they are not yet smarter. >> The human brain is not so much a single neural network as it is >> multiple interconnected neural networks built on top of one another. >> Like cities in Europe being built on top of ancient Roman forts. >> >> > >> > A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees brain >> is >> > over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African >> > Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at >> least as >> > deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact >> > that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. >> >> Yes. Birds in general are marvels of evolution. Ravens and Parrot-kind >> including the kia, have some of the densest brains known. They have as >> many neurons in their much smaller skulls as ungulates like horses do. >> I imagine the trade off was fewer glial cells or something. >> >> > I suppose that when >> > there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature >> > couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; >> instead >> > of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it >> > already had in more efficient ways. >> >> The adaptations of birds are incredible, especially their extended >> respiratory system. The air sacs in their hollow bones operate like a >> second set of lungs. Every time a bird exhales, it is exhaling air it >> inhaled 2-3 breaths earlier and every last bit of oxygen has been >> pulled out of it. >> >> > Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll >> > bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being >> called a >> > birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if >> one >> > wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would >> be >> > ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more >> > elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand >> > kludges. >> >> Very possibly. >> >> >> Stuart LaForge >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jul 22 13:53:34 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:53:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Benchmarking the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: <20190721115651.Horde.DDlYB9y1Vnl8L566biEK-sQ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I just bought the Genius of Birds, and The Gift of the Crow. Will let you know. bill w On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 9:00 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: > MInd of the Raven is a great read: > > > https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Raven-Investigations-Adventures-Wolf-Birds/dp/0061136050 > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 3:15 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> I believe if one >> > wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would >> be >> > ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more >> > elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand >> > kludges. john clark >> >> There is a book called, I thought, The Secret Life of Garden Birds, but >> I can't find it. Last time I looked it was very expensive. It showed me >> the incredible intelligence of crows, among others. In any case, there are >> several books in the subject. Here is a page with some interesting info: >> >> https://www.beautyofbirds.com/crowintelligence.html >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 2:00 PM Stuart LaForge >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed >>> yet >>> > clear. Really really good. >>> >>> That's high praise coming from a skeptic like you so I appreciate it. >>> >>> >> *The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, >>> >> then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in >>> order >>> >> to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.* >>> > >>> > Damn, I wish I'd said that! >>> >>> It's not too late. You can still say it. If the word gets out, then >>> maybe math literacy will increase. >>> >>> >>> >> *> In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the human >>> brain >>> >> is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of synapses >>> it is >>> >> likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human brain.* >>> >> >>> > >>> > I doubt a computer would need a million times more synapses to beat >>> us at >>> > all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal >>> in >>> > our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the >>> > informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of >>> light. >>> > And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain >>> are >>> > organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our >>> brain >>> > are. >>> >>> For playing go, perhaps . . . for figuring out new and creative ways >>> to dodge predators while finding food and mates, probably not. >>> Airplanes might fly better than birds, but they are not yet smarter. >>> The human brain is not so much a single neural network as it is >>> multiple interconnected neural networks built on top of one another. >>> Like cities in Europe being built on top of ancient Roman forts. >>> >>> > >>> > A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees >>> brain is >>> > over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African >>> > Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at >>> least as >>> > deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact >>> > that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. >>> >>> Yes. Birds in general are marvels of evolution. Ravens and Parrot-kind >>> including the kia, have some of the densest brains known. They have as >>> many neurons in their much smaller skulls as ungulates like horses do. >>> I imagine the trade off was fewer glial cells or something. >>> >>> > I suppose that when >>> > there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature >>> > couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; >>> instead >>> > of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it >>> > already had in more efficient ways. >>> >>> The adaptations of birds are incredible, especially their extended >>> respiratory system. The air sacs in their hollow bones operate like a >>> second set of lungs. Every time a bird exhales, it is exhaling air it >>> inhaled 2-3 breaths earlier and every last bit of oxygen has been >>> pulled out of it. >>> >>> > Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll >>> > bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being >>> called a >>> > birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if >>> one >>> > wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would >>> be >>> > ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be >>> more >>> > elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand >>> > kludges. >>> >>> Very possibly. >>> >>> >>> Stuart LaForge >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jul 22 17:40:27 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:40:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] chromebook Message-ID: Someone said they had a Chromebook a couple of days ago. I want to exchange some ideas with that person about the new update. I do not want to lose all my user data, but I also do not want to forego all future updates - just this one. Additionally, I was on Gnews and clicked on what was apparently an ad about tinnitus and got the Google home page. I tried another link to it but again got the Google page. What is going on with that? Did Google block an ad I saw on Gnews? Curious. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jul 22 22:59:42 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:59:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist Message-ID: Sunday creationist cartoon John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Mon Jul 22 23:55:05 2019 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:55:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That isn't funny. It's classist sneering. Still, it's important that something like that run in every newspaper in the country: Putting the rubes in flyover country in their places will totally mellow the country out of the urban/rural civil war certain parties seem dead set on having. Not. On Mon, Jul 22, 2019, 5:03 PM John Clark wrote: > Sunday creationist cartoon > > > 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 Jul 23 00:25:08 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:25:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:58 PM Darin Sunley wrote: Sunday creationist cartoon > *> That isn't funny*. Then why did it make me laugh? > *It's classist sneering.* > Yes, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. Other than the anti-vaccination morons can you think of any group that deserves to be sneered at more than creationists? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 00:36:30 2019 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:36:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I dunno. Opening a conversation with the people who grow your food with "Hurr durr! The things you think are stupid and you're an evil hypocrite for thinking them" just doesn't seem helpful. Or wise. Or kind. Or entirely sane. The civil war will get great ratings though. Maybe this time the revolution /will/ be televised. On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:28 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:58 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > > Sunday creationist cartoon > > > >> > *> That isn't funny*. > > > Then why did it make me laugh? > > > *It's classist sneering.* >> > > Yes, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. Other than the > anti-vaccination morons can you think of any group that deserves to be > sneered at more than creationists? > > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 00:50:30 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:50:30 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 10:38, Darin Sunley wrote: > I dunno. Opening a conversation with the people who grow your food with > "Hurr durr! The things you think are stupid and you're an evil hypocrite > for thinking them" just doesn't seem helpful. > > Or wise. > > Or kind. > > Or entirely sane. > > The civil war will get great ratings though. Maybe this time the > revolution /will/ be televised. > Aren?t some ideas stupid? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 01:04:03 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:04:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Either that, or they'll just get another 4 years of Trump and those afflicted with TDS ranting about him the entire term. Your lesson looks like it is going to take longer to sink in than one election... On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:38 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > > The civil war will get great ratings though. Maybe this time the > revolution /will/ be televised. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 01:23:00 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:23:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] frog example In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Or, dare it be said, a hopping off point? ;) On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 12:08 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Just forgot to add: > > What looks like a big qualitative difference in turns out to be a small > quantitative difference. > > Or you could express this as a function of a tipping point. > > 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 Jul 23 01:58:13 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:58:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Are we all becoming like the blowfish? Puff up at the slightest stimulus? One man's gentle poke is another man's non-pc sneer. Aside from puns, aren't most jokes some kind of non-pc? What are we going to do? I don't want to offend anyone, but then I also don't want anyone who overreacts to stop me from some humor that I find funny. One problem we have is that we are just too smart. We can make fun of most of the human race - obliviots, somebody coined - I like it and I am not going to apologize for it. I find a black face fearful about something, with all the whites of the eyes showing, funny. I love ditzy blond jokes. (to me it's little fun - sneering is beyond the pale: too aggressive for me - offensive) We all know that we are overgeneralizing and stereotyping- that, I assert, is the point. Who wants to start a joke with "I know this real ditzy blond, although I know that she is not representative of girls or of blonds, so don't get me wrong; I am not a sexist at all, but.................." Is that what it has come to? bill w On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:07 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: > Either that, or they'll just get another 4 years of Trump and those > afflicted with TDS ranting about him the entire term. Your lesson looks > like it is going to take longer to sink in than one election... > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:38 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > >> >> The civil war will get great ratings though. Maybe this time the >> revolution /will/ be televised. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jul 23 02:13:34 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:13:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58CD8C2E-93D4-4AB1-B28F-4AD58C3946FE@gmail.com> >> On Jul 22, 2019, at 3:59 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> Sunday creationist cartoon >> >> John K Clark I get the joke, but many of the Creationists I?ve argued with accept microevolution. They just don?t accept macroevolution or speciation. In other words, they?re fine with accepting that pathogens might acquire or mutate into drug resistant strains, but that some ancient hominid might evolve into humans. (I?m not saying they?re right ? just trying to point what they actually believe. I think the evidence for speciation, etc. is quite good ? even up to and including that field researchers can point to a few speciation events going on now rather than in deep time.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 02:22:31 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:22:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <31424CDF-8A15-41FC-8870-2548EA033E8E@gmail.com> On Jul 22, 2019, at 5:36 PM, Darin Sunley wrote: > I dunno. Opening a conversation with the people who grow your food with "Hurr durr! The things you think are stupid and you're an evil hypocrite for thinking them" just doesn't seem helpful. > > Or wise. > > Or kind. > > Or entirely sane. Well, I agree if your goal is to start a conversation with them, this is not a good approach. But I don?t think John wanted to do that. Also, conversations I?ve had with them always seem fairly one-sided ? not really a conversation but more them playing debating games to try to convert me or to play to their audience. > The civil war will get great ratings though. Maybe this time the revolution /will/ be televised. The revolution was already televised: look back at old video of the Fall of the Soviet Empire. A televised revolution if ever there was one. I?m not really sure the number of Young Earth Creationists is all that large. They might get more coverage, but I think the ones that are more inclined to play intellectual (in other words, who might enter a discussion of evolution that goes beyond them sneering at it) are an even smaller. I?m also not sure they?re going to causing any revolutions. One must remember that the Right has a variety of factions ? not just Christian biblical literalists (not all of whom are on the Right). I?ve sadly seen many Right-wingers who are evolutionists and use that to justify some flavor of fascism, sexism, and racism. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 06:11:30 2019 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:11:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: <31424CDF-8A15-41FC-8870-2548EA033E8E@gmail.com> References: <31424CDF-8A15-41FC-8870-2548EA033E8E@gmail.com> Message-ID: " Well, I agree if your goal is to start a conversation with them, this is not a good approach. But I don?t think John wanted to do that." Calling them stupid hypocrites, /outside/ the context of a conversation with them... seems actually worse somehow. On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:25 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jul 22, 2019, at 5:36 PM, Darin Sunley wrote: > > I dunno. Opening a conversation with the people who grow your food with > "Hurr durr! The things you think are stupid and you're an evil hypocrite > for thinking them" just doesn't seem helpful. > > > > Or wise. > > > > Or kind. > > > > Or entirely sane. > > Well, I agree if your goal is to start a conversation with them, this is > not a good approach. But I don?t think John wanted to do that. Also, > conversations I?ve had with them always seem fairly one-sided ? not really > a conversation but more them playing debating games to try to convert me or > to play to their audience. > > > The civil war will get great ratings though. Maybe this time the > revolution /will/ be televised. > > The revolution was already televised: look back at old video of the Fall > of the Soviet Empire. A televised revolution if ever there was one. > > I?m not really sure the number of Young Earth Creationists is all that > large. They might get more coverage, but I think the ones that are more > inclined to play intellectual (in other words, who might enter a discussion > of evolution that goes beyond them sneering at it) are an even smaller. > > I?m also not sure they?re going to causing any revolutions. One must > remember that the Right has a variety of factions ? not just Christian > biblical literalists (not all of whom are on the Right). I?ve sadly seen > many Right-wingers who are evolutionists and use that to justify some > flavor of fascism, sexism, and racism. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > http://author.to/DanUst > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 06:42:43 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:42:43 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: <31424CDF-8A15-41FC-8870-2548EA033E8E@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 16:14, Darin Sunley wrote: > " Well, I agree if your goal is to start a conversation with them, this is > not a good approach. But I don?t think John wanted to do that." > > Calling them stupid hypocrites, /outside/ the context of a conversation > with them... seems actually worse somehow. > Some things deserve to be ridiculed. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 09:26:28 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 05:26:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:39 PM Darin Sunley wrote: *> I dunno. Opening a conversation with the people who grow your food with > "Hurr durr! The things you think are stupid and you're an evil hypocrite > for thinking them" just doesn't seem helpful. * > If I were a politician in a red flyover state trying to get re-elected my statement would not be helpful but fortunately I am not in that line of work and thus am not required to, as St. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:19: "*Suffer fools gladly*" *> Or wise. * > I don't often quote Jesus but I will this time, it's from John 8:32: *?the truth will set you free?* And the truth is creationists ARE stupid, and anti-vaxxers ARE evil, and Trump voters ARE hypocritical, and native Hawaiian protestors who are illegally blocking the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope ARE imbeciles. > *Or kind.* I'm more kind than the Alabama voters who came within a hair's breadth of putting a child molester in the US Senate in 2018 and may actually do so in 2020, and all because the man had a (R) next to his name on the ballot and not a (D). > *> Or entirely sane.* > Creationists think the universe started on October 23 4004 BC at 9 AM. I think the universe started just a bit before that. Which one of us is more sane? > *The civil war will get great ratings though. Maybe this time the > revolution /will/ be televised.* > I've said more than once that we may indeed be heading for a civil war but it won't be caused by a right wing snowflake being offended by my post, it will be caused by Trump loosing the 2020 election but refusing to give up power when his term ends. That's why the "LOCK HER UP" chants that you still hear at Trump's Nuremberg type rallies scare me so much. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 10:48:53 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 06:48:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 10:34 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: *> An oddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where > two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could > care less', 'could not care less'* > And "near miss" and "miss". If you nearly missed something doesn't that mean you hit it? John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 12:44:03 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 22:44:03 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 00:33, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste > > time then? ;) > > I could care less. :P > > An odddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where > two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could > care less', 'could not care less' > ?Could care less? is just a mistake, with its origin probably due to people mumbling when saying ?couldn?t?. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 13:09:18 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:09:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: ?Could care less? is just a mistake, with its origin probably due to people mumbling when saying ?couldn?t?. Now there's an idea. I wonder just how many words have been mispronounced and misspelled along the way and changed as a result? Probably thousands. And look at names: most people in the past were illiterate and had someone else write their names, so you get different spellings: Smith, Smyth and many more. Errors of spelling and pronunciation and meaning drive the evolution of language as much as anything, eh Don? bill w On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:47 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 00:33, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> Which might lead some to ask the snarky question: Where do you waste >> > time then? ;) >> >> I could care less. :P >> >> An odddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where >> two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could >> care less', 'could not care less' >> > > ?Could care less? is just a mistake, with its origin probably due to > people mumbling when saying ?couldn?t?. > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 14:36:37 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:36:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agree: creationism is silly Disagree: the rest Comic is not smart, or funny. I used to read the Sunday funnies well into high school, but I think I first realized Doonesbury was as bad as the others around when I was 13. Ribbing on W's idiocy never made up for lack of humor. Also, catch more flies yadda yadda. Also: JKC, aren't one's own thoughts "intelligently designed"? Which are reducible to atoms and electrons and other materials moving about. What's the difference between a brain and the Earth? Especially when the brain was made by the Earth. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 15:05:59 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:05:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Myths mistaken for facts. Lying from the beginning. Metaphysical creatures such as devils and angels. Killing anyone not your kind. And much more. Standard features of several religions. Are these people idiots too? bill w On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:40 AM Will Steinberg wrote: > Agree: creationism is silly > > Disagree: the rest > > Comic is not smart, or funny. I used to read the Sunday funnies well into > high school, but I think I first realized Doonesbury was as bad as the > others around when I was 13. Ribbing on W's idiocy never made up for lack > of humor. > > Also, catch more flies yadda yadda. > > Also: > > JKC, aren't one's own thoughts "intelligently designed"? Which are > reducible to atoms and electrons and other materials moving about. What's > the difference between a brain and the Earth? Especially when the brain > was made by the Earth. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jul 23 16:40:42 2019 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:40:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One person getting upset at your post, no, of course not. That would be ridiculous. But 200 million "flyover country" folk getting tired of 100+ years of urban media culture that holds them in naked contempt, of which your repost of that comic is an enthusiasticly complicit drop in the tsunami? Yeah, that just might do it. And I would personally rather that didn't happen. I like having stocked grocery stores. We need them a lot more than they need us. And they have started to figure that out. Assuming no singularity, someone will still be farming central Kansas ten thousand years from now. There is no such guarantee that any major city will exist, anywhere. In the long run, they win. And rightly so. When the cities hate the farmers, the cities will lose. Even going full Stalin on them only staves off the inevitable. "Lock her up" terrifies you? Where the heck do you think it's coming from?? Rural voters who noticed that the Democrat candidate for President held them in naked contempt and expected them to vote for her anyways. You wanna stop that from happening? It's real easy. You, and about a hundred million more like you, just need to get out of the habit of sneering at "rednecks" for fun. Frankly, I'm not optimistic. On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 3:30 AM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:39 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > > *> I dunno. Opening a conversation with the people who grow your food with >> "Hurr durr! The things you think are stupid and you're an evil hypocrite >> for thinking them" just doesn't seem helpful. * >> > > If I were a politician in a red flyover state trying to get re-elected my > statement would not be helpful but fortunately I am not in that line of > work and thus am not required to, as St. Paul said in 2 Corinthians > 11:19: > > "*Suffer fools gladly*" > > *> Or wise. * >> > > I don't often quote Jesus but I will this time, it's from John 8:32: > > *?the truth will set you free?* > > And the truth is creationists ARE stupid, and anti-vaxxers ARE evil, and > Trump voters ARE hypocritical, and native Hawaiian protestors who are > illegally blocking the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope ARE > imbeciles. > > > *Or kind.* > > > I'm more kind than the Alabama voters who came within a hair's breadth of > putting a child molester in the US Senate in 2018 and may actually do so in > 2020, and all because the man had a (R) next to his name on the ballot and > not a (D). > > >> *> Or entirely sane.* >> > > Creationists think the universe started on October 23 4004 BC at 9 AM. I > think the universe started just a bit before that. Which one of us is more > sane? > > > *The civil war will get great ratings though. Maybe this time the >> revolution /will/ be televised.* >> > > I've said more than once that we may indeed be heading for a civil war but > it won't be caused by a right wing snowflake being offended by my post, it > will be caused by Trump loosing the 2020 election but refusing to give up > power when his term ends. That's why the "LOCK HER UP" chants that you > still hear at Trump's Nuremberg type rallies scare me so much. > > 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 17:14:56 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:14:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Was gonna post some stuff but Darin said it all for me. Glad not everyone in this list is a bitter old dogmatic meanie. ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 19:05:31 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:05:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Putting a face with the name In-Reply-To: References: <20190721015304.Horde.uxi56a9H8wN6kmFo7E22wM4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <2C54EBBE-39BF-43D7-8468-87400D40C345@gmail.com> I think ?near miss? is short for ?it was near it but missed it? rather than ?nearly missed it? (almost missed it but actually hit it). SR Ballard > On Jul 23, 2019, at 5:48 AM, John Clark wrote: > > >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 10:34 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> >> > An oddity in the English language (meaning the people who use it), where two opposite statements are taken by many to mean the same thing: 'could care less', 'could not care less' > > And "near miss" and "miss". If you nearly missed something doesn't that mean you hit it? > > John K Clark > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 19:06:37 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:06:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:40 AM Will Steinberg wrote: *> Comic is not smart, or funny. * > It's certainly smart. Funny is subjective, but I'm proud to say I laughed at them not with them, their religious views are Monty Python level ridiculous and if it hadn't caused so much misery in the world their racism would be hilarious. > JKC, aren't one's own thoughts "intelligently designed"? > Yes. > > Which are reducible to atoms and electrons and other materials moving > about. > Yes. > *> What's the difference between a brain and the Earth? * > The atoms in a brain can perform calculations because they are organized in the only way that can, the way Alan Turing described. The atoms in Earth are not. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 19:20:17 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:20:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I mean, I understand the critique and I also don?t. I?m a ?millennial? (just barely) and my entire generation has been ridiculed since Elementary school for things that are actually the failings of our parents. And, increasingly stereotypes for the generation UNDER us (Under 23ish) are foisted off on ?millennials?. Is it fair? No. Does it make us want to work with people older than us? No. Do we get over it because we have to? Yes. Are these jabs usually funny? Yes, they are. I?m not the type to do avocado toast of sip Starbucks all day, but I know people who do. The reason people get bent out of shape about it is religious mainly, and religious people tend to be concentrated in rural areas, and educated people are concentrated in urban areas. Religiosity and education are inversely correlated. What I think gets lost in the discussion is that for many young earth creationists, this is seen as a salvation issue. They see themselves mocked for trying to save people from what they believe is an inescapable, indescribable, eternal torture. Imagine yourself is you had such a conviction. Wouldn?t you act in a similar way out of desperation to warn people? I grew up around many such people and I sympathize. The truth of the matter, is that there is no real place for debate on issues which are based on emotions rather than reason. Instead, you would have to remove the emotional component first. But sometimes I find jokes like the one above amusing, even though I know nearly all creationists believe in micro evolution. SR Ballard > On Jul 23, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > > Was gonna post some stuff but Darin said it all for me. > > Glad not everyone in this list is a bitter old dogmatic meanie. ;) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 20:03:30 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:03:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:45 PM Darin Sunley wrote: *> But 200 million "flyover country" folk getting tired of 100+ years of > urban media culture that holds them in naked contempt, of which your repost > of that comic is an enthusiasticly complicit drop in the tsunami? Yeah, > that just might do it.* > If somebody behaves in a contemptible way the logical response is to hold them in contempt, and I like to think of myself as being reasonably logical. And voting for a corrupt lazy egomaniacal dimwit who hasn't read a book in 40 years is contemptible, and voting to get him reelected is even more contemptible. The news just broke that the protests over the construction on the new Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) on Hawaii's Mauna Kea have gotten worse, the TMT would have provided 12 times the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope and many times its light gathering ability. The protests have now gotten so bad that for the safety of the astronomers they had to shut down all activity on the mountain, 13 of the largest telescopes on the planet that are already there are now out of action. The reason they shut down the number one place for optical astronomy in the world is because they think some idiotic God of theirs lives on top of the mountain and told them He doesn't like telescopes. It's time to take a stand, you're either with the enlightenment or you're with the barbarians, if you don't find their behavior contemptible there is something wrong with you. Hawaii telescope protest shuts down 13 observatories on Mauna Kea John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 20:10:57 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:10:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM SR Ballard wrote: > * > What I think gets lost in the discussion is that for many young earth > creationists, this is seen as a salvation issue. They see themselves mocked > for trying to save people from what they believe is an inescapable, > indescribable, eternal torture. Imagine yourself is you had such a > conviction. Wouldn?t you act in a similar way out of desperation to warn > people? I grew up around many such people and I sympathize.* I don't sympathize at all because explaining why somebody is barbaric and idiotic does not make them one bit less barbaric and idiotic. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 20:20:45 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:20:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've got no dog in their hunt; I'm an atheist, but holding a large portion of the population in contempt helped get Trump elected. Just don't be surprised if it happens again based on the same deplorable narrative we are seeing out of the "mainstream media" and the DNC. On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 4:05 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:45 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > > *> But 200 million "flyover country" folk getting tired of 100+ years of >> urban media culture that holds them in naked contempt, of which your repost >> of that comic is an enthusiasticly complicit drop in the tsunami? Yeah, >> that just might do it.* >> > > If somebody behaves in a contemptible way the logical response is to hold > them in contempt, and I like to think of myself as being reasonably > logical. And voting for a corrupt lazy egomaniacal dimwit who hasn't read > a book in 40 years is contemptible, and voting to get him reelected is > even more contemptible. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 22:09:08 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:09:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don?t know how you don?t feel bad for someone who is so confused... it?s straight up indoctrination. It?s the same mechanism that cults and all radical groups. It?s coercive pressure. SR Ballard > On Jul 23, 2019, at 3:10 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > >> > What I think gets lost in the discussion is that for many young earth creationists, this is seen as a salvation issue. They see themselves mocked for trying to save people from what they believe is an inescapable, indescribable, eternal torture. Imagine yourself is you had such a conviction. Wouldn?t you act in a similar way out of desperation to warn people? I grew up around many such people and I sympathize. > > I don't sympathize at all because explaining why somebody is barbaric and idiotic does not make them one bit less barbaric and idiotic. > > 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 22:52:18 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:52:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 15:15 John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:40 AM Will Steinberg > wrote: > > The atoms in a brain can perform calculations because they are organized > in the only way that can, the way Alan Turing described. The atoms in Earth > are not. > There are MANY atoms in the brain that do not perform calculations. From molecules of cerebrospinal fluid to structural cells like glia or microtubules, though those may very well end up implicated in cognition. Similarly, just because parts of Earth aren't directly computing (and that negation itself is a potentially dubious claim) doesn't mean that they aren't implicated in computation. Plus, what about the noncomputable? Cf. The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. The point is, what separates a brain or brains from Earth? Nothing. If some aliens only saw Earth as a black box, at a certain resolution, and they sent a meteor at us, and the world responded as one by sending a missile to hit the meteor, the aliens would deduce correctly that the Earth performed a calculation. Furthermore, those brains are just the current endpoints of a 4D structure that has 'nonconscious' Earth in its past. As Sagan said, in order to make an apple pie, you must first create the universe. He is hinting at the interconnected and supremely conditional nature of all things. And no, the comic wasn't smart. I'm honestly shocked that an intelligent person like yourself has such a low bar for something being 'smart'. It was low-hanging fruit at best. Phoned in. As the funnies pages tend to be. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 00:04:41 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:04:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:55 PM Will Steinberg wrote: >> The atoms in a brain can perform calculations because they are organized >> in the only way that can, the way Alan Turing described. The atoms in Earth >> are not. >> > > *>There are MANY atoms in the brain that do not perform calculations. * > No atom in the brain by itself can perform a calculation but groups of them can if they're organized in the right way, and the right way always comes down to Turing's way. > * > Plus, what about the noncomputable? * > Yes some things can't be calculated. For example all Busy Beaver Numbers are well defined and finite, but we only know the first 4. They are: BB(1) =1 BB(2) =6 BB(3) =21 BB(4) =107 But those are the only values we've been able to calculate with certainty, the problem is the Busy Beaver function grows faster than any computable function. Some suspect that BB(5) is 47,176,870 but are far from certain of that, and BB(6) is at least 7.4*10^36534 and BB(7) is at least 10^10^10^10^10^7 but could be much larger. Big as they are all Busy Beaver numbers are finite but after a certain point they are not computable and nobody even knows exactly where that point is. It has been proven that BB(1919) is not computable even in theory, not even if you had infinite resources. But what is the smallest non-computable Busy Beaver integer? Nobody knows, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were BB(5). So there are some things that a Turing Machine can not calculate, but nothing else can either, in point of fact nothing but a Turing Machine can calculate anything at all. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 00:07:37 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:07:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see that few people want to tackle the problem of calling most of humanity, those who are religious, idiots. Maybe we can see this as a function of manners. We are perhaps going to think that they are all morons, but have the manners to keep our opinions to ourselves, or at the very least, use that language when we are certain who we are communicating thinks like we do. In any case, calling someone a moron does no good at all and might do some serious harm. Like start another jihad. Unlike some I have talked with, I believe that anyone who is human deserves at least a small amount of respect (which upon future actions could be lost). bill w On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 5:55 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 15:15 John Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:40 AM Will Steinberg >> wrote: >> >> The atoms in a brain can perform calculations because they are organized >> in the only way that can, the way Alan Turing described. The atoms in Earth >> are not. >> > > There are MANY atoms in the brain that do not perform calculations. From > molecules of cerebrospinal fluid to structural cells like glia or > microtubules, though those may very well end up implicated in cognition. > > Similarly, just because parts of Earth aren't directly computing (and that > negation itself is a potentially dubious claim) doesn't mean that they > aren't implicated in computation. Plus, what about the noncomputable? Cf. > The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. > > The point is, what separates a brain or brains from Earth? Nothing. > > If some aliens only saw Earth as a black box, at a certain resolution, and > they sent a meteor at us, and the world responded as one by sending a > missile to hit the meteor, the aliens would deduce correctly that the Earth > performed a calculation. > > Furthermore, those brains are just the current endpoints of a 4D structure > that has 'nonconscious' Earth in its past. As Sagan said, in order to make > an apple pie, you must first create the universe. > > He is hinting at the interconnected and supremely conditional nature of > all things. > > And no, the comic wasn't smart. I'm honestly shocked that an intelligent > person like yourself has such a low bar for something being 'smart'. It > was low-hanging fruit at best. Phoned in. As the funnies pages tend to be. > >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 00:12:43 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:12:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] flat earth Message-ID: The Earth simply cannot be flat. If it were, cats would have knocked everything off the edge by now. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 00:22:09 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:22:09 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 06:23, Dylan Distasio wrote: > I've got no dog in their hunt; I'm an atheist, but holding a large portion > of the population in contempt helped get Trump elected. Just don't be > surprised if it happens again based on the same deplorable narrative we are > seeing out of the "mainstream media" and the DNC. > It?s a concern that you seem afraid to say that stupid things are stupid. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 01:39:56 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 21:39:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Qualia are incommensurate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:37 AM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Rafal, > You seem to be talking about computationally bound composite qualia, in a > way that seems almost blind to elemental qualia. Elemental qualia, like > redness and grenness, can be computationally bound to all the composite > qualia you are talking about. I'm talking about the elemental physical > quality that can be physically isolated from the stuff you are talking > about. Redness is something physical, out of which composite conscious > experience like you talk about can be built. It's just the redness, > nothing else. > > ### In pure mathematics you specify everything about the entities under consideration, thus an entity is "just" what is being considered. A triangle analyzed within an axiomatic system is "just" a triangle, nothing else. Everything else we discuss or see that is not pure mathematics is embedded in a physical world that is beyond our understanding. Everything we talk about or subjectively experience is complicated and bound to mysteries, no matter how simple it may seem at first glance. As David Deutsch puts it, even the simplest everyday notions are "theory-laden". Nothing is "just" what we think about it. Nothing we speak of is "just the redness", because of the un-articulated, unspecified complexity hidden behind every image and every word that pertains to the physical world. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 02:01:08 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 22:01:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I see pitchforks. In-Reply-To: References: <006801d53510$b9f1d440$2dd57cc0$@rainier66.com> <008201d53591$eae1bc10$c0a53430$@rainier66.com> <008401d535c4$6f47db60$4dd79220$@rainier66.com> <001c01d5366c$9d460fc0$d7d22f40$@rainier66.com> <001401d536b9$49226c20$db674460$@rainier66.com> <273c01d53852$8628eb40$927ac1c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:05 AM John Clark wrote: > And given your support of Trump I find it hard to believe you're a > libertarian. > > ### No, really, I won't get drawn into this kind of discussion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 02:08:29 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 22:08:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01d53d8c$f61bf200$e253d600$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:25 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > I think the ?males are better at it? is mostly because of culture. > ### This is completely untrue. Men's superior visuospatial capabilities are just as biologically determined as superior upper body strength. Absolutely nothing cultural about it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 02:37:40 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:37:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Qualia are incommensurate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafal, ?Nothing we speak of is "just the redness", because of the un-articulated, unspecified complexity hidden behind every image and every word that pertains to the physical world.? Let?s try this. There is one of all possible pixels (smallest spot you can clearly perceive) on the surface of a ripe red strawberry that is changing between red and green. You can focus on whichever spot is changing and you are clearly aware of it as it changes from red to green. Would you agree that there was something physical, in your brain, which you are directly aware of that is this switching knowledge? And would you agree that the physics that was the ?red? knowledge has a redness quality you can be directly aware of, and when it changes to green, this different physics has a greenness quality you are also directly aware of? On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:42 PM Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:37 AM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Rafal, >> You seem to be talking about computationally bound composite qualia, in a >> way that seems almost blind to elemental qualia. Elemental qualia, like >> redness and grenness, can be computationally bound to all the composite >> qualia you are talking about. I'm talking about the elemental physical >> quality that can be physically isolated from the stuff you are talking >> about. Redness is something physical, out of which composite conscious >> experience like you talk about can be built. It's just the redness, >> nothing else. >> >> ### In pure mathematics you specify everything about the entities under > consideration, thus an entity is "just" what is being considered. A > triangle analyzed within an axiomatic system is "just" a triangle, nothing > else. > > Everything else we discuss or see that is not pure mathematics is embedded > in a physical world that is beyond our understanding. Everything we talk > about or subjectively experience is complicated and bound to mysteries, no > matter how simple it may seem at first glance. As David Deutsch puts it, > even the simplest everyday notions are "theory-laden". Nothing is "just" > what we think about it. Nothing we speak of is "just the redness", because > of the un-articulated, unspecified complexity hidden behind every image and > every word that pertains to the physical world. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 02:46:10 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 21:46:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] flat earth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <744C1EB4-E1D4-485C-87C0-0D4DEEEB90CA@gmail.com> Are we trying to start a fight about calling flat earthers dumb, or? SR Ballard > On Jul 23, 2019, at 7:12 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > The Earth simply cannot be flat. If it were, cats would have knocked everything off the edge by now. > > 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 03:29:04 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:29:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] flat earth In-Reply-To: <744C1EB4-E1D4-485C-87C0-0D4DEEEB90CA@gmail.com> References: <744C1EB4-E1D4-485C-87C0-0D4DEEEB90CA@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:48 PM SR Ballard wrote: > Are we trying to start a fight about calling flat earthers dumb, or? > ### I was surprised to hear that there is a vigorous flat-earther community in the US. I can kind of understand the existence of creationism - with millions people being exposed to a religious upbringing some of them will try to systematize the contradictions between that upbringing and the information they obtain from non-religious sources. Creationism is how a relatively sane mind might respond to having massive discrepancies in available data but not enough emotional stamina to accept unpleasant conclusions (such as loss of hope for redemption). But flat-earthism? This is looks like a full-on paranoid delusional syndrome capable of spreading among susceptible individuals but not (as of yet) a cult. It's not a religion, it's not quite a conspiracy theory, it's not a fear-driven phenomenon like anti-vaxxing but it does share important features with all of them. And flat-earthers are not even dumb, they tend to be smarter than average. Mankind's insanity never ceases to amaze me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 04:04:45 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:04:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Qualia are incommensurate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:37 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Rafal, > > > > ?Nothing we speak of is "just the redness", because of the un-articulated, > unspecified complexity hidden behind every image and every word that > pertains to the physical world.? > > > > Let?s try this. > > > > There is one of all possible pixels (smallest spot you can clearly > perceive) on the surface of a ripe red strawberry that is changing between > red and green. You can focus on whichever spot is changing and you are > clearly aware of it as it changes from red to green. > > > > Would you agree that there was something physical, in your brain, which > you are directly aware of that is this switching knowledge? And would you > agree that the physics that was the ?red? knowledge has a redness quality > you can be directly aware of, and when it changes to green, this different > physics has a greenness quality you are also directly aware of? > ### Obviously conscious perception is a physical process but physics or awareness in my brain doesn't do anything "directly". There are probably hundreds of synapses involved in the basic calculation of reflectances (colors) in any small patch of the visual field, and the number of neurons involved in conscious, attentive perception of even the smallest sensory input is measured in the hundreds of millions if not billions. The qualities we talk about are features of large neural networks that are implemented in a complex physical substrate, and as I mentioned earlier, these are anything but simple or direct. In case you wanted to ask if "redness" could exist independently of a physically functioning neural network, my answer would be "no". And as I mentioned earlier, every unique network that perceives changes in reflectance on strawberries will have its own unique "redness", incommensurate with qualia in other networks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 06:36:43 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 01:36:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D85E08F-D6BC-43C6-9A84-88FD370E5027@gmail.com> Human drivers cause 1.16 human deaths every 100 Miles? I don?t think I understand. My aunt has been in 26 motor vehicle accidents and there has never been a fatality. My mom drives from Florida to Texas and back 3-4 times per year and has never killed anyone. I only know 2-3 people who were involved in fatality accidents, and one of them was killed when riding a moped. I think that the statistics here are skewed heavily by outliers, like buses crashing. How many hundred miles have you driven? How many people have you killed? Where are all these fatality accidents? The Federal Highway Administration thinks Americans drive 3.2 Trillion Miles per year or so. A quick look at Wikipedia says there are on average 1.16 people killed per 100 MILLION miles travelled. So google car is only 1/10 of that number. Give it another 90 Million miles and we will talk. SR Ballard > On Jul 18, 2019, at 12:38 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:51 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: > >>> >> I'm sure today's self driving cars are not as good as the best human drivers but they are already better than many human drivers and perhaps better than average. >> >> > The problem with self driving cars is that they are also brittle. When they fail, they fail spectacularly because they have no common sense or actual conception of what they are doing outside of their brittle model. That's why we get Teslas ramming into barriers at high speed without even braking killing their passenger(s). > > Waymo (Google's self driving car project) has driven 10 million miles on public roads since 2009 without a fatality, it has had 14 accidents but all of them were minor and only one was Waymo's fault. Granted that is not proof of anything as human drivers in the USA produce 1.16 deaths every 100 miles but it is evocative of things to come because driverless cars get better with time but human drivers don't. > > 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 06:44:35 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 01:44:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01d53d8c$f61bf200$e253d600$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <78408412-1B88-4FCF-932F-A50DE6B1B492@gmail.com> Perhaps it could be changed nowadays if we better understood how/why that happens. I don?t think that there are no sexual differences between men and women, but many of them are hormonal. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnancy-causes-lasting-changes-in-a-womans-brain/ > On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:08 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:25 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> I think the ?males are better at it? is mostly because of culture. > > ### This is completely untrue. Men's superior visuospatial capabilities are just as biologically determined as superior upper body strength. Absolutely nothing cultural about it. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 08:55:46 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:55:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests Message-ID: Just for clarification - The Hawaii protest is not just about a few religious fundamentalists. It is the flashpoint for a political protest about righting the wrongs perceived to have been done to the Hawaiian people. Quote: Much of the opposition has tapped into deep-seated grievances tied to the U.S.-backed overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, clashes over water and land rights, and frustrations over tourism and the exploitation of Hawaiian culture. ----------- This is similar to battles by Native Americans to preserve ancestral lands, with high-profile protests like Dakota Access pipeline leading to arrests in southern North Dakota in 2016. The problem is created by the way that the USA treats indigenous peoples that it encounters. See: BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 11:59:39 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:59:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:21 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > *I see that few people want to tackle the problem of calling most of > humanity, those who are religious, idiots. Maybe we can see this as a > function of manners. * > Everything else being equal one should be polite, but everything else is not equal. For reasons I don't understand people got it into their head that it was OK to criticize everything about somebody EXCEPT for their religion regardless of how stupid it is. And what did all those euphemisms for idiocy and pampering ofbarbarians get us? Airliners crashing into civilian skyscrapers. But even after that criticizing religion was still considered off limits. Presidential candidate Ted Cruz said he was a Christian first and an American second, and said whenever he had to make an important decision he always heard a voice in his head from an invisible man in the sky telling him what to do. When a reporter asked him for more details about this voice it was the reporter not Ted Cruz who was widely criticized; they said it was rude to ask the man who wanted the Nuclear Launch Codes what the invisible man in the sky was whispering in his ear. As for me I think survival is more important than politeness. > > > We are perhaps going to think that they are all morons, but have the > manners to keep our opinions to ourselves, > For about 2 decades the Extropian List was unusual in that one did not feel the need to keep ones opinion to oneself. But times have changed, this list certainly has, and political correctness has crept in even here. > *> In any case, calling someone a moron does no good at all and might do > some serious harm. Like start another jihad. * > That statement is just as insulting to the religious as anything I said; speak one word out of line to these moronic barbarians and they'll go into a murderous rampage. But I don't think your suggestion to just tiptoe around them as if they're a ticking time bomb is a good long term solution to the problem of aggressive stupidity. > > *I believe that anyone who is human deserves at least a small amount of > respect* > I don't believe that at all. I believe if somebody does not act in a respectable way it would be illogical to treat them the same way you treat somebody who does act in a respectable way. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 12:27:14 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:27:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sunday Creationist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > *I believe that anyone who is human deserves at least a small amount of > respect* > I don't believe that at all. I believe if somebody does not act in a respectable way it would be illogical to treat them the same way you treat somebody who does act in a respectable way. John K Clark That's not what I said. Let me make that clear: before you know anything about a person, you respect them just because they are human - you give everybody a chance to show that they are as human as you are. Now later actions may certainly wipe away all that respect. In this group I find no problem with calling anyone anything. It's when we confront others. Then just calling them idiots to their faces is when we are not doing any good and are doing harm. It's not going to change them in any good way, and maybe it will provoke aggression. The Saudis, for one, are a very proud people. I don't know about 'tiptoe', but we have treaties with them, we buy oil from them, and I see no point in calling their religion idiocy where they can hear it. No point at all. Give me a point. bill w On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:03 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:21 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > *I see that few people want to tackle the problem of calling most of >> humanity, those who are religious, idiots. Maybe we can see this as a >> function of manners. * >> > > Everything else being equal one should be polite, but everything else is > not equal. For reasons I don't understand people got it into their head > that it was OK to criticize everything about somebody EXCEPT for their > religion regardless of how stupid it is. And what did all those euphemisms > for idiocy and pampering ofbarbarians get us? Airliners crashing into > civilian skyscrapers. > > But even after that criticizing religion was still considered off > limits. Presidential candidate Ted Cruz said he was a Christian first > and an American second, and said whenever he had to make an important > decision he always heard a voice in his head from an invisible man in the > sky telling him what to do. When a reporter asked him for more details > about this voice it was the reporter not Ted Cruz who was widely > criticized; they said it was rude to ask the man who wanted the Nuclear > Launch Codes what the invisible man in the sky was whispering in his ear. > As for me I think survival is more important than politeness. > >> >> > We are perhaps going to think that they are all morons, but have the >> manners to keep our opinions to ourselves, >> > > For about 2 decades the Extropian List was unusual in that one did not > feel the need to keep ones opinion to oneself. But times have changed, this > list certainly has, and political correctness has crept in even here. > > >> *> In any case, calling someone a moron does no good at all and might do >> some serious harm. Like start another jihad. * >> > > That statement is just as insulting to the religious as anything I said; > speak one word out of line to these moronic barbarians and they'll go into > a murderous rampage. But I don't think your suggestion to just tiptoe > around them as if they're a ticking time bomb is a good long term solution > to the problem of aggressive stupidity. > > >> > *I believe that anyone who is human deserves at least a small amount >> of respect* >> > > I don't believe that at all. I believe if somebody does not act in a > respectable way it would be illogical to treat them the same way you treat > somebody who does act in a respectable way. > > 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 Wed Jul 24 13:05:12 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:05:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01d53d8c$f61bf200$e253d600$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I think the ?males are better at it? is mostly because of culture. Males still tend ? in the US ? to be encouraged more in this area and females are still discouraged. Anyhow, you?re the psychology expert. Am I far off? Regards, Dan All I can tell you is that males and females are equally exposed to language skills and females at every age are better at it. As for 3 D objects: did you ever experience anywhere in your education seeing them from behind in your mind? Me neither. These are only on tests. So males have no more experience than females. As for the other - we know that foreign language is learned better while very young. Older people can learn but they will never have the proper accent that the young develop. I don't know if there are other things that young people learn better, but I suspect we will find some - sort of a critical period, only not strict. As for culture, it is extremely difficult to separate nature and nurture, so I suppose we can have any bias we want as long as there is no data. bill w On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:25 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jul 18, 2019, at 10:29 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > People were always asking human geniuses like Einstein and Feynman how > they got their ideas but they could never give satisfactory answers, if > they could we'd all be as smart as they were. John > > I dispute that. In math some people just can't go beyond a certain point > in complexity. They just don't have the right brain for it (Einstein, for > example, had more glial cells than normal - I doubt if injecting glial > cells into your brain will make you an Einstein).. If, for example, in > geometry you tried to teach someone how to mentally rotate a complicated > object and pick out the figure that it looks like from the other side, you > would find one, that males are better at it, and two, that it cannot be > taught. Some people are just more spatial than other. I am spatial. How > about you? > bill w > > > Isn?t it the case, though, that brain structure changes depending on > experience. For instance, see: > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/ > > Now, it might be someone with an early interest in, say, geometry or > things spatial simply develops a brain better suited to imagining rotating > objects. It could also be that some start with better capabilities here and > then they ?invest? in them. Maybe Einstein started out with above average > capabilities here and through use augments them. And maybe if you don?t > start early ? like with language ? it gets very difficult to make an > investment pay off later in life. (Think, too, of how a concert violinist > is made: start at an early age and practice a lot. I?m not sure a twenty > year old who?s never played an instrument but who invests as much in > practice and learning the instrument is going to beat the person who > started at five years of age.) > > I think the ?males are better at it? is mostly because of culture. Males > still tend ? in the US ? to be encouraged more in this area and females are > still discouraged. > > Anyhow, you?re the psychology expert. Am I far off? > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 13:22:48 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:22:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] flat earth In-Reply-To: References: <744C1EB4-E1D4-485C-87C0-0D4DEEEB90CA@gmail.com> Message-ID: rafa wrote - Mankind's insanity never ceases to amaze me. Evolution gave man a big brain and a great ability to associate things with one another - learning. What didn't happen was that an ability to sort things in probable and improbable came up short. So we can learn superstitions as easily as we can learn arithmetic - or easier. Think once again of all the cognitive errors our brains as subject to - great minds easily pushed off the track by irrelevancies. As for smart flat earthers, being smart does not stop one from being paranoid and fond of conspiracy theories, like the Moon landing being shot in a studio. I suspect some of them are tongue in cheek believers. bill w On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:32 PM Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:48 PM SR Ballard wrote: > >> Are we trying to start a fight about calling flat earthers dumb, or? >> > > ### I was surprised to hear that there is a vigorous flat-earther > community in the US. I can kind of understand the existence of creationism > - with millions people being exposed to a religious upbringing some of them > will try to systematize the contradictions between that upbringing and the > information they obtain from non-religious sources. Creationism is how a > relatively sane mind might respond to having massive discrepancies in > available data but not enough emotional stamina to accept unpleasant > conclusions (such as loss of hope for redemption). > > But flat-earthism? This is looks like a full-on paranoid delusional > syndrome capable of spreading among susceptible individuals but not (as of > yet) a cult. It's not a religion, it's not quite a conspiracy theory, it's > not a fear-driven phenomenon like anti-vaxxing but it does share important > features with all of them. And flat-earthers are not even dumb, they tend > to be smarter than average. > > Mankind's insanity never ceases to amaze me. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 13:28:54 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:28:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:00 AM BillK wrote: > > > > > * > The Hawaii protest is not just about a few religious fundamentalists. > It is the flashpoint for a political protest about righting the wrongs > perceived to have been done to the Hawaiian people. Quote: Much of the > opposition has tapped into deep-seated grievances tied to the U.S.-backed > overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893,* Well perhaps you're right, maybe the root cause of the protest is indeed some real or perceived injustice committed in 1893. I don't know if that's true and I don't give a damn if it is. Even if you're 100% correct all you've done is explain why their behavior is barbaric, you have not made that behavior one bit less barbaric. The people who burned down the Library of Alexandria had reasons to do so and no doubt they thought they were doing the right thing, but that doesn't change the fact that their actions dealt a serious blow to Civilization. Let's go into a little more detail about the actions of those Hawaiian protestors. They have already delayed by 4 years what would have been the largest optical telescope in the world, and now after they lost in court and astronomers tried to resume construction they acted illegally and not only stopped all new construction they shut down 13 of the most important telescopes in the world that were telling us fascinating things about the universe. I'm not a fool, I know I'm on the losing side and despite the favorable court ruling the magnificent Thirty Meter Telescope is doomed and perhaps those 13 existing telescopes on the mountain are too; but even though its hopeless I like to think if I was alive back when the library was burning I'd have a bucket of water in my hand and not a torch. So how about you? Do you stand with the enlightenment or do you stand with the barbarians? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 13:53:31 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:53:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] godel, escher, bach Message-ID: Patron: "That was beautiful, Mr Mendelssohn. But what does it mean?" Mendelssohn sits down at the piano and plays it again, then says "That's what it means." This article will surprise you. When it gets into music technicalities you may quit it, but I think you will like the first part. bill w https://aeon.co/essays/what-the-music-of-bach-can-teach-us-about-consciousness?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1cae2df768-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_22_01_59&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-1cae2df768-68993993 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 14:02:20 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:02:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] jesus Message-ID: I remember two things that made an impression on me when I was young and went to church: Jesus said to love one another as one loved oneself. And to forgive not 7 times but 70 times 7. Freud said, and I have to agree: loving someone else as much as one loves oneself is impossible. But as difficult as it is, we can't give up - we have to try. Seeing things from the other's viewpoint is part of this, I think. No man is an island. As for forgiveness: I suffered for many years with the anger caused by the death of my parents, twenty years apart, caused by their doctors. Finally, after years of violent fantasies, I did it - I forgave them, and I profited greatly by it. A 'load lifted from my mind' is trite but true. So, just how hard is forgiveness for humans? Hawaiians; offspring of slaves; holders of feuds between Scottish clans going back hundreds of years; slight insults followed by jihad - and, apparently, millions more. Conclusion: forgiveness is not impossible, but it is very, very difficult. I peronsally found that to be true. Perhaps our genes gave us some version of 'a tooth for a tooth', and we have to work hard to overcome that. Thousands of young black men give their lives for that every year. Cannot forgive slights and disses. Payback. Who teaches them differently? Not the gang they are in. I think forgiveness is for the strong, not the weak. If someone gets away with calling your mother a bitch, so what? Let it go. No harm done to you or your mother. Sticks and stones. Doing more can get you in prison or dead. Is it worth it? In so many cases, all of those people responsible for all the harm are dead, and contrary to the Old Testament, no guilt passes down to their offspring. I wish we could wipe the slate - have a Let It Go day worldwide. Everyone would have a better life. Maybe you too. Dare I say that we should forgive people for being stupid, idiots, fools and all the rest? Jesus said: Forgive them - they know not what they do. Sounds good to me. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 14:32:46 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:32:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> #1 - the destruction of the library by fire is WAYYY overstated. #2 - I somehow doubt that learning ?fascinating things? is more important than people?s health and safety, as well as being respected by their government. That?s a dubious claim to make. It would be like paving over Israel and turning the whole thing into a college. SR Ballard > On Jul 24, 2019, at 8:28 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:00 AM BillK wrote: >> >> > The Hawaii protest is not just about a few religious fundamentalists. >> It is the flashpoint for a political protest about righting the wrongs >> perceived to have been done to the Hawaiian people. >> Quote: >> Much of the opposition has tapped into deep-seated grievances tied to >> the U.S.-backed overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, > > Well perhaps you're right, maybe the root cause of the protest is indeed some real or perceived injustice committed in 1893. I don't know if that's true and I don't give a damn if it is. Even if you're 100% correct all you've done is explain why their behavior is barbaric, you have not made that behavior one bit less barbaric. The people who burned down the Library of Alexandria had reasons to do so and no doubt they thought they were doing the right thing, but that doesn't change the fact that their actions dealt a serious blow to Civilization. > > Let's go into a little more detail about the actions of those Hawaiian protestors. They have already delayed by 4 years what would have been the largest optical telescope in the world, and now after they lost in court and astronomers tried to resume construction they acted illegally and not only stopped all new construction they shut down 13 of the most important telescopes in the world that were telling us fascinating things about the universe. > > I'm not a fool, I know I'm on the losing side and despite the favorable court ruling the magnificent Thirty Meter Telescope is doomed and perhaps those 13 existing telescopes on the mountain are too; but even though its hopeless I like to think if I was alive back when the library was burning I'd have a bucket of water in my hand and not a torch. So how about you? Do you stand with the enlightenment or do you stand with the barbarians? > > 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 Wed Jul 24 15:16:53 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:16:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> References: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> Message-ID: SR Ballard <> wrote: > #1 - the destruction of the library by fire is WAYYY overstated. > SR Ballard > Oh? Well, what was overstated about the destruction of thousands of > documents by many famous Greeks? > bill w > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:00 AM BillK wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> * > The Hawaii protest is not just about a few religious fundamentalists. >> It is the flashpoint for a political protest about righting the wrongs >> perceived to have been done to the Hawaiian people. Quote: Much of the >> opposition has tapped into deep-seated grievances tied to the U.S.-backed >> overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893,* > > > Well perhaps you're right, maybe the root cause of the protest is indeed > some real or perceived injustice committed in 1893. I don't know if that's > true and I don't give a damn if it is. Even if you're 100% correct all > you've done is explain why their behavior is barbaric, you have not made > that behavior one bit less barbaric. The people who burned down the Library > of Alexandria had reasons to do so and no doubt they thought they were > doing the right thing, but that doesn't change the fact that their actions > dealt a serious blow to Civilization. > > Let's go into a little more detail about the actions of those Hawaiian > protestors. They have already delayed by 4 years what would have been the > largest optical telescope in the world, and now after they lost in court > and astronomers tried to resume construction they acted illegally and not > only stopped all new construction they shut down 13 of the most important > telescopes in the world that were telling us fascinating things about the > universe. > > I'm not a fool, I know I'm on the losing side and despite the favorable > court ruling the magnificent Thirty Meter Telescope is doomed and perhaps > those 13 existing telescopes on the mountain are too; but even though its > hopeless I like to think if I was alive back when the library was burning > I'd have a bucket of water in my hand and not a torch. So how about you? Do > you stand with the enlightenment or do you stand with the barbarians? > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 15:34:53 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:34:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4876CE49-FBF0-4E81-A316-9A4E5AC9A723@gmail.com> On Jul 24, 2019, at 6:28 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:00 AM BillK wrote: >> >> > The Hawaii protest is not just about a few religious fundamentalists. >> It is the flashpoint for a political protest about righting the wrongs >> perceived to have been done to the Hawaiian people. >> Quote: >> Much of the opposition has tapped into deep-seated grievances tied to >> the U.S.-backed overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, > > Well perhaps you're right, maybe the root cause of the protest is indeed some real or perceived injustice committed in 1893. I don't know if that's true and I don't give a damn if it is. Even if you're 100% correct all you've done is explain why their behavior is barbaric, you have not made that behavior one bit less barbaric. The people who burned down the Library of Alexandria had reasons to do so and no doubt they thought they were doing the right thing, but that doesn't change the fact that their actions dealt a serious blow to Civilization. > > Let's go into a little more detail about the actions of those Hawaiian protestors. They have already delayed by 4 years what would have been the largest optical telescope in the world, and now after they lost in court and astronomers tried to resume construction they acted illegally and not only stopped all new construction they shut down 13 of the most important telescopes in the world that were telling us fascinating things about the universe. > > I'm not a fool, I know I'm on the losing side and despite the favorable court ruling the magnificent Thirty Meter Telescope is doomed and perhaps those 13 existing telescopes on the mountain are too; but even though its hopeless I like to think if I was alive back when the library was burning I'd have a bucket of water in my hand and not a torch. So how about you? Do you stand with the enlightenment or do you stand with the barbarians? The analogy is a little stretched here since the protestors are not, say, seeking to wipe out knowledge or scholarship. But there?s another problem: The Library of Alexander was burned because of warfare and it?s likely that this was unintentional, especially the fire that took place in 48 BCE when Julius Caesar took the city. It?s notable that by this time the library had been in decline as an institution ? partly due to Alexandria?s decline and partly because by this point there were rivals like the Library of Pergamum. (One shouldn?t fall prey to the notion that scholarship was completely localized to one place in the ancient world.) The bigger problem for libraries and scholarship in ancient times was that eventually patronage diminished or ended completely, invasions happened (and the invaders weren?t necessarily focused on destroying libraries), and also the dominance of Christianity shifted the cultural focus. The primary cause for the loss of almost all classical works was not that there was a particular fire or incident but that they simply weren?t copied. To be sure, yes, some works we?re actively suppressed ? usually, though, these were religious texts of heretical sects. But, for the most part, not being copied was the chief destroyer of ancient texts. A scroll or even a codex was unlikely to last more than a few decades. Almost all ancient survivals survived because someone bothered to copy them and that laborious process continued over centuries. (Note that a decline in literacy or overall economic decline could severely attenuate this process. It could lead to there being less demand for copies or far fewer people dedicated to copying.) The rare exceptions are stuff like the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Herculaneum papyri. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 15:47:56 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:47:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> References: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:36 AM SR Ballard wrote: *#1 - the destruction of the library by fire is WAYYY overstated. * > Numerous books by Archimedes, the greatest mathematician and scientist of antiquity, burned and lost forever, but no big deal. Of the 10,000 lines of Sappho?s Poems only 70 survived but no big deal. We will never see the play Achilleis by Aeschylus, the father of Greek tragedy, but no big deal. Thousands of other books that we will never know anything about also went into the flames but no big deal. It baffles me why so many otherwise civilized people insist on making excuses for the actions of barbarians. *#2 - I somehow doubt that learning ?fascinating things? is more important > than people?s health and safety,* > Why did you feel the need to put quotation marks around that, do you think it's not fascinating, do you find the recent astronomical discoveries to be of no interest? And with the exception of central Antartica there is no place on the surface of the Earth where you could make a large construction with less environmental impact than on top of that mountain. And even the protestors don't claim the telescopes will harm people's health and safety, they claim it will harm the health and safety of the imbecilic Gods that are suposed to live there. You would think Gods could take care of themselves and would not need the help of human protestors. but apparently not. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 16:18:16 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:18:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> Message-ID: You have absolutely no proof that those works would have survived anyways, and again, the library was already in decline well before the fire, and again, the burning was likely not intentional. Yes, I do think the telescopes can discover groundbreaking things, but just because it can doesn?t make it right. You can get upset about ?imaginary friends? all you want, but the fact is that belief in the supernatural is found in all human cultures I have ever heard of. To compare other forms of belief in god(s) to the Christian God is to really display your ignorance of the subject anyway. ?You think the Gods would take care of themselves? is a bizarre thing to say. In many religious traditions, men and gods exist side by side and interact quite closely. Often these gods are not even terribly powerful outside of a specific domain. I think you?re over-reacting to fundamental ignorance. One isn?t ?excusing? barbarians by explaining how and why they do what they do. How do you get to be arbiter of who is civilized and who is not? We?re the Mongols barbarians? Why do they get to be considered barbarians but Alexander the Great is not? Ignoring cultural issues, flat out, was stupid. Building telescopes on such a contentious site is exactly the same as replacing Jerusalem with a college, or the Kaaba with a Hospital, or the Alamo with a shuttle launching pad. Imagine how people would react if you tore down the Vatican for a space elevator!!! These are all very valuable endeavors, but replacing cultural artifacts with scientific ones and expecting people to be okay with it is frankly illogical and juvenile. > On Jul 24, 2019, at 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:36 AM SR Ballard wrote: >> >> #1 - the destruction of the library by fire is WAYYY overstated. > > Numerous books by Archimedes, the greatest mathematician and scientist of antiquity, burned and lost forever, but no big deal. Of the 10,000 lines of Sappho?s Poems only 70 survived but no big deal. We will never see the play Achilleis by Aeschylus, the father of Greek tragedy, but no big deal. Thousands of other books that we will never know anything about also went into the flames but no big deal. It baffles me why so many otherwise civilized people insist on making excuses for the actions of barbarians. > >> #2 - I somehow doubt that learning ?fascinating things? is more important than people?s health and safety, > > Why did you feel the need to put quotation marks around that, do you think it's not fascinating, do you find the recent astronomical discoveries to be of no interest? And with the exception of central Antartica there is no place on the surface of the Earth where you could make a large construction with less environmental impact than on top of that mountain. And even the protestors don't claim the telescopes will harm people's health and safety, they claim it will harm the health and safety of the imbecilic Gods that are suposed to live there. You would think Gods could take care of themselves and would not need the help of human protestors. but apparently 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 16:21:22 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:21:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: <4876CE49-FBF0-4E81-A316-9A4E5AC9A723@gmail.com> References: <4876CE49-FBF0-4E81-A316-9A4E5AC9A723@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:38 AM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>They have already delayed by 4 years what would have been the largest >> optical telescope in the world, and now after they lost in court and >> astronomers tried to resume construction they acted illegally and not only >> stopped all new construction they shut down 13 of the most important >> telescopes in the world that were telling us fascinating things about the >> universe. > > > *> The analogy is a little stretched here since the protestors are not, > say, seeking to wipe out knowledge or scholarship.* > They are not just seeking they have already successfully delayed our finding out new things about the universe, thanks to them the Thirty Meter Telescope has already been delayed by 4 years and now, despite a recent favorable court ruling, it will almost certainly be canceled entirely. I just hope the mob someday allows the 13 existing telescopes at the most important observatory in the world to resume operation, but even that is far from certain. Where is the anger (and yes righteous anger) that any civilized person should feel at these horrible developments? I don't see it. And that's not good, I find it downright frightening that even on the Extropian List for reasons I can't even pretend to understand most feel a moral obligation to make excuses for obvious barbaric behavior. It just doesn't bode well for the future of Civilization. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 16:43:59 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:43:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Qualia are incommensurate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafal, OK, let me repeat what I hear you saying, to be sure I have it right. Red and green qualities are ?features of large neural networks that are implemented in a complex physical substrate.? If our awareness of one-pixel changes from red to green, there are corresponding changes in this large neural network that results in the change in the pixel from red to green. The leading consensus camp at Canonizer.com is Functionalism ( https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function/18 and https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Functional-Prprty-Dualism/8). It sounds like you are also in a form of this popular consensus camp. This is a falsifiable claim, which the consensus ?Representational Qualia Theory ? describes how to falsify (by not being qualia blind). The Materialists provide a way to falsify their claims. They come up with a hyper simplified example of redness ? it is quality of glutamate we are directly aware of. Glutamate is an elemental physical quality which can be computationally bound to billions of other neurons (likely in complex computational standing wave oscillations), firing with different neurotransmitters with different elemental qualities, out of which our awareness of a changing pixel can be engineered. If someone experiences elemental redness, without glutamate, the theory will be falsified. But if you can't falsify the theory, if nobody can ever experience redness, no matter what function you try, no matter how large and complex a neural network you achieve, or anything else, theory verified. Functionalists always define things like you are doing, making it non falsifiable. An example I?ve tried to provide is a complex set of neurons in a complex network doing the square root of 16 could result in redness, while a more complex square root of 32 could result in greenness. But something like this is so absurd, that it doesn?t seem to pass the laugh test. So, my question to you, then, is. How might we falsify your theory? Can you provide an as simple as possible hypothetical example of your theory about what is the nature of this super complex neural net that results in a redness experience, which can pass the laugh test, which could be similarly falsified or verified? On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:06 PM Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:37 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Rafal, >> >> >> >> ?Nothing we speak of is "just the redness", because of the >> un-articulated, unspecified complexity hidden behind every image and every >> word that pertains to the physical world.? >> >> >> >> Let?s try this. >> >> >> >> There is one of all possible pixels (smallest spot you can clearly >> perceive) on the surface of a ripe red strawberry that is changing between >> red and green. You can focus on whichever spot is changing and you are >> clearly aware of it as it changes from red to green. >> >> >> >> Would you agree that there was something physical, in your brain, which >> you are directly aware of that is this switching knowledge? And would you >> agree that the physics that was the ?red? knowledge has a redness quality >> you can be directly aware of, and when it changes to green, this different >> physics has a greenness quality you are also directly aware of? >> > > ### Obviously conscious perception is a physical process but physics or > awareness in my brain doesn't do anything "directly". There are probably > hundreds of synapses involved in the basic calculation of reflectances > (colors) in any small patch of the visual field, and the number of neurons > involved in conscious, attentive perception of even the smallest sensory > input is measured in the hundreds of millions if not billions. The > qualities we talk about are features of large neural networks that are > implemented in a complex physical substrate, and as I mentioned earlier, > these are anything but simple or direct. > > In case you wanted to ask if "redness" could exist independently of a > physically functioning neural network, my answer would be "no". And as I > mentioned earlier, every unique network that perceives changes in > reflectance on strawberries will have its own unique "redness", > incommensurate with qualia in other networks. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 17:12:52 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:12:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: <4876CE49-FBF0-4E81-A316-9A4E5AC9A723@gmail.com> Message-ID: I just don?t understand why I can?t be sad/disappointed (which I am), mad at people for not thinking before they chose this location (which I am), while also understanding where these people are coming from (which I do)... I?m not saying what they are doing is right. I?m saying it?s understandable. I?m not saying it?s beneficial, because it?s not. It?s clearly detrimental to the scientific community. Can you really not comprehend where these people are coming from? And if you can?t, why do you think you shouldn?t have to? You can understand why someone did something, where they are coming from, without agreeing with their actions. The emotional part of yourself and the logical part of yourself are still you. You have to acknowledge that for what it is. Sometimes people?s feelings are illogical, and actually actively work against their own self interest. Sure, you CAN see that as stupid (it?s definately self-defeating) but there was an identifiable reason WHY. There is an understandable motive, even if you reject it. How can we claim to want an amazing, glorious future when we?re not willing to meet people where they are at? People rarely knock down the door to get on the list. SR Ballard > On Jul 24, 2019, at 11:21 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:38 AM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > >>> >>They have already delayed by 4 years what would have been the largest optical telescope in the world, and now after they lost in court and astronomers tried to resume construction they acted illegally and not only stopped all new construction they shut down 13 of the most important telescopes in the world that were telling us fascinating things about the universe. >> >> > The analogy is a little stretched here since the protestors are not, say, seeking to wipe out knowledge or scholarship. > > They are not just seeking they have already successfully delayed our finding out new things about the universe, thanks to them the Thirty Meter Telescope has already been delayed by 4 years and now, despite a recent favorable court ruling, it will almost certainly be canceled entirely. I just hope the mob someday allows the 13 existing telescopes at the most important observatory in the world to resume operation, but even that is far from certain. > > Where is the anger (and yes righteous anger) that any civilized person should feel at these horrible developments? I don't see it. And that's not good, I find it downright frightening that even on the Extropian List for reasons I can't even pretend to understand most feel a moral obligation to make excuses for obvious barbaric behavior. It just doesn't bode well for the future of Civilization. > > 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 Wed Jul 24 17:49:16 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:49:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:21 PM SR Ballard wrote: *> You have absolutely no proof that those works would have survived > anyways*, > I don't get it. Why do you feel a moral obligation to make excuses for barbarians? > * > the library was already in decline* > I don't get it. Why do you feel a moral obligation to make excuses for barbarians? > *> Yes, I do think the telescopes can discover groundbreaking things, but > just because it can doesn?t make it right. * > So the need to defend barbarians has become so strong that you disparage the virtue of finding groundbreaking new things about the universe. I have to keep reminding myself that this is the Extropian list. > *> You think the Gods would take care of themselves? is a bizarre thing to > say. In many religious traditions, men and gods exist side by side and > interact quite closely. Often these gods are not even terribly powerful > outside of a specific domain. * > Does anybody else around here think the protection of inept invisible Gods is a sufficient reason to prevent us from learning more about the universe? If inept invisible Gods want us to be ignorant and visible competent astronomers want us to know more which side do you want to stand with? I would have thought the answer to this question would have been obvious to any member of the Extropian List but instead I find myself in the minority. This sure isn't the list of old. > > *One isn?t ?excusing? barbarians by explaining how and why they do > what they do.* > Well, you're sure as hell not excusing my behavior of criticizing people for shutting down the most important observatory in the world by explaining why I might think that is a bad idea. > * > How do you get to be arbiter of who is civilized and who is not?* > I don't get it. Why do you feel a moral obligation to make excuses for barbarians? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 18:15:45 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:15:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: <4876CE49-FBF0-4E81-A316-9A4E5AC9A723@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:16 PM SR Ballard wrote: > I?m not saying what they are doing is right. I?m saying it?s > understandable. > Understandable behavior does not preclude that behavior from being contemptible, and my contempt for the Hawaiian protestors is boundless. *> Can you really not comprehend where these people are coming from?* > Sure I can comprehend why they behave the way they do, they've been infected with a parasitical religious meme. But as I keep saying, explaining why a barbarous act happened does not make it one but less barbaric. Can you really not comprehend where I'm coming from? > *I?m not saying it?s beneficial, because it?s not. It?s clearly > detrimental to the scientific community. * And yet the only criticism coming from you is directed at me not to those who have not only killed the largest telescope in the world but have also shut down the most important observatory in the world, and all because they want to protect powerless invisible Gods from big bad telescopes. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 19:07:36 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:07:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: <4876CE49-FBF0-4E81-A316-9A4E5AC9A723@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don?t understand how saying ?it?s not okay for them to do? doesn?t indicate to you that I feel as if ... it?s not okay to do. SR Ballard > On Jul 24, 2019, at 1:15 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:16 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> >> > I?m not saying what they are doing is right. I?m saying it?s understandable. > > Understandable behavior does not preclude that behavior from being contemptible, and my contempt for the Hawaiian protestors is boundless. > >> > Can you really not comprehend where these people are coming from? > > Sure I can comprehend why they behave the way they do, they've been infected with a parasitical religious meme. But as I keep saying, explaining why a barbarous act happened does not make it one but less barbaric. Can you really not comprehend where I'm coming from? > >> > I?m not saying it?s beneficial, because it?s not. It?s clearly detrimental to the scientific community. > > And yet the only criticism coming from you is directed at me not to those who have not only killed the largest telescope in the world but have also shut down the most important observatory in the world, and all because they want to protect powerless invisible Gods from big bad telescopes. > > 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 Wed Jul 24 19:12:00 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:12:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests Message-ID: <20190724121200.Horde.rkDioauSltk3mVqVYDOCiGX@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> I tend to agree with BillK. This conflict is not about science versus superstition, or civilization versus barbarism for crying out loud, it is about the rights of the indigenous Hawaiians. Empire building always comes at the price of push back. These are not feather-wearing natives who live in huts in some backwards province, these are American citizens exercising their constitutional rights. They are, more or less integrated into American society, and most have jobs and contribute to the economy, pay taxes, and what not. Every culture needs breathing room, even if they want to share in the benefits of civilization and dare I say empire. Most native Americans have casinos that they have license to operate and what not, but the native Hawaiians do not. In this era of identity politics, they probably want some representation in exchange for taxation. I am far removed from this conflict but I think the wise thing to do in this situation would be to some sort of concession to them in exchange for building another telescope. For example, tell them that 13 is an unlucky number and that they should allow a 14th telescope so as not to offend their god with bad omens. In exchange for their cooperation, offer them the right to operate a casino in Hawaii and offer to build them a fancy shrine to their god in the middle of all the telescopes in which store their sacred artifacts. That is what I would do and in the long run, it will prove cheaper than suppressing the natives with force or abandoning the telescopes. In fact, a casino is likely to generate surplus wealth which is likely to spill over into the local universities and other science institutions on the island. So that sounds like a win-win proposition to me. I agree that this is a little like Alexandria, only it is we who are like Caesar and threaten to burn down the library for the expediency of empire. So we should tread carefully here. Getting buy in from the natives is our best option. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 22:18:47 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:18:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: <20190724121200.Horde.rkDioauSltk3mVqVYDOCiGX@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20190724121200.Horde.rkDioauSltk3mVqVYDOCiGX@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:19 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: *> This conflict is not about science versus superstition, or civilization > versus barbarism for crying out loud, * For crying out loud! Torpedoing the discovery of new knowledge. Breaking the law. Helpless invisible Gods who live on a mountain and are terrified of telescopes. And you say this isn't about science versus superstition and civilization versus barbarism? > > * > it is about the rights of the indigenous Hawaiians. Empire > building always comes at the price of push back.* Except for Antartica and Greenland there is not a square foot of the Earth's surface that has not been stolen and re-stolen from somebody over and over again, so that rather limits the places one can build scientific instruments. And it's not as if scientists wanted to build a glue factory on the mountain, any civilized person should have been proud to be of the same race as the one that made something as magnificent and inspiring as the Thirty Meter Telescope. But instead we've got invisible wimpy Gods and Hawaiian mobs. > *> These are not feather-wearing natives who live in huts in some > backwards province, * I wish they were, instead they are breaking the law and throwing around their power because they know they can. > *> these are American citizens exercising their constitutional rights.* No they are not, the court ruled against them and they are breaking the law, they are blocking the road and intimidating people to such a degree that astronomers felt they had no choice but to abandon the most important astronomical observatory in the world. And that makes me sad. And the worst of it is this pond scum is going to win. > > > *I think the wise thing to do in this situation would be to some sort of > concession to them in exchange for building another telescope.* > You think that hasn't been tried? At first the concession they wanted the astronomers to make was don't build the Thirty Meter Telescope, but now that they've had a taste of victory, not in a court of law but in the streets, or rather in the one and only street that leads up the mountain, they want one additional concession, stop all astronomy at the most important observatory in the world. So why are they really doing this? Because they can. > *For example, tell them that 13 is an unlucky number and that they should > allow a 14th telescope so as not to offend their god with bad omens.* Wow that sound really condescending, but that's OK I'd be fine with that if it worked. But it won't. A few years ago the astronomers offered to remove 2 existing telescopes if they stopped blocking the road and let them build the Thirty Meter Telescope, then there would only be 12 telescopes on the mountain, but the protestors could sense the desperation and despair of the astronomers so they said no. They wanted total victory and it looks like they're going to get it court ruling or no court ruling. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 22:30:37 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 15:30:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <292841EE-7888-486C-9AC5-35AF3766C6DD@gmail.com> John, why do you feel the moral obligation or should I say blind rage to distort what others are saying here? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Jul 24, 2019, at 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:21 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> >> > You have absolutely no proof that those works would have survived anyways, > > I don't get it. Why do you feel a moral obligation to make excuses for barbarians? > >> > the library was already in decline > > I don't get it. Why do you feel a moral obligation to make excuses for barbarians? > >> > Yes, I do think the telescopes can discover groundbreaking things, but just because it can doesn?t make it right. > > So the need to defend barbarians has become so strong that you disparage the virtue of finding groundbreaking new things about the universe. I have to keep reminding myself that this is the Extropian list. > >> > You think the Gods would take care of themselves? is a bizarre thing to say. In many religious traditions, men and gods exist side by side and interact quite closely. Often these gods are not even terribly powerful outside of a specific domain. > > Does anybody else around here think the protection of inept invisible Gods is a sufficient reason to prevent us from learning more about the universe? If inept invisible Gods want us to be ignorant and visible competent astronomers want us to know more which side do you want to stand with? I would have thought the answer to this question would have been obvious to any member of the Extropian List but instead I find myself in the minority. This sure isn't the list of old. > >> > One isn?t ?excusing? barbarians by explaining how and why they do what they do. > > Well, you're sure as hell not excusing my behavior of criticizing people for shutting down the most important observatory in the world by explaining why I might think that is a bad idea. > >> > How do you get to be arbiter of who is civilized and who is not? > > I don't get it. Why do you feel a moral obligation to make excuses for barbarians? > > John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 22:59:02 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 15:59:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: References: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <313581CB-6D40-48FD-B6FA-57EB12346307@gmail.com> On Jul 24, 2019, at 9:18 AM, SR Ballard wrote: > > You have absolutely no proof that those works would have survived anyways, and again, the library was already in decline well before the fire, and again, the burning was likely not intentional. Right. The decline of the Library (and other great libraries) and the loss of most works of the ancient world had little to do with the fire and the particular fire we know anything about was likely unintended, the result of Caesar?s forces taking the city. In other words, it wasn?t a deliberate attempt to destroy the texts or to stop research. Hence, it not being a good analogy. And, again, though I?m sure John will completely ignore this, most ancient world were lost simply because they didn?t keep getting copies over the centuries. Ancient scrolls and codices tended to last a few decades with a few exceptional cases, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most texts were lost simply from the vagaries of time and not because barbarians burned down a once major library. > Yes, I do think the telescopes can discover groundbreaking things, but just because it can doesn?t make it right. > > You can get upset about ?imaginary friends? all you want, but the fact is that belief in the supernatural is found in all human cultures I have ever heard of. To compare other forms of belief in god(s) to the Christian God is to really display your ignorance of the subject anyway. ?You think the Gods would take care of themselves? is a bizarre thing to say. In many religious traditions, men and gods exist side by side and interact quite closely. Often these gods are not even terribly powerful outside of a specific domain. To me, the issue should be about who owns the land and other stuff. That?s generally how is approach a conflict over a resource like this. (I?m trusting here that John wouldn?t, say, be okay with doing medical experiments on unwilling participants because groundbreaking things might be discovered.) > I think you?re over-reacting to fundamental ignorance. One isn?t ?excusing? barbarians by explaining how and why they do what they do. How do you get to be arbiter of who is civilized and who is not? We?re the Mongols barbarians? Why do they get to be considered barbarians but Alexander the Great is not? > > Ignoring cultural issues, flat out, was stupid. Building telescopes on such a contentious site is exactly the same as replacing Jerusalem with a college, or the Kaaba with a Hospital, or the Alamo with a shuttle launching pad. Imagine how people would react if you tore down the Vatican for a space elevator!!! > > These are all very valuable endeavors, but replacing cultural artifacts with scientific ones and expecting people to be okay with it is frankly illogical and juvenile. Last I?ve read on this issue, the state government is arresting the protestors. So I?m wondering why John is raging over this. It looks like the state government is doing what he wants it to do here. Anyhow, I don?t know enough about this particular conflict, but what BillK wrote earlier about it likely being more about the overall state of things rather than this one telescope sounds like it might be closer to the truth. Sometimes one incident can better galvanize a movement or it simply gets everyone?s attention. (Think of how BLM caught on now despite over a century of racist policing. Certain touch point incidents galvanized that movement.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 23:09:29 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:09:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01d53d8c$f61bf200$e253d600$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Jul 23, 2019, at 7:08 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:25 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> I think the ?males are better at it? is mostly because of culture. > > ### This is completely untrue. Men's superior visuospatial capabilities are just as biologically determined as superior upper body strength. Absolutely nothing cultural about it. See, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867482/ And see also: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds And, again, I point to the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling and Cordelia Fine and the research they cite and interpret. For instance, Fausto-Sterling?s _Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World_ and Fine?s _Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference_. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 23:35:59 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:35:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman Poker In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01d53d8c$f61bf200$e253d600$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <13515DA7-71E3-48A0-9A0B-7F01A263AC78@gmail.com> On Jul 24, 2019, at 6:05 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I think the ?males are better at it? is mostly because of culture. Males still tend ? in the US ? to be encouraged more in this area and females are still discouraged. > > Anyhow, you?re the psychology expert. Am I far off? > > Regards, > > Dan > > All I can tell you is that males and females are equally exposed to language skills and females at every age are better at it. As for 3 D objects: did you ever experience anywhere in your education seeing them from behind in your mind? Me neither. These are only on tests. So males have no more experience than females. As for the other - we know that foreign language is learned better while very young. Older people can learn but they will never have the proper accent that the young develop. I don't know if there are other things that young people learn better, but I suspect we will find some - sort of a critical period, only not strict. > > As for culture, it is extremely difficult to separate nature and nurture, so I suppose we can have any bias we want as long as there is no data. > > bill w I would actually question that they?re experience is the same given studies of how children are raised. From an early age, females tend to be encouraged in most families ? even in ones that are fairly openminded or even downright gender neutral. See the Cordelia Fine?s _Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference_. She covers how early and pervasive differential treatment and bias influence much of a child?s gender specific behavior. (She doesn?t paint this as one sided either. She likens young children to gender detectives figuring out what behaviors are acceptable for themselves and others and policing them accordingly.) I think your early childhood and mine might have been very different. Video graphics and games, legos, and the like have me a pretty good bootcamp in 3D visualization. That and I was into drawing (including making technical drawings and plans of both real and imaginary vehicles, buildings, and technology) and building things at an early age. Was this the Y chromosome speaking or just something about my childhood that might?ve played out otherwise despite my genetic endowment? Now, the thought experiment would be imagine I were born female. Culturally, I might been discouraged from drawing aircraft and spacecraft ? I might have been discouraged by family members, by friends, and in school. Ditto for an interest in legos or video games. That?s kind of what I was getting at. Years of playing with objects spatially and drawing might have been foregone and then latter testing might have shown that this female version of me wasn?t good at this stuff and this would be linked to genes or hormones ? ignoring that at every turn I was channeled away from spatial play. This is why I used the analogy with musical instruments: if the female version of me later became an arch-feminist and wanted to prove she was equal to any male in mental spatial manipulation, she?d be starting like the student (with no prior musical training) who takes up the violin at 18. Sure, there might be something musical that comes out of it, but the odds are stacked against them and they?re unlikely to make it into Juilliard.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 23:46:59 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:46:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: <313581CB-6D40-48FD-B6FA-57EB12346307@gmail.com> References: <87FD2E30-E32C-4F5C-873B-4B95C21B1EB1@gmail.com> <313581CB-6D40-48FD-B6FA-57EB12346307@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:02 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > J*ohn, why do you feel the moral obligation or should I say blind rage to > distort what others are saying here?* How fortunate you would never do something like that. > *> I?m trusting here that John wouldn?t, say, be okay with doing medical > experiments on unwilling participants because groundbreaking things might > be discovered.* Now I'm Dr. Mengele because I like telescopes and would like to know more about the universe. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 00:39:23 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:39:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] By 02024? Message-ID: <291DB8B6-D33C-4AC3-9CEA-F5FD8FF98891@gmail.com> https://www.airspacemag.com/airspacemag/moon-rush-2024-180972600/ Fluff piece. I?m skeptical they can do it that quickly and given current wrangling. I?m hoping private and also foreign efforts somehow overtake them in that timeframe. (Overly optimistic on my part too.) I do like the gateway idea. I?ve liked since I?ve first heard about it. Of course, it means a larger investment up front. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Thu Jul 25 06:31:14 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:31:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hawaii telescope protests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190724233114.Horde.n7ZSxLpALFTNXqBk1sbf3NF@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting John Clark: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:19 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >> *I think the wise thing to do in this situation would be to some sort of >> concession to them in exchange for building another telescope.* > > You think that hasn't been tried? At first the concession they wanted the > astronomers to make was don't build the Thirty Meter Telescope, but now > that they've had a taste of victory, not in a court of law but in the > streets, or rather in the one and only street that leads up the mountain, > they want one additional concession, stop all astronomy at the most > important observatory in the world. So why are they really doing this? > Because they can. The astronomers? The astronomers don't have the authority to offer the native Hawaiians anything they would want. You have to get the government involved at least at the state level. The protestors are mostly pensioners and other elders who want to preserve the "old ways" and keep their culture and their tribal collective memory alive. While they probably have a price, I am pretty sure it is one that hapless astronomers wouldn't be able to afford to pay. On the other hand 75% of Hawaiians, i.e. the younger generations WANT the 30 meter telescope. So the good news is that sooner or later most of the opposition will die of old age. >> *For example, tell them that 13 is an unlucky number and that they should >> allow a 14th telescope so as not to offend their god with bad omens.* > > > Wow that sound really condescending, but that's OK I'd be fine with that if > it worked. But it won't. A few years ago the astronomers offered to remove > 2 existing telescopes if they stopped blocking the road and let them build > the Thirty Meter Telescope, then there would only be 12 telescopes on the > mountain, but the protestors could sense the desperation and despair of the > astronomers so they said no. They wanted total victory and it looks like > they're going to get it court ruling or no court ruling. A mind susceptible to one superstition is susceptible to many which why religious people tend to believe in conspiracies, ghosts, and bigfoot. While using someone's superstitions to get your way with them might be somewhat manipulative, I see it as less condescending than simply writing them off as moronic barbarians and refusing to engage them at all. Believe me, if you can't sell the world's most powerful telescope to a bunch of people who claim to worship a sky god on the sky god's own mountain, then just face it, you suck at sales. The concession might as simple as calling it the Wanakea National Observatory in honor of their sky god. But until we are willing to listen instead of making demands, we will never know. Stuart LaForge