From dsunley at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 00:01:02 2020 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:01:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Whitewash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If we want to seriously discuss the possibility of a sitting President successfully enacting a coup d'etat in the United States [as opposed to mindless partisan posturing], I would submit that an absolutely necessary precondition would be cult-of-personality levels of popularity amongst the military, including prominent senior leadership. In the last 40 years, only Reagan and Bush II have been even close. Trump isn't even in the same zipcode, let alone the ballpark. On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 4:50 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > +1. I will also offer this bet to any takers. > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 6:23 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I will bet anyone who wants to take it $100 USD that President Trump >> will obey the results of the elections of both 2020 and, if applicable, >> 2024. >> >> I have been hearing this ridiculous horse puckey my entire life - that >> [insert President here] will declare themselves Caesar and >> President-for-Life. >> >> It was implausible nonsense about Obama. >> It was implausible nonsense about Bush II. >> It was implausible nonsense about Clinton. >> It was implausible nonsense about Bush I. >> It was implausible nonsense about Reagan. >> >> It makes the otherwise reasonable, intelligent people who spout it, on >> bith sides of the aisle, sound like paranoid loons. >> >> There are many plausible failure modes of a complete breakdown of federal >> politics. >> >> Caesars are not one of them. >> >> I may have ti make this offer every election year - like your psychic >> research wager. >> >> Just stop this. It's silly. >> >> [Of the presidents in that list the most worrying was actually Bush I. >> Word-to-the-wise: don't elect former heads of the CIA to high office. They >> know where entirely too many bodies are buried, from direct involvement in >> the burial. >> >> Until we see a President normalizing wearing a high ranking service >> uniform and supplementing the Secret Service with mainline military units >> and/or private security forces, we're a long way from El Presidente.] >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:45 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> The grand whitewash has now been successfully completed. The US Senate, >>> the so called "greatest deliberative body in the world" has cowardly made >>> it clear that it doesn't want to know the truth and will do everything in >>> its power to prevent you or any of the American people from knowing it. And >>> so only one more step is needed for the march toward dictatorship to be >>> complete, staying in power after January 20 2021 regardless of the November >>> election results. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 00:05:21 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 16:05:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Whitewash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:58 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:25 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *I will bet anyone who wants to take it $100 USD that President Trump >> will obey the results of the elections * >> > > I hope you're right, but the fact that he publicly said he would respect > the results of the 2016 election IF HE WON does not exactly fill me with > confidence. Do you think Trump trying to hang onto power would be out of > character for the man? > I wonder, have the political betting odds sites started up a "Trump loses the election but remains in office as of January 21 (one day after Inauguration Day) 2021" bet yet? > *> of both 2020 and, if applicable, 2024.* >> > > 2024? You think Trump will run for a third term? > Running for a third term despite the Constitution (as amended) saying "no" is a far lesser threat than staying in office indefinitely despite losing. It is quite conceivable he could get Republican governors and state legislators to ram through an amendment allowing him to do so. That, at least, would be legal if he got enough states to do it (without illegal shenanigans getting them to ratify it). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 00:07:32 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:07:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day Message-ID: "Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention." Cornelia Otis Skinner bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 00:10:02 2020 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:10:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Whitewash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Of course you're right. I misspoke myself on the 2024 date. Suleimani, to name an example, had the levels of popular and military support to overthrow the Iranian regime and make it stick, had he so chosen. Trump, otoh, may be a force at a boardroom table or even at the head of an election rally, but he's just not in the same league. He talks a big game, and that's enough to at least not completely drown in Washington DC, but he's not a dangerous man. To use V for Vendetta as an example, think Suttledge, not Creedy. When Trump starts surrounding himself with genuinely dangerous people, thats the time, not to panic, but at least to worry. We're not there yet, and haven't been for quite some time. On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 5:01 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > If we want to seriously discuss the possibility of a sitting President > successfully enacting a coup d'etat in the United States [as opposed to > mindless partisan posturing], I would submit that an absolutely necessary > precondition would be cult-of-personality levels of popularity amongst the > military, including prominent senior leadership. > > In the last 40 years, only Reagan and Bush II have been even close. Trump > isn't even in the same zipcode, let alone the ballpark. > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 4:50 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> +1. I will also offer this bet to any takers. >> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 6:23 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I will bet anyone who wants to take it $100 USD that President Trump >>> will obey the results of the elections of both 2020 and, if applicable, >>> 2024. >>> >>> I have been hearing this ridiculous horse puckey my entire life - that >>> [insert President here] will declare themselves Caesar and >>> President-for-Life. >>> >>> It was implausible nonsense about Obama. >>> It was implausible nonsense about Bush II. >>> It was implausible nonsense about Clinton. >>> It was implausible nonsense about Bush I. >>> It was implausible nonsense about Reagan. >>> >>> It makes the otherwise reasonable, intelligent people who spout it, on >>> bith sides of the aisle, sound like paranoid loons. >>> >>> There are many plausible failure modes of a complete breakdown of >>> federal politics. >>> >>> Caesars are not one of them. >>> >>> I may have ti make this offer every election year - like your psychic >>> research wager. >>> >>> Just stop this. It's silly. >>> >>> [Of the presidents in that list the most worrying was actually Bush I. >>> Word-to-the-wise: don't elect former heads of the CIA to high office. They >>> know where entirely too many bodies are buried, from direct involvement in >>> the burial. >>> >>> Until we see a President normalizing wearing a high ranking service >>> uniform and supplementing the Secret Service with mainline military units >>> and/or private security forces, we're a long way from El Presidente.] >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:45 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> The grand whitewash has now been successfully completed. The US Senate, >>>> the so called "greatest deliberative body in the world" has cowardly made >>>> it clear that it doesn't want to know the truth and will do everything in >>>> its power to prevent you or any of the American people from knowing it. And >>>> so only one more step is needed for the march toward dictatorship to be >>>> complete, staying in power after January 20 2021 regardless of the November >>>> election results. >>>> >>>> John K Clark >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 00:13:52 2020 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:13:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Whitewash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bush I was probably the last genuinely dangerous President we had. On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 5:10 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > Of course you're right. I misspoke myself on the 2024 date. > > Suleimani, to name an example, had the levels of popular and military > support to overthrow the Iranian regime and make it stick, had he so chosen. > > Trump, otoh, may be a force at a boardroom table or even at the head of an > election rally, but he's just not in the same league. He talks a big game, > and that's enough to at least not completely drown in Washington DC, but > he's not a dangerous man. > > To use V for Vendetta as an example, think Suttledge, not Creedy. > > When Trump starts surrounding himself with genuinely dangerous people, > thats the time, not to panic, but at least to worry. > > We're not there yet, and haven't been for quite some time. > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 5:01 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > >> If we want to seriously discuss the possibility of a sitting President >> successfully enacting a coup d'etat in the United States [as opposed to >> mindless partisan posturing], I would submit that an absolutely necessary >> precondition would be cult-of-personality levels of popularity amongst the >> military, including prominent senior leadership. >> >> In the last 40 years, only Reagan and Bush II have been even close. Trump >> isn't even in the same zipcode, let alone the ballpark. >> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 4:50 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> +1. I will also offer this bet to any takers. >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 6:23 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I will bet anyone who wants to take it $100 USD that President Trump >>>> will obey the results of the elections of both 2020 and, if applicable, >>>> 2024. >>>> >>>> I have been hearing this ridiculous horse puckey my entire life - that >>>> [insert President here] will declare themselves Caesar and >>>> President-for-Life. >>>> >>>> It was implausible nonsense about Obama. >>>> It was implausible nonsense about Bush II. >>>> It was implausible nonsense about Clinton. >>>> It was implausible nonsense about Bush I. >>>> It was implausible nonsense about Reagan. >>>> >>>> It makes the otherwise reasonable, intelligent people who spout it, on >>>> bith sides of the aisle, sound like paranoid loons. >>>> >>>> There are many plausible failure modes of a complete breakdown of >>>> federal politics. >>>> >>>> Caesars are not one of them. >>>> >>>> I may have ti make this offer every election year - like your psychic >>>> research wager. >>>> >>>> Just stop this. It's silly. >>>> >>>> [Of the presidents in that list the most worrying was actually Bush I. >>>> Word-to-the-wise: don't elect former heads of the CIA to high office. They >>>> know where entirely too many bodies are buried, from direct involvement in >>>> the burial. >>>> >>>> Until we see a President normalizing wearing a high ranking service >>>> uniform and supplementing the Secret Service with mainline military units >>>> and/or private security forces, we're a long way from El Presidente.] >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 3:45 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The grand whitewash has now been successfully completed. The US >>>>> Senate, the so called "greatest deliberative body in the world" has >>>>> cowardly made it clear that it doesn't want to know the truth and will do >>>>> everything in its power to prevent you or any of the American people from >>>>> knowing it. And so only one more step is needed for the march toward >>>>> dictatorship to be complete, staying in power after January 20 2021 >>>>> regardless of the November election results. >>>>> >>>>> John K Clark >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 00:40:32 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:40:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] worry Message-ID: Worry is a form of stress, and as such demands attention from the mind. It causes all sorts of evil chemicals to get dumped in the bloodstream, and can eventually shorten a life. Many things we worry about are never going to happen; many things we worry about cannot happen; worry about things we have utterly no control over is irrational and can be carried to the point of paranoia (or schizo-affective disorder), and obsession. Concern is worry without the stress and emotional reactions. Concern is about things we can do something about. It involves plans to bring about the elimination of the concerns. It is totally rational. Worry about things we can do nothing about among highly intelligent people concerns me. It is an irrational thing that causes stress and wastes people's time. Playing what-if games, a prominent past-time of worriers, may be interesting, but again, without some rational concern about the actuality of the bad things that could occur, it cause needless stress. If you are concerned rather than worried, then please offer some hard data about the scenarios you think could occur. No hard data? Then it's worry, not concern. Don't you have better things to do with those big brains of yours? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 01:46:11 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 20:46:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] worry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 7:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > If you are concerned rather than worried, then please offer some hard > data about the scenarios you think could occur. No hard data? > Well... 53% of Republicans believe Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. 52% of Republicans say they would be OK with it if Trump decided to "delay" the 2020 election. On the bright side only 43 % of Republicans think "a president free of checks and balances could address the country's problems more effectively". And only 43 % of Republicans think Trump should have the power to shut down newspapers and any other media he doesn't like. It's true there are more members in the Democratic Party than the Totalitarian Party, but even so I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to be worried. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 01:56:46 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 20:56:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Whitewash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 7:47 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Bush I was probably the last genuinely dangerous President we had.* > I was absolutely positively 100% certain Bush would be the worst president in my lifetime. Shows you what I know. *> he's not a dangerous man. * There was a fellow in Germany in the 1930s, I forget his name but they said the same thing about him. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Feb 1 02:19:20 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:19:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] worry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00e901d5d8a6$03f8b7a0$0bea26e0$@rainier66.com> John this is campaigning. Plenty of our posters do not know or care who is Trump or who is Abraham Lincoln. It doesn?t belong here. Plenty of sites on the internet will welcome this kind of chatter. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] worry On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 7:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > wrote: > If you are concerned rather than worried, then please offer some hard data about the scenarios you think could occur. No hard data? Well... 53% of Republicans believe Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln?. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 02:30:22 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:30:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Whitewash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 1) Yeah it's fucked up the checks and balances failed, but it's not like he was gonna get impeached anyway 2) He will probably win this election 3) I'm scared about him trying to stay in power after 2024, but idk if he can swing it. I think he'll try though -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 02:30:00 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:30:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] worry In-Reply-To: <00e901d5d8a6$03f8b7a0$0bea26e0$@rainier66.com> References: <00e901d5d8a6$03f8b7a0$0bea26e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:21 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *John this is campaigning. * > Why did you mention me rather than William who asked the question I was answering? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Feb 1 02:52:01 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:52:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] worry In-Reply-To: References: <00e901d5d8a6$03f8b7a0$0bea26e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <010301d5d8aa$946effc0$bd4cff40$@rainier66.com> Hi John, Why did you mention me rather than William who asked the question I was answering? John Because you have the option of answering offlist, which is the right thing to do in this case. Also because I get a stream of complaints whenever the discussion goes to US politics, which doesn?t apply universally. I don?t know or care who is the PM of Australia, or Germany, they don?t post about their internal affairs, and I think we should return the favor. We could do like the old days: figure out which posters here concern themselves about things like Trump deciding to delay the election, and the rest of us USians who know that Trump can decide that if he wants, but the election goes on anyway, same time, same place as before, because states run elections. Figure out who wants to hear campaigning, then form a subgroup. Then take that offline. It doesn?t belong here. We used to do that on obscure subtopics all the time. Do that now on this obscure topic. I will offer that some of the very most interesting discussions were offlist. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 6:30 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] worry On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:21 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > John this is campaigning. Why did you mention me rather than William who asked the question I was answering? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 04:46:00 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:46:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I can?t say I understand. SR Ballard > On Jan 31, 2020, at 6:07 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > "Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention." > > Cornelia Otis Skinner > > 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 atymes at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 09:06:18 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 01:06:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The person is claiming that the pretense that women are more virtuous than men was an invention of men, and by some measure the "greatest". On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:48 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I can?t say I understand. > > SR Ballard > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 6:07 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > "Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention." > > Cornelia Otis Skinner > > bill w > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 09:15:14 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 03:15:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And here I thought we were critiquing the societal expectations of female virginity. SR Ballard > On Feb 1, 2020, at 3:06 AM, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > The person is claiming that the pretense that women are more virtuous than men was an invention of men, and by some measure the "greatest". > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:48 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: >> I can?t say I understand. >> >> SR Ballard >> >>> On Jan 31, 2020, at 6:07 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: >>> >>> "Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention." >>> >>> Cornelia Otis Skinner >>> >>> bill w >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > 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 ben at zaiboc.net Sat Feb 1 13:42:57 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 13:42:57 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/02/2020 00:01, Brent Allsop wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:36 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat > > wrote: > > > >All experimentalists, today, only use one word for all things > red.? If they detect any physical differences in the brains of > people percieving red, they "correct" for this only thinking of > all of it as red. > > Well, I can't speak for "all experimentalists, today", but I doubt > if they fail to understand the difference between the red light > entering the eye, and the internal representation of whatever red > thing is seen, including the abstract mental category 'redness'. > In fact, I can't see how they could fail to. Are you sure you > understand /them/? I don't really see how anyone who studies the > brain can really think of the representations of sensory > information as being /the same thing/ as the external signals that > drives them. That would imply they think there is red light inside > the brain, everytime that brain thinks about red light. I'm > certain nobody seriously thinks that. > > > I challenge you to find (I've been searching for some time) any peer > reviewed journal article on perception, which uses more than one word > for all things "red".? I haven't managed to find one, yet. I think this is because it's so universally understood that the processes in the brain are not the same thing as the stimuli that provoke them, that there's no real need to use different terminology. I certainly understand the difference between "The pink ball" and "the perception of pink". Granted, it might be good to be more careful with the terminology, but I doubt people are 'qualia-blind' as you keep saying, just because they aren't as careful with their terminology as you. > >And that is the only reason, today, nobody can tell is the colour > of anything. > > I don't follow that. What do you mean by "nobody can tell the > colour of anything"? > > > When we look out at the world, we see a very colorful world. But as > we've been talking about, none of those colors are properties of the > world out there.? And my redness could be like your greeness, so whos > red?? Those colors are a property of something, maybe some kind of > process as you say, in our brain. But nobody can tell us which of all > our descriptions of stuff in the brain, is a description of redness. So you're saying that the experience of colours in our minds is not the same thing as the actual colours in the outside world (obviously), and no-one currently can tell what's going on in the brain when someone sees a specific colour. Quite right. At least at present (although I wouldn't use the word 'property' for the brain processes, as that's a bit misleading). As I said in an earlier post, I expect that at some point, our ability to see what's going on in the brain will be advanced enough to tell when someone's seeing red (and the difference between seeing a red object, remembering a red object, and imagining a red object). > As it indicates in both of the images in "Representational Qualia > Theory > " > everything out side of the head is in black and white. This is because > all objective information is abstract, devoid of any color information. Nonsense. Abstract information can't represent colour? All information processing in our brains is abstract. We experience colours. Therefore, abstract information can represent colours. > ? The only thing of any color, is the color of our knowledge of the world. Er, what? Knowledge doesn't have colours. "The colour of our knowledge of the world" literally doesn't mean anything. You might want to rephrase that, so it makes sense. > Redness must be a quality of some set of physics. No, it mustn't. Redness is not a quality. I'm not even sure what "a quality of some set of physics" means, to be honest. I suspect it doesn't mean anything in the real world. It makes sense to say "Redness (not forgetting that 'redness' is a higher-level mental category than the thing we're actually talking about here, which is more like the experience of one specific red colour with a specific hue, saturation and lightness, but let's allow 'redness' to be shorthand for that) is a certain 'set of physics' (IOW, a certain phenomenon in the brain of a specific individual at a specific time), but we currently don't know exactly what that phenomenon is, in exact terms (or more accurately, what that set of phenomena are, as there is almost certainly a lot going on that contributes to this experience of Strawberry (Hue 0, Sat 67%,? etc.)). So your statement boils down to "Redness must be some process going on in a brain". Not exactly an earth-shattering statement, is it? And a lot easier to understand than the original version. > Of all our objective descriptions of stuff in the brain, one of those > is a description of redness. Well, not yet, but potentially, one day. I expect it will be a description that isn't all that easy to decipher, as well. It will necessarity relate to a large number of processes, and will be different (possibly wildly different) in different brains, and likely restricted to a single point in time. > I can experience redness, but there is no such 'thing' as redness. > > I would disagree with this. There must be something physical (even if > some kind of process) which is what we directly experience as a single > pixel of redness.? And all of our pixels of colorness must be able to > be computationally bound together into a composite qualitative > experience of a strawberry, and such.? Certainly you would agree that > you could objectively observe, and fully describe, whatever this > "process" is, and be able to objectively describe a change to this > process, which we experienced as redness? > > In other words, redness is an experience, a process, not a thing > in its own right, independent of the brain that creates it. > > > This sounds like the popular consensus, that redness "arises" from > some process. Not quite. I'd say that, rather than it arising from a process (or a complex set of processes), it IS a process (or complex ...). > ? The problem is, I bet you can't give any actual objective > falsifiable description of what kind of process would have a redness qulia Of course not. As I said, not yet. We simply don't know enough yet, about how all the millions of neural circuits in the brain interact, how they relate to our sensory inputs and memories and inherited default neural patterns, and characteristics of synapses, and at least a dozen other things, that constitute the experience of a quale. > I think this is where we differ most. You think that 'redness' is > a thing that has an existence independent of a mind. Am I right? > > > Objective descriptions of stuff in the brain provide no information > about the color they are describing. That doesn't answer my question. Sufficiently detailed descriptions of the stuff going on in the brain, coupled with enough knowledge of how to interpret them, would absolutely provide all the information needed about things like colours being perceived. We are just a long way from being able to extract the descriptions and interpret them properly. > ? Al I"m saying is one of those descriptions, even if it is some kind > of process, that is what we directly experience as redness. What I'm saying is that it's the process itself that IS our experience of 'redness' or whatever. There is no distinction between observer and observed, there is just the process. What is often overlooked, I think, is that this 'process' is enormously complex, and involves many interlinked patterns of information. John Clark is fond of saying that examples are more important than rules, and I think this is exactly the case here. Examples of strawberry-red things, for instance, and all the associated memories and meanings for the individual, and mental categories distilled from them and linked to them. What about a child seeing a strawberry for the first time? No memories, no names, no associations from the past. Well, actually that's not true. There will be associations to something in their past (a familiar context, what they are wearing, the weather, all sorts of things), and they are constantly forming new ones. Maybe a new-born baby presented with a strawberry will have a 'pure', 'elemental' strawberry quale? A quale that will forever be embedded in the much more complex experiences they have later on? Maybe we can then pin it down? I doubt it. I think the reason we don't remember our very early childhood is because there is very little for us /to/ remember. We haven't yet built up all the complex associations and memories of sensory input to form coherent experiences of what's going on around us. There is no meaning yet. It takes a few years for that to develop. There's a good reason why babies do little else but waggle their limbs randomly and make strange noises. When an adult sees a strawberry, I'm confident that the patterns in their brain are totally different to the ones present when they saw a strawberry for the very first time. There will be very little, if anything, in common. So where is the 'elemental quale' of strawberry-red? It doesn't exist. > If you could provide a description of a kind of process, from which a > redness quality would arize, I'd be happy to substitute that for > 'glutamate' as an easily falsifiable candidate for what we directly > experience as redness. Again, wrong phraseology, but I can provide a very generalised description of the kinds of process which are the experience of 'redness'. (As I already have, several times): Complex, dynamically interacting information patterns in the neuronal networks of the brain. I can't give you any more than that, because we don't know the details yet. Not as compact and catchy as 'glutamate', I know, but a lot more realistic. Is this falsifiable? of course, in principle, once we have enough technology and understanding (as previously discussed on this list). Is it /easily/ falsifiable? No, far from it. We need a lot more knowledge and technology. Probably upload-level technology, I suspect. Once we have that, though, I'd expect individuals to be able to investigate these things for themselves. Having direct access to our own thought processes will spark off a massive wave of new ideas and technology, I reckon. And a much deeper understanding of what we are and how we work. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Sat Feb 1 14:30:14 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 14:30:14 +0000 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:48 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat > wrote: > > I can?t say I understand. > > SR Ballard > I'd say that it means inventing the concept of 'virtue' for females is a good move for males who want to control them (and ensure paternity of course). Not that it's ever worked, on its own. Needs to be packaged with religion to be truly effective (although, even then ...) -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 16:29:13 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 09:29:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ben, ?I expect it will be a description that isn't all that easy to decipher, as well. It will necessarily relate to a large number of processes, and will be different (possibly wildly different) in different brains, and likely restricted to a single point in time.? We are talking about completely different things. You are talking about information abstracted away from different qualities as they change over time and between people. I?m talking about the quality (process) that is changing. I?m asking, what is the color of this process, before it changed, and how did this process change? There is a necessary functional cost to achieve this substrate independence. If P1 is the process before the change, and P2 is the objectively observable different process after the change, you need two different dictionaries to get the same abstract information from the different processes before and after the change. Colors are just colors. Sure, a redness processes can change from redness to greenness, and we can have different dictionaries to get the same 'red' information. The dictionary before the change defines the redness process to be red, and after the change, the dictionary defines greenness to be red. A redness quality just is, if it changes, it is an objectively observable and subjectively experienceable different process, there are no dictionaries required. On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:45 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 01/02/2020 00:01, Brent Allsop wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:36 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > >All experimentalists, today, only use one word for all things red. If >> they detect any physical differences in the brains of people percieving >> red, they "correct" for this only thinking of all of it as red. >> >> Well, I can't speak for "all experimentalists, today", but I doubt if >> they fail to understand the difference between the red light entering the >> eye, and the internal representation of whatever red thing is seen, >> including the abstract mental category 'redness'. In fact, I can't see how >> they could fail to. Are you sure you understand *them*? I don't really >> see how anyone who studies the brain can really think of the >> representations of sensory information as being *the same thing* as the >> external signals that drives them. That would imply they think there is red >> light inside the brain, everytime that brain thinks about red light. I'm >> certain nobody seriously thinks that. >> > > I challenge you to find (I've been searching for some time) any peer > reviewed journal article on perception, which uses more than one word for > all things "red". I haven't managed to find one, yet. > > > I think this is because it's so universally understood that the processes > in the brain are not the same thing as the stimuli that provoke them, that > there's no real need to use different terminology. I certainly understand > the difference between "The pink ball" and "the perception of pink". > Granted, it might be good to be more careful with the terminology, but I > doubt people are 'qualia-blind' as you keep saying, just because they > aren't as careful with their terminology as you. > > >And that is the only reason, today, nobody can tell is the colour of >> anything. >> >> I don't follow that. What do you mean by "nobody can tell the colour of >> anything"? >> > > When we look out at the world, we see a very colorful world. But as we've > been talking about, none of those colors are properties of the world out > there. And my redness could be like your greeness, so whos red? Those > colors are a property of something, maybe some kind of process as you say, > in our brain. But nobody can tell us which of all our descriptions of > stuff in the brain, is a description of redness. > > > So you're saying that the experience of colours in our minds is not the > same thing as the actual colours in the outside world (obviously), and > no-one currently can tell what's going on in the brain when someone sees a > specific colour. > > Quite right. At least at present (although I wouldn't use the word > 'property' for the brain processes, as that's a bit misleading). As I said > in an earlier post, I expect that at some point, our ability to see what's > going on in the brain will be advanced enough to tell when someone's seeing > red (and the difference between seeing a red object, remembering a red > object, and imagining a red object). > > As it indicates in both of the images in "Representational Qualia Theory > " > everything out side of the head is in black and white. This is because all > objective information is abstract, devoid of any color information. > > > Nonsense. Abstract information can't represent colour? All information > processing in our brains is abstract. We experience colours. Therefore, > abstract information can represent colours. > > The only thing of any color, is the color of our knowledge of the world. > > > Er, what? > Knowledge doesn't have colours. > "The colour of our knowledge of the world" literally doesn't mean anything. > You might want to rephrase that, so it makes sense. > > Redness must be a quality of some set of physics. > > > No, it mustn't. > Redness is not a quality. I'm not even sure what "a quality of some set of > physics" means, to be honest. I suspect it doesn't mean anything in the > real world. > > It makes sense to say "Redness (not forgetting that 'redness' is a > higher-level mental category than the thing we're actually talking about > here, which is more like the experience of one specific red colour with a > specific hue, saturation and lightness, but let's allow 'redness' to be > shorthand for that) is a certain 'set of physics' (IOW, a certain > phenomenon in the brain of a specific individual at a specific time), but > we currently don't know exactly what that phenomenon is, in exact terms (or > more accurately, what that set of phenomena are, as there is almost > certainly a lot going on that contributes to this experience of Strawberry > (Hue 0, Sat 67%, etc.)). > > So your statement boils down to "Redness must be some process going on in > a brain". Not exactly an earth-shattering statement, is it? And a lot > easier to understand than the original version. > > Of all our objective descriptions of stuff in the brain, one of those is a > description of redness. > > > Well, not yet, but potentially, one day. > I expect it will be a description that isn't all that easy to decipher, as > well. It will necessarity relate to a large number of processes, and will > be different (possibly wildly different) in different brains, and likely > restricted to a single point in time. > > > I can experience redness, but there is no such 'thing' as redness. >> > > I would disagree with this. There must be something physical (even if some > kind of process) which is what we directly experience as a single pixel of > redness. And all of our pixels of colorness must be able to be > computationally bound together into a composite qualitative experience of a > strawberry, and such. Certainly you would agree that you could objectively > observe, and fully describe, whatever this "process" is, and be able to > objectively describe a change to this process, which we experienced as > redness? > > In other words, redness is an experience, a process, not a thing in its >> own right, independent of the brain that creates it. >> > > This sounds like the popular consensus, that redness "arises" from some > process. > > > Not quite. > I'd say that, rather than it arising from a process (or a complex set of > processes), it IS a process (or complex ...). > > The problem is, I bet you can't give any actual objective falsifiable > description of what kind of process would have a redness qulia > > > Of course not. > As I said, not yet. We simply don't know enough yet, about how all the > millions of neural circuits in the brain interact, how they relate to our > sensory inputs and memories and inherited default neural patterns, and > characteristics of synapses, and at least a dozen other things, that > constitute the experience of a quale. > > > I think this is where we differ most. You think that 'redness' is a thing >> that has an existence independent of a mind. Am I right? >> > > Objective descriptions of stuff in the brain provide no information about > the color they are describing. > > > That doesn't answer my question. > > Sufficiently detailed descriptions of the stuff going on in the brain, > coupled with enough knowledge of how to interpret them, would absolutely > provide all the information needed about things like colours being > perceived. We are just a long way from being able to extract the > descriptions and interpret them properly. > > Al I"m saying is one of those descriptions, even if it is some kind of > process, that is what we directly experience as redness. > > > What I'm saying is that it's the process itself that IS our experience of > 'redness' or whatever. There is no distinction between observer and > observed, there is just the process. > > What is often overlooked, I think, is that this 'process' is enormously > complex, and involves many interlinked patterns of information. John Clark > is fond of saying that examples are more important than rules, and I think > this is exactly the case here. Examples of strawberry-red things, for > instance, and all the associated memories and meanings for the individual, > and mental categories distilled from them and linked to them. > > What about a child seeing a strawberry for the first time? No memories, no > names, no associations from the past. > Well, actually that's not true. There will be associations to something in > their past (a familiar context, what they are wearing, the weather, all > sorts of things), and they are constantly forming new ones. > > Maybe a new-born baby presented with a strawberry will have a 'pure', > 'elemental' strawberry quale? A quale that will forever be embedded in the > much more complex experiences they have later on? Maybe we can then pin it > down? > > I doubt it. I think the reason we don't remember our very early childhood > is because there is very little for us *to* remember. We haven't yet > built up all the complex associations and memories of sensory input to form > coherent experiences of what's going on around us. There is no meaning yet. > It takes a few years for that to develop. There's a good reason why babies > do little else but waggle their limbs randomly and make strange noises. > > When an adult sees a strawberry, I'm confident that the patterns in their > brain are totally different to the ones present when they saw a strawberry > for the very first time. There will be very little, if anything, in common. > So where is the 'elemental quale' of strawberry-red? It doesn't exist. > > If you could provide a description of a kind of process, from which a > redness quality would arize, I'd be happy to substitute that for > 'glutamate' as an easily falsifiable candidate for what we directly > experience as redness. > > > Again, wrong phraseology, but I can provide a very generalised description > of the kinds of process which are the experience of 'redness'. (As I > already have, several times): > Complex, dynamically interacting information patterns in the neuronal > networks of the brain. I can't give you any more than that, because we > don't know the details yet. > Not as compact and catchy as 'glutamate', I know, but a lot more realistic. > > Is this falsifiable? of course, in principle, once we have enough > technology and understanding (as previously discussed on this list). > > Is it *easily* falsifiable? No, far from it. We need a lot more knowledge > and technology. Probably upload-level technology, I suspect. Once we have > that, though, I'd expect individuals to be able to investigate these things > for themselves. Having direct access to our own thought processes will > spark off a massive wave of new ideas and technology, I reckon. And a much > deeper understanding of what we are and how we work. > > -- > 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 hibbard at wisc.edu Sat Feb 1 18:45:28 2020 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 12:45:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ExI] quote for the day Message-ID: I read it as implying that placing social value on woman's virtue is man's way to control woman's behavior. Especially since it is a quote by a woman. > The person is claiming that the pretense that women are more virtuous than > men was an invention of men, and by some measure the "greatest". > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:48 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I can?t say I understand. > > > > SR Ballard > > > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 6:07 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > "Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention." > > > > Cornelia Otis Skinner From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 1 19:01:38 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 13:01:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why do we need to control women's behavior? Because we are deathly afraid of them. For one, they are by far the superior sexual creature by any standard. Men know this. A woman, and I have seen this happen, can make a man impotent with a few choice cutting words about his sexual performance. Also, mothers are feared. The love we want the most as we are growing up is mother's. To even think about losing that is a most terrible thing. (also meaning that the threatened withdrawal of that love is Mom's most effective tool against misbehavior). Mother is the next thing to God. The most obvious example of fear of women is the Islamic religion and the clothing customs, the mutilation of genitals, and so on. Of course they don't realize that. They have to put them down and keep them down to quell their fears (especially their fears of the women running wild sexually - Madonna becomes whore.). Christians have kept them down too, as evidenced by the faulty assumption that their brains aren't wired correctly and they 'think' with their emotions. Will post more later. bill w On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 12:47 PM Bill Hibbard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I read it as implying that placing social value on woman's > virtue is man's way to control woman's behavior. Especially > since it is a quote by a woman. > > > The person is claiming that the pretense that women are more virtuous > than > > men was an invention of men, and by some measure the "greatest". > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:48 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > I can?t say I understand. > > > > > > SR Ballard > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 6:07 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > "Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention." > > > > > > Cornelia Otis Skinner > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 2 06:44:38 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 00:44:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] incredible images from NASA Message-ID: https://www.inverse.com/science/nasa-visualizations-reveal-universe-as-you-have-never-seen-before bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 14:28:00 2020 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:28:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning Message-ID: On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 00:55, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Worry about things we can do nothing about among highly intelligent people concerns me. It is an irrational thing that causes stress and wastes people's time. Playing what-if games, a prominent past-time of worriers, may be interesting, but again, without some rational concern about the actuality of the bad things that could occur, it cause needless stress. > > If you are concerned rather than worried, then please offer some hard data about the scenarios you think could occur. No hard data? Then it's worry, not concern. Don't you have better things to do with those big brains of yours? > > bill w > Regrettably our big brains get terribly confused by our emotions. As Spock said - ?May I say that I have not thoroughly enjoyed serving with humans? I find their illogic and foolish emotions a constant irritant.? - Star Trek, season 3, episode 7 (?Day of the Dove,? 1968) The fact-checker?s dilemma: Humans are hardwired to dismiss facts that don?t fit their worldview ?Human cognition is inseparable from the unconscious emotional responses that go with it.? By Adrian Bardon Jan. 31, 2020, Quotes: Human cognition is inseparable from the unconscious emotional responses that go with it. Under the right conditions, universal human traits like in-group favoritism, existential anxiety and a desire for stability and control combine into a toxic, system-justifying identity politics. When group interests, creeds, or dogmas are threatened by unwelcome factual information, biased thinking becomes denial. And unfortunately these facts about human nature can be manipulated for political ends. This picture is a bit grim, because it suggests that facts alone have limited power to resolve politicized issues like climate change or immigration policy. But properly understanding the phenomenon of denial is surely a crucial first step to addressing it. ------------------- BillK From spike at rainier66.com Mon Feb 3 15:50:29 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 07:50:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Regrettably our big brains get terribly confused by our emotions. As Spock said - ?May I say that I have not thoroughly enjoyed serving with humans? I find their illogic and foolish emotions a constant irritant.? - Star Trek, season 3, episode 7 (?Day of the Dove,? 1968) BillK "Ja, right Spock! Remember that time you got horny? That whole ponn farr episode wasn't exactly a picnic for us illogical humans either. Being nearly killed by my own first officer was an irritant too, ya pointy eared hobgoblin!" Kirk Well that's what Kirk woulda said if they let me write those scripts. spike From ben at zaiboc.net Mon Feb 3 16:49:20 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:49:20 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 03/02/2020 14:28, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > ?I expect it will be a description that isn't all that easy to > decipher, as well. It will necessarily relate to a large number of > processes, and will be different (possibly wildly different) in > different brains, and likely restricted to a single point in time.? > > We are talking about completely different things. > No, we're not. > You are talking about information abstracted away from different > qualities as they change over time and between people. I?m talking > about the quality (process) that is changing. > Although you are muddying things terribly, by using the word 'qualities'. I'm talking about the patterns of information in the brain that arise when our senses send information into the brain. You just said you're talking about the same thing, except you use the word 'quality' instead of 'process'. > I?m asking, what is the color of this process, before it changed, and > how did this process change? > What does that even mean?? A process doesn't have a colour! No more than knowledge does. I don't know how to say it any more simply: The sensation of experiencing a colour is a pattern of information-processing in the brain. That's it. It's not 'about' something else, it doesn't have a 'quality', it's not 'abstracted away' from anything, it just is. > There is a necessary?functional cost to achieve this substrate > independence. If P1 is the process before the change, and P2 is the > objectively observable different process after the change, > What change are you talking about here? > > you need two different dictionaries to get the same abstract > information from the different processes before and after the change. > There is no need to get any abstract information. The processes /are/ the experiences of colour. > > Colors are just colors.Sure, a redness processes can change from > redness to greenness, > Colours are indeed just colours. Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the experience of greenness? /How/ could it? The only reason the experience is an experience of redness is because of the similarity it has to prior red things experienced. A redness experience could be succeeded by a greenness one,? though, and this happens all the time. Look from the strawberry to a leaf. But no-one is going to look at a strawberry and suddenly see a green thing (unless they have brain damage, or are colour-blind, in which case the leaves and the fruit are all the same colour). > and we can have different dictionaries to get the same 'red' information. > No, there are no dictionaries. There is no 'red information'. There are patterns of information, and associations with very many other patterns, shifting all the time. The pattern that today in Bob means 'I see a red strawberry', could well be different tomorrow, and is likely to be very different in Bill, but they all mean the same thing. The closest thing to a dictionary that could be said to exist is the memories of similar things seen in the past, in a particular individual (IOW, examples). Memories that, even if very similar in content, are probably encoded in different patterns in different people, and changed in the same person when they access them (I assume you're familiar with the idea that we change our memories every time we remember them. Or at least we re-write them, and they can easily change during this process). > The dictionary before the change defines the redness process to be > red, and after the change, the dictionary defines greenness to be > red.A redness quality just is, if it changes, it is an objectively > observable and subjectively experienceable different process, there > are no dictionaries required. > The only thing that defines redness is the prior examples we have experienced. And there's that word again. There is no such thing as a 'redness quality'. There are information processes that cause people to say "That thing there is red". We can't say much more than that. One day we may be able to, but not today. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 16:50:09 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:50:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] History Message-ID: I don't want to kick off a political discussion. However, the actions of the Senate in the impeachment proceedings will have historical ramifications. It's a serious charge and the evidence is not really in question. I would love to have a high school history textbook from 2040. Keith From spike at rainier66.com Mon Feb 3 17:45:07 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:45:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004601d5dab9$acf9e1c0$06eda540$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Keith Henson via extropy-chat > Subject: [ExI] History I don't want to kick off a political discussion. However, the actions of the Senate in the impeachment proceedings will have historical ramifications. It's a serious charge and the evidence is not really in question. I would love to have a high school history textbook from 2040. Keith _______________________________________________ There ya go, Keith: no names are necessary for this meta-discussion, no political parties, with the discussion completely on a meta-level but welcoming an offline discussion which does bring in all of these. I agree, this is an interesting time for USians. The US is redefining or clarifying the roles of the branches of government, all while running such an enormous deficit at the federal level, eventual government bankruptcy is all but guaranteed. spike From atymes at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 18:20:30 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 10:20:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:52 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > "Ja, right Spock! Remember that time you got horny? That whole ponn farr > episode wasn't exactly a picnic for us illogical humans either. Being > nearly killed by my own first officer was an irritant too, ya pointy eared > hobgoblin!" Kirk > > Well that's what Kirk woulda said if they let me write those scripts. > But any reference (even a self-contained, self-explained one like this) to another episode will hopelessly confuse viewers who may not have seen or might not remember other episodes, or so most studios take as holy canon. :P -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 19:37:26 2020 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:37:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: They're pretty much over that. Most networks seem pretty comfortable with season-long plot arcs, at least as long as the ratings stay up. Parks and Rec, Good Place, The Office, Homeland, etc. On Mon, Feb 3, 2020, 11:22 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:52 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> "Ja, right Spock! Remember that time you got horny? That whole ponn >> farr episode wasn't exactly a picnic for us illogical humans either. Being >> nearly killed by my own first officer was an irritant too, ya pointy eared >> hobgoblin!" Kirk >> >> Well that's what Kirk woulda said if they let me write those scripts. >> > > But any reference (even a self-contained, self-explained one like this) to > another episode will hopelessly confuse viewers who may not have seen or > might not remember other episodes, or so most studios take as holy canon. > :P > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 19:52:27 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 11:52:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Eh, I still hear of cases of such reluctance justified as essentially holy canon. But the studios are certainly more open to it now than when the original series of Star Trek was made. On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:37 AM Darin Sunley wrote: > They're pretty much over that. Most networks seem pretty comfortable with > season-long plot arcs, at least as long as the ratings stay up. Parks and > Rec, Good Place, The Office, Homeland, etc. > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020, 11:22 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:52 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> "Ja, right Spock! Remember that time you got horny? That whole ponn >>> farr episode wasn't exactly a picnic for us illogical humans either. Being >>> nearly killed by my own first officer was an irritant too, ya pointy eared >>> hobgoblin!" Kirk >>> >>> Well that's what Kirk woulda said if they let me write those scripts. >>> >> >> But any reference (even a self-contained, self-explained one like this) >> to another episode will hopelessly confuse viewers who may not have seen or >> might not remember other episodes, or so most studios take as holy canon. >> :P >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Feb 3 20:11:25 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 15:11:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:00 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I would love to have a high school history textbook from 2040.* I'm not sure you'd learn much if you did because judging from the way things are going by 2040 the government may be the only one allowed to write history textbooks, or textbooks of any sort. In fact that could happen far sooner than 2040. I certainly don't think the US Senate as its currently constituted would lift a finger to prevent it. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Feb 3 20:25:08 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:25:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:21 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:52 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: "Ja, right Spock! Remember that time you got horny? That whole ponn farr episode wasn't exactly a picnic for us illogical humans either. Being nearly killed by my own first officer was an irritant too, ya pointy eared hobgoblin!" Kirk Well that's what Kirk woulda said if they let me write those scripts. >?But any reference (even a self-contained, self-explained one like this) to another episode will hopelessly confuse viewers who may not have seen or might not remember other episodes, or so most studios take as holy canon. :P Ja you are right. I kinda miss the early days of the internet in that way. Back in the 80s, any reference to ponn farr would be instantly understood, since most of the people on the internet back in those days had seen every episode. Furthermore, plenty of college girls were claiming it was ponn farr that motivated their behavior that night. They couldn?t help it. Instinct took over. Let?s do an informal survey. Younger people here (under 40 crowd) do you know what that reference was? Older ones here too, do you remember that episode? Keith I already know you do, and of course plenty of us here remember it well. If you Googled after I mentioned ponn farr, had you heard of it before that? And had you ever seen that Amok Time, season 2, episode 1? That was some of Nemoy?s best work. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Feb 3 20:35:04 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:35:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006a01d5dad1$6ab9d000$402d7000$@rainier66.com> On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] History On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:00 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat > wrote: >> I would love to have a high school history textbook from 2040. >?I'm not sure you'd learn much if you did because judging from the way things are going by 2040 the government may be the only one allowed to write history textbooks, or textbooks of any sort. In fact that could happen far sooner than 2040. I certainly don't think the US Senate as its currently constituted would lift a finger to prevent it. John K Clark Our local school district spent a cool fortune on textbooks. I volunteered for two weeks every day to distribute them to the classrooms. I am told most of them were never used, or if so, only seldom. My son has textbooks in every class, but only the math textbook is used to any great extent. Curriculum is online. There is no established canon in schools, or if so, nothing like it was when we were that age. To that observation, there is likely to be no history ?textbook? in 2040, but not for the reason John cited. It would be because it wouldn?t be worth the effort to write it. Like pornography, history is free. It is damn hard to compete with free. Porno video now is made just for fun. So too will be history texts. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 21:06:37 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 13:06:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Let?s do an informal survey. Younger people here (under 40 crowd) do you > know what that reference was? Older ones here too, do you remember that > episode? Keith I already know you do, and of course plenty of us here > remember it well. > You know my response, but just to formally confirm: I know the reference and have seen that episode. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 21:08:22 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:08:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ben, You asked: ?Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the experience of greenness? *How* could it?? By simply inverting the red green signal anywhere in the causal chain of events that is perception as proven can be done here (skip to the ?Inverted Perception? part). It remains a fact that you could engineer (using just such inversions both upstream and downstream from physical knowledge) one robot to represent red knowledge with your redness, and another robot to represent red with your greenness. See ?Inverted Qualia ?) They could both pick strawberries equally well. You seem to be admitting that you only use one word for all things ?red?. That is the definition of ?Qualia Blindness?. In that world there is an ?explanatory gap ? because you need at least two words (red and redness) to model simple effing of the ineffable ideas like: ?My redness is like your greenness, both of which we call red.? As long as we remain qualia blind, nobody can know the true physical color of anything. It's not a "hard mind body problem" it's just a color problem. On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 03/02/2020 14:28, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > ?I expect it will be a description that isn't all that easy to decipher, > as well. It will necessarily relate to a large number of processes, and > will be different (possibly wildly different) in different brains, and > likely restricted to a single point in time.? > > > > We are talking about completely different things. > > > No, we're not. > > You are talking about information abstracted away from different qualities > as they change over time and between people. I?m talking about the > quality (process) that is changing. > > > Although you are muddying things terribly, by using the word 'qualities'. > I'm talking about the patterns of information in the brain that arise when > our senses send information into the brain. You just said you're talking > about the same thing, except you use the word 'quality' instead of > 'process'. > > I?m asking, what is the color of this process, before it changed, and how > did this process change? > > > What does that even mean?? A process doesn't have a colour! No more than > knowledge does. > > I don't know how to say it any more simply: The sensation of experiencing > a colour is a pattern of information-processing in the brain. That's it. > It's not 'about' something else, it doesn't have a 'quality', it's not > 'abstracted away' from anything, it just is. > > There is a necessary functional cost to achieve this substrate > independence. If P1 is the process before the change, and P2 is the > objectively observable different process after the change, > > What change are you talking about here? > > you need two different dictionaries to get the same abstract information > from the different processes before and after the change. > > There is no need to get any abstract information. The processes *are* the > experiences of colour. > > Colors are just colors. Sure, a redness processes can change from > redness to greenness, > > > Colours are indeed just colours. Now why on earth would the experience of > redness suddenly become the experience of greenness? *How* could it? The > only reason the experience is an experience of redness is because of the > similarity it has to prior red things experienced. A redness experience > could be succeeded by a greenness one, though, and this happens all the > time. Look from the strawberry to a leaf. But no-one is going to look at a > strawberry and suddenly see a green thing (unless they have brain damage, > or are colour-blind, in which case the leaves and the fruit are all the > same colour). > > and we can have different dictionaries to get the same 'red' information. > > > > No, there are no dictionaries. There is no 'red information'. There are > patterns of information, and associations with very many other patterns, > shifting all the time. The pattern that today in Bob means 'I see a red > strawberry', could well be different tomorrow, and is likely to be very > different in Bill, but they all mean the same thing. The closest thing to a > dictionary that could be said to exist is the memories of similar things > seen in the past, in a particular individual (IOW, examples). Memories > that, even if very similar in content, are probably encoded in different > patterns in different people, and changed in the same person when they > access them (I assume you're familiar with the idea that we change our > memories every time we remember them. Or at least we re-write them, and > they can easily change during this process). > > The dictionary before the change defines the redness process to be red, > and after the change, the dictionary defines greenness to be red. A > redness quality just is, if it changes, it is an objectively observable and > subjectively experienceable different process, there are no dictionaries > required. > > > The only thing that defines redness is the prior examples we have > experienced. > And there's that word again. There is no such thing as a 'redness > quality'. There are information processes that cause people to say "That > thing there is red". We can't say much more than that. One day we may be > able to, but not today. > > -- > 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 atymes at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 21:15:49 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 13:15:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:13 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:00 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> *> I would love to have a high school history textbook from 2040.* > > > I'm not sure you'd learn much if you did because judging from the way > things are going by 2040 the government may be the only one allowed to > write history textbooks, or textbooks of any sort. > Even if what you fear is true to the extreme, I can think of at least two benefits: 1) Hard evidence, of a sort that might motivate some to take action who currently disbelieve. (Granted, you'd have a hard time proving the time travel aspect, let alone that it isn't a forgery or parody from 2040.) 2) Specific actions that they admit to, which today are still illegal and which there are still police who could independently arrest people for if they had evidence. The courts might not accept a textbook from 2040, but "reverse construction" - use court-inadmissible evidence of illegal deeds to discover where to look for court-admissible evidence, in places that anonymous tips allow one to look - is a thing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 21:23:24 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:23:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] History In-Reply-To: <006a01d5dad1$6ab9d000$402d7000$@rainier66.com> References: <006a01d5dad1$6ab9d000$402d7000$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 3:37 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> My son has textbooks in every class, but only the math textbook is used > to any great extent. Curriculum is online. * At one time I thought no government could successfully censor the internet, but China seems to be proving me wrong. The Great Chinese Firewall is very good at keeping a billion people ignorant about certain things, and not just political stuff. The Wuhan Coronavirus looks like it's going to become a pandemic, it might have been prevented if action had been taken early but the few that warned about it online in December were, in a scene reminiscent of the trial of Galileo, hunted down and forced to apologize for disturbing the public order. There was little or nothing on the internet about it for nearly a month as the epidemic grew and China sat on its hands. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 21:34:21 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 15:34:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <6F939E03-1A47-4A79-8A46-D819EA066597@gmail.com> I have probably seen 95% of the original series. Including the episode in question. Leonard is one of my uncles... My mom dated what?s-his-face from Wrath of Khan. My grandma was an original SMOF (Lord God Admiral Ma?am Sir), and helped organize at least 1 World Con. She was a serious help at various conventions in the San Antonio-Austin Area. I grew up working 16 hour days at Con Suites, especially Dragon Con. I have an original phaser from the filming of the original series, signed by one of them. Probably my uncle. SR Ballard > On Feb 3, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > >> Let?s do an informal survey. Younger people here (under 40 crowd) do you know what that reference was? Older ones here too, do you remember that episode? Keith I already know you do, and of course plenty of us here remember it well. >> > > You know my response, but just to formally confirm: I know the reference and have seen that episode. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 4 12:42:48 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:42:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >You [Ben] asked: > > > > ?Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the > experience of greenness? *How* could it?? > > > > By simply inverting the red green signal anywhere in the causal chain of > events that is perception as proven can be done here > > You keep saying that but I don't know what you think has been proven. As long as the inversion was done consistently and included memories (so ripe strawberries and leaves don't suddenly have the same color) then there would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change of some sort had been made. And there is no way I could see any change in your objective behavior either. So if whatever you're talking about produces no subjective change, and no objective change in behavior, then whatever change you're talking about is not important to either. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Tue Feb 4 15:29:35 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:29:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4da59f3a-369f-dc57-8ed5-2d919b32891e@zaiboc.net> On 03/02/2020 21:08, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > You asked: > > ?Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the > experience of greenness? /How/?could it?? > > By simply inverting the red green signal anywhere in the causal chain > of events that is perception as proven can be done here > (skip to the ?Inverted > Perception? part). > > It remains a fact that you could engineer (using just such inversions > both upstream and downstream from physical knowledge) one robot to > represent red knowledge with your redness, and another robot to > represent red with your greenness.? See ?Inverted Qualia > ?)? They could both > pick strawberries equally well. > > > You seem to be admitting that you only use one word for all things > ?red?.? That is the definition of ?Qualia Blindness?.? In that world > there is an ?explanatory gap > ? because you need at > least two words (red and redness) to model simple effing of the > ineffable ideas like: ?My redness is like your greenness, both of > which we call red.?? As long as we remain qualia blind, nobody can > know the true physical color of anything. > > > It's not a "hard mind body problem" it's just a color problem. > I think we're done here. I see no point talking to a broken record. You keep referring to an incomprehenisble video with no explanation, showing images that seem to be taken from a child's encyclopaedia (that is NOT how our visual system actually works, it's just a vague simplification that probably does more to obscure than reveal), with some mysterious 'inversion' of what is assumed (wrongly) to be a simple 'colour signal'. And you totally ignore any attempt to actually progress the conversation, including very relevant questions. Instead, you keep going back constantly to the same stock (mostly meaningless, as far as I can see) phrases, using the same nonsense terminology. I may as well be talking to a chatbot. It seems to me that you've just invented your own little world, with almost no relation to reality, and are intent on repeating the same packaged phrases over and over again, without making any attempt to explain them or check them against what we actually know about how our brains work. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 15:52:55 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 08:52:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John: Evidently, you?re not fully grasping what is going on if you think what you are saying is true. Once we discover which physics it is in our brain which has a redness quality, we will have a dictionary connecting the word ?redness? to that physical quality. (example being glutamate behavior is redness behavior.) ?There would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change of some sort had been made.? False. Subjectively a physical redness quality you are directly aware of would change from redness to greenness, a huge subjective change. Because we have such a dictionary, people will be able to answer questions like: ?What is your redness like?? with ?glutamate? and you will know that is like your greenness, and so on. ?And there is no way I could see any change in your objective behavior either.? False, Objectively, you could observe whatever physics it is which that brain is using to represent conscious knowledge of the red with (example: glutamate) and when it physically changed (example: changed to glycine) you would know that that brain is a qualia invert from what it was, before. And there will be the 3 different forms of effing the ineffable to objectively verify all this. What is it that you think: ?My redness is like your greenness, both of which we call red.? Means? Once we have the dictionary, and better ability to observe the brain, we?ll be able to ask people questions like: What do you represent red with? People will know if they are normal, or a red/green qualia invert from normal people. And if we see a bat using glutamate to represent echolocation information with, we?ll be able to answer the question: ?What is it like to be a bat?? with, it is like glutamate, or your redness. And the best part, all the absurd religious beliefs about qualia, such as ?substance dualism ?, ?everything including rocks are conscious ?, ?consciousness is down at the quantum level ? and all the mistaken people making careers of arguing there is a ?hard mind body problem? of some kind will finally be put out of business. So many other absurd ideas people currently believe in will be objectively proven false. The only reason people believe in them, today, is because they know science ?can?t account for qualia?. Once we can account for all this, only people like ?flat earthers? will be able to be justified in believing in all such absurdity. On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:44 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >You [Ben] asked: >> >> >> >> ?Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the >> experience of greenness? *How* could it?? >> >> >> >> By simply inverting the red green signal anywhere in the causal chain of >> events that is perception as proven can be done here >> >> > > You keep saying that but I don't know what you think has been proven. As > long as the inversion was done consistently and included memories (so ripe > strawberries and leaves don't suddenly have the same color) then there > would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change of some > sort had been made. And there is no way I could see any change in your > objective behavior either. So if whatever you're talking about produces no > subjective change, and no objective change in behavior, then whatever > change you're talking about is not important to either. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 16:23:33 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 09:23:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: <4da59f3a-369f-dc57-8ed5-2d919b32891e@zaiboc.net> References: <4da59f3a-369f-dc57-8ed5-2d919b32891e@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: The narration, and a whole lot more is forthcoming. ?It seems to me that you've just invented your own little world? In a way, we can objectively measure the size of this so called ?little world?, by knowing who, and how many experts support ?Representational Qualia Theory ? which is the definition of this so called ?little world?. It includes, to lessor and greater degree of involvement at least 40 experts including: Steven Lehar , Daniel Dennett , John Smythies , David Chalmers , Stuart Sameroff , and a growing number of others. In other words, I believe there is strong evidence that all of these experts would agree with me, that it is your so called ?world? which is qualia blind and naive, unable to account for what we know about the physics of consciousness. Can you find ANY expert in this filed (including any statement, or peer reviewed paper or book by any expert), that would provide any kind of support to the contrary? On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 8:31 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 03/02/2020 21:08, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > > You asked: > > > > ?Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the > experience of greenness? *How* could it?? > > > > By simply inverting the red green signal anywhere in the causal chain of > events that is perception as proven can be done here > (skip to the ?Inverted > Perception? part). > > > > It remains a fact that you could engineer (using just such inversions both > upstream and downstream from physical knowledge) one robot to represent red > knowledge with your redness, and another robot to represent red with your > greenness. See ?Inverted Qualia > ?) They could both pick > strawberries equally well. > > > You seem to be admitting that you only use one word for all things ?red?. > That is the definition of ?Qualia Blindness?. In that world there is an ?explanatory > gap ? because you need at > least two words (red and redness) to model simple effing of the ineffable > ideas like: ?My redness is like your greenness, both of which we call > red.? As long as we remain qualia blind, nobody can know the true physical > color of anything. > > > It's not a "hard mind body problem" it's just a color problem. > > > I think we're done here. I see no point talking to a broken record. You > keep referring to an incomprehenisble video with no explanation, showing > images that seem to be taken from a child's encyclopaedia (that is NOT how > our visual system actually works, it's just a vague simplification that > probably does more to obscure than reveal), with some mysterious > 'inversion' of what is assumed (wrongly) to be a simple 'colour signal'. > And you totally ignore any attempt to actually progress the conversation, > including very relevant questions. Instead, you keep going back constantly > to the same stock (mostly meaningless, as far as I can see) phrases, using > the same nonsense terminology. I may as well be talking to a chatbot. > > It seems to me that you've just invented your own little world, with > almost no relation to reality, and are intent on repeating the same > packaged phrases over and over again, without making any attempt to explain > them or check them against what we actually know about how our brains work. > > -- > 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 lostmyelectron+exi at protonmail.com Tue Feb 4 17:22:51 2020 From: lostmyelectron+exi at protonmail.com (Gabe Waggoner) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 17:22:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning Message-ID: <6HKA4TRhY9WD4n14xEWgYJh0a0I_D0nv2xr9mreiSBaDoy3gWPjqj_CrGBtcgXjmpdlQXQTWb5m5nF9rpcSwUHbXZY2ned6DQA5xZyyn7no=@protonmail.com> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Let?s do an informal survey. Younger people here (under 40 crowd) do you > know what that reference was? Older ones here too, do you remember that > episode? Keith I already know you do, and of course plenty of us here > remember it well. > > You know my response, but just to formally confirm: I know the reference > and have seen that episode. I, too, get the reference to pon farr. I'm 44, and my introduction to the show was in October 1984, when my dad sat me in front of the TV to watch "The Doomsday Machine." He said, "This is a show I used to watch when I was a kid. I liked it, but you'll probably think it's stupid after a few years." I still have the original VHS tape on which he recorded that episode, along with "The Changeling," "Wolf in the Fold," and "Mirror, Mirror." Good times. My classmates used to tease me and say, "Hey, Gabe, your ears are getting pointed." All these years later, and that show has dramatically influenced the person I've become. Star Trek and Stargate, as well as the writings of Arthur C. Clarke and many others (fiction and nonfiction), have all driven me to embrace transhumanism/Singularitarianism/digital ascension/cryonics, etc. I always figured some Trek folks were part of this list, but I'm happy to see it explicitly mentioned. -- Gabe Waggoner, MS, ELS Science Writer-Editor 7318 Edmonston Rd. College Park, MD 20740-3018 lostmyelectron at protonmail.com http://www.nasw.org/users/rgwaggoner/ From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 17:37:37 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:37:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:55 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Evidently, you?re not fully grasping what is going on > One of us is certainly not grasping something. This big change you talk about is just a change in a convention not in anything substantial; you're just changing the origin point of a coordinate system, you're changing one meter to 39.37 inches. > >> ?There would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a > change of some sort had been made.? > > > > > False. Subjectively a physical redness quality you are directly aware > of would change from redness to greenness, a huge subjective change. > Suppose I tell you I will make this "huge subjective change" sometime in the next hour but not exactly when. I tell you to ring a bell the instant you detect this "huge subjective change". How in the world are you going to know when to ring that bell?! As long as the change has been made consistently there is absolutely no way you could tell. If you can't tell that a "huge subjective change" has even been made then it can't be huge, in fact it can't be a subjective change of any sort big or small. And that tells me the only thing that gives a color qualia meaning is its relationship with other color qualia, and that's why a old fashioned photographic negative had as much information as the positive print. >> ?And there is no way I could see any change in your objective behavior > either.? > > > > > False, Objectively, you could observe whatever physics it is which that > brain is using to represent conscious knowledge of the red > The brain chemistry might be different but the end result, your behavior, would be exactly the same. And semiconductor physics and vacuum tube physics are different but when computers based on those technologies add 2+2 they both output 4, and there is no difference between one 4 and the other 4. > *> What is it that you think: ?My redness is like your greenness, both of > which we call red.? Means?* > We can both see a difference between a strawberry and a leaf in addition to their shape and size. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 18:06:40 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:06:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, ?The brain chemistry might be different but the end result, your behavior, would be exactly the same.? No, the behavior will not be the same when you ask them: ?What is red like for you?? We will have a dictionary between brain chemistry and redness, and experimentalists will be objectively observing things like who is and who isn?t a red/green qualia inverted. People will know this, and be able to tell you they are ?red/green? qualia inverted form the norm, an so on. i.e. very different responses to the question: "What is redness like for you?" Would you and Ben agree that your beliefs about the legitimacy of using one word for all things ?red? would be falsified, if my prediction that about 10 years after the majority of experimentalists start doing non qualia blind observation of the brain, someone will discover what it is, that has a redness quality. This will falsify all be THE ONE true theory of consciousness and lead to the above explained behavior of people finding out things like who is and who is not red/green qualia inverted from the norm. To say nothing of the 1. week, 2. strong. and 3. strongest forms of effing the ineffable, and finding out what color physical things really are. On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:40 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:55 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Evidently, you?re not fully grasping what is going on >> > > One of us is certainly not grasping something. This big change you talk > about is just a change in a convention not in anything substantial; you're > just changing the origin point of a coordinate system, you're changing one > meter to 39.37 inches. > > >> >> ?There would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a >> change of some sort had been made.? >> >> >> >> > False. Subjectively a physical redness quality you are directly aware >> of would change from redness to greenness, a huge subjective change. >> > > Suppose I tell you I will make this "huge subjective change" sometime in > the next hour but not exactly when. I tell you to ring a bell the instant > you detect this "huge subjective change". How in the world are you going to > know when to ring that bell?! As long as the change has been made > consistently there is absolutely no way you could tell. If you can't tell > that a "huge subjective change" has even been made then it can't be huge, > in fact it can't be a subjective change of any sort big or small. And that > tells me the only thing that gives a color qualia meaning is its > relationship with other color qualia, and that's why a old fashioned > photographic negative had as much information as the positive print. > > >> ?And there is no way I could see any change in your objective behavior >> either.? >> >> >> >> > False, Objectively, you could observe whatever physics it is which >> that brain is using to represent conscious knowledge of the red >> > > The brain chemistry might be different but the end result, your behavior, > would be exactly the same. And semiconductor physics and vacuum tube > physics are different but when computers based on those technologies add > 2+2 they both output 4, and there is no difference between one 4 and the > other 4. > > >> *> What is it that you think: ?My redness is like your greenness, both of >> which we call red.? Means?* >> > > We can both see a difference between a strawberry and a leaf in addition > to their shape and size. > > 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 Tue Feb 4 19:31:50 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:31:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <3927B636-F4EB-429C-9E67-5CACA9EA7DB4@gmail.com> My goal as a kid was to become Samantha Carter from SG-1. It really got me interested in Math and Science at a young age. SR Ballard > On Feb 3, 2020, at 2:25 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:21 AM > To: ExI chat list > Cc: Adrian Tymes > Subject: Re: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:52 AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > "Ja, right Spock! Remember that time you got horny? That whole ponn farr episode wasn't exactly a picnic for us illogical humans either. Being nearly killed by my own first officer was an irritant too, ya pointy eared hobgoblin!" Kirk > > Well that's what Kirk woulda said if they let me write those scripts. > > >?But any reference (even a self-contained, self-explained one like this) to another episode will hopelessly confuse viewers who may not have seen or might not remember other episodes, or so most studios take as holy canon. :P > > > > > > > Ja you are right. I kinda miss the early days of the internet in that way. Back in the 80s, any reference to ponn farr would be instantly understood, since most of the people on the internet back in those days had seen every episode. > > Furthermore, plenty of college girls were claiming it was ponn farr that motivated their behavior that night. They couldn?t help it. Instinct took over. > > Let?s do an informal survey. Younger people here (under 40 crowd) do you know what that reference was? Older ones here too, do you remember that episode? Keith I already know you do, and of course plenty of us here remember it well. > > If you Googled after I mentioned ponn farr, had you heard of it before that? And had you ever seen that Amok Time, season 2, episode 1? That was some of Nemoy?s best work. > > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 20:55:25 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 07:55:25 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 02:54, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi John: > > > > Evidently, you?re not fully grasping what is going on if you think what > you are saying is true. Once we discover which physics it is in our brain > which has a redness quality, we will have a dictionary connecting the word > ?redness? to that physical quality. (example being glutamate behavior is > redness behavior.) > > > > ?There would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change of > some sort had been made.? > > > > False. Subjectively a physical redness quality you are directly aware of > would change from redness to greenness, a huge subjective change. Because > we have such a dictionary, people will be able to answer questions like: > ?What is your redness like?? with ?glutamate? and you will know that is > like your greenness, and so on. > Subjectively you couldn?t notice a change if the physical change was compensated for with another physical change; for example, if the glutamate was changed and the glutamate receptors was also changed. It is always theoretically possible to make such a compensatory change, and for this reason it is impossible to attach qualia to any particular substrate or physics. ?And there is no way I could see any change in your objective behavior > either.? > > > > False, Objectively, you could observe whatever physics it is which that > brain is using to represent conscious knowledge of the red with (example: > glutamate) and when it physically changed (example: changed to glycine) you > would know that that brain is a qualia invert from what it was, before. > > > > And there will be the 3 different forms of effing the ineffable to > objectively verify all this. > > > > What is it that you think: ?My redness is like your greenness, both of > which we call red.? Means? > > Once we have the dictionary, and better ability to observe the brain, > we?ll be able to ask people questions like: What do you represent red > with? People will know if they are normal, or a red/green qualia invert > from normal people. > > > > And if we see a bat using glutamate to represent echolocation information > with, we?ll be able to answer the question: ?What is it like to be a bat?? > with, it is like glutamate, or your redness. > > > > And the best part, all the absurd religious beliefs about qualia, such as ?substance > dualism ?, ?everything > including rocks are conscious > ?, ?consciousness > is down at the quantum level ? > and all the mistaken people making careers of arguing there is a ?hard mind > body problem? of some kind will finally be put out of business. So many > other absurd ideas people currently believe in will be objectively proven > false. The only reason people believe in them, today, is because they know > science ?can?t account for qualia?. Once we can account for all this, only > people like ?flat earthers? will be able to be justified in believing in > all such absurdity. > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:44 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >You [Ben] asked: >>> >>> >>> >>> ?Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the >>> experience of greenness? *How* could it?? >>> >>> >>> >>> By simply inverting the red green signal anywhere in the causal chain of >>> events that is perception as proven can be done here >>> >>> >> >> You keep saying that but I don't know what you think has been proven. As >> long as the inversion was done consistently and included memories (so ripe >> strawberries and leaves don't suddenly have the same color) then there >> would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change of some >> sort had been made. And there is no way I could see any change in your >> objective behavior either. So if whatever you're talking about produces no >> subjective change, and no objective change in behavior, then whatever >> change you're talking about is not important to either. >> >> 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 > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 21:42:16 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:42:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] quote Message-ID: Mother/son incest is regarded as the worst and is likely the most rare. So - let's see - Mother was, gulp, a woman, but not one to be desired, like the Madonna - pure. Then in our teens, along comes females who are quite desirable and hence the conflict. Sex with Mom is unthinkable and yet here is a woman who wants it. What is she? A temptress, a whore, a woman who would lead a man sinfully astray.. And so is born the Madonna/whore complex. Women who don't have sex are pure, like nuns. A woman who has extramarital sex becomes a whore and in some societies they are killed for ruining the family honor. (I grew up in the 50s. No girl at school who was even suspected of having sex was a 'good girl'. Bad girl. Whore.) After having sex and giving birth, the woman is now a mother. To jump a bit, some men go impotent with their wives at this point. Their wives are mothers and mothers are forbidden, so you go get a mistress who, of course, is a whore. (Cue feminist outrage at this point.) I assume that most men (unlike Freud's assumption) are not subject to this complex, but do tend to toss aside easy women - they are whores, aren't they? Hence the emphasis on virginity worldwide. (As an aside we see here the fear of men of being compared to other men, if some man or men came before them with this woman - sic) There is no female counterpart to this complex. Men invented these ideas to try to sort out their feelings towards women. Implicit in the quote is the idea that women are no more virtuous than men, but men have to think another way. I find it fascinating to look at sex questionnaires starting in the 1940s: year after year since then women have admitted to more and more sexual activity of all kinds. The results for adultery in women have risen nearly to the man's level. Of course people lie on these things, and so we really don't know if women have changed since the /40s or just have been mostly lying all along, but now more of them are telling the truth. It is telling: the mixture, the ambiguity of feelings men have about women have led to many paraphilias. It is very rare for a woman to be put into any of the categories. Well, a full exploration of these ideas really takes book length. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 23:07:21 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:07:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] gut personality Message-ID: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452231719300181?via%3Dihub Yeah, it's just correlations at this point, but very highly interesting. To pick out just one point, the study shows that bottle feeding versus breast feeding of the baby has consequences in the adult person. Next? Change the gut bacteria and measure personality changes? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 23:50:41 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:50:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning Message-ID: wrote: snip > Let's do an informal survey. Younger people here (under 40 crowd) do you know what that reference was? Older ones here too, do you remember that episode? Keith I already know you do, and of course plenty of us here remember it well. Sorry Spike, but I didn't see it. During the years it was on, I didn't have a TV. In spite of that, I did get the reference. Keith From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 5 21:46:01 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:46:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The trouble I?m having with this conversation is how one sided it seems. I make an effort to re-iterate your positions, even asking for feedback and then fixing where I?m making mistakes in my understanding of your positions, till I get what you guys agree is correct. Ben said: ?I think we're done here. I see no point talking to a broken record.? So, if I?m still failing to acknowledge something, I?ll be happy to listen to whatever that is again, and repeat it back till I get it right. I see critical issues in what I re-iterate back to you, but when I try to point these out, it seems like nobody even acknowledges that I have any issue, let alone anyone trying to understand what those issues might be. I?m not seeing efforts to re-iterate back many of the problems I see. All I hear is the same old failure to acknowledge the issues I see with what Ben refers to as a ?broken record? re-iterations of the same old same old: ?I'll be damned if I understand how you've reached that conclusion!? followed immediately with re-assertions of your positions (which I've already repeated back) like: ?you couldn?t notice a change if the physical change was compensated for with another physical change? On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:55 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 02:54, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi John: >> >> >> >> Evidently, you?re not fully grasping what is going on if you think what >> you are saying is true. Once we discover which physics it is in our brain >> which has a redness quality, we will have a dictionary connecting the word >> ?redness? to that physical quality. (example being glutamate behavior is >> redness behavior.) >> >> >> >> ?There would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change >> of some sort had been made.? >> >> >> >> False. Subjectively a physical redness quality you are directly aware of >> would change from redness to greenness, a huge subjective change. Because >> we have such a dictionary, people will be able to answer questions like: >> ?What is your redness like?? with ?glutamate? and you will know that is >> like your greenness, and so on. >> > > Subjectively you couldn?t notice a change if the physical change was > compensated for with another physical change; for example, if the glutamate > was changed and the glutamate receptors was also changed. It is always > theoretically possible to make such a compensatory change, and for this > reason it is impossible to attach qualia to any particular substrate or > physics. > > ?And there is no way I could see any change in your objective behavior >> either.? >> >> >> >> False, Objectively, you could observe whatever physics it is which that >> brain is using to represent conscious knowledge of the red with (example: >> glutamate) and when it physically changed (example: changed to glycine) you >> would know that that brain is a qualia invert from what it was, before. >> >> >> >> And there will be the 3 different forms of effing the ineffable to >> objectively verify all this. >> >> >> >> What is it that you think: ?My redness is like your greenness, both of >> which we call red.? Means? >> >> Once we have the dictionary, and better ability to observe the brain, >> we?ll be able to ask people questions like: What do you represent red >> with? People will know if they are normal, or a red/green qualia invert >> from normal people. >> >> >> >> And if we see a bat using glutamate to represent echolocation information >> with, we?ll be able to answer the question: ?What is it like to be a bat?? >> with, it is like glutamate, or your redness. >> >> >> >> And the best part, all the absurd religious beliefs about qualia, such as >> ?substance dualism ?, >> ?everything including rocks are conscious >> ?, ?consciousness >> is down at the quantum level ? >> and all the mistaken people making careers of arguing there is a ?hard mind >> body problem? of some kind will finally be put out of business. So many >> other absurd ideas people currently believe in will be objectively proven >> false. The only reason people believe in them, today, is because they know >> science ?can?t account for qualia?. Once we can account for all this, only >> people like ?flat earthers? will be able to be justified in believing in >> all such absurdity. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:44 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >You [Ben] asked: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the >>>> experience of greenness? *How* could it?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> By simply inverting the red green signal anywhere in the causal chain >>>> of events that is perception as proven can be done here >>>> >>>> >>> >>> You keep saying that but I don't know what you think has been proven. As >>> long as the inversion was done consistently and included memories (so ripe >>> strawberries and leaves don't suddenly have the same color) then there >>> would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change of some >>> sort had been made. And there is no way I could see any change in your >>> objective behavior either. So if whatever you're talking about produces no >>> subjective change, and no objective change in behavior, then whatever >>> change you're talking about is not important to either. >>> >>> 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 >> > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 5 21:57:26 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:57:26 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 08:48, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The trouble I?m having with this conversation is how one sided it seems. > I make an effort to re-iterate your positions, even asking for feedback and > then fixing where I?m making mistakes in my understanding of your > positions, till I get what you guys agree is correct. Ben said: > > > > ?I think we're done here. I see no point talking to a broken record.? > > > > So, if I?m still failing to acknowledge something, I?ll be happy to listen > to whatever that is again, and repeat it back till I get it right. > > > > I see critical issues in what I re-iterate back to you, but when I try to > point these out, it seems like nobody even acknowledges that I have any > issue, let alone anyone trying to understand what those issues might be. > I?m not seeing efforts to re-iterate back many of the problems I see. All > I hear is the same old failure to acknowledge the issues I see with what > Ben refers to as a ?broken record? re-iterations of the same old same old: > > > ?I'll be damned if I understand how you've reached that conclusion!? > > > > followed immediately with re-assertions of your positions (which I've > already repeated back) like: > > > > ?you couldn?t notice a change if the physical change was compensated for > with another physical change? > And the reason is that if you repeat it back you seem to agree, but then later disagree. It would help if you clearly said something like ?there can be a change in qualia without a change in behaviour?. (And I have defined behaviour: it is everything that can be observed, including speech, and not just strawberry-picking ability). On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:55 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 02:54, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi John: >>> >>> >>> >>> Evidently, you?re not fully grasping what is going on if you think what >>> you are saying is true. Once we discover which physics it is in our brain >>> which has a redness quality, we will have a dictionary connecting the word >>> ?redness? to that physical quality. (example being glutamate behavior is >>> redness behavior.) >>> >>> >>> >>> ?There would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change >>> of some sort had been made.? >>> >>> >>> >>> False. Subjectively a physical redness quality you are directly aware >>> of would change from redness to greenness, a huge subjective change. >>> Because we have such a dictionary, people will be able to answer questions >>> like: ?What is your redness like?? with ?glutamate? and you will know that >>> is like your greenness, and so on. >>> >> >> Subjectively you couldn?t notice a change if the physical change was >> compensated for with another physical change; for example, if the glutamate >> was changed and the glutamate receptors was also changed. It is always >> theoretically possible to make such a compensatory change, and for this >> reason it is impossible to attach qualia to any particular substrate or >> physics. >> >> ?And there is no way I could see any change in your objective behavior >>> either.? >>> >>> >>> >>> False, Objectively, you could observe whatever physics it is which that >>> brain is using to represent conscious knowledge of the red with (example: >>> glutamate) and when it physically changed (example: changed to glycine) you >>> would know that that brain is a qualia invert from what it was, before. >>> >>> >>> >>> And there will be the 3 different forms of effing the ineffable to >>> objectively verify all this. >>> >>> >>> >>> What is it that you think: ?My redness is like your greenness, both of >>> which we call red.? Means? >>> >>> Once we have the dictionary, and better ability to observe the brain, >>> we?ll be able to ask people questions like: What do you represent red >>> with? People will know if they are normal, or a red/green qualia invert >>> from normal people. >>> >>> >>> >>> And if we see a bat using glutamate to represent echolocation >>> information with, we?ll be able to answer the question: ?What is it like to >>> be a bat?? with, it is like glutamate, or your redness. >>> >>> >>> >>> And the best part, all the absurd religious beliefs about qualia, such >>> as ?substance dualism >>> ?, ?everything >>> including rocks are conscious >>> ?, ?consciousness >>> is down at the quantum level ? >>> and all the mistaken people making careers of arguing there is a ?hard mind >>> body problem? of some kind will finally be put out of business. So many >>> other absurd ideas people currently believe in will be objectively proven >>> false. The only reason people believe in them, today, is because they know >>> science ?can?t account for qualia?. Once we can account for all this, only >>> people like ?flat earthers? will be able to be justified in believing in >>> all such absurdity. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:44 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >You [Ben] asked: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the >>>>> experience of greenness? *How* could it?? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> By simply inverting the red green signal anywhere in the causal chain >>>>> of events that is perception as proven can be done here >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> You keep saying that but I don't know what you think has been proven. >>>> As long as the inversion was done consistently and included memories (so >>>> ripe strawberries and leaves don't suddenly have the same color) then there >>>> would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change of some >>>> sort had been made. And there is no way I could see any change in your >>>> objective behavior either. So if whatever you're talking about produces no >>>> subjective change, and no objective change in behavior, then whatever >>>> change you're talking about is not important to either. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 5 22:01:21 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:01:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:49 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *I make an effort to re-iterate your positions* [...] Brent, I don't know who the personal pronoun "your" in the above refers to. In your last post you had 3 quotes, but only one of them was by me. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 5 22:40:50 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 15:40:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, Yes, sorry. One was from each of You, Stathis and Ben. On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:09 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:49 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *I make an effort to re-iterate your positions* [...] > > > Brent, I don't know who the personal pronoun "your" in the above refers > to. In your last post you had 3 quotes, but only one of them was by me. > > 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 Wed Feb 5 23:03:18 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 16:03:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > And the reason is that if you repeat it back you seem to agree, but then > later disagree. It would help if you clearly said something like ?there can > be a change in qualia without a change in behaviour?. (And I have defined > behaviour: it is everything that can be observed, including speech, and not > just strawberry-picking ability). > If you were listening to me, and repeating back to me what I've been trying to say, instead of incorrectly saying what I've never said: ?there can be a change in qualia without a change in behaviour?, you would acknowledge that I'm trying to say something closer to qualia and qualia behavior are the same thing. If the behavior isn't changing, and qualia are changing, that changing qualia must be some place else. And if you substitute all behavior (or function or magic or anything), with something that is different, and the qualia never change, qualia are impossible, or at best not approachable via science. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 05:13:29 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:13:29 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 10:04, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> And the reason is that if you repeat it back you seem to agree, but then >> later disagree. It would help if you clearly said something like ?there can >> be a change in qualia without a change in behaviour?. (And I have defined >> behaviour: it is everything that can be observed, including speech, and not >> just strawberry-picking ability). >> > > If you were listening to me, and repeating back to me what I've been > trying to say, instead of incorrectly saying what I've never said: ?there > can be a change in qualia without a change in behaviour?, you would > acknowledge that I'm trying to say something closer to qualia and qualia > behavior are the same thing. If the behavior isn't changing, and qualia > are changing, that changing qualia must be some place else. And if you > substitute all behavior (or function or magic or anything), with something > that is different, and the qualia never change, qualia are impossible, or > at best not approachable via science. > If you agree that the qualia cannot change unless the behaviour changes, that is functionalism. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 13:10:52 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 06:10:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, Right, that is what I bolded in my description of what you are saying, to communicate to you that I understand this critically important part of your view: *As long as the "behavior" remains the same the subjectivity must also remain the same.* So, are we agreeing that redness is dependent on some specifically definable substrate ?behavior?, and that if this specific substrate behavior is substituted for anything sufficiently different, it is no longer redness? On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:15 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 10:04, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> And the reason is that if you repeat it back you seem to agree, but then >>> later disagree. It would help if you clearly said something like ?there can >>> be a change in qualia without a change in behaviour?. (And I have defined >>> behaviour: it is everything that can be observed, including speech, and not >>> just strawberry-picking ability). >>> >> >> If you were listening to me, and repeating back to me what I've been >> trying to say, instead of incorrectly saying what I've never said: ?there >> can be a change in qualia without a change in behaviour?, you would >> acknowledge that I'm trying to say something closer to qualia and qualia >> behavior are the same thing. If the behavior isn't changing, and qualia >> are changing, that changing qualia must be some place else. And if you >> substitute all behavior (or function or magic or anything), with something >> that is different, and the qualia never change, qualia are impossible, or >> at best not approachable via science. >> > > If you agree that the qualia cannot change unless the behaviour changes, > that is functionalism. > >> -- > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 13:45:29 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 00:45:29 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 00:12, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > > > > Right, that is what I bolded in my description of what you are saying, to > communicate to you that I understand this critically important part of your > view: > > > > *As long as the "behavior" remains the same the subjectivity must also > remain the same.* > > > > So, are we agreeing that redness is dependent on some specifically > definable substrate ?behavior?, and that if this specific substrate > behavior is substituted for anything sufficiently different, it is no > longer redness? > No, because it is always possible to obtain the same behaviour with a different substrate. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 14:55:59 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 06:55:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe Message-ID: The draconian measures taken in China seem to be doing the job. If you go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#/media/File:Log-linear_plot_of_coronovirus_cases_with_linear_regressions.png you can see the curve falling below a straight line. Keith From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 14:59:26 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 09:59:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is true if you trust those figures to be accurate... On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:57 AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The draconian measures taken in China seem to be doing the job. If you go > here: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#/media/File:Log-linear_plot_of_coronovirus_cases_with_linear_regressions.png > > you can see the curve falling below a straight line. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 15:11:19 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:11:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:05 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *I'm trying to say something closer to qualia and qualia behavior are > the same thing. * I think that's a good guess and an excellent operational hypothesis, but we'll never prove it's true because, just like Evolution, the Scientific Method can not observe qualia, it can only observe behavior. Nevertheless I embrace that operational hypothesis and even elevate it to the level of an axiom despite the lack of a proof and despite my inability to detect qualia in anything other than in myself. And that's the only reason I don't think rocks experience qualia, and that's the only reason I think you do. *> If the behavior isn't changing, and qualia are changing* That is contradictory. If "qualia and qualia behavior are the same thing" and if "behavior isn't changing" then qualia isn't changing either. *> that changing qualia must be some place else.* And I don't know what you mean by that. > > *if you substitute all behavior (or function or magic or anything), > with something that is different, and the qualia never change, * > Brent, the only way you have of knowing that "qualia never change" is by making use of a unproven operational hypothesis that makes use of behavior. > *> qualia are impossible, or at best not approachable via science.* > I agree. But I know for a fact that qualia are NOT impossible because I know I have them, I can directly experience qualia in myself; therefore I must conclude that the second part of the above is true, qualia is "not approachable via science", or at least it's not without making use of an axiom that like all axioms remains unproven. Or to put it another way, I believe it's a brute fact that qualia is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 15:23:09 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:23:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, Yes to everything you said. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:15 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *> that changing qualia must be some place else.* > > > And I don't know what you mean by that. > Stathis always claims you can substitute any "substrate" with another substrate that is different, yet it still "behaves" stays the same. I"m just pointing out that if this is the fact, the substitution of qualia isn't happening here. We know we have qualia, so this qualia behavior must be some place else in the system, and we can't substitute that behavior for anything sufficiently different, else it is now greenness. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 15:38:48 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:38:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, Can you see what you are doing? Any time I define this "stathis redness behavior" sufficiently enough so it can be objectively observed, so it can be objectively distinguished from "stathis grenness behavior", you can use the substitution argument to prove it can't be that. What then, is the stathis redness behavior? I claim it is just a slight of hand stathis uses, so that any time you sufficiently define it, he just says it is some other behavior. In other words, stathis can't define this impossible to objectively define "stathis redness behavior". Brent redness behavior, can be objectively defined, glutamate is an example. It could also be anything else, maybe even some "function". But before it can be a "function" you must be able to give an example of that function sufficiently, so it can be objectively distinguishable between a grenness function, otherwise, it is this stathis grenness function which isn't objectively detectable. And if redness arises from this function, and if it changes to grenness when the function changes to greeness. Then it is a physical fact that redness arises from that function. And whatever that is, you can use the same substitution argument to prove it isn't that. And if I can't call that, whatever it is that is changing from the redness function, to the greenness function a substrate, then what can I call it? Because no matter what you call it, it is still the same thing, the behavior of redness. And if you substitute it for something sufficiently different, it is no longer redness. QED, as I continue to say, there must be a problem in the way you are doing a substitution, because we know, absolutely, that we have qualia, and you can't substitute redness behavior, with some different behavior, without it stopping being redness. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:15 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:05 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *I'm trying to say something closer to qualia and qualia behavior are >> the same thing. * > > > I think that's a good guess and an excellent operational hypothesis, but > we'll never prove it's true because, just like Evolution, the Scientific > Method can not observe qualia, it can only observe behavior. Nevertheless I > embrace that operational hypothesis and even elevate it to the level of an > axiom despite the lack of a proof and despite my inability to detect qualia > in anything other than in myself. And that's the only reason I don't think > rocks experience qualia, and that's the only reason I think you do. > > *> If the behavior isn't changing, and qualia are changing* > > > That is contradictory. If "qualia and qualia behavior are the same thing" > and if "behavior isn't changing" then qualia isn't changing either. > > *> that changing qualia must be some place else.* > > > And I don't know what you mean by that. > > >> > *if you substitute all behavior (or function or magic or anything), >> with something that is different, and the qualia never change, * >> > > Brent, the only way you have of knowing that "qualia never change" is by > making use of a unproven operational hypothesis that makes use of > behavior. > > >> *> qualia are impossible, or at best not approachable via science.* >> > > I agree. But I know for a fact that qualia are NOT impossible because I > know I have them, I can directly experience qualia in myself; therefore I > must conclude that the second part of the above is true, qualia is "not > approachable via science", or at least it's not without making use of an > axiom that like all axioms remains unproven. Or to put it another way, I > believe it's a brute fact that qualia is the way data feels when it is > being processed intelligently. > > 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 Feb 6 15:51:15 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:51:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:25 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *Stathis always claims you can substitute any "substrate" with another > substrate that is different, yet it still "behaves" stays the same.* > I don't understand your use of quotation marks but because it involves behavior science can demonstrate that what Stathis says is 100% correct. A computer with a semiconductor substrate and a computer with a vacuum tube substrate both have the same behavior when they add 2+2, they both print 4. > *> I"m just pointing out that if this is the fact, the substitution of > qualia isn't happening here.* > But the qualia have not been substituted! As I've said over and over, as long as the change was consistent you'd have no way of consciously knowing that a change had even been made. Yes some chemical reactions will have changed but chemicals are not conscious (probably) and a qualia that doesn't involve consciousness is not a qualia. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 16:09:42 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:09:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah I doubt that data is legit tbh. What do y'all think of this: https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/01/30/on-the-origins-of-the-2019-ncov-virus-wuhan-china ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 16:14:14 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:14:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:59 AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: Because this coronavirus is so new there is a lot of uncertainty about how bad the pandemic will be, it depends on 2 factors, how deadly it is and how contagious it is, the shaded region in the plot below shows the error bars. Notice seasonal flu in the lower left, in 2018 it killed 80,000 people in the USA alone. [image: image.png] John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 77325 bytes Desc: not available URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 16:19:32 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:19:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for that link! It's the best evidence yet that I've seen arguing for an engineered virus. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:10 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Yeah I doubt that data is legit tbh. > > What do y'all think of this: > https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/01/30/on-the-origins-of-the-2019-ncov-virus-wuhan-china > ? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Feb 6 16:38:34 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:38:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006601d5dd0b$e04d78d0$a0e86a70$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 8:14 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:59 AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat > wrote: >?Because this coronavirus is so new there is a lot of uncertainty about how bad the pandemic will be?seasonal flu, in 2018 it killed 80,000 people in the USA alone?John We just got a text from our friends who are nearly two days out to sea heading east back from a Hawaii vacation. The captain announced they are turning back and heading for Hawaii because one of the passengers has (an unspecified) medical emergency. The big cruise liners are set up to handle heart attacks and strokes (their regular customers are known to favor those particular maladies.) One is scarcely better off in a hospital than aboard one of those big floating luxury clinics. If a geezer lives in a rural area, he might be better off going out to sea to have his coronary. That tells me that if this medical emergency had been that, they would have kept steaming toward San Francisco. They turned back at enormous expense. Speculations please? I will offer one: my friends might be getting a coupla weeks extra ?vacation? free. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 16:45:55 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:45:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe Message-ID: Dylan Distasio wrote: > This is true if you trust those figures to be accurate... Do you have any reason to think the numbers might be "cooked"? Keith From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 16:58:11 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:58:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Keith- It's pure speculation based on the prior actions of the regime that runs China, combined with a number of news articles arguing that crematorium workers are saying they are burning 100+ bodies a day working 24/7 in Wuhan (funerals have been banned), and that the real number of infections may be 100K+. Taiwan's official news service also had some kind of "glitch" where they posted counts WAY above official ones and flipped back and forth ultimately ending with the official ones. At the end of the day though, I am speculating. It would be nice if the official figures were close to reality. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:47 AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Dylan Distasio wrote: > > > This is true if you trust those figures to be accurate... > > Do you have any reason to think the numbers might be "cooked"? > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 17:32:17 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 04:32:17 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 02:40, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > Can you see what you are doing? Any time I define this "stathis redness > behavior" sufficiently enough so it can be objectively observed, so it can > be objectively distinguished from "stathis grenness behavior", you can use > the substitution argument to prove it can't be that. What then, is the > stathis redness behavior? I claim it is just a slight of hand stathis > uses, so that any time you sufficiently define it, he just says it is some > other behavior. In other words, stathis can't define this impossible to > objectively define "stathis redness behavior". Brent redness behavior, can > be objectively defined, glutamate is an example. It could also be anything > else, maybe even some "function". But before it can be a "function" you > must be able to give an example of that function sufficiently, so it can be > objectively distinguishable between a grenness function, otherwise, it is > this stathis grenness function which isn't objectively detectable. And if > redness arises from this function, and if it changes to grenness when the > function changes to greeness. Then it is a physical fact that redness > arises from that function. And whatever that is, you can use the same > substitution argument to prove it isn't that. And if I can't call that, > whatever it is that is changing from the redness function, to the greenness > function a substrate, then what can I call it? Because no matter what you > call it, it is still the same thing, the behavior of redness. And if you > substitute it for something sufficiently different, it is no longer redness. > Redness behaviour includes ?I see red? while greenness behaviour includes ?I see green?. A machine that says these things will continue saying them if any or all of its parts are substituted for different parts that interact with connecting parts in the same way. Can you explain how, even if you were God, you could get around this? QED, as I continue to say, there must be a problem in the way you are doing > a substitution, because we know, absolutely, that we have qualia, and you > can't substitute redness behavior, with some different behavior, without it > stopping being redness. > I agree! But what I am saying is that you can substitute parts and the redness behaviour will not change, and neither will the qualia. There might not actually exist any suitable parts: it is a matter of logic that IF they existed THEN the behaviour and qualia would be the same. Hence, the qualia cannot be specific to some particular substrate or physics. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:15 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:05 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> > *I'm trying to say something closer to qualia and qualia behavior are >>> the same thing. * >> >> >> I think that's a good guess and an excellent operational hypothesis, but >> we'll never prove it's true because, just like Evolution, the Scientific >> Method can not observe qualia, it can only observe behavior. Nevertheless I >> embrace that operational hypothesis and even elevate it to the level of an >> axiom despite the lack of a proof and despite my inability to detect qualia >> in anything other than in myself. And that's the only reason I don't think >> rocks experience qualia, and that's the only reason I think you do. >> >> *> If the behavior isn't changing, and qualia are changing* >> >> >> That is contradictory. If "qualia and qualia behavior are the same thing" >> and if "behavior isn't changing" then qualia isn't changing either. >> >> *> that changing qualia must be some place else.* >> >> >> And I don't know what you mean by that. >> >> >>> > *if you substitute all behavior (or function or magic or anything), >>> with something that is different, and the qualia never change, * >>> >> >> Brent, the only way you have of knowing that "qualia never change" is by >> making use of a unproven operational hypothesis that makes use of >> behavior. >> >> >>> *> qualia are impossible, or at best not approachable via science.* >>> >> >> I agree. But I know for a fact that qualia are NOT impossible because I >> know I have them, I can directly experience qualia in myself; therefore I >> must conclude that the second part of the above is true, qualia is "not >> approachable via science", or at least it's not without making use of an >> axiom that like all axioms remains unproven. Or to put it another way, I >> believe it's a brute fact that qualia is the way data feels when it is >> being processed intelligently. >> >> 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 > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 18:04:49 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:04:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, This is all meaningless slight of hand, misdirecting people away from what is important. There is no objectively observable "redness behavior" in what you are describing. There must be some objectively observable redness behavior which cannot be substituted for anything sufficiently objectively observably different, without it changing from redness behavior. What is that objectively observable redness behavior and how could God objectively observe when it changed to grenness behavior? Brent On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 02:40, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi Stathis, >> Can you see what you are doing? Any time I define this "stathis redness >> behavior" sufficiently enough so it can be objectively observed, so it can >> be objectively distinguished from "stathis grenness behavior", you can use >> the substitution argument to prove it can't be that. What then, is the >> stathis redness behavior? I claim it is just a slight of hand stathis >> uses, so that any time you sufficiently define it, he just says it is some >> other behavior. In other words, stathis can't define this impossible to >> objectively define "stathis redness behavior". Brent redness behavior, can >> be objectively defined, glutamate is an example. It could also be anything >> else, maybe even some "function". But before it can be a "function" you >> must be able to give an example of that function sufficiently, so it can be >> objectively distinguishable between a grenness function, otherwise, it is >> this stathis grenness function which isn't objectively detectable. And if >> redness arises from this function, and if it changes to grenness when the >> function changes to greeness. Then it is a physical fact that redness >> arises from that function. And whatever that is, you can use the same >> substitution argument to prove it isn't that. And if I can't call that, >> whatever it is that is changing from the redness function, to the greenness >> function a substrate, then what can I call it? Because no matter what you >> call it, it is still the same thing, the behavior of redness. And if you >> substitute it for something sufficiently different, it is no longer redness. >> > > Redness behaviour includes ?I see red? while greenness behaviour includes > ?I see green?. A machine that says these things will continue saying them > if any or all of its parts are substituted for different parts that > interact with connecting parts in the same way. Can you explain how, even > if you were God, you could get around this? > > QED, as I continue to say, there must be a problem in the way you are >> doing a substitution, because we know, absolutely, that we have qualia, and >> you can't substitute redness behavior, with some different behavior, >> without it stopping being redness. >> > > I agree! But what I am saying is that you can substitute parts and the > redness behaviour will not change, and neither will the qualia. There might > not actually exist any suitable parts: it is a matter of logic that IF they > existed THEN the behaviour and qualia would be the same. Hence, the qualia > cannot be specific to some particular substrate or physics. > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:15 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:05 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>> > *I'm trying to say something closer to qualia and qualia behavior >>>> are the same thing. * >>> >>> >>> I think that's a good guess and an excellent operational hypothesis, but >>> we'll never prove it's true because, just like Evolution, the Scientific >>> Method can not observe qualia, it can only observe behavior. Nevertheless I >>> embrace that operational hypothesis and even elevate it to the level of an >>> axiom despite the lack of a proof and despite my inability to detect qualia >>> in anything other than in myself. And that's the only reason I don't think >>> rocks experience qualia, and that's the only reason I think you do. >>> >>> *> If the behavior isn't changing, and qualia are changing* >>> >>> >>> That is contradictory. If "qualia and qualia behavior are the same >>> thing" and if "behavior isn't changing" then qualia isn't changing either. >>> >>> *> that changing qualia must be some place else.* >>> >>> >>> And I don't know what you mean by that. >>> >>> >>>> > *if you substitute all behavior (or function or magic or anything), >>>> with something that is different, and the qualia never change, * >>>> >>> >>> Brent, the only way you have of knowing that "qualia never change" is >>> by making use of a unproven operational hypothesis that makes use of >>> behavior. >>> >>> >>>> *> qualia are impossible, or at best not approachable via science.* >>>> >>> >>> I agree. But I know for a fact that qualia are NOT impossible because I >>> know I have them, I can directly experience qualia in myself; therefore I >>> must conclude that the second part of the above is true, qualia is "not >>> approachable via science", or at least it's not without making use of an >>> axiom that like all axioms remains unproven. Or to put it another way, I >>> believe it's a brute fact that qualia is the way data feels when it is >>> being processed intelligently. >>> >>> 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 >> > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 18:43:20 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:43:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: <006601d5dd0b$e04d78d0$a0e86a70$@rainier66.com> References: <006601d5dd0b$e04d78d0$a0e86a70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> We just got a text from our friends who are nearly two days out to sea > heading east back from a Hawaii vacation. The captain announced they are > turning back and heading for Hawaii because one of the passengers has (an > unspecified) medical emergency. * A passenger on the 116,000 ton cruise ship Diamond Princess tested positive for the Wuhan virus and now the ship is tied up in Yokohama Japan and 3700 people are under quarantine and not allowed to leave the ship. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Feb 6 19:07:07 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:07:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: <006601d5dd0b$e04d78d0$a0e86a70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004701d5dd20$a07b6130$e1722390$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: >>? We just got a text from our friends who are nearly two days out to sea heading east back from a Hawaii vacation. The captain announced they are turning back and heading for Hawaii because one of the passengers has (an unspecified) medical emergency. >?A passenger on the 116,000 ton cruise ship Diamond Princess tested positive for the Wuhan virus and now the ship is tied up in Yokohama Japan and 3700 people are under quarantine and not allowed to leave the ship. John K Clark Events coming to the attention of the public today cause us to snap out of our tunnel-vision outlook on life and focus on the big picture. Today we learn of an existential risk we never even knew existed: http://www.keckobservatory.org/monster-galaxy A galaxy can run short of material for new star formation as XMM-2599 did, which after a few tens of billions of years results in insufficient heavy element formation to sustain all known life-forms. This is a clear existential risk: it could halt humanity?s expansion throughout the universe within the next 100 billion years. Oh mercy, bad news indeed. When we are suddenly confronted with such devastating news, it causes us to get a fresh perspective on the petty stuff that we can?t do anything about and really just doesn?t matter much, such as newly-evolved diseases and the usual mainstream media barrage of sound and fury, signifying nothing. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 19:14:10 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 14:14:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No problem, I thought it was pretty interesting too. A big Harvard scientist just got arrested by the feds too for running some kinda biological sample smuggling operation to China, and I think I saw that the Wuhan lab may have been involved. Anyway it seems like 'escaped vaccine test virus' definitely could be likely. I might make that link a thread here depending on if it takes in this thread or not. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 11:30 Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Thanks for that link! It's the best evidence yet that I've seen arguing > for an engineered virus. > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:10 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Yeah I doubt that data is legit tbh. >> >> What do y'all think of this: >> https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/01/30/on-the-origins-of-the-2019-ncov-virus-wuhan-china >> ? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Feb 6 19:39:26 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:39:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe Message-ID: John Clark wrote: > Because this coronavirus is so new there is a lot of uncertainty about how bad the pandemic will be, it depends on 2 factors, how deadly it is and how contagious it is, the shaded region in the plot below shows the error bars. True. But case data I am talking about takes those factors into account, plus the frantic efforts of the Chinese government to reduce R0 from well over 1 to under 1. They will have a heck of a time mopping up the remaining cases, but they might be helped by a new vaccine. Keith From sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 20:55:17 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 14:55:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: <006601d5dd0b$e04d78d0$a0e86a70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <7261B871-F13C-4B6E-8139-58162BC6F9F4@gmail.com> Due to how Cruise Ships produce fresh water, they have actually returned to the open ocean. I see little risk for them to spread the contagion further into Japan since they are currently on open ocean. The guests are currently quarantined in their cabins, with food being delivered to their rooms by crew. They will remain on open ocean for the 2 week period before retesting. More worrying are the ports where they had previously stopped, rather than Yokohama. I am personally more interested to the US numbers 2 weeks post-Super Bowl, and 2 weeks post-Valentines. SR Ballard > On Feb 6, 2020, at 12:43 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >> > >> > We just got a text from our friends who are nearly two days out to sea heading east back from a Hawaii vacation. The captain announced they are turning back and heading for Hawaii because one of the passengers has (an unspecified) medical emergency. > > A passenger on the 116,000 ton cruise ship Diamond Princess tested positive for the Wuhan virus and now the ship is tied up in Yokohama Japan and 3700 people are under quarantine and not allowed to leave the ship. > > 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 Thu Feb 6 21:35:26 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:35:26 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 05:06, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > This is all meaningless slight of hand, misdirecting people away from what > is important. There is no objectively observable "redness behavior" in > what you are describing. There must be some objectively observable redness > behavior which cannot be substituted for anything sufficiently objectively > observably different, without it changing from redness behavior. > > What is that objectively observable redness behavior and how could God > objectively observe when it changed to grenness behavior? > We could observe redness behaviour (behaviour associated with red qualia) by giving the subject tests, such as asking him to distinguish between red objects and objects of a different colour, and by asking him to describe what he sees. He will say ?I see red objects?. In addition, we could observe the neural correlates of this behaviour, by doing an fMRI, by observing the effects of brain damage, by taking out the contribution of specific receptors with drugs, and so on. We might find a drug that blocks a particular receptor subtype and results in spectrum inversion, which we will know because the subject says ?things that were red now look green?. The spectrum inversion may or may not result in changes in the ability to sort or correctly identify coloured objects. If we find the neural correlates, we can say that they are sufficient for the qualia but we cannot say they are necessary, because they could be replaced with a different system that performs the same function (ignoring qualia) and the qualia must remain the same. With all this information, however, we could not, as observers, know with certainty that the subject has qualia or that his qualia are similar to our own. But this is in principle no different to other skeptical philosophical positions, such as solipsism. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 22:07:09 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 14:07:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe Message-ID: Will Steinberg wrote: snip Will, you are amplifying wild speculations. I would bet more than 1000 to one that this is a natural zoonosis emerging rather than an engineered virus. There is no reason for the Chinese to release a virus on their own people. Keith From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 22:17:04 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:17:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The article actually argues the insert is a region potentially triggering an immune response implying this is a vaccine related effort that escaped into the wild. Noone is arguing this was a purposeful release based on this piece. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 5:08 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Will Steinberg wrote: > > snip > > Will, you are amplifying wild speculations. > > I would bet more than 1000 to one that this is a natural zoonosis > emerging rather than an engineered virus. There is no reason for the > Chinese to release a virus on their own people. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 22:26:32 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:26:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] An advance in Nanotechnology Message-ID: Atomic scale resolution has been achieved for several decades with Scanning Tunneling Microscopes, they work by moving the tip of a super sharp needle and measuring the tunneling current induced by quantum fluctuations. The tunneling current is extremely sensitive to the distance between the needle and the sample so you get excellent spatial resolution, but unfortunately you also get very poor temporal resolution. In the January 24 2020 issue of the journal Science Garg and Kern report on a way to overcome this problem, they could get angstrom (10^-9 meter) level spatial resolution and attosecond (10^-18 second) temporal resolution. They found that by illuminating the tip of the needle with ultrashort Laser pulses they could greatly enhance the induced tunneling current and, unlike the normal tunneling current, it would have a well defined phase. In addition the editors of Science speculate that "quantum computing protocols might harness the coherent tunneling phase" that Garg and Kern have discovered. *Abstract* *Nanoelectronic devices operating in the quantum regime require coherent manipulation and control over electrons at atomic length and time scales. We demonstrate coherent control over electrons in a tunnel junction of a scanning tunneling microscope by means of precise tuning of the carrier-envelope phase of two-cycle long (<6-femtosecond) optical pulses. We explore photon and field-driven tunneling, two different regimes of interaction of optical pulses with the tunnel junction, and demonstrate a transition from one regime to the other. Our results show that it is possible to induce, track, and control electronic current at atomic scales with subfemtosecond resolution, providing a route to develop petahertz coherent nanoelectronics and microscopy.* Attosecond coherent manipulation of electrons in tunneling microscopy John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 22:29:20 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:29:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] An advance in Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 3:27 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Atomic scale resolution has been achieved for several decades with > Scanning Tunneling Microscopes, they work by moving the tip of a super > sharp needle and measuring the tunneling current induced by quantum > fluctuations. The tunneling current is extremely sensitive to the distance > between the needle and the sample so you get excellent spatial resolution, > but unfortunately you also get very poor temporal resolution. In the > January 24 2020 issue of the journal Science Garg and Kern report on a way > to overcome this problem, they could get angstrom (10^-9 meter) level > spatial resolution and attosecond (10^-18 second) temporal resolution. They > found that by illuminating the tip of the needle with ultrashort Laser > pulses they could greatly enhance the induced tunneling current and, unlike > the normal tunneling current, it would have a well defined phase. > > In addition the editors of Science speculate that "quantum computing > protocols might harness the coherent tunneling phase" that Garg and Kern > have discovered. > > *Abstract* > > *Nanoelectronic devices operating in the quantum regime require coherent > manipulation and control over electrons at atomic length and time scales. > We demonstrate coherent control over electrons in a tunnel junction of a > scanning tunneling microscope by means of precise tuning of the > carrier-envelope phase of two-cycle long (<6-femtosecond) optical pulses. > We explore photon and field-driven tunneling, two different regimes of > interaction of optical pulses with the tunnel junction, and demonstrate a > transition from one regime to the other. Our results show that it is > possible to induce, track, and control electronic current at atomic scales > with subfemtosecond resolution, providing a route to develop petahertz > coherent nanoelectronics and microscopy.* > > Attosecond coherent manipulation of electrons in tunneling microscopy > > > 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 Thu Feb 6 22:34:46 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:34:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 17:08 Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Will Steinberg wrote: > > snip > > Will, you are amplifying wild speculations. > > I would bet more than 1000 to one that this is a natural zoonosis > emerging rather than an engineered virus. There is no reason for the > Chinese to release a virus on their own people. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat You should read the article. It's by someone with pedigree and it is quite comprehensive. It uses standaed biological assessment techniques. The gist is, as Dylan said, that there is a strange portion of the genome which may need explanation. Biology is my wheelhouse. If you read it and still disagree, then we can talk. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 23:31:30 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:31:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:17 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: > > The article actually argues the insert is a region potentially triggering an immune response implying this is a vaccine related effort that escaped into the wild. Are you making a case that this virus is the result of a "vaccine related effort? Keith > Noone is arguing this was a purposeful release based on this piece. > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 5:08 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> Will Steinberg wrote: >> >> snip >> >> Will, you are amplifying wild speculations. >> >> I would bet more than 1000 to one that this is a natural zoonosis >> emerging rather than an engineered virus. There is no reason for the >> Chinese to release a virus on their own people. >> >> Keith >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Feb 6 23:37:17 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:37:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 6:33 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:17 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: > > > > The article actually argues the insert is a region potentially > triggering an immune response implying this is a vaccine related effort > that escaped into the wild. > > Are you making a case that this virus is the result of a "vaccine > related effort? > Discussing an article by a scientist. If you haven't read it, it doesn't really make sense to talk about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 00:26:03 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 19:26:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will bet money that NOBODY on this list does not know who Spock is. I haven't even seen Star Wars* and I know who he is! *This is a joke?, I have of course seen Star Wars. ?This is also a joke, I know of course that Spike was referring to Rear Admiral Spock from Super Space Trekkers Seriously though it's sort of a geek touchstone. Everyone here has heard of Spock, I'm sure, or I will eat my Leonard Nimoy hat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 00:34:40 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 19:34:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I'm not young but I remember it very well. I'm 48, but I grew up watching reruns of TOS on my little black and white TV in my bedroom in the 80s, and of course later on on dvd/blu-ray like a true nerd. On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:52 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Let?s do an informal survey. Younger people here (under 40 crowd) do you > know what that reference was? Older ones here too, do you remember that > episode? Keith I already know you do, and of course plenty of us here > remember it well. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 01:15:03 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 20:15:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 19:36 Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I'm not young but I remember it very well. I'm 48, but I grew up watching > reruns of TOS on my little black and white TV in my bedroom in the 80s, and > of course later on on dvd/blu-ray like a true nerd > Tha fuck, you're 48?! I had you pegged as like 25-35. Seem less obstinate than some on the list > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 01:32:16 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 20:32:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Ha! I'll take that as a compliment. As an aside, my original background is Biology as well, but I haven't done anything in it careerwise in many years. What's your specialty? On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 8:16 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 19:36 Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I'm not young but I remember it very well. I'm 48, but I grew up >> watching reruns of TOS on my little black and white TV in my bedroom in the >> 80s, and of course later on on dvd/blu-ray like a true nerd >> > > Tha fuck, you're 48?! I had you pegged as like 25-35. Seem less > obstinate than some on the list > >> _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 7 01:58:04 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 20:58:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] An advance in Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One correction, I said "they could get angstrom (10^-9 meter) level spatial resolution" but it's better than that because an angstrom is actually 10^-10 meters not 10^-9. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 02:14:55 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 21:14:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't see anything to suggest this is an engineered virus, and I see no need to conjure up weird hypothesis to explain a new virus suddenly appearing in the human population. This sort of thing has been occurring for thousands of years. And the researchers in The Lancet article specifically say: *"2019-nCoV is sufficiently divergent from SARS-CoV to be considered a new human-infecting betacoronavirus. Although our phylogenetic analysis suggests that bats might be the original host of this virus, an animal sold at the seafood market in Wuhan might represent an intermediate host facilitating the emergence of the virus in humans." * John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 02:19:37 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:19:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: <004701d5dd20$a07b6130$e1722390$@rainier66.com> References: <006601d5dd0b$e04d78d0$a0e86a70$@rainier66.com> <004701d5dd20$a07b6130$e1722390$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:08 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > A galaxy can run short of material for new star formation as XMM-2599 did, > which after a few tens of billions of years results in insufficient heavy > element formation to sustain all known life-forms. This is a clear > existential risk: it could halt humanity?s expansion throughout the > universe within the next 100 billion years. Oh mercy, bad news indeed. > > > > When we are suddenly confronted with such devastating news, it causes us > to get a fresh perspective on the petty stuff that we can?t do anything > about and really just doesn?t matter much, such as newly-evolved diseases > and the usual mainstream media barrage of sound and fury, signifying > nothing. > That really doesn't matter unless humanity (including its descendants) can even survive 1 billion years, which some doubt. More importantly, by the time we have survived that long, who's to say whether we'll still need heavy elements - and won't have other ways to make them? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 02:20:11 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:20:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:16 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 19:36 Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I'm not young but I remember it very well. I'm 48, but I grew up >> watching reruns of TOS on my little black and white TV in my bedroom in the >> 80s, and of course later on on dvd/blu-ray like a true nerd >> > > Tha fuck, you're 48?! I had you pegged as like 25-35. Seem less > obstinate than some on the list > Huh. How old do I seem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 02:26:14 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 21:26:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Have you read what Will sent before drawing that conclusion? We're not talking about a de novo virus, but rather a potential human generated insert. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 9:16 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I don't see anything to suggest this is an engineered virus > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 02:59:47 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 21:59:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I did neuro but I got out of science work cuz it bored me and I didn't like the end goal of infinite grant-seeking. Just went back to school and got a master's in econ. Pretty similar to bio tbh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 03:03:26 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 22:03:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 21:30 Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:16 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 19:36 Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I'm not young but I remember it very well. I'm 48, but I grew up >>> watching reruns of TOS on my little black and white TV in my bedroom in the >>> 80s, and of course later on on dvd/blu-ray like a true nerd >>> >> >> Tha fuck, you're 48?! I had you pegged as like 25-35. Seem less >> obstinate than some on the list >> > > Huh. How old do I seem? > I saw a picture of you once so it'd be cheating. I don't find you obstinate though. I think I thought you were maybe late 30s or early 40s. There's something about the name Dylan that makes me think of people closer to my age. Idk I never met an older Dylan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 7 05:50:08 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 21:50:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <014701d5dd7a$74bc6530$5e352f90$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat >>?Tha fuck, you're 48?! I had you pegged as like 25-35. Seem less obstinate than some on the list >?Huh. How old do I seem? Adrian you have always come across online as a young man. It is always fun to go to a meat world ExI event and see the people whose writings I have been reading for years. Some are such a surprise. But I am not. I am exactly how I write. No difference at all, none. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 7 05:53:38 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 21:53:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: References: <005601d5daa9$a95cb110$fc161330$@rainier66.com> <005801d5dad0$077e7b40$167b71c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <014e01d5dd7a$f213f340$d63bd9c0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat ? Huh. How old do I seem? >?I saw a picture of you once so it'd be cheating. I don't find you obstinate though? What we need is an obstinacy contest. Then we give all the contestants a rating. Then we sort us by obstinacy. Then we see if there is a correlation between obstinacy and age. Oh cool, we need to apply for a research grant on this. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Feb 7 05:47:00 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 21:47:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20200206214700.Horde.3kzqqW5j3-O1S9dThDxWIpR@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Will Steinberg: > Yeah I doubt that data is legit tbh. I assume it to be at least as accurate as their flu data which China also cherry picks with regard to cause of death. If it can be attributed to ANYTHING else, it will be on the death certificate. > What do y'all think of this: > https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/01/30/on-the-origins-of-the-2019-ncov-virus-wuhan-china > ? Hmmm. Well I double-checked his results and the thing that doesn't make sense to me though is that the so-called insert (INS1378) is *LESS* related by sequence distance from the SARS spike-protein gene than the Wuhan coronavirus, SARS, and the bat coronavirsus that presumably spawned them both are from one another. BLAST data excerpt: Query: Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus isolate 2019-nCoV/USA-WA1-F6/2020, complete genome. Query ID: MT020881.1 Length: 29882 SARS coronavirus HSZ-Bb, complete genome Sequence ID: AY394985.1 Length: 29530 Range 1: 3030 to 27548 Score:22317 bits(24749), Expect:0.0, Identities:19799/24663(80%), Gaps:243/24663(0%), Strand: Plus/Plus Query 3347 TTTAGTGGTTATTTAAAACTTACTGACAATGTATACATTAAAAATGCAGACATTGTGGAA 3406 |||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| || ||||| || | Sbjct 3030 TTTACTGGTTATTTAAAACTTACTGACAATGTTGCCATTAAATGTGTTGACATCGTTAAG 3089 . . . While SARS and the nearest bat CoV is 83.44% identical by BLAST: Query: Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZC45, complete genome Query ID: MG772933.1 Length: 29802 SARS coronavirus HSZ-Bb, complete genome Sequence ID: AY394985.1 Length: 29530 Range 1: 3024 to 21640 Score:19603 bits(21740), Expect:0.0, Identities:15595/18691(83%), Gaps:133/18691(0%), Strand: Plus/Plus Query 3325 AATAATTTCACAGGTTATTTAAAATTAACTGACAATGTCTTCATTAAAAATGCTGACATT 3384 ||| | || || |||||||||||| | ||||||||||| ||||||| || |||||| Sbjct 3024 AATCAGTTTACTGGTTATTTAAAACTTACTGACAATGTTGCCATTAAATGTGTTGACATC 3083 . . . And the Wuhan virus and that same bat virus are 88% identical: Query: Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZC45, complete genome Query ID: MG772933.1 Length: 29802 Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus isolate 2019-nCoV/USA-WA1-F6/2020, complete genome Sequence ID: MT020881.1 Length: 29882 Range 1: 6 to 22872 Score:28811 bits(31952), Expect:0.0, Identities:20145/22895(88%), Gaps:82/22895(0%), Strand: Plus/Plus Query 6 AGGTTTTTACCTTCCCAGGTAACAAACCAACTAACTCTCGATCTCTTGTAGATCTGTTCT 65 |||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||| |||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 6 AGGTTTATACCTTCCCAGGTAACAAACCAACCAACTTTCGATCTCTTGTAGATCTGTTCT 65 . . . So lets summarize the above data: the overall genome-wide pairwise sequence identity between the three viruses are Wuhan<->SARS = 80%, Wuhan<->Bat-CoV = 88%, and SARS<->Bat CoV = 83%. Meanwhile, the sequence identity between his alleged vaccine insert sequence (INS1378) and SARS is 67.94% Query: INS1378 from https://jameslyonsweiler.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/inserted-portion.txt Query ID: lcl|Query_26509 Length: 1378 SARS coronavirus HSZ-Bb, complete genome Sequence ID: AY394985.1 Length: 29530 Range 1: 21466 to 22608 Score:399 bits(442), Expect:2e-113, Identities:803/1182(68%), Gaps:48/1182(4%), Strand: Plus/Plus Query 100 GTTTGATAACCCTGTCCTACCATTTAATGATGGTGTTTATTTTGCTTCCACTGAGAAGTC 159 |||||| ||||||||| |||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||| |||| ||||| || Sbjct 21466 GTTTGACAACCCTGTCATACCTTTTAAGGATGGTATTTATTTTGCTGCCACAGAGAAATC 21525 So his evidence that the Wuhan coronavirus was derived from a SARS vaccine is that the sequence coding for a modified spike-protein presumably from the vaccine is *LESS* similar to the naturally occurring SARS virus spike protein than the entire SARS virus, the Wuhan coronavirus, and the bat coronavirus are to one another on a genome-wide basis. That is a little like accusing your brother of sleeping with your wife because your kid's eyes are a different color than yours, your brother's, or your wife's. Furthermore, if the spike-protein from SARS that is only 72.88% similar to its corresponding sequence in the bat virus nonetheless arose naturally in SARS, then there is no reason to assume that the 1378 bp insert that is 70.31% similar to its corresponding sequence in the bat virus did not naturally occur as well. The SARS virus was thought to have been passaged from bat to civet to human. So the Wuhan coronavirus was also likely passaged from bats through some food animal in the densely crowded live food market in Wuhan. Stuart LaForge From ben at zaiboc.net Fri Feb 7 08:19:34 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:19:34 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Brent Allsop wrote: > Hi Stathis, > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat > > wrote: > > ... /It would help *if* you clearly said *something like*/ ... > > > If you were listening to me, and repeating back to me what I've been > trying to say, instead of /incorrectly saying *what I've never said*/ ... (emphasis mine) Ha. Here, quite possibly, is the problem. Well, A problem, certainly! If you misinterpret a simple phrase like that, to this degree, then what chance is there of having a clear dialogue about, and understanding, things that are actually tricky to understand? Zero, I'd say. If people are going to have a sane conversation, they must at least *listen* to one another, instead of immediately jumping to conclusions as soon as anything is said. I'd suggest reading everything at least twice, slowly, and making sure you are reading what is actually written, before even thinking about formulating a reply. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Fri Feb 7 08:45:22 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:45:22 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 06/02/2020 16:15, Will Steinberg wrote: > What do y'all think of this: > https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/01/30/on-the-origins-of-the-2019-ncov-virus-wuhan-china?? Before forming an opinion, it might be useful to find out more about Dr. James Lyons-Weiler. Could he be biased, maybe? -- Ben Zaiboc From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 13:16:25 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:16:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:40 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Have you read what Will sent before drawing that conclusion? We're not > talking about a de novo virus, but rather a potential human generated > insert. * > OK, I still think it's very unlikely....but perhaps not quite as unlikely as I originally thought. In a related matter, one of the heroes of the story was a doctor at Wuhan City Central Hospital named Li Wenliang. On December 30 2019 he wrote a post on Chinese social media expressing his concerns about a new disease showing up in his hospital unlike any he had seen before and saying a quarantine might be necessary. Doctor Li was arrested for "spreading false rumors" and forced to sign a confession and to say there was nothing to worry about. After 3 days he was released and he immediately went back to social media and renounced his confession and explained what had happened to him. He probably would have been arrested again but then he got sick, he started to show symptoms of Wuhan. Doctor Li Wenliang died today of the Wuhan coronavirus at the hospital where he worked. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 7 14:29:41 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 06:29:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001a01d5ddc3$093e80b0$1bbb8210$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat >?After 3 days he was released and he immediately went back to social media and renounced his confession and explained what had happened to him. He probably would have been arrested again but then he got sick, he started to show symptoms of Wuhan. Doctor Li Wenliang died today of the Wuhan coronavirus at the hospital where he worked. John K Clark Wenliang?s perishing of coronavirus was the best thing that could happen for him. Had he survived, he would likely have faced a firing squad and his family charged for the cost of the bullet. The Chinese have nothing analogous to a constitutional Bill of Rights. They have no rights. Only permissions. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 15:36:23 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 07:36:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe Message-ID: Will Steinberg wrote: > You should read the article. I did. Any article that cites the Washington Times and London?s Daily Mail needs to be very carefully examined if not just dismissed out of hand. The only worse source would be to cite the National Enquirer > It's by someone with pedigree and it is quite comprehensive. It uses standaed biological assessment techniques. The gist is, as Dylan said, that there is a strange portion of the genome which may need explanation. Biology is my wheelhouse. I have followed the subject for decades. > If you read it and still disagree, then we can talk. Or we can just let it ride for a couple of months and see how it is treated by more reliable sources. I acknowledge that you might be right, but I think the chances are remote. Keith From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 7 16:33:09 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:33:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000801d5ddd4$4926ea30$db74be90$@rainier66.com> I just got a text from my friends who sailed to Hawaii. They are back underway, sailing east toward home and no one is on lockdown or quarantine. The passengers had the option to hop off the ship and fly home from Honolulu if they couldn't be three days late to port in SF. spike From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 17:59:08 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 12:59:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't really like the guy, and yeah he is biased. I'm trying to just look at his figures though. I'd like to look at bootstrap values for similar proposed recombination events and compare. 76 is pretty bad imo but it is worth looking into more. What also seemed odd is how 'clean' the insert is. What initially gave me pause is that China's new and only BSL-4 lab is in Wuhan, 8 miles from the purported outbreak site. They studied SARS there and there was definitely noise from the Western scientific establishment when the lab opened regarding the potential for pathogens to escape, which is not unprecedented re: SARS/China. China also does do human experimentation, though that's not the only viral escape scenario that would work. It's more about combining the science with circumstantial evidence here. Of course if we look at a virus that recombined and became able to infect humans, we are going to see pieces of the genome that are responsible for the ability to affect humans. But given the low bootstrap values, clean insert, statistically strange very close proximity to lab studying SARS, human/unethical experimentation in China, and China's predilection for coverups and delayed crisis response (in favor of said coverups,) I think an alternative scenario is certainly worth exploring. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 18:10:59 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 13:10:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: <20200206214700.Horde.3kzqqW5j3-O1S9dThDxWIpR@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20200206214700.Horde.3kzqqW5j3-O1S9dThDxWIpR@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:57 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Furthermore, if the spike-protein from SARS that is only 72.88% > similar to its corresponding sequence in the bat virus nonetheless > arose naturally in SARS, then there is no reason to assume that the > 1378 bp insert that is 70.31% similar to its corresponding sequence in > the bat virus did not naturally occur as well. The SARS virus was > thought to have been passaged from bat to civet to human. So the Wuhan > coronavirus was also likely passaged from bats through some food > animal in the densely crowded live food market in Wuhan. > > That is a fair argument. For your first part though, I don't know how easily we can interpret those percentages when we are comparing ~30kbp to ~30kbp similarity percentages with ~30kbp to ~2kbp percentages. They don't mean the same thing, no? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 18:22:22 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 13:22:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism Message-ID: It has always bugged me when otherwise rigorous science-types claim that consciousness JUST IS. That it is (to paraphrase John) "how data feels to be processed". Or that it is an 'illusion', ignoring the fact that the idea of an illusion already presupposes a consciousness to experience said illusion. In my opinion, this kind of 'it just is' is the least skeptical, least scientific view you could take. Imagine saying "gravity is just the way mass feels to be close to other mass", or worse "gravity just IS"; "gravity is an illusion." Why is consciousness the only aspect of reality that people so staunchly refuse to consider deeper explanations for? It's crazy to me that seemingly everything but consciousness warrants closer investigation, mathematical interpretation &c., while consciousness itself is "it's too mysterious, don't think about it okay?" Why are we not skeptical of this surface-level skepticism that reveals itself to actually be dogmatic acceptance? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 18:55:04 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 05:55:04 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 05:23, Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >It has always bugged me when otherwise rigorous science-types claim that consciousness JUST IS. That it is (to paraphrase John) "how data feels to be processed". Or that it is an 'illusion', ignoring the fact that the idea of an illusion already presupposes a consciousness to experience said illusion. >In my opinion, this kind of 'it just is' is the least skeptical, least scientific view you could take. Imagine saying "gravity is just the way mass feels to be close to other mass", or worse "gravity just IS"; "gravity is an illusion." Why is consciousness the only aspect of reality that people so staunchly refuse to consider deeper explanations for? It's crazy to me that seemingly everything but consciousness warrants closer investigation, mathematical interpretation &c., while consciousness itself is "it's too mysterious, don't think about it okay?" With any natural phenomenon we reach some bottom level of explanation and then say ?it just is?. A deeper explanation may come along later but at some point it has to stop, or we would have an infinite regress. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 18:56:45 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 13:56:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:24 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> It has always bugged me when otherwise rigorous science-types claim that > consciousness JUST IS. That it is (to paraphrase John) "how data feels to > be processed". Or that it is an 'illusion',* > I agree with half of that, I agree that saying consciousness is an illusion is silly and explains precisely nothing because illusion, like consciousness, is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon. > *> In my opinion, this kind of 'it just is' is the least skeptical, least > scientific view you could take. Imagine saying "gravity is just the way > mass feels to be close to other mass",* > The difference is with gravity we're not asking how gravity FEELS but what gravity DOES, and therefore the scientific method can be used to study it. In a similar way science can help us understand how intelligent behavior works, but the only consciousness we can perform experiments on is our own, and I don't think you'll learn much about it by getting drunk. > > *Why is consciousness the only aspect of reality that people so > staunchly refuse to consider deeper explanations for? * > Because it's one of the few things the scientific method can't help us with, and that's why Artificial Intelligence theories are really interesting but Artificial Consciousness theories are a total bore. One consciousness theory is as good as another, any one of them will work just fine because there are no facts it must meet. And besides, if you don't like the brute fact idea the only alternative is that the chain of "why" questions goes on forever. After all, it is beyond dispute that things either go on forever or things don't go on forever. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 19:33:24 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 14:33:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:04 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > And besides, if you don't like the brute fact idea the only alternative > is that the chain of "why" questions goes on forever. After all, it is > beyond dispute that things either go on forever or things don't go on > forever. > > I suppose my issue is with the proposed 'brutishness' of said fact. It is REQUIRED that there is some sort of mathematical-logical-physical explanation for consciousness. We have explored the geometry of the fundamental forces and gotten deeper into things like group theory that add a lot of explanatory power. It would seem that there is no reason this isn't possible for consciousness. You say it's one of the few things the scientific model can't help us with, but how do you know that? That is the sort of anti-skepticism I am talking about. It makes much more sense to me to say "it's one of the things we don't know how to do much science on YET." Plus, all experiments, in the end, require reporting by conscious entities. Scientific instruments are constructed and read by consciousness. Doubt can be seeded at any point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 23:43:25 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 18:43:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:35 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> It is REQUIRED that there is some sort of mathematical-logical-physical > explanation for consciousness. * And if you discover that X explains consciousness the next obvious question would be what causes X? And what does "explanation" even mean? It means describing something complex in terms of something simpler. And if you are to avoid a chain of "why" questions a brute fact is the only alternative. And for the life of me I can't think of anything simpler than on/off. > *You say it's one of the few things the scientific model can't help us > with, but how do you know that?* Nobody has ever proposed a scientific exparament that could, even in theory, teach us anything new about consciousness. That's why although we know vastly more about most things in our world than we did a thousand years ago we know as little about consciousness as we did during the Dark Ages. And I can see absolutely no reason to think this situation is going to change this year or next year or ever. > * Plus, all experiments, in the end, require reporting by conscious entities. * If so and if I'm studying consciousness then the only one qualified to perform experiments is me, and the only valid experimental subject is also me. But as I said I don't believe getting drunk will improve my philosophical insight. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 02:12:00 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:12:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 6:45 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Nobody has ever proposed a scientific exparament that could, even in > theory, teach us anything new about consciousness. That's why although we > know vastly more about most things in our world than we did a thousand > years ago we know as little about consciousness as we did during the Dark > Ages. And I can see absolutely no reason to think this situation is going > to change this year or next year or ever. > Here is one that I think might work. It is impossible now, but theoretically possible. It has been shown that mice can inherit fear of a smell *acquired during the lifetime* through generations: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923835/pdf/nihms551020.pdf This means that, as opposed to a traditional belief that genetic mutations would generate genetic information that would be processed into associating fear behavior with a certain olfactory quale (OQ for short,) we have said quale being forced, by a pain quale (PQ), 'backwards' into hereditary information(HI). This means that the lifeform has some way of encoding OQ into hereditary information. This could be by any variety of sources--histone configuration, methylation, genes, bacterial flora, or some unknown vessel. Then this information is able to flow back into the brain of the offspring, causing a neural configuration (NC) which effects aversion behavior (AB) to OQ. The process would be something like: smell (OQ) + shock (PQ) = fear response in parent (pAB) pAB x repetition = brain changes in parent (pNC) pNC ---> unknown method ---> inheritable data in parent (pHI) pHI ---> procreation ---> inheritable data in child (fHI) fHI ---> unknown method ---> brain changes in child (fNC) fNC + OQ = fear response in child (fAB) The experiment would be to locate the precise neural configuration that encodes the quale and aversion behavior pair in the parent, then the precise hereditary information that encodes the pair, and then the precise neural configuration that encodes the pair in the child. Then you do it with various different olfactory qualia. Finally, you compare the traveling quale/behavior pairs with each other and see if there is anything innate that makes one set of pNC/HI/fNC associated with a certain quale (say, almond) and another set associated with another (say, vanilla). In other words, can we look at two NCs and two HIs and by some metric be able to tell which pairs are associated with the same quale/behavior combo? The point of this would be to demonstrate that there IS some innate code that reality uses to produce qualia. Just saying that there are definitely experiments you can do. Now you will probably say "well I can only verify my own qualia" but that solipsism is literally pointless and does not contribute anything. You might be a brain in a vat and all the fundamental forces are fake. You might be in a demon's illusion world. These experiments make the simple assumption that other beings experience qualia just like you. I'm trying to be as practical as I can with consciousness here. The solipsist shit is annoying; I got most of that out of my system when I was a pothead in high school. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 02:48:22 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 18:48:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Voyager news Message-ID: https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/details.php?article_id=117 Looks like something happened, but nothing critical. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Feb 8 05:49:45 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:49:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures Message-ID: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> I play small-stakes online betting. It is the real-money successor to ExI?s Robin Hanson?s Ideas Futures. Today I think a lot of people came to the simultaneous collective realization that any of these many online betting sites have the option to just shut down, and keep everyone?s money. If they did, there is very little anyone could do about it. Who are you going to whine to, if they did? Reason why I think the simultaneous collective realization happened this week: there was a disputed outcome on a meme that jillions of people bought: who will win the Iowa caucus. Turns out? we still don?t know. None of the online betting sites have paid, and they can?t yet, in case the decision is reversed. So? I predict that some small percent of the sites will take the opportunity to slip out of business, to take everyone?s money and run. I wouldn?t be surprised if they just never pay anyone who bet on Iowa (I didn?t.) Then they stay in business but just never pay anyone on that one bet. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 06:47:11 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 01:47:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures In-Reply-To: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: If you've followed crypto at all over the past 10 years you will be familiar with such exit scamming. If you make a bet and you're not there to see the money, you should always be wary. Up to and including banks. Under your mattress will always be the safest bet. And even safer? I hope you are hoarding oil. Or food and water. In 2012, a group named Tony76 scammed a bunch of people on the original Silk Road to the tune of 400k in BTC at 5$ per. I know--I was there. That's worth 800 million bucks today. Then they came back under another name and did it again. It's good to be one step ahead of the collective realization. Treat value you loan to someone else as good as lost. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 13:03:55 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 08:03:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 9:16 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> The experiment would be to locate the precise neural configuration that > encodes the quale and aversion behavior pair in the parent, then the > precise hereditary information that encodes the pair, and then the precise > neural configuration that encodes the pair in the child. Then you do it > with various different olfactory qualia. * > No you could not! You could not even show that a olfactory qualia existed or that any qualia existed other than your own. All you'd show is that certain neural configurations are associated with certain behaviors. You can only perform scientific experiments on things you can observe, and you can observe behavior but you can't observe qualia. > *this would be to demonstrate that there IS some innate code that reality > uses to produce qualia. * > Change that last word to "behavior" and I would agree. *> Now you will probably say "well I can only verify my own qualia"* > Yep. > *> but that solipsism is literally pointless and does not contribute > anything. * > Yep. And that is precisely why qualia research is literally pointless and has not contributed anything in the last thousand years and there is no prospect it will do so in the next thousand. * > You might be a brain in a vat* > I don't know about a vat but I'm certainly a brain in a box made of bone. * > These experiments make the simple assumption that other beings > experience qualia just like you. * > I make the exact same assumption that you do every waking minute of everyday of my life, but like me you don't assume all other beings experience qualia like we do, not even all beings of the species homo sapiens, not all the time. You don't assume your fellow human is conscious if he is sleeping, or under anesthesia, or dead. Why? Because like me you assume consciousness is an inevitable consequence (or side effect from Evolution's point of view) of intelligent behavior. That's also the only reason neither of us believe that rocks or trees are conscious, they're just not very smart, or at least they don't behave as if they are. *> I'm trying to be as practical as I can with consciousness here. * And that means concentrating on behavior, if you want to be scientific there is simply no alternative. > > *The solipsist shit is annoying* > I think solipsism is annoying as shit too, and that's why I'm not a consciousness researcher, he has no way to avoid running straight into it on day one of his research. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 15:02:22 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:02:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Tales of the Turing Church, second edition: Published! Message-ID: Tales of the Turing Church, second edition: Published! The second edition of my book ?Tales of the Turing Church: Hacking religion, enlightening science, awakening technology? is available for readers to buy on Amazon (Kindle and paperback editions). https://turingchurch.net/tales-of-the-turing-church-second-edition-published-feb329a85066 From spike at rainier66.com Sat Feb 8 15:29:19 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:29:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007301d5de94$88ab4730$9a01d590$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >?It's good to be one step ahead of the collective realization. Treat value you loan to someone else as good as lost? It isn?t clear to me that I am a step ahead of the collective realization. There was a critical political primary in Iowa Monday, although I do not recall the name of the party. There were a large number of contestants but it came down to two fellers who came out ahead of the pack. Problem: it was and still is unclear who won that. It is a well-known phenomenon that people tend to pay too much for their own favorite candidate, so the front-runners? YES bets add up to more than a dollar (which guarantees the company holding the money will make a big profit.) Even when it was clear it was between two fellers, their YES bets added to more than a dollar, just those two. But after a coupla days of delay and realization that this might be a judgment call? the front runners YES bets added up to less than a dollar. This is the first time I have ever seen this: one can buy YES bets for both for 97 cents, guaranteeing a 3 percent profit either way it goes, assuming it goes one way or the other. But? this apparently expresses about a 3% risk opinion that the company will never pay anyone, and just keep the money. They added a bunch of rules explaining what happens if it was a tie (it was.) The first tiebreaker is razor thin and unclear, which triggered a re-canvas, but some of the original information was apparently lost somehow. So the company gets to choose who to pay, or continue to delay, perhaps indefinitely, and I can see why they might do it: the trading volume this week alone (after the event in question) has been over 6 million shares. That?s 30k profit for the company on that one bet alone in one week, for an event already past. However? that company is holding everyone?s money. They might skip town. But why bother skipping town? No one knows what town that company is in now, so why skip to someone else?s? They could just delay judgment and never go anywhere. When Robin Hanson was doing Ideas Futures and we found all these cool fun paradoxes? The company could do one, say adios in a fun way by offering a bet worded thus: This online betting company will not pay this bet. Then if they don?t pay, the company owes you a dollar for each share you bought but you don?t get any payoff. If they do pay, they don?t owe you anything because you were wrong. Then after everyone realizes we?ve been had, they offer another bet: No one will even bother trying to sue this online betting company. Adios amigos and thanks! ?.heeeeeeeehehehehehehheeeeee? The founder then spends his golden years sipping mai tais on the beach in Tahiti while bikini-clad waitresses fawn over him and take care of his every need. Meanwhile we sit back here, a little older, a little poorer, a little wiser, a little uglier. The few bucks I have in this game will not be sufficient to cause me to lose my sense of humor over the loss. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 17:10:51 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 10:10:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 11:48 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > In 2012, a group named Tony76 scammed a bunch of people on the original > Silk Road to the tune of 400k in BTC at 5$ per. I know--I was there. > That's worth 800 million bucks today. Then they came back under another > name and did it again. > That's the problem with people that want anonymity, and fight to not be tracked as a default. They want to be able to continue to slap anyone they want, every day, anonymously. The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Sat Feb 8 18:37:03 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 18:37:03 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73bf7382-f3cb-ffd7-8c7f-c0c78e080922@zaiboc.net> On 07/02/2020 18:57, Will Steinberg wrote: > don't really like the guy, and yeah he is biased As far as I can tell, he's a staunch anti-vaxxer. For this reason alone, I'd at least investigate his claims more deeply than usual, seeing as he's claiming this is related to vaccine research. -- Ben Zaiboc From avant at sollegro.com Sat Feb 8 19:06:54 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2020 11:06:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: <1650064042.687852.1581099090301@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1650064042.687852.1581099090301@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200208110654.Horde.PcmVwgpiXU6WvpVnfgW4ntk@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Will Steinberg: > I don't really like the guy, and yeah he is biased.? I'm trying to > just look at his figures though.? I'd like to look at bootstrap > values for similar proposed recombination events and compare.? 76 is > pretty bad imo but it is worth looking into more. Bootstrap values seem for useful for phylogenetic analysis of higher organisms but seem less useful for microbes prone to horizontal gene-transfer like bacteria or viruses. For example, notice how low and varied the bootstrap values of clades of influenza virus are. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010434 > ? What also seemed odd is how 'clean' the insert is. I also checked the insert for vector sequence contamination and if it was ever in a plasmid, I could find no sign of it. If it was an artificial construct, you would expect to see some contamination. > What initially gave me pause is that China's new and only BSL-4 lab > is in Wuhan, 8 miles from the purported outbreak site.? They studied > SARS there and there was definitely noise from the Western > scientific establishment when the lab opened regarding the potential > for pathogens to escape, which is not unprecedented re: SARS/China.? > China also does do human experimentation, though that's not the only > viral escape scenario that would work. That's another thing, if China wanted to do human experiments, they probably would have done so with either a controlled captive or remote population like prisoners or Uighurs, and not just let a virus out into a major city on their mainland. Near as I can tell all vaccine preps for SARS were either subunit vaccines or non-replicating virus-like-particles (VLP). And none of them resulted in death until the subsequent challenge with the live SARS virus. > It's more about combining the science with circumstantial evidence > here.? Of course if we look at a virus that recombined and became > able to infect humans, we are going to see pieces of the genome that > are responsible for the ability to affect humans.? But given the low > bootstrap values, clean insert, statistically strange very close > proximity to lab studying SARS, human/unethical experimentation in > China, and China's predilection for coverups and delayed crisis > response (in favor of said coverups,) I think an alternative > scenario is certainly worth exploring. Neither malice toward its conformist populations nor gross negligence and incompetence are hallmarks of the Chinese government. Any ways, the speculation might be moot. Rumor has it they finally found the culprit. They found a coronavirus that infects pangolins that has 99% sequence homology with the Wuhan nCoV-2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00364-2 Just goes to show that the Chinese will eat pretty much anything. But what do you expect when 18.5% of all humans live in a country that by area is 6.3% of the earth's land mass? For comparison, in the US 4.3% of the human race live in 6.1% of the landmass for a China's population density about 4 times higher than the U.S.'s Stuart LaForge From ben at zaiboc.net Sat Feb 8 19:12:19 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 19:12:19 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> On 07/02/2020 18:57, Will Steinberg wrote: > It has always bugged me when otherwise rigorous science-types claim > that consciousness JUST IS. Well, before you start explaining something, you need to define it. How do we define consciousness? Is there an accepted definition? 'Awareness' seems to be the most common one, but that seems fairly simple to explain, in terms of information in systems, that allows them to react to their environment and other systems, and even themselves (self-awareness). Somehow, though, I suspect that won't be enough for some people. If that's the case, those people need to come up with (and agree on) a definition of 'consciousness' that we can use as a starting point for investigation. Maybe the actual problem here is defining the word in a way that is meaningful and amenable to scientific investigation (which brings us back to 'Awareness', as far as I can see,? and that's not something that 'just is', it's something we can already explain). Any other suggestions? -- Ben Zaiboc From avant at sollegro.com Sat Feb 8 19:28:49 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2020 11:28:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe Message-ID: <20200208112849.Horde.Hq3dMUYBrzYkak6DPJxv9HP@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Will Steinberg: > For your first part though, I don't know how easily we can interpret those > percentages when we are comparing ~30kbp to ~30kbp similarity percentages > with ~30kbp to ~2kbp percentages. They don't mean the same thing, no? Yeah it was sloppy. Too sloppy to support a hypothesis, for sure, but not too sloppy to knock one down. More to Keith Henson's original point however, I am positively grateful that thanks to science, technology, and communication we have decent odds to actually CONTAIN a plague of biblical proportions. One that a mere 30 years ago, when I was high school student, could have easily killed fully a third of the world. We live in an age of miracles, people: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 20:02:42 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 14:02:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Defining words by equating them to other words gets you exactly nowhere. It's circular. Consciousness - awareness. If you are going to be scientific then you need operational definitions, which are that the concept is defined in terms of the measurements. Now an operational definition (OD) does not tell you what something IS. It tells you how it was measured, like IQ is defined as a score on an accepted intelligence test. If you can't measure it, it isn't science. However, all things start in the descriptive phase where all you can do is to use words for it. But you have to invent tools to measure it so that you can communicate with your fellow scientists just what you did. Highly preferable: math measurements on an equal interval scale, like pounds or miles. Telling a person that intelligence is a score on an IQ test is very unsatisfactory, but that is what ODs do. You could, perhaps, define consciousness by EEG tests, by reactions or lack of them, to various stimuli. Here is where creativity comes in. No matter what you do, you will get flak from people who think that that's not what consciousness really is, any more than an IQ score is really intelligence. Then you take your measurements and see what they correlate with, like IQ with school test scores,and go on from there. bill w On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 1:19 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 07/02/2020 18:57, Will Steinberg wrote: > > It has always bugged me when otherwise rigorous science-types claim > > that consciousness JUST IS. > > Well, before you start explaining something, you need to define it. How > do we define consciousness? Is there an accepted definition? 'Awareness' > seems to be the most common one, but that seems fairly simple to > explain, in terms of information in systems, that allows them to react > to their environment and other systems, and even themselves > (self-awareness). > > Somehow, though, I suspect that won't be enough for some people. > > If that's the case, those people need to come up with (and agree on) a > definition of 'consciousness' that we can use as a starting point for > investigation. > > Maybe the actual problem here is defining the word in a way that is > meaningful and amenable to scientific investigation (which brings us > back to 'Awareness', as far as I can see, and that's not something that > 'just is', it's something we can already explain). > > Any other suggestions? > > -- > 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 ben at zaiboc.net Sat Feb 8 20:19:39 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:19:39 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8c25bf9f-c282-38f1-85e7-93e2aae0a701@zaiboc.net> On 08/02/2020 19:29, Brent Allsop wrote: > The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything. Yep, the world would be so much better if the Saudi government knew exactly who had exactly what opinions on religion, if the Iranian people knew for sure who was gay, if everyone knew all about the sexual activity of their neighbours and parents and offspring, if the Chinese government knew who ... well, /they/ probably already do know! We're simply not mature enough, as a species, and across probably all our cultures, to be able to stand up to total transparency, and it would certainly be a disaster for whole swathes of humanity, the way we are now. At the worst, it might even be the downfall of civilisation, if everyone knew everything about everyone else. At the least, it would lead to a lot of deaths, suffering, and mental problems. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 21:28:56 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:28:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 3:05 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Telling a person that intelligence is a score on an IQ test is very > unsatisfactory, but that is what ODs do. You could, perhaps, define > consciousness by EEG tests, Although very far from perfect you can at least intuitively see a relationship of some sort between intelligence and the ability to do well on an IQ test, but squiggly lines on a EEG plot and consciousness have no intuitive relationship whatsoever and so would make for a very poor definition, operationally or otherwise. Although it would certainly be far easier to make a machine that would produce satisfactory squiggles than to make a machine that consistently exhibits intelagent behavior, and so at least as the word is defined we'd have a "conscious" computer much sooner. The only trouble is by defining the word in that way you would have leached out of it every last thing that made consciousness a desirable state to be in. I really really want to remain conscious, that is to say I don't want to die, I rather like doing well on IQ tests too, but I don't much care what sort of squiggly lines a EEG machine says my brain produces. If the machine said I wasn't conscious but my subjective qualia that only I have access to said I was I know which one I'd believe. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 21:36:15 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:36:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: <73bf7382-f3cb-ffd7-8c7f-c0c78e080922@zaiboc.net> References: <73bf7382-f3cb-ffd7-8c7f-c0c78e080922@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 1:39 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> don't really like the guy, and yeah he is biased > > > >As far as I can tell, he's a staunch anti-vaxxer. Thanks I did not know that, but now that I do I know the man is a total fool and thus there is no reason to take anything he says seriously. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 22:31:45 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:31:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: John, you have entirely missed the point. I said the measurement would not tell you what consciousness is, but simply a way to measure it objectively. Without that there is no hope of making consciousness a scientific entity. If the measurements do not correlate with what we think of with common sense as consciousness, then we choose another measurement. bill w On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 3:31 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 3:05 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Telling a person that intelligence is a score on an IQ test is very >> unsatisfactory, but that is what ODs do. You could, perhaps, define >> consciousness by EEG tests, > > > Although very far from perfect you can at least intuitively see a > relationship of some sort between intelligence and the ability to do well > on an IQ test, but squiggly lines on a EEG plot and consciousness have no > intuitive relationship whatsoever and so would make for a very poor > definition, operationally or otherwise. Although it would certainly be far > easier to make a machine that would produce satisfactory squiggles than to > make a machine that consistently exhibits intelagent behavior, and so at > least as the word is defined we'd have a "conscious" computer much sooner. > The only trouble is by defining the word in that way you would have leached > out of it every last thing that made consciousness a desirable state to be > in. I really really want to remain conscious, that is to say I don't want > to die, I rather like doing well on IQ tests too, but I don't much care > what sort of squiggly lines a EEG machine says my brain produces. If the > machine said I wasn't conscious but my subjective qualia that only I have > access to said I was I know which one I'd believe. > > 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 Sat Feb 8 22:39:59 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:39:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] quora Message-ID: What is the best example of someone using statistics to prove a point, even if the point was wrong? I got this question on Quora and thought that I would love to get examples from group members if you have good one or two. The funnier and more ridiculous the better. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 22:51:48 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 17:51:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 5:34 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > John, you have entirely missed the point. I said the measurement would > not tell you what consciousness is, but simply a way to measure it > objectively. > If you used EEG you'd certainly be measuring something objectively, but not something anyone would intuitively think had anything to do with consciousness. *> If the measurements do not correlate with what we think of with common > sense as consciousness, then we choose another measurement. * I don't believe any objective measurement would work for consciousness unless you make an assumption of the very thing you were trying to prove. > Without that there is no hope of making consciousness a scientific > entity. > I agree, and that's why, unlike intelligence, consciousness will never be a scientific entity. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 00:16:12 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:16:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: <8c25bf9f-c282-38f1-85e7-93e2aae0a701@zaiboc.net> References: <8c25bf9f-c282-38f1-85e7-93e2aae0a701@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 12:21 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 08/02/2020 19:29, Brent Allsop wrote: > > The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything. > > > Yep, the world would be so much better if the Saudi government knew > exactly who had exactly what opinions on religion, if the Iranian people > knew for sure who was gay, > And if the Saudi and Iranian citizens knew who the secret police were *and* how little threat different religions and homosexuality actually posed. "Everything" does not merely include the bad parts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 00:20:28 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 19:20:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: If you open up my skull and you open up someone else's skull and show me pictures of the brains I won't be able to tell which one is mine. That is to say--I know I have a brain. I can go inside my head and poke it if I really want. I could do that for you, too. I am conscious. It is natural to believe that other brains are conscious. This is true enough to me to be axiomatic. There is no point in getting caught up with this. Other brains are definitively conscious. If they're not, then there is no reason why mine would be either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 00:27:20 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 19:27:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: References: <8c25bf9f-c282-38f1-85e7-93e2aae0a701@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 7:17 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > And if the Saudi and Iranian citizens knew who the secret police were > *and* how little threat different religions and homosexuality actually > posed. > > This is a different kind of knowledge. This is everyone knowing TRUTH. As opposed to knowing actions, behaviors, opinions, etc of others. The latter is fairly possible in some kind of dystopian world. The former is more of a magic thought experiment kind of thing. Sort of a nebulous concept anyway if it's not pared down. In any case, I don't think knowing about everyone else's life is necessarily good. Too much information. We should live in close-knit communes where children are raised jointly, people make their own food and energy, and art and scientific innovation are produced within. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Feb 9 00:49:19 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:49:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] quora In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014b01d5dee2$c3a95f90$4afc1eb0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] quora What is the best example of someone using statistics to prove a point, even if the point was wrong? I got this question on Quora and thought that I would love to get examples from group members if you have good one or two. The funnier and more ridiculous the better. bill w There is one from my childhood which really got a lot of traction: telephone poles cause lung cancer. In those days, the poles were made of creosote infused pine. The correlation coefficient was way the hell up there, way higher than the coefficient between lung cancer cases and smoking. That convinced a lot of people that the poles were somehow causing the cancer, even though it was later shown that the correlation was even higher if the poles were made of steel. Those of us who understood the formula for correlation coefficient quickly realized that the increased number of lung cancer cases in a particular area and the corresponding number of local telephone poles rise in lock step because both are caused by increasing numbers of local lungs. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 01:01:42 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 19:01:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: References: <8c25bf9f-c282-38f1-85e7-93e2aae0a701@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: will wrote: We should live in close-knit communes where children are raised jointly, people make their own food and energy, and art and scientific innovation are produced within. Ah yes, the thinking man's Eden. I think it would work only with smart people, but making their own food and energy would take a lot of time away from intellectual creativity and research. There are some things that need to be outsourced. And people are doing the opposite: moving away from the countryside and into the cities where growing food is impossible in quantity. But I would love to live in such a place as you describe, where I can garden without having to do all the weeding, and intellectual companionship is close by. That said, I think the history of the successes and failures of communes is pretty dismal. bill w On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 6:34 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 7:17 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> And if the Saudi and Iranian citizens knew who the secret police were >> *and* how little threat different religions and homosexuality actually >> posed. >> >> > This is a different kind of knowledge. This is everyone knowing TRUTH. > As opposed to knowing actions, behaviors, opinions, etc of others. The > latter is fairly possible in some kind of dystopian world. The former is > more of a magic thought experiment kind of thing. > > Sort of a nebulous concept anyway if it's not pared down. > > In any case, I don't think knowing about everyone else's life is > necessarily good. Too much information. > > We should live in close-knit communes where children are raised jointly, > people make their own food and energy, and art and scientific innovation > are produced within. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 9 01:03:29 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 19:03:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] quora In-Reply-To: <014b01d5dee2$c3a95f90$4afc1eb0$@rainier66.com> References: <014b01d5dee2$c3a95f90$4afc1eb0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: similar example: the number of churches and the number of bars is very highly correlated On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 6:51 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* [ExI] quora > > > What is the best example of someone using statistics to prove a point, > even if the point was wrong? > > > > I got this question on Quora and thought that I would love to get examples > from group members if you have good one or two. The funnier and more > ridiculous the better. > > > > bill w > > > > > > > > There is one from my childhood which really got a lot of traction: > telephone poles cause lung cancer. In those days, the poles were made of > creosote infused pine. The correlation coefficient was way the hell up > there, way higher than the coefficient between lung cancer cases and > smoking. That convinced a lot of people that the poles were somehow > causing the cancer, even though it was later shown that the correlation was > even higher if the poles were made of steel. > > > > Those of us who understood the formula for correlation coefficient quickly > realized that the increased number of lung cancer cases in a particular > area and the corresponding number of local telephone poles rise in lock > step because both are caused by increasing numbers of local lungs. > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Feb 9 01:20:55 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 17:20:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] quora In-Reply-To: References: <014b01d5dee2$c3a95f90$4afc1eb0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002401d5dee7$2d5fea90$881fbfb0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] quora similar example: the number of churches and the number of bars is very highly correlated Ja. More specifically: whiskey sales revenue with the number of Methodist ministers. That one is an example of a statistics rookie error. If one instead uses whiskey sales per person and Methodist minister rate per person, those two do not correlate any better than lung cancer and telephone poles. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 01:21:36 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 19:21:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: If you used EEG you'd certainly be measuring something objectively, but not something anyone would intuitively think had anything to do with consciousness John wrote Are you familiar with the stages of sleep? And the eeg patterns of waking life? A person in any of the four sleep stages is not conscious by any definition. And their unconsciousness varies: the measure is how much stimulation it takes to wake them up. The four stages differ. And the waking eeg patterns correlate very highly with ability to process information. So in other words, you can tell how awake or asleep a person is from just looking at their eeg patterns. You can tell that their brain processed stimuli, or not, such as sounds, that you presented. I think the little squiggly lines tell us a lot about consciousness, unconsciousness and indeed other things about the brain, just as the little squiggly lines on an ekg chart tell us about what the heart is doing. For one example: an eeg showing alpha waves tell us that the person is awake, relaxed, and not thinking about anything is particular,esp. not something stimulating. I think it is indisputable that the eeg tells us about consciousness, as defined in a common sense kind of way. Other words that could be used here: awake, alert, aware............ bill w On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:54 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 5:34 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > John, you have entirely missed the point. I said the measurement would >> not tell you what consciousness is, but simply a way to measure it >> objectively. >> > > If you used EEG you'd certainly be measuring something objectively, but > not something anyone would intuitively think had anything to do with > consciousness. > > *> If the measurements do not correlate with what we think of with common >> sense as consciousness, then we choose another measurement. * > > > I don't believe any objective measurement would work for consciousness > unless you make an assumption of the very thing you were trying to prove. > > > Without that there is no hope of making consciousness a scientific >> entity. >> > > I agree, and that's why, unlike intelligence, consciousness will never be > a scientific entity. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 01:34:13 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 17:34:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe Message-ID: Ben Zaiboc wrote: > As far as I can tell, he's a staunch anti-vaxxer. For me, this is enough to dismiss anything he says. Keith From interzone at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 01:42:00 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:42:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: References: <8c25bf9f-c282-38f1-85e7-93e2aae0a701@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: This is similar to the Roman concept of otium, but of course, they weren't doing the heavy lifting on the farm: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otium On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 8:02 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > will wrote: We should live in close-knit communes where children are > raised jointly, people make their own food and energy, and art and > scientific innovation are produced within. > > Ah yes, the thinking man's Eden. I think it would work only with smart > people, but making their own food and energy would take a lot of time away > from intellectual creativity and research. There are some things that need > to be outsourced. > > And people are doing the opposite: moving away from the countryside and > into the cities where growing food is impossible in quantity. But I would > love to live in such a place as you describe, where I can garden without > having to do all the weeding, and intellectual companionship is close by. > That said, I think the history of the successes and failures of communes > is pretty dismal. > > bill w > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 6:34 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 7:17 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> And if the Saudi and Iranian citizens knew who the secret police were >>> *and* how little threat different religions and homosexuality actually >>> posed. >>> >>> >> This is a different kind of knowledge. This is everyone knowing TRUTH. >> As opposed to knowing actions, behaviors, opinions, etc of others. The >> latter is fairly possible in some kind of dystopian world. The former is >> more of a magic thought experiment kind of thing. >> >> Sort of a nebulous concept anyway if it's not pared down. >> >> In any case, I don't think knowing about everyone else's life is >> necessarily good. Too much information. >> >> We should live in close-knit communes where children are raised jointly, >> people make their own food and energy, and art and scientific innovation >> are produced within. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Feb 9 02:15:40 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 18:15:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe Message-ID: Stuart LaForge write: snip > More to Keith Henson's original point, however, I am positively grateful that thanks to science, technology, and communication we have decent odds to actually CONTAIN a plague of biblical proportions. We are not out of the woods yet. The situation in China may be controlled, but there is still worry about India, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa where they have weak health systems. > One that a mere 30 years ago, when I was high school student, could have easily killed fully a third of the world. That's still possible. HIV spread to tens of millions. Keith From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 02:45:58 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 21:45:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: References: <8c25bf9f-c282-38f1-85e7-93e2aae0a701@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 20:46 Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This is similar to the Roman concept of otium, but of course, they weren't > doing the heavy lifting on the farm: > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otium > Well I think ideally the people in the commune would be doing heavy lifting--either art to uplift the whole federation of communes/humanity as a whole (not like classic socialist realist art, more just how art/media enriches the public) or technological/engineering works to do the same uplifting (but in a more concrete way). The boring work would have to be done by robots. And maybe you go out and farm by hand with the robots once a month...just for the experience ;9 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 03:25:09 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 21:25:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <97FC54FB-8129-468E-9EFF-A19AB3A71244@gmail.com> I?m not so sure the outbreak is as well contained as we would like to believe. Outbreak was during lunar new year, biggest travel event on the globe. US had the Super Bowl earlier, now the Rodeo, in a few days Valentines, then Mardi Gras in a two weeks. Asymptotic people can still transmit the infection. HOWEVER, my largest concern is not actually the percentage dead. It?s the economic impact. All Apple & Starbucks stores are closed in mainland China. Most car manufacturers have extended the lunar holidays (again). Cathey Pacific, based out of Hong Kong is so stripped for budget (no demand for travel to China) that their employees are on 3 week unpaid furlough. Of course, no real flights in and out of China is hard on most major airlines. Fully 30% of Japan?s tourism income comes from the Chinese, and it is concentrated around lunar new year. Huge hits have been made to their tourism industry, and in a while, they?ll feel the pinch from the factory shutdowns. Now, the Summer Olympics don?t start until July, but many travelers may be spooked and decide not to go. Tokyo, and Japan as a whole, have invested heavily in their Olympic effort, redesigning signage over the entire 23 wards. Not cheap. And Japan was just starting to recover from the pop of the 90s bubble. The only possible benefit to Japan is if this significantly reduced the elderly population, allowing younger workers to finally receive promotions, and correct the age imbalance which are straining the workforce and economy. Local Chinese who cannot work will be forced to pay rent with income they did not earn because factories are closed. I would expect them to struggle at home, and also travel less next year as the local economy attempts to recover. This will further damage Japan?s economy. China will also not have much tourism income this year, even if things settle down quickly. Next year probably won?t be much better. The United States will feel the pinch in our imports sooner or later as shortages caused by closed factories trickle down to us. I think most of Europe will feel the pinch at around the same time. I expect prices to rise. Probably not dramatically, but enough to be difficult for low wage earners. And also, people are panicking and doing stupid things ? never great for the economy. SR Ballard > On Feb 8, 2020, at 8:15 PM, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > Stuart LaForge write: > > snip > >> More to Keith Henson's original point, however, I am positively grateful that thanks to science, technology, and communication we have decent odds to actually CONTAIN a plague of biblical proportions. > > We are not out of the woods yet. The situation in China may be > controlled, but there is still worry about India, South America, and > sub-Saharan Africa where they have weak health systems. > >> One that a mere 30 years ago, when I was high school student, could have easily killed fully a third of the world. > > That's still possible. HIV spread to tens of millions. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From ben at zaiboc.net Sun Feb 9 11:39:35 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 11:39:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209209be-766d-2cbb-2eee-e626994e36c5@zaiboc.net> On 09/02/2020 01:21, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 12:21 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat > > wrote: > > On 08/02/2020 19:29, Brent Allsop wrote: >> The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything. > > Yep, the world would be so much better if the Saudi government > knew exactly who had exactly what opinions on religion, if the > Iranian people knew for sure who was gay, > > > And if the Saudi and Iranian citizens knew who the secret police were > *and* how little threat different religions and homosexuality actually > posed. > > "Everything" does not merely include the bad parts. Sure, that goes without saying, but the subject line is probably a bit misleading. We're talking about total transparency, not omniscience. Total transparency doesn't give you knowledge about how little threat homosexuality, for instance, poses, it just gives you knowledge about people's behaviour, which allows you to infer whether they're gay or not. It doesn't change your prejudices (not immediately, anyway. It might in the long run). Including the 'good' parts doesn't change the fact that total transparency would be a recipe for disaster. Human beings just aren't capable of dealing with it. The example of homosexuality and religious convictions about it is a perfect example, but far from the only one. Yes, everyone would know exactly who had lynched the peaceful gay couple living in No. 26, but that wouldn't do the dead couple any good. Multiply that by millions, add in all the other kinds of behaviour and world-views that various people see as obnoxious, sinful etc., and worthy of violent 'reprisals', and what kind of a world would it be? "Everything" does not merely include the bad parts, no, but it's the bad parts that would lead to the inevitable suffering and death, not to mention plain old social problems, psychological problems, and I-don't-know-what-else. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 13:20:42 2020 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:42 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Whale plays fetch! Message-ID: This is the moment a beluga whale returns a women?s iPhone after she drops it into the water by accident. Amazing! BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 13:53:55 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 08:53:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 7:26 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > * > Other brains are definitively conscious. If they're not, then there > is no reason why mine would be either.* > But there is a reason. Other people's brains are similar to your brain but not identical, if they were then they'd be you, and in biology we know that very tiny differences can lead to huge consequences. The human genome has 4 bases and 3 billion base pairs, but a change in just one of those 3 billion in your DNA, a change from adenine to thymine, results in a protein that has the valine amino acid in it rather than Glutamic acid. And that difference, one change in 3 billion, is the difference between somebody who has sickle cell anemia and somebody who doesn't have that painful life threatening disease. Unless you are an identical twin (as my sisters are) the chances are overwhelming that nobody else in the entire history of the world has the same 3 billion pair base arrangement that you do, so it would be reasonable for you to conclude that somewhere in that 3 billion you have a point mutation that enables you to be conscious that nobody else has, so it would be reasonable to conclude you could be the only conscious person who ever lived. Well.... it would be reasonable if you ignored intelligent behavior, which would be a very unreasonable thing to do. > *This is true enough to me to be axiomatic. * I would bet money you don't take it as an axiom that all other people are conscious ALL THE TIME, you don't think they're conscious when they're sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. But why? Because your axiom has nothing to do with neurons or brains, your axiom is really that intelligent behavior implies consciousness, and everybody on Earth uses this axiom and has been doing so for far longer than they knew anything about neurons or even realized that brains had something to do with thinking. *> There is no point in getting caught up with this. * I agree there is no point in getting caught up with this, not unless you ignore intelligence and behavior and concentrate exclusively on consciousness, then like it or not you run straight into it and produce nothing but a big splat. And that's why philosophers have made precisely zero progress on this since the time of Plato. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 14:33:14 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 09:33:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 8:34 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Are you familiar with the stages of sleep? And the eeg patterns of > waking life? > Yes. > A person in any of the four sleep stages is not conscious by any > definition. > And how do you know that? You know that because when the person's brain exhibits one type of EEG pattern the brain also produces intelligent behavior, and when it exhibits another type of EEG pattern the brain produces no intelligent behavior. It ALWAYS comes back to intelligent behavior. > > And their unconsciousness varies: the measure is how much stimulation > it takes to wake them up. > Wake them up? You mean how much stimuli it takes before they start displaying intelligent behavior again. > So in other words, you can tell how awake or asleep a person is from just > looking at their eeg patterns. > Or you could do it by just observing how smart they seem. I don't know about you but when I'm sleeping I'm as dumb as a sack full of rocks. > I think the little squiggly lines tell us a lot about consciousness, > unconsciousness and indeed other things about the brain, just as the little > squiggly lines on an ekg chart tell us about what the heart is doing. > The squiggly lines of a EKG tells us what the heart is doing not what the heart is feeling, and the squiggly lines of a seismograph tells us what the Earth is doing not what the Earth is feeling. Consciousness is about subjectivity and no instrument can directly measure that, we can only measure activity and behavior. I'm certainly not saying consciousness doesn't exist, even the most radical followers of B.F. Skinner don't say that, I'm saying that consciousness research (but NOT intelligence research!) is nothing but a time sink leading nowhere. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 14:48:06 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 09:48:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 9:18 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> The situation in China may be controlled,* I'm far from certain of that. The Chinese didn't seal the border to Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, until January 23. They should have done it in late December but they were more concerned with public relations than public health. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Feb 9 15:18:24 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 07:18:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures In-Reply-To: <007301d5de94$88ab4730$9a01d590$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> <007301d5de94$88ab4730$9a01d590$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007b01d5df5c$2c97aa60$85c6ff20$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >>?It's good to be one step ahead of the collective realization. Treat value you loan to someone else as good as lost? >?It isn?t clear to me that I am a step ahead of the collective realization? I did some digging into the fine print in the rules section of one of the online betting sites. Will, see if you come to the same conclusion I did: PredictIt has written itself permission to delay payment indefinitely which would be the functional equivalent to not paying at all ever, but without PredictIt even folding its tent or skipping town. I need to first issue a claimer. Usually there is a disclaimer, along the lines of: I hold 400 shares of Hoerkheimer and 600 shares of McFartzalot (for example.) But I don?t own any of these shares. So I must issue a claimer: I am only a fascinated bystander, interested in the notion of ideas futures, and I make no claim to being able to tell the difference between one politician and another. They all look pretty much alike to me. Will, check this commentary: PredictIt may determine how and when to settle the market based on all information available to PredictIt at the relevant time. In the event of a tie for the greatest share of apportioned delegates in Iowa, the winner of the Iowa caucuses will be deemed to be the candidate with the first alphabetical last name among those so tied. PredictIt reserves the right to wait for further official, party, judicial or other relevant announcements, reports or decisions to resolve any ambiguity or uncertainty before the market is settled. Markets may stay open or incur a delay in settlement well past the date of the contest in certain circumstances. If there is any change to an event, or any situation arises, that is not in PredictIt?s view addressed adequately by the market rules, PredictIt will decide the fairest and most appropriate course of action. PredictIt?s decisions and determinations under this rule shall be at PredictIt?s sole discretion and shall be final. Do you get the feeling these guys wrote themselves permission to keep the money, all of it? Variation 1: they suddenly stop all payouts right after the March Tuesday event in which a bunch of state elections are held, and skip? town? State? Skip where? We don?t even know where where they would need to skip, because there is no there there. Variation 2: they don?t go out of business, but continue to pay off on the other bets as if nothing happened, but keep all the money on that one bet (which is huge, millions of shares, owned by betting people on both of the disputed candidates. Variation 3: they pay both sides 50 cents a share? Other scenarios please? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 16:03:03 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 11:03:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The amount of SO2 in the atmosphere above Wuhan plus interviews with crematorium workers indicated A LOT more bodies being burned than reported. On Sun, Feb 9, 2020, 9:49 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 9:18 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> The situation in China may be controlled,* > > > I'm far from certain of that. The Chinese didn't seal the border to > Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, until January 23. They should have done > it in late December but they were more concerned with public relations than > public health. > > 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 Sun Feb 9 17:36:30 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 12:36:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I saw that but also noted that it might be burning animal corpses that had to be culled because the people who needed to feed them were off work for too long. On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The amount of SO2 in the atmosphere above Wuhan plus interviews with > crematorium workers indicated A LOT more bodies being burned than reported. > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020, 9:49 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 9:18 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> *> The situation in China may be controlled,* >> >> >> I'm far from certain of that. The Chinese didn't seal the border to >> Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, until January 23. They should have done >> it in late December but they were more concerned with public relations than >> public health. >> >> 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 17:45:42 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 12:45:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I would bet money you don't take it as an axiom that all other people are > conscious ALL THE TIME, you don't think they're conscious when they're > sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. But why? Because your axiom has > nothing to do with neurons or brains, your axiom is really that intelligent behavior > implies consciousness, and everybody on Earth uses this axiom and has > been doing so for far longer than they knew anything about neurons or even > realized that brains had something to do with thinking. > This is a cop out imo. I can see someone with absolutely no behavior and assume that they are conscious. I could also see someone whose brain was totally fucked up and glitching out and still assume they were conscious, even if there is no intelligence involved. If I see someone getting electrocuted they might not be making intelligent or even volitional behaviors but I sure as hell believe they are consciously experiencing pain (before they die...) And you can mince words about brains as much as you'd like but you know I'm not talking about dead brains. I'm talking about a reasonable assumption to make: most of the time, I am not making any behaviors, yet I am conscious. I simply extend this idea to others (who are not dead) because I know they have brains too. There is absolutely no need for intelligent behavior to enter the mix ever. Since you insist on talking about someone else's brain being different, why not talk about clones or identical twins. By your logic then, would it make sense for a clone to believe another clone was conscious? But what about minute differences in the atomic dust in their brains? The point is those differences do not matter and it's silly to think so. Brains themselves are clearly associated with consciousness and I can test that out by whacking myself in the head hard enough to pass out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 18:51:45 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 10:51:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures In-Reply-To: <007b01d5df5c$2c97aa60$85c6ff20$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> <007301d5de94$88ab4730$9a01d590$@rainier66.com> <007b01d5df5c$2c97aa60$85c6ff20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 7:20 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Variation 1: they suddenly stop all payouts right after the March Tuesday > event in which a bunch of state elections are held, and skip? town? > State? Skip where? We don?t even know where where they would need to > skip, because there is no there there. > > > > Variation 2: they don?t go out of business, but continue to pay off on the > other bets as if nothing happened, but keep all the money on that one bet > (which is huge, millions of shares, owned by betting people on both of the > disputed candidates. > > > > Variation 3: they pay both sides 50 cents a share? > > > > Other scenarios please? > Variation 4: they realize there is a lot more money to be made if they are seen to be playing by the implied rules, and pay out something that can be widely accepted as based on at least an arguable truth. Their customers do not see that they are taking the money and running, and thus continue to bet. They do indeed rake in far more money than in variations 1 or 2, and more than in variation 3. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 19:18:36 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 11:18:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: <209209be-766d-2cbb-2eee-e626994e36c5@zaiboc.net> References: <209209be-766d-2cbb-2eee-e626994e36c5@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Including the 'good' parts doesn't change the fact that total transparency > would be a recipe for disaster. Human beings just aren't capable of dealing > with it. The example of homosexuality and religious convictions about it is > a perfect example, but far from the only one. Yes, everyone would know > exactly who had lynched the peaceful gay couple living in No. 26, but that > wouldn't do the dead couple any good. Multiply that by millions, add in all > the other kinds of behaviour and world-views that various people see as > obnoxious, sinful etc., and worthy of violent 'reprisals', and what kind of > a world would it be? > Who is more in need of anonymity: those who sin but hurt none save themselves, or those who plan violence against their neighbors? All across the world, in every community, there are those who oppose violence against their community. A chief weapon of oppressive regimes - whether they call themselves a government, a religion, or whatever - has been anonymity: one can not strike back against unknown foes. Witness the rise of doxxing of public, uniformed officers. On the job, when they are armed, ready, and surrounded by armed and ready allies, they are quite identifiable - but they are supposed to be anonymous and private when off the job. Strip them of that, and they rightfully fear for their lives. Many of those who plan violence against "sinners" do not even have that much protection. If everyone knew everything, people under immediate threat of a lynch mob would get warning of an incoming lynch mob and know which way to flee. Granted, their pursuers would know which way they fled, but a chasing lynch mob loses steam once it is clear the message has been delivered. And, again, everyone else would get notice that there is this mob that wishes violence upon their community, and who is leading the mob. Those who oppose violence are less in need of anonymity, because the end they work toward is a lack of reprisals. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 20:08:12 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:08:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: References: <209209be-766d-2cbb-2eee-e626994e36c5@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Nicely said. On Sun, Feb 9, 2020, 12:19 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Including the 'good' parts doesn't change the fact that total >> transparency would be a recipe for disaster. Human beings just aren't >> capable of dealing with it. The example of homosexuality and religious >> convictions about it is a perfect example, but far from the only one. Yes, >> everyone would know exactly who had lynched the peaceful gay couple living >> in No. 26, but that wouldn't do the dead couple any good. Multiply that by >> millions, add in all the other kinds of behaviour and world-views that >> various people see as obnoxious, sinful etc., and worthy of violent >> 'reprisals', and what kind of a world would it be? >> > > Who is more in need of anonymity: those who sin but hurt none save > themselves, or those who plan violence against their neighbors? > > All across the world, in every community, there are those who oppose > violence against their community. A chief weapon of oppressive regimes - > whether they call themselves a government, a religion, or whatever - has > been anonymity: one can not strike back against unknown foes. > > Witness the rise of doxxing of public, uniformed officers. On the job, > when they are armed, ready, and surrounded by armed and ready allies, they > are quite identifiable - but they are supposed to be anonymous and private > when off the job. Strip them of that, and they rightfully fear for their > lives. > > Many of those who plan violence against "sinners" do not even have that > much protection. If everyone knew everything, people under immediate > threat of a lynch mob would get warning of an incoming lynch mob and know > which way to flee. Granted, their pursuers would know which way they fled, > but a chasing lynch mob loses steam once it is clear the message has been > delivered. And, again, everyone else would get notice that there is this > mob that wishes violence upon their community, and who is leading the mob. > Those who oppose violence are less in need of anonymity, because the end > they work toward is a lack of reprisals. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 9 20:18:41 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 14:18:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: for John or anyone: just how far down the phylogenetic scale are you willing to go to find out where intelligence stops, if it does? And are you willing to call reflex behavior intelligent? bill w On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 11:47 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> I would bet money you don't take it as an axiom that all other people are >> conscious ALL THE TIME, you don't think they're conscious when they're >> sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. But why? Because your axiom has >> nothing to do with neurons or brains, your axiom is really that intelligent behavior >> implies consciousness, and everybody on Earth uses this axiom and has >> been doing so for far longer than they knew anything about neurons or even >> realized that brains had something to do with thinking. >> > > This is a cop out imo. I can see someone with absolutely no behavior and > assume that they are conscious. I could also see someone whose brain was > totally fucked up and glitching out and still assume they were conscious, > even if there is no intelligence involved. If I see someone getting > electrocuted they might not be making intelligent or even volitional > behaviors but I sure as hell believe they are consciously experiencing pain > (before they die...) And you can mince words about brains as much as you'd > like but you know I'm not talking about dead brains. I'm talking about a > reasonable assumption to make: most of the time, I am not making any > behaviors, yet I am conscious. I simply extend this idea to others (who > are not dead) because I know they have brains too. There is absolutely no > need for intelligent behavior to enter the mix ever. > > Since you insist on talking about someone else's brain being different, > why not talk about clones or identical twins. By your logic then, would it > make sense for a clone to believe another clone was conscious? But what > about minute differences in the atomic dust in their brains? > > The point is those differences do not matter and it's silly to think so. > Brains themselves are clearly associated with consciousness and I can test > that out by whacking myself in the head hard enough to pass out. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Feb 9 20:19:23 2020 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:19:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures In-Reply-To: <007301d5de94$88ab4730$9a01d590$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> <007301d5de94$88ab4730$9a01d590$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:31 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > There was a critical political primary in Iowa Monday, although I do not > recall the name of the party. There were a large number of contestants but > it came down to two fellers who came out ahead of the pack. Problem: it > was and still is unclear who won that. > It doesn't matter. Iowa isn't deciding the ticket. It's sufficient to know who the contenders are and who didn't make a good showing. Further primaries will clarify who's in the running. It's completely irrelevant which of the top two happened to score a couple hundred or thousand more votes. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Feb 9 21:24:45 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:24:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> <007301d5de94$88ab4730$9a01d590$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <01b601d5df8f$5a0b3920$0e21ab60$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dave Sill via extropy-chat Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 12:19 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: Dave Sill Subject: Re: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:31 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: There was a critical political primary in Iowa Monday, although I do not recall the name of the party. There were a large number of contestants but it came down to two fellers who came out ahead of the pack. Problem: it was and still is unclear who won that. >?It doesn't matter. Iowa isn't deciding the ticket. It's sufficient to know who the contenders are and who didn't make a good showing. Further primaries will clarify who's in the running. It's completely irrelevant which of the top two happened to score a couple hundred or thousand more votes. -Dave Dave, on the contrary sir. The party in question had 32 candidates announce their intentions, so the betting was generally a few cents a share. When he entered, one of the two in question had shares available for 2 cents. If one likes a dark horse candidate, one can justifiably decide that should that candidate win the first caucus (in the admittedly weird primary system) then those 2 cent shares would be worth a dollar each. So plenty of people are now using the first primary as a proxy war. They take the 20 bucks they would have sent to the candidate, buy 1000 shares that he or she will win in Iowa. Then if he or she does, that candidate gets 1000 bucks. If not, he or she gets nothing, but it doesn?t matter, since that candidate would have no chance anyway. There were over 6 million shares of that stock trading hands this week on this, one of the smaller betting sites. Conclusion: winning that caucus is worth millions of dollars to the winner. I will issue the standard claimer: I too bet on these things (not on this one but others.) I have a philosophy and method similar to the one I shared above with a slight exception. Similar to the others in that if my candidate loses in Iowa, he or she gets nothing. But if my candidate wins, my candidate gets my cheerful vote. Then I keep the money. Hey, that?s the way we unapologetic capitalists do things. We still don?t know who won that first caucus and the results have high importance. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 23:02:30 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 17:02:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Dodged the bullet maybe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3CF432C9-E3BC-4E17-98E8-902228D612A6@gmail.com> Well also the fear mongering that caused people to throw their cats out of windows. Supposedly. SR Ballard > On Feb 9, 2020, at 11:36 AM, Will Steinberg via extropy-chat wrote: > > I saw that but also noted that it might be burning animal corpses that had to be culled because the people who needed to feed them were off work for too long. > >> On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat wrote: >> The amount of SO2 in the atmosphere above Wuhan plus interviews with crematorium workers indicated A LOT more bodies being burned than reported. >> >>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2020, 9:49 AM John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 9:18 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> >>>> > The situation in China may be controlled, >>> >>> I'm far from certain of that. The Chinese didn't seal the border to Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, until January 23. They should have done it in late December but they were more concerned with public relations than public health. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 23:31:10 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 18:31:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 12:47 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: * > I can see someone with absolutely no behavior and assume that they are > conscious. I could also see someone whose brain was totally fucked up and > glitching out and still assume they were conscious, even if there is no > intelligence involved. * > Well sure, you are free to use any assumptions you like and most people don't hesitate to assume all sorts if things and often don't even realize they are using some in their deductions, but a scientist must use extreme caution in their use and clearly state any assumptions he employed in reaching his conclusion. > * > If I see someone getting electrocuted they might not be making > intelligent or even volitional behaviors but I sure as hell believe they > are consciously experiencing pain (before they die...) * > Being sure as hell is easy but being correct is not. I freely admit I just don't know if a person who dies by electrocution experiences pain or not. But there have been cases of powerline workers who accidentally received INTENSE electrical shocks but somehow survived, shocks so severe their arms had to be amputated due to severe burns, and yet they later report they experienced no pain and can't even remember the incident; that might give a little weight toward the "no pain" side of the argument, although the "report" mentioned was also a form of behavior, either noised made with the mouth or squiggles made by the poor man's one remaining hand. > *most of the time, I am not making any behaviors, yet I am conscious.* > For 16 hours a day you just sit and never move your hands or legs or even your eyeballs? > *Since you insist on talking about someone else's brain being different, > why not talk about clones or identical twins. By your logic then, would it > make sense for a clone to believe another clone was conscious? * > My twin sisters have one more reason to disbelieve in solipsism than I do, assuming of course that both of them are not zombies. But my identical twin sisters are not really identical, as a kid I could always tell my older sisters apart (although most people couldn't). They were different because although their DNA recipe is identical their prenatal and postnatal environment was not, it was very similar but not identical. > * > But what about minute differences in the atomic dust in their > brains? The point is those differences do not matter * > That sounds like a reasonable working assumption to me, but I can't prove it's true and will never be able to do so. > *> Brains themselves are clearly associated with consciousness and I can > test that out by whacking myself in the head hard enough to pass out. * > The ancient Egyptians certainly didn't think the association between brains and consciousness was as obvious as you do, they carefully preserved every part of the Pharaoh's body EXCEPT for the brain which they just discarded as being of no importance. X rays of mummies don't show even the hint of a brain. The fifth century BC historian Herodotus said Egyptians "*first draw out the parts of the brain through the nostrils with an iron hook, and then inject in certain drugs*". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Feb 9 23:46:01 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:46:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] an explanation Message-ID: <002601d5dfa3$165e74d0$431b5e70$@rainier66.com> Here ya go: https://xkcd.com/2030/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From f20170964 at pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in Mon Feb 10 01:34:59 2020 From: f20170964 at pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in (Kunvar Thaman) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:04:59 +0530 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I've always thought of consciousness as this- Our brains are very good at processing and retrieving patterns. However, we are getting lots and lots of information from our sensory organs all the time. For example, even if you stay stationary in a non-changing room, and fixate your eyes on something, your even perform saccades- they jump from spot to spot about 3 times per second. Each of those gives brain different information sequences.This means that the brain has to filter out lots of information to find what's relevant. When we're asleep, it's infact even more active as it's filtering out sounds etc. When we're focussing on a task and in the background there's a consistent sound, we filter it out, unless it stops, and then notice it because it stopping is out of the usual- brain had predicted it to go on and it stopped. So, what's left after processing the information may be what consciousness is. &Kunvar On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 5:03 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 12:47 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > * > I can see someone with absolutely no behavior and assume that they are >> conscious. I could also see someone whose brain was totally fucked up and >> glitching out and still assume they were conscious, even if there is no >> intelligence involved. * >> > > Well sure, you are free to use any assumptions you like and most people > don't hesitate to assume all sorts if things and often don't even realize > they are using some in their deductions, but a scientist must use extreme > caution in their use and clearly state any assumptions he employed in > reaching his conclusion. > >> * > If I see someone getting electrocuted they might not be making >> intelligent or even volitional behaviors but I sure as hell believe they >> are consciously experiencing pain (before they die...) * >> > > Being sure as hell is easy but being correct is not. I freely admit I just > don't know if a person who dies by electrocution experiences pain or not. > But there have been cases of powerline workers who accidentally received > INTENSE electrical shocks but somehow survived, shocks so severe their arms > had to be amputated due to severe burns, and yet they later report they > experienced no pain and can't even remember the incident; that might give a > little weight toward the "no pain" side of the argument, although the > "report" mentioned was also a form of behavior, either noised made with the > mouth or squiggles made by the poor man's one remaining hand. > > > *most of the time, I am not making any behaviors, yet I am conscious.* >> > > For 16 hours a day you just sit and never move your hands or legs or even > your eyeballs? > > > *Since you insist on talking about someone else's brain being >> different, why not talk about clones or identical twins. By your logic >> then, would it make sense for a clone to believe another clone was >> conscious? * >> > > My twin sisters have one more reason to disbelieve in solipsism than I do, > assuming of course that both of them are not zombies. But my identical twin > sisters are not really identical, as a kid I could always tell my older > sisters apart (although most people couldn't). They were different because > although their DNA recipe is identical their prenatal and postnatal > environment was not, it was very similar but not identical. > > >> * > But what about minute differences in the atomic dust in their >> brains? The point is those differences do not matter * >> > > That sounds like a reasonable working assumption to me, but I can't prove > it's true and will never be able to do so. > > >> *> Brains themselves are clearly associated with consciousness and I can >> test that out by whacking myself in the head hard enough to pass out. * >> > > The ancient Egyptians certainly didn't think the association between > brains and consciousness was as obvious as you do, they carefully preserved > every part of the Pharaoh's body EXCEPT for the brain which they just > discarded as being of no importance. X rays of mummies don't show even the > hint of a brain. The fifth century BC historian Herodotus said Egyptians "*first > draw out the parts of the brain through the nostrils with an iron hook, and > then inject in certain drugs*". > > 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 Feb 10 02:14:41 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 19:14:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] an explanation In-Reply-To: <002601d5dfa3$165e74d0$431b5e70$@rainier66.com> References: <002601d5dfa3$165e74d0$431b5e70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Nailed it. On Sun, Feb 9, 2020, 4:47 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > Here ya go: > > > > https://xkcd.com/2030/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 10 02:58:18 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 19:58:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure who you are talking to or what you are saying here. It looks like you are attributing something to stathis, which was a quote of mine? I don't see anything here that Stathis has said, other than to quote me? On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:20 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > ... *It would help if you clearly said something like* ... >> > > If you were listening to me, and repeating back to me what I've been > trying to say, instead of *incorrectly saying what I've never said* ... > > (emphasis mine) > > > Ha. > Here, quite possibly, is the problem. Well, A problem, certainly! > > If you misinterpret a simple phrase like that, to this degree, then what > chance is there of having a clear dialogue about, and understanding, things > that are actually tricky to understand? > > Zero, I'd say. > > If people are going to have a sane conversation, they must at least > *listen* to one another, instead of immediately jumping to conclusions as > soon as anything is said. I'd suggest reading everything at least twice, > slowly, and making sure you are reading what is actually written, before > even thinking about formulating a reply. > > -- > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Feb 10 03:16:26 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 20:16:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 05:06, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi Stathis, >> This is all meaningless slight of hand, misdirecting people away from >> what is important. There is no objectively observable "redness behavior" >> in what you are describing. There must be some objectively observable >> redness behavior which cannot be substituted for anything sufficiently >> objectively observably different, without it changing from redness behavior. >> >> What is that objectively observable redness behavior and how could God >> objectively observe when it changed to grenness behavior? >> > > We could observe redness behaviour (behaviour associated with red qualia) > by giving the subject tests, such as asking him to distinguish between red > objects and objects of a different colour, and by asking him to describe > what he sees. He will say ?I see red objects?. In addition, we could > observe the neural correlates of this behaviour, by doing an fMRI, by > observing the effects of brain damage, by taking out the contribution of > specific receptors with drugs, and so on. We might find a drug that blocks > a particular receptor subtype and results in spectrum inversion, which we > will know because the subject says ?things that were red now look green?. > The spectrum inversion may or may not result in changes in the ability to > sort or correctly identify coloured objects. If we find the neural > correlates, we can say that they are sufficient for the qualia but we > cannot say they are necessary, because they could be replaced with a > different system that performs the same function (ignoring qualia) and the > qualia must remain the same. > I'm having a hard time seeing all this as anything more than lots of hand waving, with an embedded "A miracle happens here". > > With all this information, however, we could not, as observers, know with > certainty that the subject has qualia or that his qualia are similar to our > own. But this is in principle no different to other skeptical philosophical > positions, such as solipsism. > One of the things I continually try to point out is that one of the necessary parts of consciousness is the ability to do "computational binding". We have composite qualitative experiences composed of elemental subjective qualities like redness and greenness. Half of our visual knowledge is in one hemisphere, computationally bound to the other half of the physical information in the other, to make one composite qualitative diorama that is all of our visual knowledge. So when everyone repeatedly says things like: " we could not know with certainty that the subject has qualia or that his qualia are similar to our own." Did you just not ready any of the many times I have said this? Are you purposefully ignoring it? Am I not sufficiently communicating this? Do you think I am mistaken?... Our left hemisphere knows absolutely, that it isn't the only conscious hemisphere in existence, because it is computationally bound to the other. If we achieved a neural ponytail , not only would this would allow us to directly experience whether someone was red/green inverted from us, or not, this would, in the same way our left hemisphere knows it isn't the only conscious hemesfer, it would falsify solipsism and prove the existence of other conscious minds. (Or failure to achieve such could verify solipsism, right?) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Feb 10 03:26:12 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 20:26:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism In-Reply-To: References: <5ff5c5a0-3a8e-a87e-812c-241c35508b11@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Speaking of definitions of consciousness, as I've repeatedly tried to point out this is defined in the "Representational Qualia Theory " camp as "Computationally bound elemental subjective qualities like redness and grenness." Abstract descriptions of the brain don't, by design (to be substrate independent), have any physical quality information in them. (i.e. the word red isn't physically red) The only way to know what color something is is to have a dictionary for abstract words and descriptions back to the actual physical (or spiritual if you must) qualities. On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 1:03 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Defining words by equating them to other words gets you exactly nowhere. > It's circular. Consciousness - awareness. If you are going to be > scientific then you need operational definitions, which are that the > concept is defined in terms of the measurements. Now an operational > definition (OD) does not tell you what something IS. It tells you how it > was measured, like IQ is defined as a score on an accepted intelligence > test. > > If you can't measure it, it isn't science. However, all things start in > the descriptive phase where all you can do is to use words for it. But you > have to invent tools to measure it so that you can communicate with your > fellow scientists just what you did. Highly preferable: math measurements > on an equal interval scale, like pounds or miles. > > Telling a person that intelligence is a score on an IQ test is very > unsatisfactory, but that is what ODs do. You could, perhaps, define > consciousness by EEG tests, by reactions or lack of them, to various > stimuli. Here is where creativity comes in. > > No matter what you do, you will get flak from people who think that that's > not what consciousness really is, any more than an IQ score is really > intelligence. Then you take your measurements and see what they correlate > with, like IQ with school test scores,and go on from there. > > bill w > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 1:19 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On 07/02/2020 18:57, Will Steinberg wrote: >> > It has always bugged me when otherwise rigorous science-types claim >> > that consciousness JUST IS. >> >> Well, before you start explaining something, you need to define it. How >> do we define consciousness? Is there an accepted definition? 'Awareness' >> seems to be the most common one, but that seems fairly simple to >> explain, in terms of information in systems, that allows them to react >> to their environment and other systems, and even themselves >> (self-awareness). >> >> Somehow, though, I suspect that won't be enough for some people. >> >> If that's the case, those people need to come up with (and agree on) a >> definition of 'consciousness' that we can use as a starting point for >> investigation. >> >> Maybe the actual problem here is defining the word in a way that is >> meaningful and amenable to scientific investigation (which brings us >> back to 'Awareness', as far as I can see, and that's not something that >> 'just is', it's something we can already explain). >> >> Any other suggestions? >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 10 06:37:50 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:37:50 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 14:18, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 05:06, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Stathis, >>> This is all meaningless slight of hand, misdirecting people away from >>> what is important. There is no objectively observable "redness behavior" >>> in what you are describing. There must be some objectively observable >>> redness behavior which cannot be substituted for anything sufficiently >>> objectively observably different, without it changing from redness behavior. >>> >>> What is that objectively observable redness behavior and how could God >>> objectively observe when it changed to grenness behavior? >>> >> >> We could observe redness behaviour (behaviour associated with red qualia) >> by giving the subject tests, such as asking him to distinguish between red >> objects and objects of a different colour, and by asking him to describe >> what he sees. He will say ?I see red objects?. In addition, we could >> observe the neural correlates of this behaviour, by doing an fMRI, by >> observing the effects of brain damage, by taking out the contribution of >> specific receptors with drugs, and so on. We might find a drug that blocks >> a particular receptor subtype and results in spectrum inversion, which we >> will know because the subject says ?things that were red now look green?. >> The spectrum inversion may or may not result in changes in the ability to >> sort or correctly identify coloured objects. If we find the neural >> correlates, we can say that they are sufficient for the qualia but we >> cannot say they are necessary, because they could be replaced with a >> different system that performs the same function (ignoring qualia) and the >> qualia must remain the same. >> > > I'm having a hard time seeing all this as anything more than lots of hand > waving, with an embedded "A miracle happens here". > The account above is just of the minimal observational facts, without any attached theory of consciousness. With all this information, however, we could not, as observers, know with >> certainty that the subject has qualia or that his qualia are similar to our >> own. But this is in principle no different to other skeptical philosophical >> positions, such as solipsism. >> > > One of the things I continually try to point out is that one of the > necessary parts of consciousness is the ability to do "computational > binding". We have composite qualitative experiences composed of elemental > subjective qualities like redness and greenness. Half of our visual > knowledge is in one hemisphere, computationally bound to the other half of > the physical information in the other, to make one composite qualitative > diorama that is all of our visual knowledge. So when everyone repeatedly > says things like: " we could not know with certainty that the subject has > qualia or that his qualia are similar to our own." Did you just not ready > any of the many times I have said this? Are you purposefully ignoring it? > Am I not sufficiently communicating this? Do you think I am mistaken?... > Our left hemisphere knows absolutely, that it isn't the only conscious > hemisphere in existence, because it is computationally bound to the other. > If we achieved a neural ponytail > , not only would this > would allow us to directly experience whether someone was red/green > inverted from us, or not, this would, in the same way our left hemisphere > knows it isn't the only conscious hemesfer, it would falsify solipsism and > prove the existence of other conscious minds. (Or failure to achieve such > could verify solipsism, right?) > When parts of a nervous system are connected, the resulting consciousness is the consciousness of the entire system, not one part of the system experiencing what the consciousness of another part is like. We could say that cyborgs live among us in the form of people who have cochlear implants. They have auditory qualia due to the human-machine system. I don?t think it is accurate to say that this means the human thereby knows what a cochlear implant?s auditory qualia are like, of that the human knows that the cochlear implant has auditory qualia; or conversely, that the implant learns anything about human qualia. If the device were implanted in the brain of a different animal, I don?t think this would show the animal what the auditory qualia of a human with a cochlear implant are like. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Feb 10 12:43:02 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:43:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:18 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I'm having a hard time seeing all this as anything more than lots of > hand waving, with an embedded "A miracle happens here".* If you demand a total explanation of ANYTHING, not just consciousness, then there always comes a point where you must say "a miracle happens here" because an infinite chain of "why" questions is not a total explanation. But the simpler the miracle is the better the explanation, and that's why I like data processing, things don't get much simpler than on/off. And feel free to substitute "brute fact" for "miracle" if you like. *> Our left hemisphere knows absolutely, that it isn't the only conscious > hemisphere in existence, because it is computationally bound to the other.* Yes the 2 hemispheres of our brains are normally computationally bound to each other by the 300 million nerve fibers in the Corpus callosum, which means that whatever one hemisphere knows the other one knows almost immediately, and with communication that good it's meaningless to speak of 2 seperate individuals in our head. And yes I'm familiar with Roger Sperry?s Split Brain Experiments, and they tell me that in a pathological brain in which that all important communication link, the Corpus callosum, has been severed the 2 hemispheres behave in ways very different from that of a healthy brain. And that is not at all surprising, if you start cutting transoceanic fiber optic cables the Internet would start behaving differently too. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Feb 10 21:10:41 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:10:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Graphene Message-ID: High quality Graphene (sheets of carbon only one atom thick) is 200 times stronger than the strongest steel and yet its lighter (2.27 grams per cubic centimeter compared with 7.75 for steel's lightest alloy), and it's a much better conductor of heat and electricity than steel or even copper. But making Graphene had been notoriously expensive because it took so much energy and could only be made in very small amounts. In the January 27 2020 issue of the journal Nature DuY X Luong and associates report on a new way to make it that would use only $100 worth of electricity for each ton of high quality Graphene produced. In addition the new method requires no furnace or solvents and produced no reactive waste gases, they make it by vaporizing carbon with a powerful electrical current in a vacuum chamber. And the starting carbon feedstock need not be purified, they say they can literally make high quality Graphene from garbage. Gram-scale bottom-up flash graphene synthesis A new company called "Universal Matter" has already started up to commercialize this discovery. A space elevator anyone? Universal Matter John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Feb 10 21:57:19 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:57:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SO2 and math Message-ID: 11 million people. If 1% die each year, then we are talking about 110,000 people per year or about 300 per day. The death toll from the coronavirus has hit about 1/3 of this in the last day, but for most of the time, it was under 1/10th of the number of people who would be expected to die anyway. I would expect the extra SO2 from cremating people who died of coronavirus to be impossible to resolve since there are so many sources of SO2 in China. Keith From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 01:31:52 2020 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 20:31:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Graphene In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 4:13 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > a new way to make it that would use only $100 worth of electricity for > each ton of high quality Graphene produced. In addition the new method > requires no furnace or solvents and produced no reactive waste gases, they > make it by vaporizing carbon with a powerful electrical current in a > vacuum chamber. And the starting carbon feedstock need not be purified, > they say they can literally make high quality Graphene from garbage. > > At that price and feedstock, you could just pile it up and walk for better heart health than taking an elevator. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 11:31:46 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 06:31:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] online betting on ideas futures In-Reply-To: <007b01d5df5c$2c97aa60$85c6ff20$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d5de43$918f7250$b4ae56f0$@rainier66.com> <007301d5de94$88ab4730$9a01d590$@rainier66.com> <007b01d5df5c$2c97aa60$85c6ff20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:20 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I make no claim to being able to tell the difference between one > politician and another. They all look pretty much alike to me.* In the entire history of the country that has never been more untrue than today, except perhaps for the Presidential Election of 1860. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 12:34:40 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:34:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: References: <209209be-766d-2cbb-2eee-e626994e36c5@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: "*There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise*." Gore Vidal John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 19:08:12 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:08:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCcU3RhdGhpc+KAmSDigJhiZWhhdmlvcuKAmSB3aGljaCwg?= =?utf-8?q?if_it_remains_the_same=2C_the_subjectivity_remains_the_s?= =?utf-8?b?YW1lLuKAnQ==?= Message-ID: Hi Stathis, Aren't we just talking past each other? We are both trying to stress: ?As long as the ?behavior? remains the same the subjectivity must also remain the same.? Are you not also saying, exactly, the subjectively is dependent on the ?behavior? you are referring to as staying the same here? There are two parts to your ?behavior.? First there is the fact of the matter, that redness (even if it is not physical as you assert with: ?It supervenes on the physical?) is always redness. Would it be better if, instead of saying just ?physical qualities like redness and grenness,? I say: ?physical (or spiritual if you must) qualities like redness and greenness.?? By ?spiritual?, I mean anything that is not physical. For example, if redness behavior is only related to physical behavior in a ?supervening? way, then it is included in anything that is not physical, all of which is ?spiritual?. The second part is our communication behavior, saying ?That is redness?. While it is possible for someone to say: ?that is redness?, when they meen greenness, that is using a dictionary of different facts. If you are always talking about the facts of the matter, ?As long as the ?behavior? remains the same the subjectivity must also remain the same.? Every time I try to pin your ?behavior? down to anything, including magic, you accuse me of talking about something different than this factual redness that is your ?behavior? which must remain the same as the subjectivity. Whatever your ?behavior? is which remains the same, along with the subjectivity, is not this subjectivity dependent on this behavior which you assume is remaining the same? So, from now on, how about I refer to what we are both trying to talk about as: ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 19:17:18 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:17:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John and Stathis, you are conflating ?computational binding? with mere communication. If you want to communicate physical (or spiritual if you must) redness facts, you need a substrate independent communication channel for which the message can be instantiated on any particular causal physical representation between our two brains. In order to be substrate independent, you always need a dictionary system to know the meaning intended by any particular physical representation. For example, the retina, is the mechanical dictionary transducing system which interprets the red information in the light, to the red information in the physically different red signal in the optic nerve. Ultimately, you need to interpret this abstract word like ?red?, whatever happens to be representing it, as the real ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? If you do all these interpretations correctly, you will have communicated the facts about ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? ?Computational binding? is what is done in a CPU. You need to load a value into a register, representing the color of a point on the surface of the strawberry, and the value of a ?ripe enough? color in another register. The computational binding is the difference operation done between these two representations in the CPU so you can have an abstract numerical resulting representation of if the target color is ripe enough or not. Tononi?s Integrated Information Theory describes a quantitative way to measure consciousness, by how integrated things are. This is measuring the amount of connections there are, between registers in a CPU, or the amount of computational binding. But it is more than just integration, it is programming integration. For example, difference operation integrations are different than multiplication integrations. In a CPU, this programming is done via LOTS of discrete logic units. Any one of which has very little integration, and once you have this difference value, for one pixel, that only gets you a tiny part of the way to the decision of whether you want to pick the strawberry or not. ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? being computationally bound is very different. Not only can all of the pixels be computationally bound to all the other pixels, an extreme amount of computational meaning is programmed into the integration. For each meaning full relationship, there must be some amount of programming, in the CPU, that is that meaning which we are aware of. Everything from the computational meaning of having one (not two) strawberries in our hand, to how a strawberry of that particular color will taste, are all different programmed computational binding. So, if you consciously know something, there must be something physical (or spiritual if you must) that is in this CPU that is this knowledge, and this knowledge must be computationally bound to all the other knowledge which also must be in the CPU. If you are seeing these words on the computer screen, if you are aware of them, there must be something in your CPU, which is each pixel of this ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? which is bound to all the other pixels, along with all the other computational meaning. That is what it means to be directly aware of this ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? There is no interpretation required because it is what it is, in a physical (or spiritual if you must) dependent way. John mentioned there are ?300 million nerve fibers in the Corpus callosum?. It is these that are enabling the ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? to be sufficiently integrated to be computationally bound into one CPU that is our composite consciousness knowledge of the strawberry. When I (and V.S.Ramachandran, in his ?Three laws of qualia ? paper back in the 90s) are talking about a ?Neural Ponytail ? we are talking about exactly this, which does not require interpretation, unlike mere communication. The programming can be changed in a "Field programmable gate array" (FPGA). We're more like a sleep programmed system running directly on the ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 5:45 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:18 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> I'm having a hard time seeing all this as anything more than lots of >> hand waving, with an embedded "A miracle happens here".* > > > If you demand a total explanation of ANYTHING, not just consciousness, > then there always comes a point where you must say "a miracle happens here" > because an infinite chain of "why" questions is not a total explanation. > But the simpler the miracle is the better the explanation, and that's why I > like data processing, things don't get much simpler than on/off. And feel > free to substitute "brute fact" for "miracle" if you like. > > *> Our left hemisphere knows absolutely, that it isn't the only conscious >> hemisphere in existence, because it is computationally bound to the other.* > > > Yes the 2 hemispheres of our brains are normally computationally bound to > each other by the 300 million nerve fibers in the Corpus callosum, which > means that whatever one hemisphere knows the other one knows almost > immediately, and with communication that good it's meaningless to speak of > 2 seperate individuals in our head. And yes I'm familiar with Roger > Sperry?s Split Brain Experiments, and they tell me that in a pathological > brain in which that all important communication link, the Corpus callosum, > has been severed the 2 hemispheres behave in ways very different from that > of a healthy brain. And that is not at all surprising, if you start cutting > transoceanic fiber optic cables the Internet would start behaving > differently too. > > 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 Feb 11 21:02:37 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:02:37 +1100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCcU3RhdGhpc+KAmSDigJhiZWhhdmlvcuKAmSB3aGljaCwg?= =?utf-8?q?if_it_remains_the_same=2C_the_subjectivity_remains_the_s?= =?utf-8?b?YW1lLuKAnQ==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 06:10, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Hi Stathis, > > Aren't we just talking past each other? We are both trying to stress: ?As > long as the ?behavior? remains the same the subjectivity must also remain > the same.? > That's what I am trying to say about the overall behaviour of the system. > Are you not also saying, exactly, the subjectively is dependent on the > ?behavior? you are referring to as staying the same here? > Yes, the subjectivity is dependent on the behaviour. > There are two parts to your ?behavior.? First there is the fact of the > matter, that redness (even if it is not physical as you assert with: ?It > supervenes on the physical?) is always redness. > I don't think that "redness is always redness" could be called part of the behaviour. The behaviour is what a scientist would observe. A scientists would not observe that "redness is always redness", although he might observe that a report of redness is always associated with certain neurological processes. The two components of the behaviour are the high level behaviour of the system, such as saying "that is red", and the low level behaviour, such as neurons firing and bones moving. The low level behaviour can change without affecting the high level behaviour, and in this case, the subjectivity must remain the same. The subjectivity is dependent on the high level behaviour. > Would it be better if, instead of saying just ?physical qualities like > redness and grenness,? I say: ?physical (or spiritual if you must) > qualities like redness and greenness.?? By ?spiritual?, I mean anything > that is not physical. For example, if redness behavior is only related to > physical behavior in a ?supervening? way, then it is included in anything > that is not physical, all of which is ?spiritual?. > I don't like the term "spiritual" but there are several terms that mean the same thing: subjective, qualia, consciousness, mental. These are not behaviours because they cannot be observed by a scientist, only inferred. > The second part is our communication behavior, saying ?That is redness?. > While it is possible for someone to say: ?that is redness?, when they meen > greenness, that is using a dictionary of different facts. If you are > always talking about the facts of the matter, ?As long as the ?behavior? > remains the same the subjectivity must also remain the same.? Every time > I try to pin your ?behavior? down to anything, including magic, you > accuse me of talking about something different than this factual redness > that is your ?behavior? which must remain the same as the subjectivity. > Whatever your ?behavior? is which remains the same, along with the > subjectivity, is not this subjectivity dependent on this behavior which you > assume is remaining the same? > It is possible for the high level behaviour of the system to remain the same because we have not tested it enough, even though there is a subjective change. For example, the subject could be made colourblind, but because they are tested in a darkened room, where they would not perceive colours anyway, they do not notice, and they behave the same. Or the subject might have their red-green qualia inverted, and because they are not asked about it, or they deliberately conceal it, they behave the same. But we must assume for these thought experiments that we can put the subject through any test and they are being honest, so if they notice a change they will say something. In this case, if they have a procedure which you think will cause red-green qualia inversion but they do not notice a change and you do not notice a change in their high level behaviour (despite the change in the low level behaviour in their brain) then the procedure did NOT cause qualia inversion. For the word "qualia" would be meaningless otherwise. > So, from now on, how about I refer to what we are both trying to talk > about as: ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the > subjectivity remains the same.?? > As long as we understand that this refers to high level behaviour, particularly behaviour associated with honestly communicating about the subject's experiences. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 22:35:57 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:35:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:24 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *For example, the retina, is the mechanical dictionary transducing system > which interprets the red information in the light, to the red information > in the physically different red signal in the optic nerve. Ultimately, you > need to interpret this abstract word like ?red?, * > And we can. The human retina has 3 different types of light sensors, #1 responds to red light #2 responds to green light and #3 responds to blue. If the number in the first column that the brain receives from the eye is larger than zero but the other 2 columns are zero then we interpret that abstract notion with another abstract notion, you see pure red, a dim pure red if the number is small and a intense pure red if the number is large. And if the numbers in the first two columns are of equal size but the third column remains zero then we see yellow, and if the numbers in all 3 columns are equal we see white. Suppose there was a parallel Everettian reality that was exactly like our own except that the English language had developed slightly differently so that we called the color of the sky "red" and the color of a strawberry "blue", it wouldn't make any difference because the words chosen were arbitrary, the important thing is that the words be used consistently. And the same thing is true not only for words but for the red and blue qualia themselves. And that's why your color inversion exparament would result in precisely zero objective change in behavior and zero change in subjective feeling, you're experimental subject would have no way of even knowing you had done anything to him at all. *> Aren't we just talking past each other? We are both trying to stress: > ?As long as the ?behavior? remains the same the subjectivity must also > remain the same.? * I think that's a good rule of thumb but I don't take it as an axiom, it's usually true but not always. If you're chasing me with a bloody ax it would be easy for me to behave in a scared way because I'm subjectively scared, but if I'm in a horror movie and a stuntman friend of mine is chasing me with a rubber ax with red paint on it I would not be subjectively scared so I would need some serious acting skills (which I lack) to behave in the same way. I couldn't do it but a great actor could. My axiom is that intelligent behavior implies consciousness, I need to believe it's true because I could not function as a solipsist and Darwinian Evolution gives me, perhaps not proof but, a good reason to think it actually is true. However the reverse, consciousness implying intelligent behavior, is not an axiom, Darwinian Evolution can say nothing pro or con about it so maybe rocks are conscious but shy so that's why they don't behave intelligently. I could still function if I thought there was a slight possibility rocks are conscious, I very much doubt they are but maybe. *> ?Computational binding? is what is done in a CPU. * > And what particular qualia a external stimulus is bound to may result is differences in brain chemistry but those different chemistries result in no subjective change whatsoever and no change in behavior either. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 22:58:43 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:58:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] logic tight compartments Message-ID: I keep getting questions on Quora re people resisting facts and clinging to their outdated beliefs. So I found Michael Shermer's article and thought I'd share it: https://michaelshermer.com/2013/01/logic-tight-compartments/ bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 23:24:39 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:24:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCcU3RhdGhpc+KAmSDigJhiZWhhdmlvcuKAmSB3aGljaCwg?= =?utf-8?q?if_it_remains_the_same=2C_the_subjectivity_remains_the_s?= =?utf-8?b?YW1lLuKAnQ==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:04 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > So, from now on, how about I refer to what we are both trying to talk >> about as: ?Stathis? ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the >> subjectivity remains the same.?? >> > > As long as we understand that this refers to high level behaviour, > particularly behaviour associated with honestly communicating about the > subject's experiences. > Yay, I think this is progress. I don't like the term "spiritual" but there are several terms that mean the > same thing: subjective, qualia, consciousness, mental. > Right, but I predict (falsifiably) that "subjective", "qualia", "consciousness", "mental" are labels for physical things, where you predict (also falsifiably) that these words are labels for things that at best "supervene" on physics, so we can't use those words. If you don't like the word "spiritual" for all things that are not physical, what word would make you happy, that would include everything from substance dualism to anything else that is seperated in any way from physicalism, including supervene ism? I don't think that "redness is always redness" could be called part of the > behaviour. The behaviour is what a scientist would observe. A scientists > would not observe that "redness is always redness", although he might > observe that a report of redness is always associated with certain > neurological processes. The two components of the behaviour are the high > level behaviour of the system, such as saying "that is red", and the low > level behaviour, such as neurons firing and bones moving. The low level > behaviour can change without affecting the high level behaviour, and in > this case, the subjectivity must remain the same. The subjectivity is > dependent on the high level behaviour. > This is qualia blind. You are talking about "higher level behavior" (which you say is 'saying "that is red"') and "low level behavior" (which you also say is neurons firing causing the muscles to move 'bones'.) Both of these are the same thing. No place in here is anything that is factually "Stathis? redness ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? There must be something which is the initial cause of the neurons firing, causing the bones to move, when the subject says: that is red. I"m trying to talk about THAT, but every time I do, you say it can't be that. What is this "Stathis? redness ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? and must not this be the initial cause of the neurons firing to make us say: "That is red"? If you don't like "redness is always redness", just replace both words of redness with this fact: "Stathis' redness ?behavior? such that, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? There is a type of slight of hand or changing the subject you always do that is very frustrating. Every time I try to talk of the factual substrate behaviour that is "Stathis? redness ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? even if this factual substrate behavior only supervenes on physical substrate you always try to change the subject to something that "will cause red-green qualia inversion but they do not notice a change". Neither you, nor I are ever talking about a case where something "will cause red-green qualia inversion but they do not notice a change". We are only talking about the facts of the matter when someone experiences "Stathis? redness ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? and what honestly and accurately causes them to report "that is red". We are only talking about a system for which if you replace the "Stathis? redness ?behavior? which, if it remains the same, the subjectivity remains the same.? We are trying to both point out that if you replace that with something different, both the behavior and the subjective experience are different. Please stop misdirecting the conversation to be about something nobody is talking about. If you are talking about any type of neural substitution that results in something that "will cause red-green qualia inversion but they do not notice a change" that type of neural substitution has nothing to do with the necessary facts of the matter mentioned above, and doesn't make any sense at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 23:59:00 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:59:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:37 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:24 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *For example, the retina, is the mechanical dictionary transducing >> system which interprets the red information in the light, to the red >> information in the physically different red signal in the optic nerve. >> Ultimately, you need to interpret this abstract word like ?red?, * >> > > And we can. The human retina has 3 different types of light sensors, #1 > responds to red light #2 responds to green light and #3 responds to blue. > If the number in the first column that the brain receives from the eye is > larger than zero but the other 2 columns are zero then we interpret that > abstract notion with another abstract notion, you see pure red, a dim pure > red if the number is small and a intense pure red if the number is large. > And if the numbers in the first two columns are of equal size but the third > column remains zero then we see yellow, and if the numbers in all 3 columns > are equal we see white. > > Suppose there was a parallel Everettian reality that was exactly like our > own except that the English language had developed slightly differently so > that we called the color of the sky "red" and the color of a strawberry > "blue", it wouldn't make any difference because the words chosen were > arbitrary, the important thing is that the words be used consistently. > And the same thing is true not only for words but for the red and blue > qualia themselves. And that's why your color inversion experiment would > result in precisely zero objective change in behavior and zero change in > subjective feeling, you're experimental subject would have no way of even > knowing you had done anything to him at all. > This is all obviously true, and I've never disagreed with any of this. The important part isn't the fact that abstract words are arbitrary, what we are talking about is how do you define these arbitrary words. What are the different definition of redness and grenness, which we may both call "red"? Do you use the same as me or are you engineered to have physically different knowledge? > My axiom is that intelligent behavior implies consciousness, > If that were true, then all 3 of these robots which are equally intelligent in their ability to pick strawberries would be consciousness. That is inconsistent with the fact that two of those robots have knowledge that is not physically arbitrary, for which there is something it is like to be them. While the 3rd is, by design, is abstracted away from anything physically like anything in an arbitrary way. And therefor isn't conscious. > *> ?Computational binding? is what is done in a CPU. * >> > > And what particular qualia a external stimulus is bound to may result is > differences in brain chemistry but those different chemistries result in no > subjective change whatsoever and no change in behavior either. > Having troubles parsing this. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Wed Feb 12 09:38:46 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:38:46 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0bff35fd-e62e-7e0f-7c9b-0026ada133c7@zaiboc.net> On 11/02/2020 19:08, Brent Allsop top-posted: > Not sure who you are talking to or what you are saying here. > It looks like you are attributing something to stathis, which was a > quote of mine? > I don't see anything here that Stathis has said, other than to quote me? > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:20 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat > > wrote: > > Brent Allsop wrote: >> Hi Stathis, >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou via >> extropy-chat > > wrote: >> >> ... /It would help *if* you clearly said *something like*/ ... >> >> >> If you were listening to me, and repeating back to me what I've >> been trying to say, instead of /incorrectly saying *what I've >> never said*/ ... > (emphasis mine) > > > Ha. > Here, quite possibly, is the problem. Well, A problem, certainly! > I was talking to you (Brent), and I was pointing out that Stathis gave an example of the kind of thing that it would be helpful if you said it, but you responded by complaining that he was incorrectly saying something you never said. He wasn't. It looked to me as if you'd not realised that he was giving an example, rather than quoting you, and reacted accordingly. I then pointed out that this is a problem when trying to have a conversation that makes any sense at all. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 13:49:49 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:49:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 7:01 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: Hi Brent >> Suppose there was a parallel Everettian reality that was exactly like >> our own except that the English language had developed slightly differently >> so that we called the color of the sky "red" and the color of a >> strawberry "blue", it wouldn't make any difference because the words chosen >> were arbitrary, the important thing is that the words be used >> consistently. And the same thing is true not only for words but for the red >> and blue qualia themselves. And that's why your color inversion >> experiment would result in precisely zero objective change in behavior and >> zero change in subjective feeling, you're experimental subject would have >> no way of even knowing you had done anything to him at all. >> > > *> This is all obviously true, and I've never disagreed with any of this. * > So I guess you now agree we can learn nothing from your color inversion experiment. > *> The important part isn't the fact that abstract words are arbitrary, > what we are talking about is how do you define these arbitrary words. * > As I've said before, definitions are just words describing other words, so if your looking for the ultimate source of meaning you're not going to find it in a infinite loop, you'll find it in examples. Very young children become fluent in language at an astonishingly rapid rate and yet you don't find them reading dictionaries, but you do find them pointing to things and saying "what's that?". > *What are the different definition of redness and grenness, which we may > both call "red"? * > There are not different definitions of colors there are different examples of colors. >> My axiom is that intelligent behavior implies consciousness, >> > > *> If that were true, then all 3 of these robots which are equally > intelligent in their ability to pick strawberries > > would be consciousness. That is inconsistent with the fact that two of > those robots have knowledge that is not physically arbitrary,* > Yes both robot #1 and #2 will have knowledge that the light reflected from ripe strawberries is different from light reflected from unripe strawberries, and so it can engage in the intelligent behavior of picking the ripe but not the unripe ones. And there is nothing inherently red about glutamate and nothing inherently green about glycine, the chemicals are just arbitrary labels for a range of wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum, and so are the very words "red" and "green". So if you had a button that could instantly change one robot's arbitrary notation to the other's arbitrary notation unless the robot saw you push the button it would have no way of knowing any change had occurred and it's behavior would be identical. > > *the 3rd is, by design, is abstracted away from anything physically > like anything in an arbitrary way. And therefor isn't conscious.* > I can't make heads or tails out of robot #3. You say: "Let?s engineer this robot?s knowledge to be abstracted away from any physical qualities. It will use the number ?1? to represent knowledge of red things, and ?0? for knowledge of green things." But that's contradictory, the words "red" and "green" are just labels that a high level language like English uses to represent PHYSICAL QUALITIES, and a lower level language, the brain's assembly language so to speak (or maybe machine code), uses glutamate and glycine. And light is a PHYSICAL QUALITY and whatever label a mind uses to represent it must also be physical. You say: "This robot has multiple diverse kinds of interpreting mechanisms" But that's another example of the robot NOT abstracting away all physical qualities. To do any sort of interpreting you're going to have to do data processing, and to do that you're going to need matter, and not just any matter but matter that's organized in a fundamentally specific way, a way that Alan Turing discovered in 1936. That's why even the most advanced book on number theory can't add 2+2, but the cheapest pocket calculator can, the matter in the book just isn't organized in the right way. Brent: *"The first 2 robots represent knowledge of the strawberry directly on physical qualities,"* Yes and although you don't say what it is if robot #3 is to do any sort of data processing, much less engage in intelligent behavior, it's going to have to represent numbers with something physical just as the first two robots did. >>what particular qualia a external stimulus is bound to may result is >> differences in brain chemistry but those different chemistries result in no >> subjective change whatsoever and no change in behavior either. >> > > *> Having troubles parsing this.* > Which word didn't you understand? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 21:20:52 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:20:52 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 11:00, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi John, > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:37 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:24 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> > *For example, the retina, is the mechanical dictionary transducing >>> system which interprets the red information in the light, to the red >>> information in the physically different red signal in the optic nerve. >>> Ultimately, you need to interpret this abstract word like ?red?, * >>> >> >> And we can. The human retina has 3 different types of light sensors, #1 >> responds to red light #2 responds to green light and #3 responds to blue. >> If the number in the first column that the brain receives from the eye is >> larger than zero but the other 2 columns are zero then we interpret that >> abstract notion with another abstract notion, you see pure red, a dim pure >> red if the number is small and a intense pure red if the number is large. >> And if the numbers in the first two columns are of equal size but the third >> column remains zero then we see yellow, and if the numbers in all 3 columns >> are equal we see white. >> >> Suppose there was a parallel Everettian reality that was exactly like our >> own except that the English language had developed slightly differently so >> that we called the color of the sky "red" and the color of a strawberry >> "blue", it wouldn't make any difference because the words chosen were >> arbitrary, the important thing is that the words be used consistently. >> And the same thing is true not only for words but for the red and blue >> qualia themselves. And that's why your color inversion experiment would >> result in precisely zero objective change in behavior and zero change in >> subjective feeling, you're experimental subject would have no way of even >> knowing you had done anything to him at all. >> > > This is all obviously true, and I've never disagreed with any of this. > The important part isn't the fact that abstract words are arbitrary, what > we are talking about is how do you define these arbitrary words. What are > the different definition of redness and grenness, which we may both call > "red"? Do you use the same as me or are you engineered to have physically > different knowledge? > > >> My axiom is that intelligent behavior implies consciousness, >> > > If that were true, then all 3 of these robots which are equally > intelligent in their ability to pick strawberries > > would be consciousness. That is inconsistent with the fact that two of > those robots have knowledge that is not physically arbitrary, for which > there is something it is like to be them. While the 3rd is, by design, is > abstracted away from anything physically like anything in an arbitrary > way. And therefor isn't conscious. > I see no reason why the third robot should lack qualia and the first two should have them. *> ?Computational binding? is what is done in a CPU. * >>> >> >> And what particular qualia a external stimulus is bound to may result is >> differences in brain chemistry but those different chemistries result in no >> subjective change whatsoever and no change in behavior either. >> > > Having troubles parsing this. > > Brent > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 21:34:35 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:34:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Stathis, On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I see no reason why the third robot should lack qualia and the first two > should have them. > You have got to be kidding me. This is totally shocking to me. No wonder we are having such problems communicating. You must be completely not understanding anything I've been talking about how the word red isn't physically red. While our knowledge of red things has a physical redness quality. You think these two different representations of red things are in any way the same?????? PIcking my jaw up off the floor. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 21:38:24 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:38:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, I should have said: "While our knowledge of red things has a physical (or spiritual or superveening, if you must) redness quality. On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Stathis, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I see no reason why the third robot should lack qualia and the first two >> should have them. >> > > You have got to be kidding me. This is totally shocking to me. No wonder > we are having such problems communicating. > > You must be completely not understanding anything I've been talking about > how the word red isn't physically red. While our knowledge of red things > has a physical redness quality. > You think these two different representations of red things are in any way > the same?????? > > PIcking my jaw up off the floor. > > Brent > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 21:42:32 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:42:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How could the word "red" be "like" anything???? On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:38 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Sorry, I should have said: "While our knowledge of red things has a > physical (or spiritual or superveening, if you must) redness quality. > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Stathis, >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I see no reason why the third robot should lack qualia and the first two >>> should have them. >>> >> >> You have got to be kidding me. This is totally shocking to me. No >> wonder we are having such problems communicating. >> >> You must be completely not understanding anything I've been talking about >> how the word red isn't physically red. While our knowledge of red things >> has a physical redness quality. >> You think these two different representations of red things are in any >> way the same?????? >> >> PIcking my jaw up off the floor. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 22:01:12 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:01:12 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 08:35, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Stathis, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I see no reason why the third robot should lack qualia and the first two >> should have them. >> > > You have got to be kidding me. This is totally shocking to me. No wonder > we are having such problems communicating. > > You must be completely not understanding anything I've been talking about > how the word red isn't physically red. While our knowledge of red things > has a physical redness quality. > You think these two different representations of red things are in any way > the same?????? > > PIcking my jaw up off the floor. > But the third robot can distinguish red things from green things. It is this ability which is associated with qualia. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 22:04:46 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:04:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh my gosh. You see no difference between adding more ones and zeros, vs adding an increasing number of distinguishable physical (or spiritual or superveening if you must) qualities, both of which can equally well represent everything about strawberries? On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 08:35, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Stathis, >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I see no reason why the third robot should lack qualia and the first two >>> should have them. >>> >> >> You have got to be kidding me. This is totally shocking to me. No >> wonder we are having such problems communicating. >> >> You must be completely not understanding anything I've been talking about >> how the word red isn't physically red. While our knowledge of red things >> has a physical redness quality. >> You think these two different representations of red things are in any >> way the same?????? >> >> PIcking my jaw up off the floor. >> > > But the third robot can distinguish red things from green things. It is > this ability which is associated with qualia. > >> -- > 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 Wed Feb 12 22:09:17 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:09:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A quale, in my mind, is only produced when two systems exchange information in some way. I guess I actually agree with John, though his manner of describing it is anathema to me and I think the termination of the miracle is deeper than he thinks may be plausibly accessible. In my mind it is clear that the third robot has qualia but not of the same type of the other two. In fact we should probably stop saying that the observer 'has' the qualia at all. The quale resides in the observer-observed pair. It seems pretty impossible for innate qualities to actually exist in this universe especially because of relativity. Yet in my mind there is some fundamental concept why my brain and eyes + 680 nm wavelength light = red quale and this absolutely must be based on some sort of reasoning. I see no problem with eventually discovering a qualic space where we can look at structure and determine what qualia are produced from the interaction of two systems. A human in its current state may not be able to experience all these qualia. However I think there is probably some kind of transitive property that would allow us to experience anything. QUESTION: Can you build a UQM -- UNIVERSAL QUALIA MACHINE -- which is able to experience every possible quale? How do you build it and what are the implications -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 22:17:59 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:17:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 4:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *You must be completely not understanding anything I've been talking > about* > Bingo. > * > how the word red isn't physically red. * > True, the word "red" isn't physically red and the chemical glutamate isn't physically red either, but both can be used as labels for the longer wavelengths in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. *> You think these two different representations of red things are in any > way the same??????* > Both "red" and "glutamate" are labels, they have nothing to do with light but can be arbitrary assigned to represent something that is related to light, just as the label on a jar of honey will tell you what's inside if you know the correct language even though the label is not sweet. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 22:26:38 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:26:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 5:11 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Oh my gosh. You see no difference between adding more ones and zeros, > vs adding an increasing number of distinguishable physical (or spiritual or > superveening if you must) qualities, both of which can equally well > represent everything about strawberries?* > I don't know what you mean by "vs" in the above because you're talking about the exact same thing. Information is physical, if you're adding more ones and zeros then you MUST BE increasing the number of distinguishable physical states. So no, I see absolutely no difference. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 22:31:40 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:31:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow. You guys are going to hate me for saying this, but you guys are all completely qualia blind. Not only do you not know the physical color anything, you don't care. On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:24 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 4:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *You must be completely not understanding anything I've been talking >> about* >> > > Bingo. > > >> * > how the word red isn't physically red. * >> > > True, the word "red" isn't physically red and the chemical glutamate > isn't physically red either, but both can be used as labels for the longer > wavelengths in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. > > *> You think these two different representations of red things are in any >> way the same??????* >> > > Both "red" and "glutamate" are labels, they have nothing to do with > light but can be arbitrary assigned to represent something that is related > to light, just as the label on a jar of honey will tell you what's inside > if you know the correct language even though the label is not sweet. > > 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 Wed Feb 12 22:40:26 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:40:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, have you ever noticed that you can't tell me what it is that has a redness quality???? On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:36 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 5:11 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> Oh my gosh. You see no difference between adding more ones and zeros, >> vs adding an increasing number of distinguishable physical (or spiritual or >> superveening if you must) qualities, both of which can equally well >> represent everything about strawberries?* >> > > I don't know what you mean by "vs" in the above because you're talking > about the exact same thing. Information is physical, if you're adding more > ones and zeros then you MUST BE increasing the number of distinguishable > physical states. So no, I see absolutely no difference. > > 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 Wed Feb 12 22:53:20 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:53:20 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 09:10, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Oh my gosh. You see no difference between adding more ones and zeros, vs > adding an increasing number of distinguishable physical (or spiritual or > superveening if you must) qualities, both of which can equally well > represent everything about strawberries? > No. The supervening qualities are the result of the ones and zeroes, or whatever mechanism works. It is the intelligent behaviour that matters. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 22:53:23 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:53:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, the quale operation is binary and not unary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 23:02:15 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:02:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Same question to you, Stathis. Have you ever noticed you don't know the physical color of anything? On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:58 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 09:10, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Oh my gosh. You see no difference between adding more ones and zeros, vs >> adding an increasing number of distinguishable physical (or spiritual or >> superveening if you must) qualities, both of which can equally well >> represent everything about strawberries? >> > > No. The supervening qualities are the result of the ones and zeroes, or > whatever mechanism works. It is the intelligent behaviour that matters. > >> -- > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 23:27:45 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:27:45 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 10:13, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Same question to you, Stathis. > Have you ever noticed you don't know the physical color of anything? > I do have visual qualia though I can?t prove it to you, you?ll just have to believe me. But for all I know, someone may have replaced my brain with a computer last night while I was sleeping. The fact that I still have visual qualia today does not preclude that possibility. On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:58 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 09:10, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Oh my gosh. You see no difference between adding more ones and zeros, >>> vs adding an increasing number of distinguishable physical (or spiritual or >>> superveening if you must) qualities, both of which can equally well >>> represent everything about strawberries? >>> >> >> No. The supervening qualities are the result of the ones and zeroes, or >> whatever mechanism works. It is the intelligent behaviour that matters. >> >>> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 02:28:17 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:28:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, > I do have visual qualia though I can?t prove it to you, you?ll just have > to believe me. But for all I know, someone may have replaced my brain with > a computer last night while I was sleeping. The fact that I still have > visual qualia today does not preclude that possibility. > Why do you guys always ignore what i'm trying to say and don't even come close to answer a simple question: "What is it that is red, what is it that is green?" Why are you ignoring the fact that nobody knows that. Another thing I keep trying to say, which you completely ignore, or show any evidence that you understand in any wa : Once we stop being qualia blind, we'll discover what it is that has a redness quality, and this will give us dictionary telling us the color, some of our abstract descriptions in the brain are describing. Once they do this, this will falsify all but THE ONE camp that cant be falsified amongst the many sub camps to representational qualia theory. Only then will people finally realize the real physical colors of things. People will look back on discussions like this, the terrible effect papers like Chalmer's "fading dancing absent" qualia and how sending people down that rat hole completely distracted the science away from the real problem. Having this dictionary will tell us what color things are, but only in the 1. week form. Everyone will need to assume that something like glutamate has the same redness quality in my brain, as it does in your brain. There will surely be doubters, despite all the powerful objective evidence that proves exactly what redness is, how it is different from greenness, and who does and does not have red/green inverted qualia and so on. Another thing I keep trying to point out, which you guys completely ignore is there will also be the 2. stronger 3. strongest forms of effing the ineffable once we start hacking brians, where we connect our brains with 3 millions neurons, so we can directly experience the actual physical colors in other's brains, the same way the physical knowledge in our left hemisphere is directly computationally bound to the physical knowledge in our right. It will be a bit disorienting, if your partner has inverted red green qualia - but you will know such things as absolutely as "I think therefore I am" Oh, and I also mentioned, but you guys probably also didn't notice, this will falsify solipsism, proving the existence of not only other conscious minds, but that there really is an external world, and we aren't jsut some kind of brain in a vat. But then, all these are just my predictions. You guys really know what it will be like to be uploaded, and how we will know if that upload is anything like the real you... right???? And it's up to the experimentalists. After all, if the falsify all possible physics as something that could have a redness quality, then this would prove that it must be some type of new physics, or maybe eve qualia are "spiritual" ghostly qualities in some neither world as predicting in substance dualism. But my prediction is that substance dualism and solipsis are far more likely than the current popular consensus that "The supervening qualities are the result of the ones and zeroes" And once people start discovering what color things really are, and how different they are from abstract arbitrary ones and zeros, which are intentionally designed to be abstracted away from any physical qualities (i.e. require a dictionary to know what they mean) And THAT is why I created canonizer. So when this happens, I can point to who was in the right camp, first, and how mistaken others were. But, again, you guys believe completely differently, so we'll just have to wait for the experimentalists to discover what it is that really is red. I'll bet any amount of money, at any odds, that functionalists camps will be the first to be experimentally falsified, once experimentalists stop being qualia blind. Anyone care to put any money, where their mouth is? I doubt it. You guys aren't even brave enough to join a camp at Canonizer.com. OK, sorry for the emotional rant. Please forgive me. I couldn't help it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 02:29:38 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:29:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ooops, sorry. I was going back trying to clean that up, make it less emotional, and less rude, but I accidentally hit the send button. On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 7:28 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > Hi Stathis, > >> I do have visual qualia though I can?t prove it to you, you?ll just have >> to believe me. But for all I know, someone may have replaced my brain with >> a computer last night while I was sleeping. The fact that I still have >> visual qualia today does not preclude that possibility. >> > > Why do you guys always ignore what i'm trying to say and don't even come > close to answer a simple question: "What is it that is red, what is it that > is green?" > Why are you ignoring the fact that nobody knows that. > > Another thing I keep trying to say, which you completely ignore, or show > any evidence that you understand in any wa > > : Once we stop being qualia blind, we'll discover what it is that has a > redness quality, and this will give us dictionary telling us the color, > some of our abstract descriptions in the brain are describing. Once they > do this, this will falsify all but THE ONE camp that cant be falsified > amongst the many sub camps to representational qualia theory. Only then > will people finally realize the real physical colors of things. People > will look back on discussions like this, the terrible effect papers like > Chalmer's "fading dancing absent" qualia and how sending people down that > rat hole completely distracted the science away from the real problem. > Having this dictionary will tell us what color things are, but only in the > 1. week form. Everyone will need to assume that something like glutamate > has the same redness quality in my brain, as it does in your brain. There > will surely be doubters, despite all the powerful objective evidence that > proves exactly what redness is, how it is different from greenness, and who > does and does not have red/green inverted qualia and so on. > > Another thing I keep trying to point out, which you guys completely ignore > is there will also be the 2. stronger 3. strongest forms of effing the > ineffable once we start hacking brians, where we connect our brains with 3 > millions neurons, so we can directly experience the actual physical colors > in other's brains, the same way the physical knowledge in our left > hemisphere is directly computationally bound to the physical knowledge in > our right. It will be a bit disorienting, if your partner has inverted red > green qualia - but you will know such things as absolutely as "I think > therefore I am" > > Oh, and I also mentioned, but you guys probably also didn't notice, this > will falsify solipsism, proving the existence of not only other conscious > minds, but that there really is an external world, and we aren't jsut some > kind of brain in a vat. > > But then, all these are just my predictions. You guys really know what it > will be like to be uploaded, and how we will know if that upload is > anything like the real you... right???? > > And it's up to the experimentalists. After all, if the falsify all > possible physics as something that could have a redness quality, then this > would prove that it must be some type of new physics, or maybe eve qualia > are "spiritual" ghostly qualities in some neither world as predicting in > substance dualism. > > But my prediction is that substance dualism and solipsis are far more > likely than the current popular consensus that "The supervening qualities > are the result of the ones and zeroes" And once people start discovering > what color things really are, and how different they are from > abstract arbitrary ones and zeros, which are intentionally designed to be > abstracted away from any physical qualities (i.e. require a dictionary to > know what they mean) > > And THAT is why I created canonizer. So when this happens, I can point to > who was in the right camp, first, and how mistaken others were. > > But, again, you guys believe completely differently, so we'll just have to > wait for the experimentalists to discover what it is that really is red. > > I'll bet any amount of money, at any odds, that functionalists camps will > be the first to be experimentally falsified, once experimentalists stop > being qualia blind. > > Anyone care to put any money, where their mouth is? I doubt it. You guys > aren't even brave enough to join a camp at Canonizer.com. > > > OK, sorry for the emotional rant. Please forgive me. I couldn't help it. > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 04:00:06 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:00:06 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 13:30, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > >> I do have visual qualia though I can?t prove it to you, you?ll just have >> to believe me. But for all I know, someone may have replaced my brain with >> a computer last night while I was sleeping. The fact that I still have >> visual qualia today does not preclude that possibility. >> > > Why do you guys always ignore what i'm trying to say and don't even come > close to answer a simple question: "What is it that is red, what is it that > is green?" > Why are you ignoring the fact that nobody knows that. > What I do know is that I can see red and green, and that my intact and normally functioning brain is needed for that. I also know that if any part of my brain were changed for another part that allowed the entire system (that is, me) to behave normally, where behaviour is defined as something that can be observed by an external party, I would continue to see red and green normally. So I don't think it is correct to say that any particular object or physical process is red or green. > Another thing I keep trying to say, which you completely ignore, or show > any evidence that you understand in any wa > > : Once we stop being qualia blind, we'll discover what it is that has a > redness quality, and this will give us dictionary telling us the color, > some of our abstract descriptions in the brain are describing. Once they > do this, this will falsify all but THE ONE camp that cant be falsified > amongst the many sub camps to representational qualia theory. Only then > will people finally realize the real physical colors of things. People > will look back on discussions like this, the terrible effect papers like > Chalmer's "fading dancing absent" qualia and how sending people down that > rat hole completely distracted the science away from the real problem. > Having this dictionary will tell us what color things are, but only in the > 1. week form. Everyone will need to assume that something like glutamate > has the same redness quality in my brain, as it does in your brain. There > will surely be doubters, despite all the powerful objective evidence that > proves exactly what redness is, how it is different from greenness, and who > does and does not have red/green inverted qualia and so on. > What you fail to appreciate is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an assertion such as as redness = glutamate to be true, because if the observable physical effects of glutamate could be replicated in a different substrate WITHOUT replicating the redness, then the whole idea of qualia would become meaningless. I have explained this many times. It does not depend on actually being able to replicate the effect of glutamate, it is a logical argument only. > Another thing I keep trying to point out, which you guys completely ignore > is there will also be the 2. stronger 3. strongest forms of effing the > ineffable once we start hacking brians, where we connect our brains with 3 > millions neurons, so we can directly experience the actual physical colors > in other's brains, the same way the physical knowledge in our left > hemisphere is directly computationally bound to the physical knowledge in > our right. It will be a bit disorienting, if your partner has inverted red > green qualia - but you will know such things as absolutely as "I think > therefore I am" > You won't know that, any more than people who have cochlear implants know what qualia the cochlear implants have; all they know is what qualia the combined system has after the device is implanted in their head. > Oh, and I also mentioned, but you guys probably also didn't notice, this > will falsify solipsism, proving the existence of not only other conscious > minds, but that there really is an external world, and we aren't jsut some > kind of brain in a vat. > It won't, just as the cochlear implant does not demonstrate that the implant has a mind, or what sort of mind. > But then, all these are just my predictions. You guys really know what it > will be like to be uploaded, and how we will know if that upload is > anything like the real you... right???? > > And it's up to the experimentalists. After all, if the falsify all > possible physics as something that could have a redness quality, then this > would prove that it must be some type of new physics, or maybe eve qualia > are "spiritual" ghostly qualities in some neither world as predicting in > substance dualism. > If we find after a thousand years of experimentation that only glutamate is associated with redness, that does not change the LOGICAL fact that if the glutamate were replaced with another substrate replicating its observable effects redness would also be replicated. > But my prediction is that substance dualism and solipsis are far more > likely than the current popular consensus that "The supervening qualities > are the result of the ones and zeroes" And once people start discovering > what color things really are, and how different they are from > abstract arbitrary ones and zeros, which are intentionally designed to be > abstracted away from any physical qualities (i.e. require a dictionary to > know what they mean) > > And THAT is why I created canonizer. So when this happens, I can point to > who was in the right camp, first, and how mistaken others were. > > But, again, you guys believe completely differently, so we'll just have to > wait for the experimentalists to discover what it is that really is red. > > I'll bet any amount of money, at any odds, that functionalists camps will > be the first to be experimentally falsified, once experimentalists stop > being qualia blind. > > Anyone care to put any money, where their mouth is? I doubt it. You guys > aren't even brave enough to join a camp at Canonizer.com. > It is not a question of experimentation. It is like saying experimental evidence will show that triangles have three sides. > OK, sorry for the emotional rant. Please forgive me. I couldn't help it. > It's good that you are passionate, because you think you are right and I am wrong, and I think I am right and you are wrong. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 12:23:32 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:23:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 5:51 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> John, have you ever noticed that you can't tell me what it is that has a > redness quality????* > I'll tell you what has the elemental redness quality as soon as you tell me what has the elemental bigness quality. Meaning needs contrast. Red compared to what? Big compared to what? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 15:10:09 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:10:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:31 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> you guys are all completely qualia blind.* You have 2 possibilities to consider: 1) Solipsism is true, we are zombies and so we really are qualia blind and you are the only conscious being in the universe. 2) You are qualia delusional, that is to say your philosophical ideas are self contradictory. > *Not only do you not know the physical color anything, you don't care.* I am unable to care much until you explain exactly (or at least approximately) what you mean by "physical color". And if it doesn't involve the subjective ability to notice a change in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation and the ability to objectively act on that differentiation then whatever you mean by it just isn't very interesting. I mean... if it doesn't effect anything objectively and it doesn't effect anything subjectively either then I just can't work up much enthusiasm about studying it. > *Having this dictionary will tell us what color things are,* > You keep trying to find the nature of things at the most fundamental level and yet for some strange reason you keep talking about dictionaries. A dictionary is a list of definitions of words. Every definition is itself made of words, every one of those words has its own definition also made of words, and the infinite loop continues. You're not going to obtain philosophical insight by reading a dictionary. And if there isn't an infinite chain of "why" questions and there really is one correct answer to the consciousness question at the most fundamental level then at some point in the chain of questions you are going to say "I see a termination because a miracle occurs here" or if you prefer "a brute fact occurs here". After all, an effect without a cause does not violate any law of logic. Fortunately with data processing the miracle is as small as possible because changes don't get simpler than changing on to off. > > *where we connect our brains with 3 millions neurons, so we can > directly experience the actual physical colors in other's brains, the same > way the physical knowledge in our left hemisphere is directly > computationally bound to the physical knowledge in our right. * > We know with experiments with people that when those 3 million neurons connecting the brain's hemispheres are cut the individual who received the surgery starts acting in ways that are different from the way he acted before the surgery. And both hemispheres are capable of acting independently of the other, and that behavior is different from each other, and neither matches the behavior of the pre-surgery individual. And it can be shown that one hemisphere can know things that the other does not. And so I would maintain neither hemisphere knows what it's like to be the other, and neither hemisphere knows what it's like to have 2 working hemispheres connected by 3 million information carrying cables, and the pre-surgery individual doesn't know what it will be like to have a split brain in his head. *> we aren't jsut some kind of brain in a vat.* > I don't know why you keep saying that as if it's something of fundamental importance, skulls and vats are just slightly different types of containers for brains. > *And it's up to the experimentalists. * > Exactly, and just like Evolution itself experimentalists can see intelligent behavior but they can't see qualia or consciousness. Nevertheless Evolution managed to produce consciousness at least once (in me) and probably many billions of times, so I conclude consciousness must be a byproduct of something that Evolution can see, something like intelligent behavior. And experimentalists can form some conclusions about qualia and consciousness, but only if they make some assumptions that, although my hunch is are largely correct, they can't prove and will never be able to prove. *> the current popular consensus that "The supervening qualities are the > result of the ones and zeroes"* > Ones and zeroes are pure abstractions but information is physical and so is the difference between a electrical circuit that is open and a electrical circuit that is closed. So I guess i believe in half of what you call the "popular consensus" (although in my experience it's not all that popular). Supervenience is just a two dollar word for "depends on" and I think that both intelligent behavior and consciousness is the result of not ones and zeros but of open/closed or on/off; you can represent one and zero with on and off if you want but you don't have to, if you're working in Boolean logic and not arithmetic you can have them represent true or false or any other binary quality you like. *> I'll bet any amount of money, at any odds, that functionalists camps > will be the first to be experimentally falsified, once experimentalists > stop being qualia blind. Anyone care to put any money, where their mouth > is? * > I've been known to make small bets on scientific matters before (and to be honest I usually ended up losing money) but I refuse to make a bet if I don't understand exactly, or even approximately, what the bet actually is. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 15:33:45 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:33:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Corvid-19 Coronavirus Message-ID: Yesterday there was an optimistic report that the spread if the Corvid-19 virus may be slowing down. Well forget it, today 48,206 new cases were reported, by far the largest one day increase ever. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 15:46:29 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:46:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Corvid-19 Coronavirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Numbers can't be trusted out of China. I don't for a second believe those were all new cases in a single day. I believe they have still been growing daily this entire time although of course we have no easy way to know because the government there has a history of dishonesty in reporting, there were issues with test kit availability, procedures for counting someone as sick with coronavirus, and who knows what else. I also suspect they have been burning bodies at a massive rate and not reporting true death figures, especially in the wake of the massive increase in new cases. Southeast Asians have ~5x the number of ACE2 receptors which the virus interacts with compared to others which implies a higher transmission (and potentially higher death rate). It also implies BP medications that are ACE2 inhibitors may blunt the force of the disease, but that's another story. If the SARS curve is any indication, it would suggest actual cases in China (assuming it is mostly contained in country) peak sometime in mid March with a total die out by early June, but without real data, it's only a shot in the dark. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:35 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Yesterday there was an optimistic report that the spread if the Corvid-19 > virus may be slowing down. Well forget it, today 48,206 new cases were > reported, by far the largest one day increase ever. > > 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 Thu Feb 13 16:23:54 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:23:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Corvid-19 Coronavirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7B0E6468-85E7-435F-A680-208511635122@gmail.com> The numbers from China are not to be trusted, but no one?s are trustable at the moment. CDC said it messed up a lot of testing kits. Japan doesn?t have enough to test the whole cruise ship. Now, there is possibly a ?superspreader? in Tokyo? a taxi driver who just tested positive. How many days has he been working while infected? If we expect June to be the ?peterout? point, I expect the Japanese economy to absolutely implode: possible cancellation of Olympics, complete loss of Chinese tourism, dramatic reduction of other foreign tourists, lack of domestic tourism, supply chain disruptions for the auto industry (already straining them) as well as decreased demand for Japanese cars in China. Oil & Gas companies are feeling the pinch. So many flights are just NOT happening right now that demand has really fallen. That means low profits, globally. Oil workers generally don?t have lots of other employment opportunities. I expect due to the ?plague ships? in the news that cruise books will be wayyy down over this/next year. Even if everything ended now, this hiccup will take a while to recover. Going all the way to June? It?s gonna be really bad. China might recover in 3-5 years, but Japan is probably toasted for like a decade. The only possible ?upside? is that it might correct the inverted population pyramid :( Which makes me sad, because I?d like to move over there. SR Ballard > On Feb 13, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat wrote: > > Numbers can't be trusted out of China. I don't for a second believe those were all new cases in a single day. I believe they have still been growing daily this entire time although of course we have no easy way to know because the government there has a history of dishonesty in reporting, there were issues with test kit availability, procedures for counting someone as sick with coronavirus, and who knows what else. I also suspect they have been burning bodies at a massive rate and not reporting true death figures, especially in the wake of the massive increase in new cases. > > Southeast Asians have ~5x the number of ACE2 receptors which the virus interacts with compared to others which implies a higher transmission (and potentially higher death rate). It also implies BP medications that are ACE2 inhibitors may blunt the force of the disease, but that's another story. > > If the SARS curve is any indication, it would suggest actual cases in China (assuming it is mostly contained in country) peak sometime in mid March with a total die out by early June, but without real data, it's only a shot in the dark. > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:35 AM John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: >> Yesterday there was an optimistic report that the spread if the Corvid-19 virus may be slowing down. Well forget it, today 48,206 new cases were reported, by far the largest one day increase ever. >> >> 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 interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 16:30:13 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:30:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Corvid-19 Coronavirus In-Reply-To: <7B0E6468-85E7-435F-A680-208511635122@gmail.com> References: <7B0E6468-85E7-435F-A680-208511635122@gmail.com> Message-ID: You make a lot of very good points. Oil demand has already fallen for the first time in a decade: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/13/global-oil-demand-outlook-from-the-iea.html China has already started the liquidity pump. Once the extent of the damage to global GDP is more plainly visible, I would suspect we will see coordinated central bank liquidity injections/rate cuts/QE in an attempt to blunt the impact which raises some interesting questions around interest rates, the stock market, and a likely test of whether MMT and endless deficits are valid propositions. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:25 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The numbers from China are not to be trusted, but no one?s are trustable > at the moment. > > CDC said it messed up a lot of testing kits. Japan doesn?t have enough to > test the whole cruise ship. > > Now, there is possibly a ?superspreader? in Tokyo? a taxi driver who just > tested positive. How many days has he been working while infected? > > If we expect June to be the ?peterout? point, I expect the Japanese > economy to absolutely implode: possible cancellation of Olympics, complete > loss of Chinese tourism, dramatic reduction of other foreign tourists, lack > of domestic tourism, supply chain disruptions for the auto industry > (already straining them) as well as decreased demand for Japanese cars in > China. > > Oil & Gas companies are feeling the pinch. So many flights are just NOT > happening right now that demand has really fallen. That means low profits, > globally. Oil workers generally don?t have lots of other employment > opportunities. > > I expect due to the ?plague ships? in the news that cruise books will be > wayyy down over this/next year. > > Even if everything ended now, this hiccup will take a while to recover. > Going all the way to June? It?s gonna be really bad. China might recover in > 3-5 years, but Japan is probably toasted for like a decade. The only > possible ?upside? is that it might correct the inverted population pyramid > :( > > Which makes me sad, because I?d like to move over there. > > SR Ballard > > On Feb 13, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Numbers can't be trusted out of China. I don't for a second believe those > were all new cases in a single day. I believe they have still been > growing daily this entire time although of course we have no easy way to > know because the government there has a history of dishonesty in reporting, > there were issues with test kit availability, procedures for counting > someone as sick with coronavirus, and who knows what else. I also suspect > they have been burning bodies at a massive rate and not reporting true > death figures, especially in the wake of the massive increase in new cases. > > Southeast Asians have ~5x the number of ACE2 receptors which the virus > interacts with compared to others which implies a higher transmission (and > potentially higher death rate). It also implies BP medications that are > ACE2 inhibitors may blunt the force of the disease, but that's another > story. > > If the SARS curve is any indication, it would suggest actual cases in > China (assuming it is mostly contained in country) peak sometime in mid > March with a total die out by early June, but without real data, it's only > a shot in the dark. > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:35 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Yesterday there was an optimistic report that the spread if the >> Corvid-19 virus may be slowing down. Well forget it, today 48,206 new cases >> were reported, by far the largest one day increase ever. >> >> John K Clark >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 17:14:16 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:14:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Things are NOT colors. A strawberry has nothing to do with the red quale, it simply reflects 680 nm light. 680 nm light is NOT a color. It is interpreted as a red quale when it interfaces with the eyes and brain. Some entities can't sense that light. Some might see something different. Some might be moving very fast and experience a doppler effect and not even see the light as 680 nm. Not only is everything relative, but everything is VERY relative because qualia are not standalone, they only happen when information enters a system. They depend on both. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:12 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:31 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> you guys are all completely qualia blind.* > > > You have 2 possibilities to consider: > 1) Solipsism is true, we are zombies and so we really are qualia blind and > you are the only conscious being in the universe. > 2) You are qualia delusional, that is to say your philosophical ideas are > self contradictory. > > > *Not only do you not know the physical color anything, you don't care.* > > > I am unable to care much until you explain exactly (or at least > approximately) what you mean by "physical color". And if it doesn't involve > the subjective ability to notice a change in the wavelength of > electromagnetic radiation and the ability to objectively act on that > differentiation then whatever you mean by it just isn't very interesting. I > mean... if it doesn't effect anything objectively and it doesn't effect > anything subjectively either then I just can't work up much enthusiasm > about studying it. > > > *Having this dictionary will tell us what color things are,* >> > > You keep trying to find the nature of things at the most fundamental level > and yet for some strange reason you keep talking about dictionaries. A > dictionary is a list of definitions of words. Every definition is itself > made of words, every one of those words has its own definition also made of > words, and the infinite loop continues. You're not going to obtain > philosophical insight by reading a dictionary. And if there isn't an > infinite chain of "why" questions and there really is one correct answer to > the consciousness question at the most fundamental level then at some point > in the chain of questions you are going to say "I see a termination because > a miracle occurs here" or if you prefer "a brute fact occurs here". After > all, an effect without a cause does not violate any law of logic. > Fortunately with data processing the miracle is as small as possible > because changes don't get simpler than changing on to off. > > >> > *where we connect our brains with 3 millions neurons, so we can >> directly experience the actual physical colors in other's brains, the same >> way the physical knowledge in our left hemisphere is directly >> computationally bound to the physical knowledge in our right. * >> > > We know with experiments with people that when those 3 million neurons > connecting the brain's hemispheres are cut the individual who received the > surgery starts acting in ways that are different from the way he acted > before the surgery. And both hemispheres are capable of acting > independently of the other, and that behavior is different from each other, > and neither matches the behavior of the pre-surgery individual. And it can > be shown that one hemisphere can know things that the other does not. And > so I would maintain neither hemisphere knows what it's like to be the > other, and neither hemisphere knows what it's like to have 2 working > hemispheres connected by 3 million information carrying cables, and the > pre-surgery individual doesn't know what it will be like to have a split > brain in his head. > > *> we aren't jsut some kind of brain in a vat.* >> > > I don't know why you keep saying that as if it's something of fundamental > importance, skulls and vats are just slightly different types of containers > for brains. > > > *And it's up to the experimentalists. * >> > > Exactly, and just like Evolution itself experimentalists can see > intelligent behavior but they can't see qualia or consciousness. > Nevertheless Evolution managed to produce consciousness at least once (in > me) and probably many billions of times, so I conclude consciousness must > be a byproduct of something that Evolution can see, something like > intelligent behavior. And experimentalists can form some conclusions about > qualia and consciousness, but only if they make some assumptions that, > although my hunch is are largely correct, they can't prove and will never > be able to prove. > > *> the current popular consensus that "The supervening qualities are the >> result of the ones and zeroes"* >> > > Ones and zeroes are pure abstractions but information is physical and so > is the difference between a electrical circuit that is open and a > electrical circuit that is closed. So I guess i believe in half of what you > call the "popular consensus" (although in my experience it's not all that > popular). Supervenience is just a two dollar word for "depends on" and I > think that both intelligent behavior and consciousness is the result of not > ones and zeros but of open/closed or on/off; you can represent one and zero > with on and off if you want but you don't have to, if you're working in > Boolean logic and not arithmetic you can have them represent true or false > or any other binary quality you like. > > *> I'll bet any amount of money, at any odds, that functionalists camps >> will be the first to be experimentally falsified, once experimentalists >> stop being qualia blind. Anyone care to put any money, where their mouth >> is? * >> > > I've been known to make small bets on scientific matters before (and to be > honest I usually ended up losing money) but I refuse to make a bet if I > don't understand exactly, or even approximately, what the bet actually is. > > 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 Thu Feb 13 17:52:30 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:52:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can we talk about certain facts you guys continue to ignore? I keep trying to do this with everything including the 3 robots paper , but you guys, forever, continue to refuse to acknowledge these facts. 1. Robot 1s honest and factually correct answer to the questions: "What is redness like for your?" is: 1. My redness is like what Stathis experiences when he looks at something that reflects or emits red light. 2. Robot 2s honest and factually correct answer to the same question is different: 1. My redness is different, it is like what stathis experiences when he looks at something that reflects or emits green light. 3. For you guys, the only requirement for something to have "qualia" is that it has the same quantity of memory, and that the robot be able to pick the strawberry identically to robot 1 and 2. 1. Your model is, by definition, qualia blind, since it can't account for the fact that the first of these two robots have very different answers, and robot #3 has no justified answer to this question. 2. Your definition of 'qualia' is completely redundant to your system. You don't need the word 'qualia', and you don't need two words like red and redness, because one word, red, is adequate to model everything you care about. So, trying to use the redundant term 'qualia' in your system, just makes you look like you are trying to act smart, but obviously are still very qualia blind. 3. You remain like Frank Jackson's Mary, before she steps out of the black and white room. LIke you, she has abstract descriptions of all of physics. To you guys, that is all that matters, and you don't care to step out of the room so you can learn the physical qualities your abstract descriptions are describing. 4. Within your model there is an "Explanatory Gap " which cannot be resolved, and there are a LOT of people that have justified arguments for there being a "harde [as in impossible] mind body problem." 5. All the arguments you continue to assert, including the neural substitution argument, and your assertion that this #3 robot has qualia, are only justified and only adequate "proofs" in such a qualia blind model which can't account for all these facts. 1. Within a less naive model, which is sufficient to account for the above facts, all your arguments, definitions of qualia, and so on, are obviously absurdly mistaken, unjustified, and anything but 'proof'. 2. Your so called 'proof' is all you are willing to consider, since you don't care about any of these other facts, and you are perfectly OK with saying robot 3 has 'qualia', even though you have no objective or subjective way of defining what the quali might be like. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Things are NOT colors. A strawberry has nothing to do with the red quale, > it simply reflects 680 nm light. > > 680 nm light is NOT a color. It is interpreted as a red quale when it > interfaces with the eyes and brain. > > Some entities can't sense that light. Some might see something > different. Some might be moving very fast and experience a doppler effect > and not even see the light as 680 nm. Not only is everything relative, but > everything is VERY relative because qualia are not standalone, they only > happen when information enters a system. They depend on both. > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:12 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:31 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> *> you guys are all completely qualia blind.* >> >> >> You have 2 possibilities to consider: >> 1) Solipsism is true, we are zombies and so we really are qualia blind >> and you are the only conscious being in the universe. >> 2) You are qualia delusional, that is to say your philosophical ideas are >> self contradictory. >> >> > *Not only do you not know the physical color anything, you don't care.* >> >> >> I am unable to care much until you explain exactly (or at least >> approximately) what you mean by "physical color". And if it doesn't involve >> the subjective ability to notice a change in the wavelength of >> electromagnetic radiation and the ability to objectively act on that >> differentiation then whatever you mean by it just isn't very interesting. I >> mean... if it doesn't effect anything objectively and it doesn't effect >> anything subjectively either then I just can't work up much enthusiasm >> about studying it. >> >> > *Having this dictionary will tell us what color things are,* >>> >> >> You keep trying to find the nature of things at the most fundamental >> level and yet for some strange reason you keep talking about dictionaries. >> A dictionary is a list of definitions of words. Every definition is itself >> made of words, every one of those words has its own definition also made of >> words, and the infinite loop continues. You're not going to obtain >> philosophical insight by reading a dictionary. And if there isn't an >> infinite chain of "why" questions and there really is one correct answer to >> the consciousness question at the most fundamental level then at some point >> in the chain of questions you are going to say "I see a termination because >> a miracle occurs here" or if you prefer "a brute fact occurs here". After >> all, an effect without a cause does not violate any law of logic. >> Fortunately with data processing the miracle is as small as possible >> because changes don't get simpler than changing on to off. >> >> >>> > *where we connect our brains with 3 millions neurons, so we can >>> directly experience the actual physical colors in other's brains, the same >>> way the physical knowledge in our left hemisphere is directly >>> computationally bound to the physical knowledge in our right. * >>> >> >> We know with experiments with people that when those 3 million neurons >> connecting the brain's hemispheres are cut the individual who received the >> surgery starts acting in ways that are different from the way he acted >> before the surgery. And both hemispheres are capable of acting >> independently of the other, and that behavior is different from each other, >> and neither matches the behavior of the pre-surgery individual. And it can >> be shown that one hemisphere can know things that the other does not. And >> so I would maintain neither hemisphere knows what it's like to be the >> other, and neither hemisphere knows what it's like to have 2 working >> hemispheres connected by 3 million information carrying cables, and the >> pre-surgery individual doesn't know what it will be like to have a split >> brain in his head. >> >> *> we aren't jsut some kind of brain in a vat.* >>> >> >> I don't know why you keep saying that as if it's something of fundamental >> importance, skulls and vats are just slightly different types of containers >> for brains. >> >> > *And it's up to the experimentalists. * >>> >> >> Exactly, and just like Evolution itself experimentalists can see >> intelligent behavior but they can't see qualia or consciousness. >> Nevertheless Evolution managed to produce consciousness at least once (in >> me) and probably many billions of times, so I conclude consciousness must >> be a byproduct of something that Evolution can see, something like >> intelligent behavior. And experimentalists can form some conclusions about >> qualia and consciousness, but only if they make some assumptions that, >> although my hunch is are largely correct, they can't prove and will never >> be able to prove. >> >> *> the current popular consensus that "The supervening qualities are the >>> result of the ones and zeroes"* >>> >> >> Ones and zeroes are pure abstractions but information is physical and so >> is the difference between a electrical circuit that is open and a >> electrical circuit that is closed. So I guess i believe in half of what you >> call the "popular consensus" (although in my experience it's not all that >> popular). Supervenience is just a two dollar word for "depends on" and I >> think that both intelligent behavior and consciousness is the result of not >> ones and zeros but of open/closed or on/off; you can represent one and zero >> with on and off if you want but you don't have to, if you're working in >> Boolean logic and not arithmetic you can have them represent true or false >> or any other binary quality you like. >> >> *> I'll bet any amount of money, at any odds, that functionalists camps >>> will be the first to be experimentally falsified, once experimentalists >>> stop being qualia blind. Anyone care to put any money, where their mouth >>> is? * >>> >> >> I've been known to make small bets on scientific matters before (and to >> be honest I usually ended up losing money) but I refuse to make a bet if I >> don't understand exactly, or even approximately, what the bet actually is. >> >> 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 interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 18:08:23 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:08:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Your exact assertions are the same ones I immediately think of, and I'll be honest, I still don't grok Brent's arguments despite all the effort expended. Maybe I haven't spent enough time on it yet, but I still don't buy this argument of qualia being at the neurotransmitter level as physical, irreducible qualities (apologies if I am misrepresenting the argument). I'm red/green color blind due to differences in my rods/cones in my eyes compared to others. Although I clearly know some shades of red/green (i.e. have no trouble with stop lights regardless of placement of the red/green) , but there are some shades that look indistinguishable to me despite the fact I know other people can distinguish them. What does this say about the qualia for red and green? I assume the argument is going to be that the processing is downstream of vision and I still have true red/green qualia based on neurotransmitter interactions. I remain convinced that if you were able to swap out every single neuron with a true approximation of the signalling going on in physical wetware (let's pretend there is a mechanical neuron that properly accepts signalling from various neurotransmitters and passes those signals on via some means (chemical or electrical) to other neurons original or replaced) that not only would the person be unaware of it happening one neuron at a time, but at the end of the process, they would not be any different than they were other than operating on a different substrate. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:15 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Things are NOT colors. A strawberry has nothing to do with the red quale, > it simply reflects 680 nm light. > > 680 nm light is NOT a color. It is interpreted as a red quale when it > interfaces with the eyes and brain. > > Some entities can't sense that light. Some might see something > different. Some might be moving very fast and experience a doppler effect > and not even see the light as 680 nm. Not only is everything relative, but > everything is VERY relative because qualia are not standalone, they only > happen when information enters a system. They depend on both. > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:12 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:31 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> *> you guys are all completely qualia blind.* >> >> >> You have 2 possibilities to consider: >> 1) Solipsism is true, we are zombies and so we really are qualia blind >> and you are the only conscious being in the universe. >> 2) You are qualia delusional, that is to say your philosophical ideas are >> self contradictory. >> >> > *Not only do you not know the physical color anything, you don't care.* >> >> >> I am unable to care much until you explain exactly (or at least >> approximately) what you mean by "physical color". And if it doesn't involve >> the subjective ability to notice a change in the wavelength of >> electromagnetic radiation and the ability to objectively act on that >> differentiation then whatever you mean by it just isn't very interesting. I >> mean... if it doesn't effect anything objectively and it doesn't effect >> anything subjectively either then I just can't work up much enthusiasm >> about studying it. >> >> > *Having this dictionary will tell us what color things are,* >>> >> >> You keep trying to find the nature of things at the most fundamental >> level and yet for some strange reason you keep talking about dictionaries. >> A dictionary is a list of definitions of words. Every definition is itself >> made of words, every one of those words has its own definition also made of >> words, and the infinite loop continues. You're not going to obtain >> philosophical insight by reading a dictionary. And if there isn't an >> infinite chain of "why" questions and there really is one correct answer to >> the consciousness question at the most fundamental level then at some point >> in the chain of questions you are going to say "I see a termination because >> a miracle occurs here" or if you prefer "a brute fact occurs here". After >> all, an effect without a cause does not violate any law of logic. >> Fortunately with data processing the miracle is as small as possible >> because changes don't get simpler than changing on to off. >> >> >>> > *where we connect our brains with 3 millions neurons, so we can >>> directly experience the actual physical colors in other's brains, the same >>> way the physical knowledge in our left hemisphere is directly >>> computationally bound to the physical knowledge in our right. * >>> >> >> We know with experiments with people that when those 3 million neurons >> connecting the brain's hemispheres are cut the individual who received the >> surgery starts acting in ways that are different from the way he acted >> before the surgery. And both hemispheres are capable of acting >> independently of the other, and that behavior is different from each other, >> and neither matches the behavior of the pre-surgery individual. And it can >> be shown that one hemisphere can know things that the other does not. And >> so I would maintain neither hemisphere knows what it's like to be the >> other, and neither hemisphere knows what it's like to have 2 working >> hemispheres connected by 3 million information carrying cables, and the >> pre-surgery individual doesn't know what it will be like to have a split >> brain in his head. >> >> *> we aren't jsut some kind of brain in a vat.* >>> >> >> I don't know why you keep saying that as if it's something of fundamental >> importance, skulls and vats are just slightly different types of containers >> for brains. >> >> > *And it's up to the experimentalists. * >>> >> >> Exactly, and just like Evolution itself experimentalists can see >> intelligent behavior but they can't see qualia or consciousness. >> Nevertheless Evolution managed to produce consciousness at least once (in >> me) and probably many billions of times, so I conclude consciousness must >> be a byproduct of something that Evolution can see, something like >> intelligent behavior. And experimentalists can form some conclusions about >> qualia and consciousness, but only if they make some assumptions that, >> although my hunch is are largely correct, they can't prove and will never >> be able to prove. >> >> *> the current popular consensus that "The supervening qualities are the >>> result of the ones and zeroes"* >>> >> >> Ones and zeroes are pure abstractions but information is physical and so >> is the difference between a electrical circuit that is open and a >> electrical circuit that is closed. So I guess i believe in half of what you >> call the "popular consensus" (although in my experience it's not all that >> popular). Supervenience is just a two dollar word for "depends on" and I >> think that both intelligent behavior and consciousness is the result of not >> ones and zeros but of open/closed or on/off; you can represent one and zero >> with on and off if you want but you don't have to, if you're working in >> Boolean logic and not arithmetic you can have them represent true or false >> or any other binary quality you like. >> >> *> I'll bet any amount of money, at any odds, that functionalists camps >>> will be the first to be experimentally falsified, once experimentalists >>> stop being qualia blind. Anyone care to put any money, where their mouth >>> is? * >>> >> >> I've been known to make small bets on scientific matters before (and to >> be honest I usually ended up losing money) but I refuse to make a bet if I >> don't understand exactly, or even approximately, what the bet actually is. >> >> 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 stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 18:42:25 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 05:42:25 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 04:54, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Can we talk about certain facts you guys continue to ignore? I keep > trying to do this with everything including the 3 robots paper > , > but you guys, forever, continue to refuse to acknowledge these facts. > > 1. Robot 1s honest and factually correct answer to the questions: > "What is redness like for your?" is: > 1. My redness is like what Stathis experiences when he looks at > something that reflects or emits red light. > > But Robot 1 could never know that, so it isn?t honest and factually correct. > 1. Robot 2s honest and factually correct answer to the same question > is different: > 1. My redness is different, it is like what stathis experiences > when he looks at something that reflects or emits green light. > > And Robot 2 could never know that either. It?s just the nature of subjective experience; otherwise, it isn?t subjective. > > 1. For you guys, the only requirement for something to have "qualia" > is that it has the same quantity of memory, and that the robot be able to > pick the strawberry identically to robot 1 and 2. > > No, I don?t know if something that can do that has qualia, I only know that I have qualia. I also know that if it does have qualia, the qualia will not change if a physical change is made that results in no possible behavioural change. > > 1. Your model is, by definition, qualia blind, since it can't account > for the fact that the first of these two robots have very different > answers, and robot #3 has no justified answer to this question. > > All three robots might say the same thing, and we would have no idea what, if anything, they are actually experiencing. > > 1. Your definition of 'qualia' is completely redundant to your > system. You don't need the word 'qualia', and you don't need two words > like red and redness, because one word, red, is adequate to model > everything you care about. So, trying to use the redundant term 'qualia' > in your system, just makes you look like you are trying to act smart, but > obviously are still very qualia blind. > > Red is an objective quality, redness is subjective. > > 1. You remain like Frank Jackson's Mary, before she steps out of the > black and white room. LIke you, she has abstract descriptions of all of > physics. To you guys, that is all that matters, and you don't care to step > out of the room so you can learn the physical qualities your abstract > descriptions are describing. > > But Mary does not have the subjective experience until she steps out of the room. She knows about all the physical qualities because they are objective. If a redness experience were objective she would know that before she stepped out of the room. > > 1. Within your model there is an "Explanatory Gap > " which cannot be > resolved, and there are a LOT of people that have justified arguments for > there being a "harde [as in impossible] mind body problem." > 2. All the arguments you continue to assert, including the neural > substitution argument, and your assertion that this #3 robot has qualia, > are only justified and only adequate "proofs" in such a qualia blind model > which can't account for all these facts. > 1. Within a less naive model, which is sufficient to account for > the above facts, all your arguments, definitions of qualia, and so on, are > obviously absurdly mistaken, unjustified, and anything but 'proof'. > 2. Your so called 'proof' is all you are willing to consider, > since you don't care about any of these other facts, and you are perfectly > OK with saying robot 3 has 'qualia', even though you have no objective or > subjective way of defining what the quali might be like. > > Only Robot 3 itself knows if it has qualia. We cannot know if it does or what they are like. Plugging ourselves into the robot would not give us this information. > > 1. > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Things are NOT colors. A strawberry has nothing to do with the red >> quale, it simply reflects 680 nm light. >> >> 680 nm light is NOT a color. It is interpreted as a red quale when it >> interfaces with the eyes and brain. >> >> Some entities can't sense that light. Some might see something >> different. Some might be moving very fast and experience a doppler effect >> and not even see the light as 680 nm. Not only is everything relative, but >> everything is VERY relative because qualia are not standalone, they only >> happen when information enters a system. They depend on both. >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:12 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:31 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>> *> you guys are all completely qualia blind.* >>> >>> >>> You have 2 possibilities to consider: >>> 1) Solipsism is true, we are zombies and so we really are qualia blind >>> and you are the only conscious being in the universe. >>> 2) You are qualia delusional, that is to say your philosophical ideas >>> are self contradictory. >>> >>> > *Not only do you not know the physical color anything, you don't >>>> care.* >>> >>> >>> I am unable to care much until you explain exactly (or at least >>> approximately) what you mean by "physical color". And if it doesn't involve >>> the subjective ability to notice a change in the wavelength of >>> electromagnetic radiation and the ability to objectively act on that >>> differentiation then whatever you mean by it just isn't very interesting. I >>> mean... if it doesn't effect anything objectively and it doesn't effect >>> anything subjectively either then I just can't work up much enthusiasm >>> about studying it. >>> >>> > *Having this dictionary will tell us what color things are,* >>>> >>> >>> You keep trying to find the nature of things at the most fundamental >>> level and yet for some strange reason you keep talking about dictionaries. >>> A dictionary is a list of definitions of words. Every definition is itself >>> made of words, every one of those words has its own definition also made of >>> words, and the infinite loop continues. You're not going to obtain >>> philosophical insight by reading a dictionary. And if there isn't an >>> infinite chain of "why" questions and there really is one correct answer to >>> the consciousness question at the most fundamental level then at some point >>> in the chain of questions you are going to say "I see a termination because >>> a miracle occurs here" or if you prefer "a brute fact occurs here". After >>> all, an effect without a cause does not violate any law of logic. >>> Fortunately with data processing the miracle is as small as possible >>> because changes don't get simpler than changing on to off. >>> >>> >>>> > *where we connect our brains with 3 millions neurons, so we can >>>> directly experience the actual physical colors in other's brains, the same >>>> way the physical knowledge in our left hemisphere is directly >>>> computationally bound to the physical knowledge in our right. * >>>> >>> >>> We know with experiments with people that when those 3 million neurons >>> connecting the brain's hemispheres are cut the individual who received the >>> surgery starts acting in ways that are different from the way he acted >>> before the surgery. And both hemispheres are capable of acting >>> independently of the other, and that behavior is different from each other, >>> and neither matches the behavior of the pre-surgery individual. And it can >>> be shown that one hemisphere can know things that the other does not. And >>> so I would maintain neither hemisphere knows what it's like to be the >>> other, and neither hemisphere knows what it's like to have 2 working >>> hemispheres connected by 3 million information carrying cables, and the >>> pre-surgery individual doesn't know what it will be like to have a split >>> brain in his head. >>> >>> *> we aren't jsut some kind of brain in a vat.* >>>> >>> >>> I don't know why you keep saying that as if it's something of >>> fundamental importance, skulls and vats are just slightly different types >>> of containers for brains. >>> >>> > *And it's up to the experimentalists. * >>>> >>> >>> Exactly, and just like Evolution itself experimentalists can see >>> intelligent behavior but they can't see qualia or consciousness. >>> Nevertheless Evolution managed to produce consciousness at least once (in >>> me) and probably many billions of times, so I conclude consciousness must >>> be a byproduct of something that Evolution can see, something like >>> intelligent behavior. And experimentalists can form some conclusions about >>> qualia and consciousness, but only if they make some assumptions that, >>> although my hunch is are largely correct, they can't prove and will never >>> be able to prove. >>> >>> *> the current popular consensus that "The supervening qualities are the >>>> result of the ones and zeroes"* >>>> >>> >>> Ones and zeroes are pure abstractions but information is physical and so >>> is the difference between a electrical circuit that is open and a >>> electrical circuit that is closed. So I guess i believe in half of what you >>> call the "popular consensus" (although in my experience it's not all that >>> popular). Supervenience is just a two dollar word for "depends on" and I >>> think that both intelligent behavior and consciousness is the result of not >>> ones and zeros but of open/closed or on/off; you can represent one and zero >>> with on and off if you want but you don't have to, if you're working in >>> Boolean logic and not arithmetic you can have them represent true or false >>> or any other binary quality you like. >>> >>> *> I'll bet any amount of money, at any odds, that functionalists camps >>>> will be the first to be experimentally falsified, once experimentalists >>>> stop being qualia blind. Anyone care to put any money, where their mouth >>>> is? * >>>> >>> >>> I've been known to make small bets on scientific matters before (and to >>> be honest I usually ended up losing money) but I refuse to make a bet if I >>> don't understand exactly, or even approximately, what the bet actually is. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 18:52:19 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:52:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Brent: The words "red" and "green" are not qualia they're just labels, so if I spoke a strange dialect of English in which the meanings of the words were reversed and said "leaves are red and blood is green" that wouldn't mean I see the world differently than you, I might but not necessarily. The chemicals glutamate and glycine are labels too and no closer to being qualia than the words are, so if you use glutamate as a label for the longer wavelength part of the visual spectrum while I use glycine that wouldn't tell you we must see the world differently either, we might but not necessarily. And I can't say anything about Robot #3 because it makes no sense to me. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 19:03:49 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:03:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dylan, Thanks for jumping in. Nice to have some additional input. The prediction is that the brains of people that are red/green color blind simply use the same quale to represent both red and green. As John would point out, you don't have enough diversity in your knowledge to represent both red and green knowledge, making you blind to what the rest of us have sufficient physical diversity to represent. If you remain convinced in the validity of the neural substitution argument (you must think the 3rd robot has qualia) then what is red qualitatively like for that 3rd robot that represent all things red with only the abstract word "red"? I would bet you also feel the same way about robot #3 as John feels when he says: "I can't say anything about Robot #3 because it makes no sense to me." This just proves that you don't yet get it. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:09 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Your exact assertions are the same ones I immediately think of, and I'll > be honest, I still don't grok Brent's arguments despite all the effort > expended. Maybe I haven't spent enough time on it yet, but I still don't > buy this argument of qualia being at the neurotransmitter level as > physical, irreducible qualities (apologies if I am misrepresenting the > argument). > > I'm red/green color blind due to differences in my rods/cones in my eyes > compared to others. Although I clearly know some shades of red/green (i.e. > have no trouble with stop lights regardless of placement of the red/green) > , but there are some shades that look indistinguishable to me despite the > fact I know other people can distinguish them. > > What does this say about the qualia for red and green? I assume the > argument is going to be that the processing is downstream of vision and I > still have true red/green qualia based on neurotransmitter interactions. > > I remain convinced that if you were able to swap out every single neuron > with a true approximation of the signalling going on in physical wetware > (let's pretend there is a mechanical neuron that properly accepts > signalling from various neurotransmitters and passes those signals on via > some means (chemical or electrical) to other neurons original or replaced) > that not only would the person be unaware of it happening one neuron at a > time, but at the end of the process, they would not be any different than > they were other than operating on a different substrate. > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:15 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Things are NOT colors. A strawberry has nothing to do with the red >> quale, it simply reflects 680 nm light. >> >> 680 nm light is NOT a color. It is interpreted as a red quale when it >> interfaces with the eyes and brain. >> >> Some entities can't sense that light. Some might see something >> different. Some might be moving very fast and experience a doppler effect >> and not even see the light as 680 nm. Not only is everything relative, but >> everything is VERY relative because qualia are not standalone, they only >> happen when information enters a system. They depend on both. >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:12 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:31 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>> *> you guys are all completely qualia blind.* >>> >>> >>> You have 2 possibilities to consider: >>> 1) Solipsism is true, we are zombies and so we really are qualia blind >>> and you are the only conscious being in the universe. >>> 2) You are qualia delusional, that is to say your philosophical ideas >>> are self contradictory. >>> >>> > *Not only do you not know the physical color anything, you don't >>>> care.* >>> >>> >>> I am unable to care much until you explain exactly (or at least >>> approximately) what you mean by "physical color". And if it doesn't involve >>> the subjective ability to notice a change in the wavelength of >>> electromagnetic radiation and the ability to objectively act on that >>> differentiation then whatever you mean by it just isn't very interesting. I >>> mean... if it doesn't effect anything objectively and it doesn't effect >>> anything subjectively either then I just can't work up much enthusiasm >>> about studying it. >>> >>> > *Having this dictionary will tell us what color things are,* >>>> >>> >>> You keep trying to find the nature of things at the most fundamental >>> level and yet for some strange reason you keep talking about dictionaries. >>> A dictionary is a list of definitions of words. Every definition is itself >>> made of words, every one of those words has its own definition also made of >>> words, and the infinite loop continues. You're not going to obtain >>> philosophical insight by reading a dictionary. And if there isn't an >>> infinite chain of "why" questions and there really is one correct answer to >>> the consciousness question at the most fundamental level then at some point >>> in the chain of questions you are going to say "I see a termination because >>> a miracle occurs here" or if you prefer "a brute fact occurs here". After >>> all, an effect without a cause does not violate any law of logic. >>> Fortunately with data processing the miracle is as small as possible >>> because changes don't get simpler than changing on to off. >>> >>> >>>> > *where we connect our brains with 3 millions neurons, so we can >>>> directly experience the actual physical colors in other's brains, the same >>>> way the physical knowledge in our left hemisphere is directly >>>> computationally bound to the physical knowledge in our right. * >>>> >>> >>> We know with experiments with people that when those 3 million neurons >>> connecting the brain's hemispheres are cut the individual who received the >>> surgery starts acting in ways that are different from the way he acted >>> before the surgery. And both hemispheres are capable of acting >>> independently of the other, and that behavior is different from each other, >>> and neither matches the behavior of the pre-surgery individual. And it can >>> be shown that one hemisphere can know things that the other does not. And >>> so I would maintain neither hemisphere knows what it's like to be the >>> other, and neither hemisphere knows what it's like to have 2 working >>> hemispheres connected by 3 million information carrying cables, and the >>> pre-surgery individual doesn't know what it will be like to have a split >>> brain in his head. >>> >>> *> we aren't jsut some kind of brain in a vat.* >>>> >>> >>> I don't know why you keep saying that as if it's something of >>> fundamental importance, skulls and vats are just slightly different types >>> of containers for brains. >>> >>> > *And it's up to the experimentalists. * >>>> >>> >>> Exactly, and just like Evolution itself experimentalists can see >>> intelligent behavior but they can't see qualia or consciousness. >>> Nevertheless Evolution managed to produce consciousness at least once (in >>> me) and probably many billions of times, so I conclude consciousness must >>> be a byproduct of something that Evolution can see, something like >>> intelligent behavior. And experimentalists can form some conclusions about >>> qualia and consciousness, but only if they make some assumptions that, >>> although my hunch is are largely correct, they can't prove and will never >>> be able to prove. >>> >>> *> the current popular consensus that "The supervening qualities are the >>>> result of the ones and zeroes"* >>>> >>> >>> Ones and zeroes are pure abstractions but information is physical and so >>> is the difference between a electrical circuit that is open and a >>> electrical circuit that is closed. So I guess i believe in half of what you >>> call the "popular consensus" (although in my experience it's not all that >>> popular). Supervenience is just a two dollar word for "depends on" and I >>> think that both intelligent behavior and consciousness is the result of not >>> ones and zeros but of open/closed or on/off; you can represent one and zero >>> with on and off if you want but you don't have to, if you're working in >>> Boolean logic and not arithmetic you can have them represent true or false >>> or any other binary quality you like. >>> >>> *> I'll bet any amount of money, at any odds, that functionalists camps >>>> will be the first to be experimentally falsified, once experimentalists >>>> stop being qualia blind. Anyone care to put any money, where their mouth >>>> is? * >>>> >>> >>> I've been known to make small bets on scientific matters before (and to >>> be honest I usually ended up losing money) but I refuse to make a bet if I >>> don't understand exactly, or even approximately, what the bet actually is. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 19:19:34 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:19:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:06 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *I would bet you also feel the same way about robot #3 as John feels when > he says: "I can't say anything about Robot #3 because it makes no sense to > me." This just proves that you don't yet get it.* Either that or it proves there is nothing there to get. John K Clark John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 19:21:34 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:21:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the reply, Brent. Let's focus on the color blind issue for a moment as I think it will help me better understand your position to dig down on it, if you have the patience :-). We can get to the robots later. You say that red/green color blind use the same quale to represent both red and green, but there are different levels of severity of red/green color blindness. I know what red and green look like (at least to me), and can differentiate the two for many shades, so I don't understand how I am using the same quale to represent both red and green. I can see that strawberries are red and their leaves are green for example. Let's propose another experiment on color blindness. Suppose I really could not distinguish red from green because of a severe issue with the cones in my eyes. Suppose also that I buy your argument that I only have one quale for both red and green at this point (TBH, I still don't but let's assume I do for this thought experiment). Let's also suppose there is a new genetic therapy for true R/G color blindess that restores the normal pigmentation structure to my cones, and I can now distinguish all shades of red and green. What happens to the formerly single quale for red/green and where does it happen in the brain, and why? On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:04 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Dylan, > Thanks for jumping in. Nice to have some additional input. > The prediction is that the brains of people that are red/green color blind > simply use the same quale to represent both red and green. As John would > point out, you don't have enough diversity in your knowledge to represent > both red and green knowledge, making you blind to what the rest of us have > sufficient physical diversity to represent. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 19:23:46 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:23:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Right, it is up to the experimentalists. When they discover what it is that has your redness quality (i.e. we finally discover the real physical color of things), this will prove my model adequate, and you model inadequate. Along with the fact that you can't make any sense of robot #3 and why it, by definition, does not have qualia. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:06 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *I would bet you also feel the same way about robot #3 as John feels >> when he says: "I can't say anything about Robot #3 because it makes no >> sense to me." This just proves that you don't yet get it.* > > > Either that or it proves there is nothing there to get. > > John K Clark > > 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 Thu Feb 13 19:36:34 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:36:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Stathis, I've already pointed out, many many times, how what you are saying here, yet again, is only justified in a simplistic world that can't account for all these facts. But, since you continue to prove you don't understand them by repeating them despite this fact let me, yet again, point out the facts you are ignoring. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:43 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 04:54, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Can we talk about certain facts you guys continue to ignore? I keep >> trying to do this with everything including the 3 robots paper >> , >> but you guys, forever, continue to refuse to acknowledge these facts. >> >> 1. Robot 1s honest and factually correct answer to the questions: >> "What is redness like for your?" is: >> 1. My redness is like what Stathis experiences when he looks at >> something that reflects or emits red light. >> >> But Robot 1 could never know that, so it isn?t honest and factually > correct. > It is a fact that we have composite qualitative experiences where both redness and grenness can be computationally bound. What you continue to assert here just proves you are ignoring the facts of the matter of what this "computational binding" system must be able to do. (i.e. the 3. strongest form of effing the ineffable.) You can't acknowledge that this fact proves this "could never" claim of yours is factually false. > >> 1. Robot 2s honest and factually correct answer to the same question >> is different: >> 1. My redness is different, it is like what stathis experiences >> when he looks at something that reflects or emits green light. >> >> > And Robot 2 could never know that either. It?s just the nature of > subjective experience; otherwise, it isn?t subjective. > I've already pointed how this is factually incorrect, yet again, above. For you guys, the only requirement for something to have "qualia" is that > it has the same quantity of memory, and that the robot be able to pick the > strawberry identically to robot 1 and 2. > No, I don?t know if something that can do that has qualia, I only know that > I have qualia. I also know that if it does have qualia, the qualia will not > change if a physical change is made that results in no possible behavioural > change. > >> >> 1. Your model is, by definition, qualia blind, since it can't account >> for the fact that the first of these two robots have very different >> answers, and robot #3 has no justified answer to this question. >> >> All three robots might say the same thing, and we would have no idea > what, if anything, they are actually experiencing. > Yet again, I've pointed out above that this is just factually incorrect, above. > >> 1. Your definition of 'qualia' is completely redundant to your >> system. You don't need the word 'qualia', and you don't need two words >> like red and redness, because one word, red, is adequate to model >> everything you care about. So, trying to use the redundant term 'qualia' >> in your system, just makes you look like you are trying to act smart, but >> obviously are still very qualia blind. >> >> Red is an objective quality, redness is subjective. > Why are you saying this and again ignoring the facts? I've been attempting to point out exactly this same thing in everything I say. While there is a falsifiable possibility that these two are different, it is also a possibility that they are the same, and that the objective is just an abstract(no qualitative information) description of the subjective (qualitative because unlike the objectively perceived things, we can be directly aware of it). > >> 1. You remain like Frank Jackson's Mary, before she steps out of the >> black and white room. LIke you, she has abstract descriptions of all of >> physics. To you guys, that is all that matters, and you don't care to step >> out of the room so you can learn the physical qualities your abstract >> descriptions are describing. >> >> But Mary does not have the subjective experience until she steps out of > the room. She knows about all the physical qualities because they are > objective. If a redness experience were objective she would know that > before she stepped out of the room. > Again, you are proving that you are not understanding the fact I'm pointing out when I say objective information is by design, abstracted away from any particular physical qualities, and hence contains no qualitative information. Because the word "red" isn't physically red, you need a dictionary to know what it means. Stathis doesn't need a dictionary to know what his redness is qualitatively like. > >> 1. Within your model there is an "Explanatory Gap >> " which cannot be >> resolved, and there are a LOT of people that have justified arguments for >> there being a "harde [as in impossible] mind body problem." >> 2. All the arguments you continue to assert, including the neural >> substitution argument, and your assertion that this #3 robot has qualia, >> are only justified and only adequate "proofs" in such a qualia blind model >> which can't account for all these facts. >> 1. Within a less naive model, which is sufficient to account >> for the above facts, all your arguments, definitions of qualia, and so on, >> are obviously absurdly mistaken, unjustified, and anything but 'proof'. >> 2. Your so called 'proof' is all you are willing to consider, >> since you don't care about any of these other facts, and you are perfectly >> OK with saying robot 3 has 'qualia', even though you have no objective or >> subjective way of defining what the quali might be like. >> >> Only Robot 3 itself knows if it has qualia. We cannot know if it does or > what they are like. > Again, proving you are ignoring the facts I pointed out above, proving this statement factually incorrect. > Plugging ourselves into the robot would not give us this information. > Finally!! It almost sounds like you are acknowledging the fact that we have a computational binding system. Thank you. The only problem is, you are making this claim that this will not enable us to eff the ineffable with zero justification (other than might be possible an inadequate qualia blind model). Again, It remains a fact that we can have computationally bound experiences composed of both red and green. It is a fact that we know both what that redness is like, and how it is different than greeness, as surely as Descartes knew that because he thinks, he necessarily exists. It is also a fact that since you can do it between two brain hemispheres, you can also do it between 4, proving your claim here factually incorrect. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 19:47:48 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:47:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:40 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *>the fact that you can't make any sense of robot #3 and why it, by > definition, does not have qualia.* I have examples of qualia but they're only available to me, and there is no definition of qualia that's worth a damn. And your Robot #3 uses nothing but pure numbers to make calculations, and that is a physical impossibility. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 19:58:20 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:58:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are not yet understanding the model, and only focusing on what doesn't matter. You are not distinguishing between reality and knowledge of reality. This is a necessary truth: "If you consciously know something, there must be something that is that knowledge." It is the qualities of this knowledge of which we are talking, which you are ignoring. Of the shades of red and green, which you can distinguish, you are not blind to those colors. In order to be able to consciously distinguish them requires that you have conscious knowledge of those colors that are different. For the ones which you can't distinguish, you are blind to those differences. You are talking about the former, I'm talking about the latter. The reason you are blind to these differences in this case, is because your brain uses the same physical quality to represent both of those colors, making it impossible for you to be consciously aware of their difference. The qualities of knowledge has nothing to do with the retina or the light, as all this knowledge can exist in a brain in a vat, in a dark room, with no eyes, as long as you stimulate the optic nerve identical to the way the eye would. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:32 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Thanks for the reply, Brent. Let's focus on the color blind issue for a > moment as I think it will help me better understand your position to dig > down on it, if you have the patience :-). We can get to the robots later. > > You say that red/green color blind use the same quale to represent both > red and green, but there are different levels of severity of red/green > color blindness. I know what red and green look like (at least to me), and > can differentiate the two for many shades, so I don't understand how I am > using the same quale to represent both red and green. I can see that > strawberries are red and their leaves are green for example. > > Let's propose another experiment on color blindness. Suppose I really > could not distinguish red from green because of a severe issue with the > cones in my eyes. Suppose also that I buy your argument that I only have > one quale for both red and green at this point (TBH, I still don't but > let's assume I do for this thought experiment). Let's also suppose there > is a new genetic therapy for true R/G color blindess that restores the > normal pigmentation structure to my cones, and I can now distinguish all > shades of red and green. What happens to the formerly single quale for > red/green and where does it happen in the brain, and why? > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:04 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi Dylan, >> Thanks for jumping in. Nice to have some additional input. >> The prediction is that the brains of people that are red/green color >> blind simply use the same quale to represent both red and green. As John >> would point out, you don't have enough diversity in your knowledge to >> represent both red and green knowledge, making you blind to what the rest >> of us have sufficient physical diversity to represent. >> >> _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 13 20:01:58 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:01:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, By saying "that is a physical impossibility" you are proving that you are ignoring the fact that RGB(FF,00,00) and RGB(00,FF,00) are "pure numbers" and that there are #3 robots, today, using nothing but these kinds of "pure numbers" for their knowledge which enables them to pick strawberries, right? On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:54 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:40 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *>the fact that you can't make any sense of robot #3 and why it, by >> definition, does not have qualia.* > > > I have examples of qualia but they're only available to me, and there is > no definition of qualia that's worth a damn. And your Robot #3 uses nothing > but pure numbers to make calculations, and that is a physical > impossibility. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 20:20:22 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:20:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm not trying to be dense, but I really don't understand how you are defining physical quality here. I understand that because of issues with pigmentation in my cones, my eyes see two shades as the same regardless of the wavelength. This is fed downstream from the vision processing system to some point in the neural architecture where an equivalent response is delivered. Why does there have to be anything below the level of knowing that the brain displays objects with one wavelength as red and one as green when the cones are working properly. Red and green are just two labels for an underlying physical response brought about by processing through various connected regions of neurons in a larger network. Why do qualia need to be brought into it? How do you know that we're not operating with something comparable to the pure numbers (although it doesn't have to be through the same method of processing as the robots, and may not be mathematically based) you just gave John as an example. Our eyes have evolved to distinguish what we're calling different colors once cones there are activated by interactions with light reflected off of objects at different wavelengths. Downstream, this is translated into different qualities corresponding to what we are labeling as different colors. I understand that a brain in the vat can be made to think it is perceiving a red object in its field of vision if the right nerves/neurons are tickled, but I still don't see how that leads to a requirement that there is something unique about the substrate. I am still failing to see evidence for your argument that consciousness (whatever that is) is not substrate independent. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:02 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The reason you are blind to these differences in this case, is because > your brain uses the same physical quality to represent both of those > colors, making it impossible for you to be consciously aware of their > difference. The qualities of knowledge has nothing to do with the retina > or the light, as all this knowledge can exist in a brain in a vat, in a > dark room, with no eyes, as long as you stimulate the optic nerve identical > to the way the eye would. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 20:32:43 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:32:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dylan, It matters because of the fact that you can invert the perception of red green anywhere along the perception chain, as illustrated in this video . This video is modeling both the strawberry, and knowledge of a strawberry. This knowledge can have either the redness or grenness quality, for the same red, depending on whether it is inverted or not. In other words, robot number 2 is purposely designed to have this inversion from robot number one. Yet they can still both pick "red" strawberries, despite having knowledge of the same strawberry that has differing physical qualities. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:22 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I'm not trying to be dense, but I really don't understand how you are > defining physical quality here. I understand that because of issues with > pigmentation in my cones, my eyes see two shades as the same regardless of > the wavelength. This is fed downstream from the vision processing system > to some point in the neural architecture where an equivalent response is > delivered. > > Why does there have to be anything below the level of knowing that the > brain displays objects with one wavelength as red and one as green when the > cones are working properly. Red and green are just two labels for an > underlying physical response brought about by processing through various > connected regions of neurons in a larger network. Why do qualia need to be > brought into it? How do you know that we're not operating with something > comparable to the pure numbers (although it doesn't have to be through the > same method of processing as the robots, and may not be mathematically > based) you just gave John as an example. Our eyes have evolved to > distinguish what we're calling different colors once cones there are > activated by interactions with light reflected off of objects at different > wavelengths. Downstream, this is translated into different qualities > corresponding to what we are labeling as different colors. > > I understand that a brain in the vat can be made to think it is perceiving > a red object in its field of vision if the right nerves/neurons are > tickled, but I still don't see how that leads to a requirement that there > is something unique about the substrate. > > I am still failing to see evidence for your argument that consciousness > (whatever that is) is not substrate independent. > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:02 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> The reason you are blind to these differences in this case, is because >> your brain uses the same physical quality to represent both of those >> colors, making it impossible for you to be consciously aware of their >> difference. The qualities of knowledge has nothing to do with the retina >> or the light, as all this knowledge can exist in a brain in a vat, in a >> dark room, with no eyes, as long as you stimulate the optic nerve identical >> to the way the eye would. >> >> _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 13 21:07:09 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:07:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oops, I guess I did mess up a little here, but before you jump on this slight error, thinking your view is in any way adequate, let me point out a few things. Of course "plugging ourselves into" an abstract only robot, tells us nothing about any qualia it might or might not have. That is because, by definition, the robot has no qualia, and there is nothing it's knowledge is qualitatively like. Of course, you can assert that such might still have qualia, but what use is there in believing in things like Unicorns that cannot be objectively observed and proven to exist like can be easily done with REAL qualia? On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:36 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:43 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Plugging ourselves into the robot would not give us this information. >> > > Finally!! It almost sounds like you are acknowledging the fact that we > have a computational binding system. Thank you. > The only problem is, you are making this claim that this will not enable > us to eff the ineffable with zero justification (other than might be > possible an inadequate qualia blind model). > Again, It remains a fact that we can have computationally bound > experiences composed of both red and green. It is a fact that we know both > what that redness is like, and how it is different than greeness, as surely > as Descartes knew that because he thinks, he necessarily exists. It is > also a fact that since you can do it between two brain hemispheres, you can > also do it between 4, proving your claim here factually incorrect. > > Brent > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 21:26:15 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:26:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:11 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> John,* > *By saying "that is a physical impossibility" you are proving that you are > ignoring the fact that RGB(FF,00,00) and RGB(00,FF,00) are "pure numbers" > and that there are #3 robots, today, using nothing but these kinds of "pure > numbers" for their knowledge which enables them to pick strawberries, > right?* > *WRONG!! *No computer no robot no human and no brain uses nothing but pure numbers to perform calculations, they all need matter, that's why INTEL spends billions of dollars to organize Silicon atoms in such a way that they can. You can't have a Turing Machine without a machine and you can't have a machine without matter. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 21:35:45 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:35:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, Oh, OK. I was misunderstanding what you meant by "pure numbers". I added the "reight?" on the end, anticipating this possibility, so thanks for pointing that out. Would I also be right in pointing out that you can't have "pure qualia" and that the only way we can have knowledge of redness, is if we have something physical, that is the conscious knowledge of redness? On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:27 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:11 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> John,* >> *By saying "that is a physical impossibility" you are proving that you >> are ignoring the fact that RGB(FF,00,00) and RGB(00,FF,00) are "pure >> numbers" and that there are #3 robots, today, using nothing but these kinds >> of "pure numbers" for their knowledge which enables them to pick >> strawberries, right?* >> > > *WRONG!! *No computer no robot no human and no brain uses nothing but > pure numbers to perform calculations, they all need matter, that's why > INTEL spends billions of dollars to organize Silicon atoms in such a way > that they can. You can't have a Turing Machine without a machine and you > can't have a machine without matter. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 21:36:12 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:36:12 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 06:45, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Stathis, I've already pointed out, many many times, how what you are > saying here, yet again, is only justified in a simplistic world that can't > account for all these facts. > But, since you continue to prove you don't understand them by repeating > them despite this fact let me, yet again, point out the facts you are > ignoring. > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:43 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 04:54, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Can we talk about certain facts you guys continue to ignore? I keep >>> trying to do this with everything including the 3 robots paper >>> , >>> but you guys, forever, continue to refuse to acknowledge these facts. >>> >>> 1. Robot 1s honest and factually correct answer to the questions: >>> "What is redness like for your?" is: >>> 1. My redness is like what Stathis experiences when he looks at >>> something that reflects or emits red light. >>> >>> But Robot 1 could never know that, so it isn?t honest and factually >> correct. >> > > It is a fact that we have composite qualitative experiences where both > redness and grenness can be computationally bound. What you continue to > assert here just proves you are ignoring the facts of the matter of what > this "computational binding" system must be able to do. (i.e. the 3. > strongest form of effing the ineffable.) You can't acknowledge that this > fact proves this "could never" claim of yours is factually false. > > >> >>> 1. Robot 2s honest and factually correct answer to the same question >>> is different: >>> 1. My redness is different, it is like what stathis experiences >>> when he looks at something that reflects or emits green light. >>> >>> >> And Robot 2 could never know that either. It?s just the nature of >> subjective experience; otherwise, it isn?t subjective. >> > I've already pointed how this is factually incorrect, yet again, above. > > For you guys, the only requirement for something to have "qualia" is that >> it has the same quantity of memory, and that the robot be able to pick the >> strawberry identically to robot 1 and 2. >> > No, I don?t know if something that can do that has qualia, I only know >> that I have qualia. I also know that if it does have qualia, the qualia >> will not change if a physical change is made that results in no possible >> behavioural change. >> >>> >>> 1. Your model is, by definition, qualia blind, since it can't >>> account for the fact that the first of these two robots have very different >>> answers, and robot #3 has no justified answer to this question. >>> >>> All three robots might say the same thing, and we would have no idea >> what, if anything, they are actually experiencing. >> > Yet again, I've pointed out above that this is just factually incorrect, > above. > >> >>> 1. Your definition of 'qualia' is completely redundant to your >>> system. You don't need the word 'qualia', and you don't need two words >>> like red and redness, because one word, red, is adequate to model >>> everything you care about. So, trying to use the redundant term 'qualia' >>> in your system, just makes you look like you are trying to act smart, but >>> obviously are still very qualia blind. >>> >>> Red is an objective quality, redness is subjective. >> > Why are you saying this and again ignoring the facts? I've been > attempting to point out exactly this same thing in everything I say. While > there is a falsifiable possibility that these two are different, it is also > a possibility that they are the same, and that the objective is just an > abstract(no qualitative information) description of the subjective > (qualitative because unlike the objectively perceived things, we can be > directly aware of it). > > >> >>> 1. You remain like Frank Jackson's Mary, before she steps out of the >>> black and white room. LIke you, she has abstract descriptions of all of >>> physics. To you guys, that is all that matters, and you don't care to step >>> out of the room so you can learn the physical qualities your abstract >>> descriptions are describing. >>> >>> But Mary does not have the subjective experience until she steps out of >> the room. She knows about all the physical qualities because they are >> objective. If a redness experience were objective she would know that >> before she stepped out of the room. >> > > Again, you are proving that you are not understanding the fact I'm > pointing out when I say objective information is by design, abstracted away > from any particular physical qualities, and hence contains no qualitative > information. Because the word "red" isn't physically red, you need a > dictionary to know what it means. Stathis doesn't need a dictionary to > know what his redness is qualitatively like. > > >> >>> 1. Within your model there is an "Explanatory Gap >>> " which cannot be >>> resolved, and there are a LOT of people that have justified arguments for >>> there being a "harde [as in impossible] mind body problem." >>> 2. All the arguments you continue to assert, including the neural >>> substitution argument, and your assertion that this #3 robot has qualia, >>> are only justified and only adequate "proofs" in such a qualia blind model >>> which can't account for all these facts. >>> 1. Within a less naive model, which is sufficient to account >>> for the above facts, all your arguments, definitions of qualia, and so on, >>> are obviously absurdly mistaken, unjustified, and anything but 'proof'. >>> 2. Your so called 'proof' is all you are willing to consider, >>> since you don't care about any of these other facts, and you are perfectly >>> OK with saying robot 3 has 'qualia', even though you have no objective or >>> subjective way of defining what the quali might be like. >>> >>> Only Robot 3 itself knows if it has qualia. We cannot know if it does or >> what they are like. >> > Again, proving you are ignoring the facts I pointed out above, proving > this statement factually incorrect. > > >> Plugging ourselves into the robot would not give us this information. >> > > Finally!! It almost sounds like you are acknowledging the fact that we > have a computational binding system. Thank you. > The only problem is, you are making this claim that this will not enable > us to eff the ineffable with zero justification (other than might be > possible an inadequate qualia blind model). > Again, It remains a fact that we can have computationally bound > experiences composed of both red and green. It is a fact that we know both > what that redness is like, and how it is different than greeness, as surely > as Descartes knew that because he thinks, he necessarily exists. It is > also a fact that since you can do it between two brain hemispheres, you can > also do it between 4, proving your claim here incorrect. > We have done the experiment with neural implants, thousands of times, in patients who have an artificial cochlea. The qualia from the cochlea are fully integrated into the consciousness of the subject, and appropriately ?bound? with other qualia. Yet we have no idea what, if anything, an artificial cochlea experiences. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 21:40:30 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:40:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I watched the video, and have reviewed the 3 robots, and I'm still not sold (or maybe not fully understanding the nuances of your argument), so I will cut to the chase. Is there physical experimental evidence that points to the conclusion that choice of substrate is critical to consciousness? If so, can you point me to that in the hope that maybe something will click. I truly still don't understand how you are defining something physical that is the conscious knowledge of redness. Maybe consciousness is a second order effect that evolved out of how neuronal networks were wired for another evolutionary advantage. I realize ghost in the machine is a poor choice of words to use when discussing consciousness as it is a loaded one, but I feel like your theory of qualia is injecting something into the system that is not critical to potentially deducing how things might work in the brain. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:33 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Dylan, > It matters because of the fact that you can invert the perception of red > green anywhere along the perception chain, as illustrated in this video > . This video is modeling > both the strawberry, and knowledge of a strawberry. This knowledge can > have either the redness or grenness quality, for the same red, depending on > whether it is inverted or not. > In other words, robot number 2 is purposely designed to have this > inversion from robot number one. Yet they can still both pick "red" > strawberries, despite having knowledge of the same strawberry that has > differing physical qualities. > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:22 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I'm not trying to be dense, but I really don't understand how you are >> defining physical quality here. I understand that because of issues with >> pigmentation in my cones, my eyes see two shades as the same regardless of >> the wavelength. This is fed downstream from the vision processing system >> to some point in the neural architecture where an equivalent response is >> delivered. >> >> Why does there have to be anything below the level of knowing that the >> brain displays objects with one wavelength as red and one as green when the >> cones are working properly. Red and green are just two labels for an >> underlying physical response brought about by processing through various >> connected regions of neurons in a larger network. Why do qualia need to be >> brought into it? How do you know that we're not operating with something >> comparable to the pure numbers (although it doesn't have to be through the >> same method of processing as the robots, and may not be mathematically >> based) you just gave John as an example. Our eyes have evolved to >> distinguish what we're calling different colors once cones there are >> activated by interactions with light reflected off of objects at different >> wavelengths. Downstream, this is translated into different qualities >> corresponding to what we are labeling as different colors. >> >> I understand that a brain in the vat can be made to think it is >> perceiving a red object in its field of vision if the right nerves/neurons >> are tickled, but I still don't see how that leads to a requirement that >> there is something unique about the substrate. >> >> I am still failing to see evidence for your argument that consciousness >> (whatever that is) is not substrate independent. >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:02 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> The reason you are blind to these differences in this case, is because >>> your brain uses the same physical quality to represent both of those >>> colors, making it impossible for you to be consciously aware of their >>> difference. The qualities of knowledge has nothing to do with the retina >>> or the light, as all this knowledge can exist in a brain in a vat, in a >>> dark room, with no eyes, as long as you stimulate the optic nerve identical >>> to the way the eye would. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> 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 interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 21:47:13 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:47:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Forgive me for shifting gears slightly, but doesn't this also imply that substrate doesn't matter? On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:44 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 06:45, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Stathis, I've already pointed out, many many times, how what you are >> saying here, yet again, is only justified in a simplistic world that can't >> account for all these facts. >> But, since you continue to prove you don't understand them by repeating >> them despite this fact let me, yet again, point out the facts you are >> ignoring. >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:43 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 04:54, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Can we talk about certain facts you guys continue to ignore? I keep >>>> trying to do this with everything including the 3 robots paper >>>> , >>>> but you guys, forever, continue to refuse to acknowledge these facts. >>>> >>>> 1. Robot 1s honest and factually correct answer to the questions: >>>> "What is redness like for your?" is: >>>> 1. My redness is like what Stathis experiences when he looks at >>>> something that reflects or emits red light. >>>> >>>> But Robot 1 could never know that, so it isn?t honest and factually >>> correct. >>> >> >> It is a fact that we have composite qualitative experiences where both >> redness and grenness can be computationally bound. What you continue to >> assert here just proves you are ignoring the facts of the matter of what >> this "computational binding" system must be able to do. (i.e. the 3. >> strongest form of effing the ineffable.) You can't acknowledge that this >> fact proves this "could never" claim of yours is factually false. >> >> >>> >>>> 1. Robot 2s honest and factually correct answer to the same >>>> question is different: >>>> 1. My redness is different, it is like what stathis experiences >>>> when he looks at something that reflects or emits green light. >>>> >>>> >>> And Robot 2 could never know that either. It?s just the nature of >>> subjective experience; otherwise, it isn?t subjective. >>> >> I've already pointed how this is factually incorrect, yet again, above. >> >> For you guys, the only requirement for something to have "qualia" is >>> that it has the same quantity of memory, and that the robot be able to pick >>> the strawberry identically to robot 1 and 2. >>> >> No, I don?t know if something that can do that has qualia, I only know >>> that I have qualia. I also know that if it does have qualia, the qualia >>> will not change if a physical change is made that results in no possible >>> behavioural change. >>> >>>> >>>> 1. Your model is, by definition, qualia blind, since it can't >>>> account for the fact that the first of these two robots have very different >>>> answers, and robot #3 has no justified answer to this question. >>>> >>>> All three robots might say the same thing, and we would have no idea >>> what, if anything, they are actually experiencing. >>> >> Yet again, I've pointed out above that this is just factually incorrect, >> above. >> >>> >>>> 1. Your definition of 'qualia' is completely redundant to your >>>> system. You don't need the word 'qualia', and you don't need two words >>>> like red and redness, because one word, red, is adequate to model >>>> everything you care about. So, trying to use the redundant term 'qualia' >>>> in your system, just makes you look like you are trying to act smart, but >>>> obviously are still very qualia blind. >>>> >>>> Red is an objective quality, redness is subjective. >>> >> Why are you saying this and again ignoring the facts? I've been >> attempting to point out exactly this same thing in everything I say. While >> there is a falsifiable possibility that these two are different, it is also >> a possibility that they are the same, and that the objective is just an >> abstract(no qualitative information) description of the subjective >> (qualitative because unlike the objectively perceived things, we can be >> directly aware of it). >> >> >>> >>>> 1. You remain like Frank Jackson's Mary, before she steps out of >>>> the black and white room. LIke you, she has abstract descriptions of all >>>> of physics. To you guys, that is all that matters, and you don't care to >>>> step out of the room so you can learn the physical qualities your abstract >>>> descriptions are describing. >>>> >>>> But Mary does not have the subjective experience until she steps out of >>> the room. She knows about all the physical qualities because they are >>> objective. If a redness experience were objective she would know that >>> before she stepped out of the room. >>> >> >> Again, you are proving that you are not understanding the fact I'm >> pointing out when I say objective information is by design, abstracted away >> from any particular physical qualities, and hence contains no qualitative >> information. Because the word "red" isn't physically red, you need a >> dictionary to know what it means. Stathis doesn't need a dictionary to >> know what his redness is qualitatively like. >> >> >>> >>>> 1. Within your model there is an "Explanatory Gap >>>> " which cannot be >>>> resolved, and there are a LOT of people that have justified arguments for >>>> there being a "harde [as in impossible] mind body problem." >>>> 2. All the arguments you continue to assert, including the >>>> neural substitution argument, and your assertion that this #3 robot has >>>> qualia, are only justified and only adequate "proofs" in such a qualia >>>> blind model which can't account for all these facts. >>>> 1. Within a less naive model, which is sufficient to account >>>> for the above facts, all your arguments, definitions of qualia, and so on, >>>> are obviously absurdly mistaken, unjustified, and anything but 'proof'. >>>> 2. Your so called 'proof' is all you are willing to consider, >>>> since you don't care about any of these other facts, and you are perfectly >>>> OK with saying robot 3 has 'qualia', even though you have no objective or >>>> subjective way of defining what the quali might be like. >>>> >>>> Only Robot 3 itself knows if it has qualia. We cannot know if it does >>> or what they are like. >>> >> Again, proving you are ignoring the facts I pointed out above, proving >> this statement factually incorrect. >> >> >>> Plugging ourselves into the robot would not give us this information. >>> >> >> Finally!! It almost sounds like you are acknowledging the fact that we >> have a computational binding system. Thank you. >> The only problem is, you are making this claim that this will not enable >> us to eff the ineffable with zero justification (other than might be >> possible an inadequate qualia blind model). >> Again, It remains a fact that we can have computationally bound >> experiences composed of both red and green. It is a fact that we know both >> what that redness is like, and how it is different than greeness, as surely >> as Descartes knew that because he thinks, he necessarily exists. It is >> also a fact that since you can do it between two brain hemispheres, you can >> also do it between 4, proving your claim here incorrect. >> > > We have done the experiment with neural implants, thousands of times, in > patients who have an artificial cochlea. The qualia from the cochlea are > fully integrated into the consciousness of the subject, and appropriately > ?bound? with other qualia. Yet we have no idea what, if anything, an > artificial cochlea experiences. > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 22:00:28 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:00:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:37 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Would I also be right in pointing out that you can't have "pure qualia" > and that the only way we can have knowledge of redness, is if we have > something physical, that is the conscious knowledge of redness?* > You can't have knowledge of the red qualia unless you also have knowledge of something that is not red, like white for example. So there is no such thing as pure elemental redness. And you can't tell the difference, objectively or subjectively, between red and white and black and white unless you have knowledge of black. So there is no such thing as elemental black-and-whiteness either. And you can't have knowledge of ANYTHING unless you are using matter. And that's why I can't make heads or tails out of Robot #3. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 22:08:28 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:08:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Corvid-19 Coronavirus In-Reply-To: References: <7B0E6468-85E7-435F-A680-208511635122@gmail.com> Message-ID: There is good news and bad news. The good news is there are 4 different Corvid-19 vaccines and 2 are likely to go to human trials in the next 3 to 4 months. The bad news is even if the trials go well it's likely going to take 12 to 18 months before the vaccines are widely available. China is also testing 3 antivirus drugs, lopinavir, ritonavir and remdesivir, we should know in a few weeks if they help. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 22:38:13 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:38:13 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 09:02, Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Forgive me for shifting gears slightly, but doesn't this also imply that > substrate doesn't matter? > Yes, the fact that you can hear with an electronic implant implies that the substrate doesn?t matter. Of course, people with cochlear implants do not have normal hearing, and if they could hear in the past they say that things sound different. But this is a technical matter, because the implant cannot precisely replicate the biological process. The philosophical point is that in a thought experiment we can imagine a perfect implant, which would give exactly the same experience, so as a matter of logic it can?t be that the case that only the original substrate can have qualia, or consciousness in general. This is relevant to the question of whether computers can be conscious and whether mind uploading is possible. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:44 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 06:45, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Stathis, I've already pointed out, many many times, how what you are >>> saying here, yet again, is only justified in a simplistic world that can't >>> account for all these facts. >>> But, since you continue to prove you don't understand them by repeating >>> them despite this fact let me, yet again, point out the facts you are >>> ignoring. >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:43 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 04:54, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Can we talk about certain facts you guys continue to ignore? I keep >>>>> trying to do this with everything including the 3 robots paper >>>>> , >>>>> but you guys, forever, continue to refuse to acknowledge these facts. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Robot 1s honest and factually correct answer to the questions: >>>>> "What is redness like for your?" is: >>>>> 1. My redness is like what Stathis experiences when he looks >>>>> at something that reflects or emits red light. >>>>> >>>>> But Robot 1 could never know that, so it isn?t honest and factually >>>> correct. >>>> >>> >>> It is a fact that we have composite qualitative experiences where both >>> redness and grenness can be computationally bound. What you continue to >>> assert here just proves you are ignoring the facts of the matter of what >>> this "computational binding" system must be able to do. (i.e. the 3. >>> strongest form of effing the ineffable.) You can't acknowledge that this >>> fact proves this "could never" claim of yours is factually false. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> 1. Robot 2s honest and factually correct answer to the same >>>>> question is different: >>>>> 1. My redness is different, it is like what stathis experiences >>>>> when he looks at something that reflects or emits green light. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> And Robot 2 could never know that either. It?s just the nature of >>>> subjective experience; otherwise, it isn?t subjective. >>>> >>> I've already pointed how this is factually incorrect, yet again, above. >>> >>> For you guys, the only requirement for something to have "qualia" is >>>> that it has the same quantity of memory, and that the robot be able to pick >>>> the strawberry identically to robot 1 and 2. >>>> >>> No, I don?t know if something that can do that has qualia, I only know >>>> that I have qualia. I also know that if it does have qualia, the qualia >>>> will not change if a physical change is made that results in no possible >>>> behavioural change. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. Your model is, by definition, qualia blind, since it can't >>>>> account for the fact that the first of these two robots have very different >>>>> answers, and robot #3 has no justified answer to this question. >>>>> >>>>> All three robots might say the same thing, and we would have no idea >>>> what, if anything, they are actually experiencing. >>>> >>> Yet again, I've pointed out above that this is just factually incorrect, >>> above. >>> >>>> >>>>> 1. Your definition of 'qualia' is completely redundant to your >>>>> system. You don't need the word 'qualia', and you don't need two words >>>>> like red and redness, because one word, red, is adequate to model >>>>> everything you care about. So, trying to use the redundant term 'qualia' >>>>> in your system, just makes you look like you are trying to act smart, but >>>>> obviously are still very qualia blind. >>>>> >>>>> Red is an objective quality, redness is subjective. >>>> >>> Why are you saying this and again ignoring the facts? I've been >>> attempting to point out exactly this same thing in everything I say. While >>> there is a falsifiable possibility that these two are different, it is also >>> a possibility that they are the same, and that the objective is just an >>> abstract(no qualitative information) description of the subjective >>> (qualitative because unlike the objectively perceived things, we can be >>> directly aware of it). >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> 1. You remain like Frank Jackson's Mary, before she steps out of >>>>> the black and white room. LIke you, she has abstract descriptions of all >>>>> of physics. To you guys, that is all that matters, and you don't care to >>>>> step out of the room so you can learn the physical qualities your abstract >>>>> descriptions are describing. >>>>> >>>>> But Mary does not have the subjective experience until she steps out >>>> of the room. She knows about all the physical qualities because they are >>>> objective. If a redness experience were objective she would know that >>>> before she stepped out of the room. >>>> >>> >>> Again, you are proving that you are not understanding the fact I'm >>> pointing out when I say objective information is by design, abstracted away >>> from any particular physical qualities, and hence contains no qualitative >>> information. Because the word "red" isn't physically red, you need a >>> dictionary to know what it means. Stathis doesn't need a dictionary to >>> know what his redness is qualitatively like. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> 1. Within your model there is an "Explanatory Gap >>>>> " which cannot >>>>> be resolved, and there are a LOT of people that have justified arguments >>>>> for there being a "harde [as in impossible] mind body problem." >>>>> 2. All the arguments you continue to assert, including the >>>>> neural substitution argument, and your assertion that this #3 robot has >>>>> qualia, are only justified and only adequate "proofs" in such a qualia >>>>> blind model which can't account for all these facts. >>>>> 1. Within a less naive model, which is sufficient to account >>>>> for the above facts, all your arguments, definitions of qualia, and so on, >>>>> are obviously absurdly mistaken, unjustified, and anything but 'proof'. >>>>> 2. Your so called 'proof' is all you are willing to >>>>> consider, since you don't care about any of these other facts, and you are >>>>> perfectly OK with saying robot 3 has 'qualia', even though you have no >>>>> objective or subjective way of defining what the quali might be like. >>>>> >>>>> Only Robot 3 itself knows if it has qualia. We cannot know if it does >>>> or what they are like. >>>> >>> Again, proving you are ignoring the facts I pointed out above, proving >>> this statement factually incorrect. >>> >>> >>>> Plugging ourselves into the robot would not give us this information. >>>> >>> >>> Finally!! It almost sounds like you are acknowledging the fact that we >>> have a computational binding system. Thank you. >>> The only problem is, you are making this claim that this will not enable >>> us to eff the ineffable with zero justification (other than might be >>> possible an inadequate qualia blind model). >>> Again, It remains a fact that we can have computationally bound >>> experiences composed of both red and green. It is a fact that we know both >>> what that redness is like, and how it is different than greeness, as surely >>> as Descartes knew that because he thinks, he necessarily exists. It is >>> also a fact that since you can do it between two brain hemispheres, you can >>> also do it between 4, proving your claim here incorrect. >>> >> >> We have done the experiment with neural implants, thousands of times, in >> patients who have an artificial cochlea. The qualia from the cochlea are >> fully integrated into the consciousness of the subject, and appropriately >> ?bound? with other qualia. Yet we have no idea what, if anything, an >> artificial cochlea experiences. >> >>> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 23:12:15 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:12:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:09 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:37 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> Would I also be right in pointing out that you can't have "pure qualia" >> and that the only way we can have knowledge of redness, is if we have >> something physical, that is the conscious knowledge of redness?* >> > > You can't have knowledge of the red qualia unless you also have knowledge > of something that is not red, like white for example. So there is no such > thing as pure elemental redness. And you can't tell the difference, > objectively or subjectively, between red and white and black and white > unless you have knowledge of black. So there is no such thing as elemental > black-and-whiteness either. > Let's assume Dylan's red and green qualia blindness is a little more complete than it really is, and that his brain represents both red light and green light with the same physical knowledge that has John's redness. In other words, he has only ever experienced redness and blueness never greenness. Let's assume all of the rest of us are trichromats, and have only ever experienced redness, grenness, and bluenness. Let's also assume there is a tetrachromat which has a 4th primary color, let's call it grue, or grueness. Finally, let's also assume that there is a person suffering from Achromatopsia, but instead of black and white, he just has blueness, and lack of blueness. If what you say is true, Then the achromatopsian couldn't be aware of the quality of his blueness, Dylan couldn't be aware of blueness and redness, We couldn't be aware of our redness, greeness, and blueness. Only the Tetrachomate could know what any of these colors were? But of course, we know that is all factually incorrect, right? > And you can't have knowledge of ANYTHING unless you are using matter. And > that's why I can't make heads or tails out of Robot #3. > Maybe this will help with this. Robot 1 and robot 2 are purposely designed for mechanical simplicity. They don't want to have the additional transducing dictionaries required for substrate independence, so they just represent red knowledge directly on physical qualities. No additional dictionaries required. Let's say we want to make robot 3 easier to design. We want the designer to be able to only use one word for all things red, and not worry about what physics are representing that red at any given time. And assume we don't care about extra mechanical interpretation for all the different physical things that could represent that single abstract 'red' concept. So, Everywhere we use redness to represent red, we put a dictionary from redness to the word 'red'. Every place we use grenness to represent the word 'red' we provide a different dictionary from greenness to red. And when we use +5 volts on a line to represent red, again we provide yet a different dictionary. We provide all these different dictionaries so that no matter what is representing the abstract notion of red, we can put the word 'red' on the computer screen. Without a different dictionary for each different substrate we used, the substrate independence wouldn't be possible. And of course, evolution doesn't need a simple way to design things, it just needs the simplest possible machinery, so it implements consciousness directly on physical qualities, because that is more efficiently survivable. Does that help you at all to make heads or tails out of robot #3? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 23:25:23 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:25:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm not going to touch on the other things I snipped yet because I do need to give it more thought, but I would question that evolution ends up with the simplest possible machinery. Evolution is a chain of events dependent on a limited tree of possibilities (driven by the limitations of biophysics and potentially how far down a branch of evolutionary possibilities it has moved). It frequently does not end up with the most elegant solution or the simplest possible machinery. I think you're making a big presumption to assume that implementing substrate specific consciousness is efficiently survivable compared to other possibilities on an evolutionary decision tree. There may have been trade offs in the genes used or physical implementation in the brain that end up in a different implementation thriving. As I mentioned, it seems just as arguable at this point that consciousness came about as a second order effect that turned into a huge advantage for human beings. Evolution arguably only cares about what spreads the most genes, and for most of the biosphere, human level consciousness doesn't seem to be an advantage or is an extremely rare evolutionary trait, or I would imagine we would have seen it evolve in other species that have highly complex nervous systems. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 6:13 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > And of course, evolution doesn't need a simple way to design things, it > just needs the simplest possible machinery, so it implements consciousness > directly on physical qualities, because that is more efficiently survivable. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 23:38:11 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:38:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dylan, All of that may be true, but you are still focusing only on what doesn't matter, and ignoring what does matter, as if you are completely afraid of accepting the truth or something. What you say doesn't change the fact that substrate independence takes a lot more dictionaries, otherwise, you cant get the word red from all the different substrates. Where just always using redness only requires one dictionary. And if all you need to know is that your knowledge of yourself needs to get away from your knowledge of the tiger chasing you. You don't need any dictionaries at all. In fact you don't even need knowledge that your knowledge is different than reality. But, if you want to understand and hack consciousness, and know what it is going to be like to be uploaded, you need a little more sophisticated model of reality. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:26 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I'm not going to touch on the other things I snipped yet because I do need > to give it more thought, but I would question that evolution ends up with > the simplest possible machinery. Evolution is a chain of events dependent > on a limited tree of possibilities (driven by the limitations of biophysics > and potentially how far down a branch of evolutionary possibilities it has > moved). It frequently does not end up with the most elegant solution or > the simplest possible machinery. > > I think you're making a big presumption to assume that implementing > substrate specific consciousness is efficiently survivable compared to > other possibilities on an evolutionary decision tree. There may have been > trade offs in the genes used or physical implementation in the brain that > end up in a different implementation thriving. > > As I mentioned, it seems just as arguable at this point that > consciousness came about as a second order effect that turned into a huge > advantage for human beings. Evolution arguably only cares about what > spreads the most genes, and for most of the biosphere, human level > consciousness doesn't seem to be an advantage or is an extremely rare > evolutionary trait, or I would imagine we would have seen it evolve in > other species that have highly complex nervous systems. > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 6:13 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> And of course, evolution doesn't need a simple way to design things, it >> just needs the simplest possible machinery, so it implements consciousness >> directly on physical qualities, because that is more efficiently survivable. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Feb 13 23:56:16 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:56:16 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 10:39, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Dylan, > All of that may be true, but you are still focusing only on what doesn't > matter, and ignoring what does matter, as if you are completely afraid of > accepting the truth or something. > What you say doesn't change the fact that substrate independence takes a > lot more dictionaries, otherwise, you cant get the word red from all the > different substrates. Where just always using redness only requires one > dictionary. > And if all you need to know is that your knowledge of yourself needs to > get away from your knowledge of the tiger chasing you. You don't need any > dictionaries at all. In fact you don't even need knowledge that your > knowledge is different than reality. But, if you want to understand and > hack consciousness, and know what it is going to be like to be uploaded, > you need a little more sophisticated model of reality. > How are you going to upload redness without glutamate inside the computer? > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:26 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I'm not going to touch on the other things I snipped yet because I do >> need to give it more thought, but I would question that evolution ends up >> with the simplest possible machinery. Evolution is a chain of events >> dependent on a limited tree of possibilities (driven by the limitations of >> biophysics and potentially how far down a branch of evolutionary >> possibilities it has moved). It frequently does not end up with the most >> elegant solution or the simplest possible machinery. >> >> I think you're making a big presumption to assume that implementing >> substrate specific consciousness is efficiently survivable compared to >> other possibilities on an evolutionary decision tree. There may have been >> trade offs in the genes used or physical implementation in the brain that >> end up in a different implementation thriving. >> >> As I mentioned, it seems just as arguable at this point that >> consciousness came about as a second order effect that turned into a huge >> advantage for human beings. Evolution arguably only cares about what >> spreads the most genes, and for most of the biosphere, human level >> consciousness doesn't seem to be an advantage or is an extremely rare >> evolutionary trait, or I would imagine we would have seen it evolve in >> other species that have highly complex nervous systems. >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 6:13 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> And of course, evolution doesn't need a simple way to design things, it >>> just needs the simplest possible machinery, so it implements consciousness >>> directly on physical qualities, because that is more efficiently survivable. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 00:51:14 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 19:51:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 6:14 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: Hi Brent * > his brain represents both red light and green light with the same > physical knowledge that has John's redness.* > Ok, but those physical things are just arbitrary labels and neither glutamate or glycine are inherently red or green and neither chemical is closer to being a qualia than the English words "red" and "green" are. How the brain interprets those labels are what qualia are and that depends on the internal assembly language of the brain. And in your scenario you and I don't use the same internal lower level language, the change has no effect on objective behavior, we can both sort red things from green things with equal fidelity but I can only speculate if your internal experience is different. The labels are inverted but the interpretation of them might be inverted too, and that would result in identical behavior and identical subjective experience too; or the labels could be inverted but the interpretation of the label is not, and that would result in identical behavior but a different subjective experience. Both produce identical objective behavior, therefore science can not help us differentiate between the two possibilities. > *> If what you say is true, Then the achromatopsian couldn't be aware of > the quality of his blueness,Dylan couldn't be aware of blueness and > redness, We couldn't be aware of our redness, greeness, and blueness. Only > the Tetrachomate could know what any of these colors were? But of course, > we know that is all factually incorrect, right?* Aware? I have no way of knowing what colors you're aware of, I can only observe your behavior. I might note that you can make finer color distinctions that I can and, because of that, suspect (but be unable to prove) that you have a different subjective experience than I have, but I'd have no way of even guessing what that sort of subjectivity would feel like. *> Finally, let's also assume that there is a person suffering from > Achromatopsia, but instead of black and white, he just has blueness, and > lack of blueness.* Black is lack of white. If I could only see blue then for me black would be lack of blue, and there would be no difference subjectively or objectively between black and white and black and blue. > > *> Robot 1 and robot 2 are purposely designed for mechanical simplicity. > They don't want to have the additional transducing dictionaries required > for substrate independence, so they just represent red knowledge directly > on physical qualities. No additional dictionaries required.* > Not true. Those physical qualities are just chemicals they are NOT qualia anymore than the word "red" is. Qualia depends on the meaning of those chemical labels and that depends on the personalized low level internal language of our brains. *> Let's say we want to make robot 3 easier to design. We want the > designer to be able to only use one word for all things red, and not worry > about what physics are representing that red at any given time.* > You always have to worry about physics, nothing can represent anything without it. And I don't see why a voltage is less physical (or more physical) than a chemical. *> Does that help you at all to make heads or tails out of robot #3?* > No I'm afraid not. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 01:07:04 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:07:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi stathis, On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > How are you going to upload redness without glutamate inside the computer? > > Ah, the real reason stathis and everyone is so loath to give up their cherished beliefs about quaila being substrate independent. The fact of the matter is, redness is something. We don't know yet, what, but it is still a quality of something. So this basically proves that a machine that is intentionally designed to be independent of such things (via lots of dictionaries.) aren't going to have any redness. But, this doesn't mean simulations, even phenomenal simulations, aren't going to be possible. If we don't want to worry about things like turning humans off, when we restart our simulations, and other such immoral stuff, we just do everything in an amoral abstract way, that isn't physically like anything. If we want a phenomenal simulation, we need to make simulated knowledge out of basement level physical knowledge, like our brain does, when it simulates reality. Anything we want, including going though walls, is possible in these kinds of simulated worlds of knowledge. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 01:25:25 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:25:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And dang it, I'm so looking forward to when we discover hundreds of more primary qualities than just redness grenness and blueness. How many do you think we might discover? And I'm so looking forward to being uploaded to something like that with not only thousands of times more phenomenal color depth, but also thousands of time more computationally bound resolution. Dioramas of knowledge with far more the only 3 dimensions, and on and on. Being uploaded to something that isn't like anything, will NOT be the same. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 6:07 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > Hi stathis, > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> How are you going to upload redness without glutamate inside the computer? >> >> > Ah, the real reason stathis and everyone is so loath to give up their > cherished beliefs about quaila being substrate independent. > The fact of the matter is, redness is something. We don't know yet, what, > but it is still a quality of something. > So this basically proves that a machine that is intentionally designed to > be independent of such things (via lots of dictionaries.) aren't going to > have any redness. > > But, this doesn't mean simulations, even phenomenal simulations, aren't > going to be possible. > > If we don't want to worry about things like turning humans off, when we > restart our simulations, and other such immoral stuff, we just do > everything in an amoral abstract way, that isn't physically like anything. > > If we want a phenomenal simulation, we need to make simulated knowledge > out of basement level physical knowledge, like our brain does, when it > simulates reality. Anything we want, including going though walls, is > possible in these kinds of simulated worlds of knowledge. > > Brent > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 01:25:41 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:25:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Redness is not a quality of any *thing*! It's a dance between an observer and an observed. I also think it has to be said that the PURE red quale is not experienced in life. It can be imagined in the mind's eye, but in life, it always comes with context. I think it is very silly to make thought experiments that remove that context, because they are unrealistic and prove nothing. On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 20:08 Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi stathis, > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> How are you going to upload redness without glutamate inside the computer? >> >> > Ah, the real reason stathis and everyone is so loath to give up their > cherished beliefs about quaila being substrate independent. > The fact of the matter is, redness is something. We don't know yet, what, > but it is still a quality of something. > So this basically proves that a machine that is intentionally designed to > be independent of such things (via lots of dictionaries.) aren't going to > have any redness. > > But, this doesn't mean simulations, even phenomenal simulations, aren't > going to be possible. > > If we don't want to worry about things like turning humans off, when we > restart our simulations, and other such immoral stuff, we just do > everything in an amoral abstract way, that isn't physically like anything. > > If we want a phenomenal simulation, we need to make simulated knowledge > out of basement level physical knowledge, like our brain does, when it > simulates reality. Anything we want, including going though walls, is > possible in these kinds of simulated worlds of knowledge. > > Brent > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 01:43:49 2020 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:43:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 4:09 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > That is because, by definition, the robot has no qualia, and there is > nothing it's knowledge is qualitatively like. > > Of course, you can assert that such might still have qualia, but what use > is there in believing in things like Unicorns that cannot be objectively > observed and proven to exist like can be easily done with REAL qualia? > > By your arbitrary definition the robot has no qualia. This is the next example so far why this whole snarl of language falls apart: your unicorn qualia vs real qualia are arbitrary distinctions... none of this is real. You use "quale" in the same way preachers use "soul" - to assert that everyone is wrong because they don't see it your way. I only have as much grasp of 'real qualia' as I agree with you and where we differ I am called 'qualia blind' Have you considered that you cannot "eff the ineffable" because the actual definition of the term? This thread needs an infusion of new words to better establish goals and find common ground. I suggest not using red, green, glutamate, glycine, or even qualia. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Feb 14 01:32:45 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:32:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found Message-ID: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> According to a study published in Neuron, the thalamus modulates consciousness. The thalamus is a small portion of the brain that is located just above the brain stem and is associated with relaying sensory information to the cerebral cortex. Experimenters found this out by anaesthetizing monkeys and electrically stimulating various portions of the brain. When the researchers stimulated their thalamus, the anaesthetized monkeys opened their eyes, reached for things, and acted like they were awake, but when the stimulation ceased, they went back to being unconscious. https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30005-2#secsectitle0025 Abstract: "Functional MRI and electrophysiology studies suggest that consciousness depends on large-scale thalamocortical and corticocortical interactions. However, it is unclear how neurons in different cortical layers and circuits contribute. We simultaneously recorded from central lateral thalamus (CL) and across layers of the frontoparietal cortex in awake, sleeping, and anesthetized macaques. We found that neurons in thalamus and deep cortical layers are most sensitive to changes in consciousness level, consistent across different anesthetic agents and sleep. Deep-layer activity is sustained by interactions with CL. Consciousness also depends on deep-layer neurons providing feedback to superficial layers (not to deep layers), suggesting that long-range feedback and intracolumnar signaling are important. To show causality, we stimulated CL in anesthetized macaques and effectively restored arousal and wake-like neural processing. This effect was location and frequency specific. Our findings suggest layer-specific thalamocortical correlates of consciousness and inform how targeted deep brain stimulation can alleviate disorders of consciousness." Popular science article: https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/tiny-area-of-the-brain-could-enable-consciousness Excerpt: "In a wild new experiment conducted on monkeys, scientists discovered that a tiny, but powerful area of the brain may enable consciousness: the central lateral thalamus. Activation of the central lateral thalamus and deep layers of the cerebral cortex drives pathways in the brain that carry information between the parietal and frontal lobe in the brain, the study suggests. This brain circuit works as a sort-of ?engine for consciousness,? the researchers say, enabling conscious thought and feeling in primates. To zero in on this brain circuit, a scientific team put macaque monkeys under anesthesia, then stimulated different parts of their brain with electrodes at a frequency of 50 Hertz. Essentially, they zapped different areas of the brain and observed how the monkeys responded. When the central lateral thalamus was stimulated, the monkeys woke up and their brain function resumed ? even though they were STILL UNDER ANESTHESIA. Seconds after the scientists switched off the stimulation, the monkeys went right back to sleep." Stuart LaForge From pharos at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 10:22:33 2020 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:22:33 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Top Five Myths about the Big Bang - Explained Message-ID: Good review of the creation of the Universe. Lots of background information. Quote: 1.) The Big Bang is the explosion that began our Universe. 2.) There is a point in space that we can trace the Big Bang ?event? back to. 3.) All of the matter and energy in our Universe was compressed into an infinitely hot, dense state at the Big Bang. 4.) The Big Bang makes it inevitable that our Universe began from a singularity. 5.) Space, time, and the laws of physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang. That?s 5 common Big Bang misconceptions, all thoroughly dispelled. ______________ BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 10:35:04 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 05:35:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:09 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Being uploaded to something that isn't like anything, will NOT be the > same.* So you think am intelligent being should be judged not by the nature of his character but by the degree of squishiness and wetness of his brain. Odd. *> The fact of the matter is, redness is something. We don't know yet, > what,* > Yes redness is something and we do know what redness is, it's a label. And if everything had the same label it would be useless, that's why there is no such thing as elemental redness. *> So this basically proves that a machine that is intentionally designed > to be independent of such things (via lots of dictionaries.) aren't going > to have any redness.* > Proves?! I still don't know what you mean by "lots of dictionaries" nor do I understand why a voltage needs lots of them but a chemical doesn't; or was it the other way around? And you haven't explained why random mutation and natural selection can produce qualia but a intelligent designer (aka a computer architect ) can't. *> If we want a phenomenal simulation, we need to make simulated knowledge > out of basement level physical* Humans used their Evolution produced brains to design computers, and both computers and brains make use of the exact same basement level physics. *> this doesn't mean simulations, even phenomenal simulations, aren't going > to be possible. If we don't want to worry about things like turning humans > off, when we restart our simulations, and other such immoral stuff, we just > do everything in an amoral abstract way, that isn't physically like > anything.* Brent, try asking yourself a different question, instead of asking how you're conscious ask why. Why did Evolution go to the bother of making you conscious? However important consciousness is to you and me to Evolution it's irrelevant because Natural Selection can?t directly detect consciousness any better than I can directly detect consciousness in other people, but both I and Natural Selection CAN detect intelligent behavior. So unless Darwin was dead wrong consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence. That?s why I get so impatient with consciousness theories that just ignore intelligence. And that's why after saying consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently there is just nothing much more that can be said about consciousness of any consequence. I suppose it could be argued that maybe Evolution just got lucky and came up with a sort of consciousness circuit by accident, but such a part would not be stable. Consciousness by itself confers no adaptive advantage, only intelligent behavior does that, so even if consciousness emerged by pure chance millions of years ago by today it would be long gone due to genetic drift, just as the eyes of creatures that have lived for thousands of generations in dark caves have disappeared. And yet here I am, and although I can?t prove it to you I know for a fact that I am conscious. So if the ?consciousness circuit? does nothing but generate consciousness it would be gone by now. So intelligence and consciousness are inextricably linked and the Turing Test also works for consciousness and not just intelligence. Finally a critic could say that maybe Evolution came up with consciousness because it was the simplest path (but not the only path) to intelligence, but if so then we will also find it easier to make a intelligent conscious computer than a intelligent non-conscious computer. So if you run across a AI logically your default position should be to assume it's conscious. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Feb 14 02:06:06 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:06:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything Message-ID: <20200213180606.Horde.3NY0tAv79VlnSDlF4XV_s0f@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> At the risk of hijacking a thread whose actual context seems a bit different, I would like to point out that "knowing everything" is the colloquial definition of omniscience. All I want to point out is that experiments, such as the Neuron study that I posted earlier, suggest that consciousness is a state of matter that is a temporal phenomenon that requires *TIME* to function correctly in the sense that if you already know EVERYTHING past, present, and future, then INFORMATION as defined by Shannon et al does not exist for you. Therefore you cannot be be conscious. Consciousness is all about about "finding out what happens next" which is is impossible if you already know everything. Therefore, if God or any other omniscient being exists, then such a being cannot be conscious because consciousness is about finding meaning in events that are unfolding over TIME in an unexpected way. In other words, if someone lights you on fire and you do not move to extinguish the flames, then you are probably not conscious. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 12:27:24 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 07:27:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: <20200213180606.Horde.3NY0tAv79VlnSDlF4XV_s0f@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20200213180606.Horde.3NY0tAv79VlnSDlF4XV_s0f@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:14 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > *if you already know EVERYTHING past, present, and future, then > INFORMATION as defined by Shannon et al does not exist for you. Therefore > you cannot be be conscious. Consciousness is all about about "finding out > what happens next" which is is impossible if you already know > everything.Therefore, if God or any other omniscient being exists, then > such a being cannot be conscious because consciousness is about > finding meaning in events that are unfolding over TIME in an unexpected > way. In other words, if someone lights you on fire and you do not move > to extinguish the flames, then you are probably not conscious.* Excellent, that was very well put! I tried to find something in it to argue about but couldn't. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 13:39:44 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 07:39:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Perhaps they stimulated the ascending reticular activating system? RAS. bill w On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:53 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > According to a study published in Neuron, the thalamus modulates > consciousness. The thalamus is a small portion of the brain that is > located just above the brain stem and is associated with relaying > sensory information to the cerebral cortex. Experimenters found this > out by anaesthetizing monkeys and electrically stimulating various > portions of the brain. When the researchers stimulated their thalamus, > the anaesthetized monkeys opened their eyes, reached for things, and > acted like they were awake, but when the stimulation ceased, they went > back to being unconscious. > > https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30005-2#secsectitle0025 > > Abstract: > "Functional MRI and electrophysiology studies suggest that > consciousness depends on large-scale thalamocortical and > corticocortical interactions. However, it is unclear how neurons in > different cortical layers and circuits contribute. We simultaneously > recorded from central lateral thalamus (CL) and across layers of the > frontoparietal cortex in awake, sleeping, and anesthetized macaques. > We found that neurons in thalamus and deep cortical layers are most > sensitive to changes in consciousness level, consistent across > different anesthetic agents and sleep. Deep-layer activity is > sustained by interactions with CL. Consciousness also depends on > deep-layer neurons providing feedback to superficial layers (not to > deep layers), suggesting that long-range feedback and intracolumnar > signaling are important. To show causality, we stimulated CL in > anesthetized macaques and effectively restored arousal and wake-like > neural processing. This effect was location and frequency specific. > Our findings suggest layer-specific thalamocortical correlates of > consciousness and inform how targeted deep brain stimulation can > alleviate disorders of consciousness." > > Popular science article: > > > https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/tiny-area-of-the-brain-could-enable-consciousness > > Excerpt: > "In a wild new experiment conducted on monkeys, scientists discovered > that a tiny, but powerful area of the brain may enable consciousness: > the central lateral thalamus. Activation of the central lateral > thalamus and deep layers of the cerebral cortex drives pathways in the > brain that carry information between the parietal and frontal lobe in > the brain, the study suggests. > > This brain circuit works as a sort-of ?engine for consciousness,? the > researchers say, enabling conscious thought and feeling in primates. > > To zero in on this brain circuit, a scientific team put macaque > monkeys under anesthesia, then stimulated different parts of their > brain with electrodes at a frequency of 50 Hertz. Essentially, they > zapped different areas of the brain and observed how the monkeys > responded. When the central lateral thalamus was stimulated, the > monkeys woke up and their brain function resumed ? even though they > were STILL UNDER ANESTHESIA. Seconds after the scientists switched off > the stimulation, the monkeys went right back to sleep." > > 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 15:19:51 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:19:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: How did they see and reach for things if the visual cortex was anesthetized?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 15:34:58 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:34:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: They were "sleep "seeing and reaching for things". Until they know what redness and greenness.... are and how they are computationally bound, and they can directly observe THAT, the external behavior they are seeing could be LOTS of stuff that isn't consciousness. On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:21 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > How did they see and reach for things if the visual cortex was > anesthetized?? > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Feb 14 15:53:00 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:53:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Well I assume if the researchers say they were reaching FOR things it means that there were objects that the monkeys could determine the location of and then reach for. Which would imply visual processing On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > They were "sleep "seeing and reaching for things". > > Until they know what redness and greenness.... are and how they are > computationally bound, and they can directly observe THAT, the external > behavior they are seeing could be LOTS of stuff that isn't consciousness. > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:21 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> How did they see and reach for things if the visual cortex was >> anesthetized?? >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 15:59:44 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:59:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Will On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 6:34 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Redness is not a quality of any *thing*! It's a dance between an observer > and an observed. > This is completely ambiguous. It sounds like you are talking about things "out there". I.e. a real strawberry, and a real eye detecting light from the strawberry. You need to distinguish between reality and knowledge of reality. None of the above has anything to do with consciousness, because you can put a brain in a vat, and stimulate the optic nerve identically to the way the eye would be. And this setup has nothing that you are talking about (no strawberry, no eye). But it has everything that you should be talking about. As in you should be clearly talking about "knowledge of an observer and knowledge of what is being observed." not the stuff that is "out there". If you know something, there must be something, physical, in your brain, that is that knowledge. All that (the only stuff important when talking about consciousness) can exist, without anything but a brain in a vat. Everything else is irrelevant to consciousness. So why are you talking about eyes and tings that we observe? > > I also think it has to be said that the PURE red quale is not experienced > in life. > I'm sorry I used this term "PURE quale" pure, originally used by John. I have no idea what this means, other than something that is not physically real. And if it isn't real, why is anyone talking about it? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 16:41:49 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:41:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: <20200213180606.Horde.3NY0tAv79VlnSDlF4XV_s0f@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20200213180606.Horde.3NY0tAv79VlnSDlF4XV_s0f@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:12 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Therefore, if God or any other omniscient being exists, then such a > being cannot be conscious because consciousness is about finding > meaning in events that are unfolding over TIME in an unexpected way. > In other words, if someone lights you on fire and you do not move to > extinguish the flames, then you are probably not conscious. > > This still depends on how you view omniscience. I imagine the entire span of realities sort of like a library (cf. Borges' "The Library of Babel"). The existence of all these realities, and all the consciousness within them operating and discovering, constitutes the knowledge base of God. For example, God only knows about this email right here because I am writing it right now, at these reality coordinates. I see no possible manner by which summing all conscious events in reality could lead to something that was not conscious. The knowledge of God does not reside in some nebulous heaven but rather is distributed over the entirety of creation/destruction. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 17:33:55 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:33:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I get what you are saying. And I agree. But there are still the facts of the matter that people suffering from "blind sight " can catch a ball, even though there is no visual conscious awareness of that ball. On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:54 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Well I assume if the researchers say they were reaching FOR things it > means that there were objects that the monkeys could determine the location > of and then reach for. Which would imply visual processing > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> They were "sleep "seeing and reaching for things". >> >> Until they know what redness and greenness.... are and how they are >> computationally bound, and they can directly observe THAT, the external >> behavior they are seeing could be LOTS of stuff that isn't consciousness. >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:21 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> How did they see and reach for things if the visual cortex was >>> anesthetized?? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 14 17:38:24 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:38:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Top Five Myths about the Big Bang - Explained In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <044201d5e35d$8f60b100$ae221300$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] The Top Five Myths about the Big Bang - Explained Good review of the creation of the Universe. Lots of background information. Thanks BillK! That is a good site. Needs more equations, but it appears to be written by someone who knows equations. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 17:38:22 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:38:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:10 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I'm sorry I used this term "PURE quale" pure, originally used by John. > I have no idea what this means, * Well if you don't know what it means who does? Not me that's for sure, you're the one who wants to discover what a quale is at its purest most fundamental level, and I'm the one who says there is no such level. > *other than something that is not physically real. * Everything I can imagine is physically real, or at least caused by something physically real, because even my most fanciful imaginings are cause by a real arrangement of physical neurons in my head. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 22:41:27 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:41:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The color Brown Message-ID: There is no such thing as brown light. You will never see a brown LED. You will never see a brown LASER. You will never even see a brown pixel on your computer screen. You may object to that and say you've seen brown images on your screen all the time, and that's true but what you've really seen is dim orange areas on the screen that your brain interprets as brown, and you only know it's dim because of the context. The orange needs to be surrounded by something much brighter. Like all colors (and like everything else) brown needs contrast, but that fact is most easily demonstrated with brown. There is a very good video on this subject: Brown: color is weird Incidentally the fruit "orange" didn't get its name because of its color, instead the color got its name because of the fruit. Before the 16th century when orange trees were brought to Europe there was no specific name for that color, people just called it yellowish red. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 22:52:14 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:52:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The color Brown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you distinguish knowledge of reality (qualia) from reality (light) none of this (including all the optic illusions, and problems with color's people think are "weird". It is so absurd that everyone thinks they know what color any of this stuff is. Nobody knows what is brown, or any of the other colors. Light sure doesn't have any of those physical qualities. Why is it that nobody can acknowledge that we don't' know the coolness of anything? On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:43 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > There is no such thing as brown light. You will never see a brown LED. You > will never see a brown LASER. You will never even see a brown pixel on your > computer screen. You may object to that and say you've seen brown images on > your screen all the time, and that's true but what you've really seen is > dim orange areas on the screen that your brain interprets as brown, and you > only know it's dim because of the context. The orange needs to be > surrounded by something much brighter. Like all colors (and like everything > else) brown needs contrast, but that fact is most easily demonstrated with > brown. > > There is a very good video on this subject: > > Brown: color is weird > > Incidentally the fruit "orange" didn't get its name because of its color, > instead the color got its name because of the fruit. Before the 16th > century when orange trees were brought to Europe there was no specific name > for that color, people just called it yellowish red. > > 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 Fri Feb 14 22:55:19 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:55:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The color Brown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I hate it when spell correction changes colerness to coolness. On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:52 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > If you distinguish knowledge of reality (qualia) from reality (light) none > of this (including all the optic illusions, and problems with color's > people think are "weird". It is so absurd that everyone thinks they know > what color any of this stuff is. Nobody knows what is brown, or any of the > other colors. Light sure doesn't have any of those physical qualities. > > Why is it that nobody can acknowledge that we don't' know the coolness of > anything? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:43 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> There is no such thing as brown light. You will never see a brown LED. >> You will never see a brown LASER. You will never even see a brown pixel on >> your computer screen. You may object to that and say you've seen brown >> images on your screen all the time, and that's true but what you've really >> seen is dim orange areas on the screen that your brain interprets as brown, >> and you only know it's dim because of the context. The orange needs to be >> surrounded by something much brighter. Like all colors (and like everything >> else) brown needs contrast, but that fact is most easily demonstrated with >> brown. >> >> There is a very good video on this subject: >> >> Brown: color is weird >> >> Incidentally the fruit "orange" didn't get its name because of its color, >> instead the color got its name because of the fruit. Before the 16th >> century when orange trees were brought to Europe there was no specific name >> for that color, people just called it yellowish red. >> >> 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 Fri Feb 14 16:59:37 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:59:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found Message-ID: <20200214085937.Horde.qfoXXB9dzXueagogJ7hECMR@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Brent Allsop: > Until they know what redness and greenness.... are and how they are > computationally bound, and they can directly observe THAT, the external > behavior they are seeing could be LOTS of stuff that isn't consciousness. The researchers didn't test for color-recognition, but they did test to see if the monkeys could experience the "universal quale" which is pain. When the researchers pinched the monkeys' toes, the monkeys withdrew their legs. To echo Will Steinberg's amazement, however, how does an anaethetized monkey feel pain? You can tell this is good science, however, because it raises more questions than it answers. Especially if it can be independently replicated. Stuart LaForge From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 00:22:42 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 19:22:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The color Brown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no colorness to anything. Things don't have qualia innately associated with them. Strawberry reflected light only acquires redness within my brain system. On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 17:59 Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I hate it when spell correction changes colerness to coolness. > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:52 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> If you distinguish knowledge of reality (qualia) from reality (light) >> none of this (including all the optic illusions, and problems with color's >> people think are "weird". It is so absurd that everyone thinks they know >> what color any of this stuff is. Nobody knows what is brown, or any of the >> other colors. Light sure doesn't have any of those physical qualities. >> >> Why is it that nobody can acknowledge that we don't' know the coolness of >> anything? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:43 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> There is no such thing as brown light. You will never see a brown LED. >>> You will never see a brown LASER. You will never even see a brown pixel on >>> your computer screen. You may object to that and say you've seen brown >>> images on your screen all the time, and that's true but what you've really >>> seen is dim orange areas on the screen that your brain interprets as brown, >>> and you only know it's dim because of the context. The orange needs to be >>> surrounded by something much brighter. Like all colors (and like everything >>> else) brown needs contrast, but that fact is most easily demonstrated with >>> brown. >>> >>> There is a very good video on this subject: >>> >>> Brown: color is weird >>> >>> Incidentally the fruit "orange" didn't get its name because of its >>> color, instead the color got its name because of the fruit. Before the 16th >>> century when orange trees were brought to Europe there was no specific name >>> for that color, people just called it yellowish red. >>> >>> 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 11:33:46 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 06:33:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The color Brown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 5:54 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Why is it that nobody can acknowledge that we don't' know the coolness > of anything?* Why is it that you can't acknowledge that you don't know what ANYTHING is if you reject the notion that a chain of "why" questions must come to a end and you ALSO eject the notion that a chain of "why" questions must NOT come to a end? *> If you distinguish knowledge of reality (qualia) from reality (light)* > So you know what qualia is after all! Qualia is what I've been saying all along, it's a label, and a label gives us knowledge of the insides of a jar. Of course you will be dissatisfied with "qualia is knowledge of reality" because you will undoubtedly find an implicit "why" question lurking in that simple statement and you reject the existence of brute facts. > *> none of this *(including all the optic illusions, and problems with > color's people think are "weird". > I disagree, I think the entire universe is pretty weird, that's what makes it fun. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 12:15:04 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 07:15:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The world would be so much better if everyone knows everything In-Reply-To: References: <20200213180606.Horde.3NY0tAv79VlnSDlF4XV_s0f@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:44 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *> The existence of all these realities, and all the consciousness within > them operating and discovering, constitutes the knowledge base of God. For > example, God only knows about this email right here because I am writing it > right now, at these reality coordinates.* > So God experiences time just like we do and can't know the future because God's mind works at a finite speed, thus by the time He finishes calculating what the future will be (I'm assuming the universe is deterministic for argument's sake) it's not the future anymore. The inability to know the future seems like a rather significant flaw for a omniscient being to have, although it would allow God to have free will because the only definition of the term I've ever heard that was not circular or gibberish is "the inability to always know what you're going to do before you do it". And if the speed of God's mind is finite He can't have knowledge of all of the past either, it will take Him time to remember it or calculate it from the present and by the time He's finished more of the past would have been created. That sort of God would only know the present. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 13:37:18 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 08:37:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >*people suffering from "blind sight" can catch a ball, even though there > is no visual conscious awareness of that ball.* People with that condition display contradictory behavior. Catching the ball indicates the ball has been seen. Making a noise with the mouth that sounds like "I don't see the ball" indicates something *might* not have seen the ball. You can lie about what you say but not what you do, you've either caught the ball or you haven't. So clearly something must have seen the ball, although not necessarily the same thing that controls the vocal cords. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 14:06:10 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 08:06:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> My grandfather has ?hysterical blindness? from a near death accident where his head was trapped in the blades of a peanut thrasher for three days before he was found. The blade of the machine stopped about an inch from his eye, while another part had stopped the machine because it couldn?t crush his skull. Afterwards, he was in a coma 1-2 weeks, and doctors wrote him off. His mom drip fed his sugar water because he was her ?baby?. After this point, he has reported total blindness in this eye. However, he was recently diagnosed with, basically, a 100% cataract in his other eye. He cannot read with his ?blind? eye, but it keeps him from running into walls and other similar things. He doesn?t seem to be able to see the TV, but does recognize objects and people (as much as you can expect from a 92 yo man). There is not actual blindness in the eye, but the brain, in a post-traumatic response, blocks conscious knowledge of what is seen. SR Ballard > On Feb 15, 2020, at 7:37 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> >people suffering from "blind sight" can catch a ball, even though there is no visual conscious awareness of that ball. > > People with that condition display contradictory behavior. Catching the ball indicates the ball has been seen. Making a noise with the mouth that sounds like "I don't see the ball" indicates something *might* not have seen the ball. You can lie about what you say but not what you do, you've either caught the ball or you haven't. So clearly something must have seen the ball, although not necessarily the same thing that controls the vocal cords. > > 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 Feb 15 16:27:52 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 09:27:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: SR, very interesting story about your grandfather. I first realized it was important to distinguish between reality and knowledge of reality in an AI class as an undergraduate. We were trying to program a vision system for a robot that could manipulate blocks on a table. They were instructing us how to build 3D models of the blocks from 2D camera data. I was thinking this had to be the wrong way to do things, since I was naively thinking we didn't need to do all that extra work since we were just "directly aware of the blocks on the table.'. Does that sound in any way similar to thinking things don't have colors? Then it suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks. This was one of the most profound life changing (conversion from a "Naive realist" to a "Reprisentationalist") religious experiences of my life. Before that I had no knowledge of "weird" things like the color brown, phantom limb pain, synesthesia, blind sight (both real and hysterical) out of body experiences, and lots of other things most people have a hard time understanding, correctly. At that one instant I knew all such was a real possibility. As I learned of each of them, they were all confirmation of the predictions made by representationalism. As Representational Qualia theory defines: "Consiosness as computationally bound elemental subjective qualities like redness and greenness." John, this predicts there are two types of seeing. The kind that is done by robots, our subconscious, and blind sight, where there is no conscios computational binding, and the conscious kind where there is binding. Again, I knew all these were possible, before I knew they existed. On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 7:07 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > My grandfather has ?hysterical blindness? from a near death accident where > his head was trapped in the blades of a peanut thrasher for three days > before he was found. The blade of the machine stopped about an inch from > his eye, while another part had stopped the machine because it couldn?t > crush his skull. > > Afterwards, he was in a coma 1-2 weeks, and doctors wrote him off. His mom > drip fed his sugar water because he was her ?baby?. > > After this point, he has reported total blindness in this eye. However, he > was recently diagnosed with, basically, a 100% cataract in his other eye. > He cannot read with his ?blind? eye, but it keeps him from running into > walls and other similar things. He doesn?t seem to be able to see the TV, > but does recognize objects and people (as much as you can expect from a 92 > yo man). > > There is not actual blindness in the eye, but the brain, in a > post-traumatic response, blocks conscious knowledge of what is seen. > > SR Ballard > > On Feb 15, 2020, at 7:37 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >*people suffering from "blind sight" can catch a ball, even though there >> is no visual conscious awareness of that ball.* > > > People with that condition display contradictory behavior. Catching the > ball indicates the ball has been seen. Making a noise with the mouth that > sounds like "I don't see the ball" indicates something *might* not have > seen the ball. You can lie about what you say but not what you do, you've > either caught the ball or you haven't. So clearly something must have seen > the ball, although not necessarily the same thing that controls the vocal > cords. > > 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 interzone at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 16:46:53 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 11:46:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: I still have not heard convincing evidence for why your qualia are not at the level of neuronal processing negating the need for some fundamental physical quale of redness that we have yet to find when cracking open a skull. On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 11:29 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > SR, very interesting story about your grandfather. > > I first realized it was important to distinguish between reality and > knowledge of reality in an AI class as an undergraduate. We were trying to > program a vision system for a robot that could manipulate blocks on a table. > > They were instructing us how to build 3D models of the blocks from 2D > camera data. I was thinking this had to be the wrong way to do things, > since I was naively thinking we didn't need to do all that extra work since > we were just "directly aware of the blocks on the table.'. Does that sound > in any way similar to thinking things don't have colors? Then it suddenly > hit me like a ton of bricks. This was one of the most profound life > changing (conversion from a "Naive realist" to a "Reprisentationalist") > religious experiences of my life. > > Before that I had no knowledge of "weird" things like the color brown, > phantom limb pain, synesthesia, blind sight (both real and hysterical) out > of body experiences, and lots of other things most people have a hard time > understanding, correctly. At that one instant I knew all such was a real > possibility. As I learned of each of them, they were all confirmation of > the predictions made by representationalism. > > As Representational Qualia theory defines: "Consiosness as computationally > bound elemental subjective qualities like redness and greenness." > > John, this predicts there are two types of seeing. The kind that is done > by robots, our subconscious, and blind sight, where there is no conscios > computational binding, and the conscious kind where there is binding. > Again, I knew all these were possible, before I knew they existed. > > > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 7:07 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> My grandfather has ?hysterical blindness? from a near death accident >> where his head was trapped in the blades of a peanut thrasher for three >> days before he was found. The blade of the machine stopped about an inch >> from his eye, while another part had stopped the machine because it >> couldn?t crush his skull. >> >> Afterwards, he was in a coma 1-2 weeks, and doctors wrote him off. His >> mom drip fed his sugar water because he was her ?baby?. >> >> After this point, he has reported total blindness in this eye. However, >> he was recently diagnosed with, basically, a 100% cataract in his other >> eye. He cannot read with his ?blind? eye, but it keeps him from running >> into walls and other similar things. He doesn?t seem to be able to see the >> TV, but does recognize objects and people (as much as you can expect from a >> 92 yo man). >> >> There is not actual blindness in the eye, but the brain, in a >> post-traumatic response, blocks conscious knowledge of what is seen. >> >> SR Ballard >> >> On Feb 15, 2020, at 7:37 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> >*people suffering from "blind sight" can catch a ball, even though >>> there is no visual conscious awareness of that ball.* >> >> >> People with that condition display contradictory behavior. Catching the >> ball indicates the ball has been seen. Making a noise with the mouth that >> sounds like "I don't see the ball" indicates something *might* not have >> seen the ball. You can lie about what you say but not what you do, you've >> either caught the ball or you haven't. So clearly something must have seen >> the ball, although not necessarily the same thing that controls the vocal >> cords. >> >> John K Clark >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 17:38:29 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:38:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:30 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *I first realized it was important to distinguish between reality and > knowledge of reality in an AI class as an undergraduate. We were trying to > program a vision system for a robot that could manipulate blocks on a > table. They were instructing us how to build 3D models of the blocks from > 2D camera data. I was thinking this had to be the wrong way to do things, > since I was naively thinking we didn't need to do all that extra work since > we were just "directly aware of the blocks on the table.'* > So the "extra work" proved not to be extra at all, not if the robot was to behave in the way you wanted it to. *> As Representational Qualia theory defines: "Consiosness as > computationally bound elemental subjective qualities like redness and > greenness."* > I still don't know what "computationally bound" means, but I do know that red and green do not have "elemental subjective qualities" anymore than bigness or smallness does. > *John, this predicts there are two types of seeing. The kind that is > done by robots, our subconscious, and blind sight, where there is no > conscios computational binding, and the conscious kind where there is > binding. * > If these two types of seeing end up producing the same behavior then science can never distinguish between them, and Darwinian Evolution could never have created the type that produces not only intelligence but consciousness too; and yet here I am a conscious being. On the other hand if the two types of seeing end up producing different behaviors then any intelligent activity that would convince you that one of your fellow humans was conscious, and not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead, should if you're being logical convince you that a robot who behaved in the same intelligent way was just as conscious as the human. And as I keep emphasising, as a practical matter it's not really important if humans think an AI is conscious, but it is important that the AI think humans are conscious. If the AI thinks we're conscious like it is it might feel some empathy toward us, but if it thinks we're just primitive meat machines then the human race is in deep trouble. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 17:54:34 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 11:54:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: I still have not heard from anyone (Will?) that all they were doing was stimulating the ascending reticular formation. Long known to activate the cortex in a broad manner (and improve learning). bill w On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:41 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:30 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *I first realized it was important to distinguish between reality and >> knowledge of reality in an AI class as an undergraduate. We were trying to >> program a vision system for a robot that could manipulate blocks on a >> table. They were instructing us how to build 3D models of the blocks from >> 2D camera data. I was thinking this had to be the wrong way to do things, >> since I was naively thinking we didn't need to do all that extra work since >> we were just "directly aware of the blocks on the table.'* >> > > So the "extra work" proved not to be extra at all, not if the robot was to > behave in the way you wanted it to. > > *> As Representational Qualia theory defines: "Consiosness as >> computationally bound elemental subjective qualities like redness and >> greenness."* >> > > I still don't know what "computationally bound" means, but I do know that > red and green do not have "elemental subjective qualities" anymore than > bigness or smallness does. > > > *John, this predicts there are two types of seeing. The kind that is >> done by robots, our subconscious, and blind sight, where there is no >> conscios computational binding, and the conscious kind where there is >> binding. * >> > > If these two types of seeing end up producing the same behavior then > science can never distinguish between them, and Darwinian Evolution could > never have created the type that produces not only intelligence but > consciousness too; and yet here I am a conscious being. On the other hand > if the two types of seeing end up producing different behaviors then any > intelligent activity that would convince you that one of your fellow humans > was conscious, and not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead, should if > you're being logical convince you that a robot who behaved in the same > intelligent way was just as conscious as the human. > > And as I keep emphasising, as a practical matter it's not really important > if humans think an AI is conscious, but it is important that the AI think > humans are conscious. If the AI thinks we're conscious like it is it > might feel some empathy toward us, but if it thinks we're just primitive > meat machines then the human race is in deep trouble. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 18:00:02 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:00:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: There may be overlap in the circuits with RAS (not sure) but it was directly in the thalamus. The paper linked by the OP has full details if you want to go deeper. On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 12:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I still have not heard from anyone (Will?) that all they were doing was > stimulating the ascending reticular formation. Long known to activate the > cortex in a broad manner (and improve learning). > > bill w > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:41 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:30 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> *I first realized it was important to distinguish between reality and >>> knowledge of reality in an AI class as an undergraduate. We were trying to >>> program a vision system for a robot that could manipulate blocks on a >>> table. They were instructing us how to build 3D models of the blocks from >>> 2D camera data. I was thinking this had to be the wrong way to do things, >>> since I was naively thinking we didn't need to do all that extra work since >>> we were just "directly aware of the blocks on the table.'* >>> >> >> So the "extra work" proved not to be extra at all, not if the robot was >> to behave in the way you wanted it to. >> >> *> As Representational Qualia theory defines: "Consiosness as >>> computationally bound elemental subjective qualities like redness and >>> greenness."* >>> >> >> I still don't know what "computationally bound" means, but I do know >> that red and green do not have "elemental subjective qualities" anymore >> than bigness or smallness does. >> >> > *John, this predicts there are two types of seeing. The kind that is >>> done by robots, our subconscious, and blind sight, where there is no >>> conscios computational binding, and the conscious kind where there is >>> binding. * >>> >> >> If these two types of seeing end up producing the same behavior then >> science can never distinguish between them, and Darwinian Evolution could >> never have created the type that produces not only intelligence but >> consciousness too; and yet here I am a conscious being. On the other hand >> if the two types of seeing end up producing different behaviors then any >> intelligent activity that would convince you that one of your fellow humans >> was conscious, and not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead, should if >> you're being logical convince you that a robot who behaved in the same >> intelligent way was just as conscious as the human. >> >> And as I keep emphasising, as a practical matter it's not really >> important if humans think an AI is conscious, but it is important that >> the AI think humans are conscious. If the AI thinks we're conscious like >> it is it might feel some empathy toward us, but if it thinks we're just >> primitive meat machines then the human race is in deep trouble. >> >> 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 avant at sollegro.com Sat Feb 15 18:31:13 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 10:31:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found Message-ID: <20200215103113.Horde.j9s8xEfyuP_x1Vsg3c42ClR@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting William Flynn Wallace: > Perhaps they stimulated the ascending reticular activating system? RAS. They specifically targeted the central lateral thalamus by using an array of 24 superfine (12.5 micrometer) electrodes and were guided by hi resolution imaging technology, so I have to assume that their anatomical targeting was precise. But according to their introduction, the CL thalamus is directly connected to the RAS so maybe there was some current leakage to the RAS? I don't know. The article is free to download if you want to judge for yourself: "However, the central lateral thalamus (CL) may have a special relation to consciousness. CL damage is linked to disorders of consciousness (Schiff, 2008). Anatomically, CL receives input from the brainstem reticular activating system. It also projects to superficial layers and reciprocally connects with deep layers of the frontoparietal cortex (Kaufman and Rosenquist, 1985, Purpura and Schiff, 1997, Towns et al., 1990). Thus, CL is well positioned to influence information flow between cortical layers and areas." from https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30005-2#secsectitle0020 Stuart LaForge From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 18:58:38 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 11:58:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, Yes, you take this as me contradicting what you and I are saying. I describe your model, in a way that you agree is complete. Then I try to point out the inconsistencies in that model, in hopes that you will realize that maybe we should think about it in a different way. When you take what I am saying, and map it into your model, it becomes ?the replacement part must be the same, then you say that the observable behavior would not necessarily be the same? This is a complete misinterpretation of what I?m trying to say. This is only twisting what I?m trying to say into your model. If you could understand my model, you would see that I?m not saying anything even remotely close to what you think I am saying. Try a model where knowledge of reality is different than reality, a model in which there are real colors, which we can be directly aware of. A model in which these real colors are the objectively observable initial causes of us saying: ?That is red?. Try a model where it is the factual color that is important, not what we are reporting it to be. If you do this, you will discover that I am trying to say something very different than what you think I am saying. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Stathis Papaioannou Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Mental Phenomena To: Brent Allsop On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 09:42, Brent Allsop wrote: > Hi Stathis, > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:59 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> You have attempted to point out a problem, but you have not succeeded in >> pointing out a problem. >> > > Yes. This is so frustrating. I believe I fully understand what you are > saying, and the arguments you are using which you think justify your belief > that it is a "LOGICAL NECESSITY" that redness can arise from ones and > zeros. And I've proven this in that I've repeated it back to you all of > it in a way that says you agree that I understand what you are saying. > Yet you can do nothing even close to the same in return. > You repeat back what I say, but then you contradict yourself. That is, you claim you understand what it means when I say that the observable behaviour of the system with the replacement part must be the same, then you say that the observable behaviour would not necessarily be the same because the qualia might be different. You then suggest that an experiment could demonstrate the truth of the matter. But that is like saying an experiment might demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 5. To me, It seems so obvious that there are multiple problems in what you are > claiming. But no matter what words I try to use, to describe those > problems, you still obviously just twist everything I say, to fit within > your qualia blind model, and fail to understand anything about the model > I'm trying to describe. You certainly can't describe anything about my > model, and how it reveals the problems in your arguments. > > I guess my only solace is that I KNOW (It is a LOGICAL NECESSITY ;) That > some day experimentalists will objectively observe something (as in some > kind of substrate) in the brain, that is redness, and that nobody will ever > be able to find anything other that THAT substrate (even if it is only some > kind of function, the fact that redness results from that function must be > considered a physical fact, and people will refer to that a s particular > substrate on which conscious redness cannot exist without. My prediction > is also, that this "functionalist" view is holding back scientific > understanding of the brain, and future histories will agree on the damage > that you, Chalmers and everyone who so instists that this is a "logical > necessity" are slowing down progress. I feel it is my life work, to > overcome this falcy, to show experimentalists how not to be qualia blind, > so they can discover what it is that has a redness quality, we we can > finally falsify all this "crap in the gap" (functionalism is the largest > load of crap to me, even worse than substance dualism and quantum views on > consciousness.) And it is so frustrating to me, when I'm trying to help > the world to understand how to use experimental methods in qualia, on > social media, in places like Quora. Only to have people like you and James > Carroll and all the other "functionalists" (By far the most popular > consensu camp, still) who everyone knows is way smarter than I could ever > be come in and cut me off at the knees. > > I guess the reason I'm so emotional about this is it is far more than just > wanting to be right, and wanting to not be wrong. It is a matter of > wanting to push the science of consciousness forward. So people can better > understand what it will mean, and what it will be like to be uploaded, and > all that. Let me ask you this. Do you think your continued touting of > this functionalism, and what Chalmers is doing, and all the rest of you > functionalists, is moving the understanding of consciousness forwards or > backwards? Is it helping anyone to understanding what uploading could be > like? How do you think historians (after they discover what it is that has > a redness quality) will judge promoters of functionalism? Will they > consider "functionalists" as people that helped move the science forward, > or as clueless people that lead everyone down obviously mistaken rat holes, > preventing any progress in the field. Something that continues to keep > everyone from understanding what it means to be qualia blind, or having a > clue about what it might mean to be uploaded. > > Brent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 19:10:52 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:10:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Right, but what you are telling people is that all we need to do to upload and fix something, is to put it all in a computer that only has 1s and 0s. What you are effectively telling people is that all we need to do is to restore the ability of the robot to pick the strawberry. Nothing else matters. But, when you go down that rat hole that ignores so many of the facts (beng like Mary, not know the color all our abstract descriptions of physics are describing) You are telling the experimentalists you don?t need to step out of the room, and find out what color things are. You are telling them it is perfectly OK to remain ?qualia blind?. You are telling them the only thing that matters is restoring the ability to pick the strawberry. In that world, as Chalmers has become famous for, there is a ?hard? (as in impossible) problem. "fading dancing absent" qualia don't make any sense. There is an ?explanatory gap?. And this huge ?gap? is where all the religious and sloppy crap emerges. There is no experimental way to falsify any of these crap theories. Nobody can know what consciousness is, nobody can know what uploading will be like. They think that if they can pick the strawberry, the upload will be a success, but they have this (very justified) uncomfortable feeling that maybe this will not be the case, because they realize that they don?t even really know if someone else is conscious or not, or if anything else really exists or not. They can't really know if there is "The Island " or if they are more likely like Logan in "Logan's Run ". The only reason experimentalists are still so qualia blind (like Mary) is precisely because of functionalist using their sloppy sleight of hand, leading them away from what is important: The real color of things. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Stathis Papaioannou Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Mental Phenomena To: Brent Allsop On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 09:42, Brent Allsop wrote: > Hi Stathis, > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:59 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> You have attempted to point out a problem, but you have not succeeded in >> pointing out a problem. >> > > Yes. This is so frustrating. I believe I fully understand what you are > saying, and the arguments you are using which you think justify your belief > that it is a "LOGICAL NECESSITY" that redness can arise from ones and > zeros. And I've proven this in that I've repeated it back to you all of > it in a way that says you agree that I understand what you are saying. > Yet you can do nothing even close to the same in return. > > To me, It seems so obvious that there are multiple problems in what you > are claiming. But no matter what words I try to use, to describe those > problems, you still obviously just twist everything I say, to fit within > your qualia blind model, and fail to understand anything about the model > I'm trying to describe. You certainly can't describe anything about my > model, and how it reveals the problems in your arguments. > > I guess my only solace is that I KNOW (It is a LOGICAL NECESSITY ;) That > some day experimentalists will objectively observe something (as in some > kind of substrate) in the brain, that is redness, and that nobody will ever > be able to find anything other that THAT substrate (even if it is only some > kind of function, the fact that redness results from that function must be > considered a physical fact, and people will refer to that a s particular > substrate on which conscious redness cannot exist without. My prediction > is also, that this "functionalist" view is holding back scientific > understanding of the brain, and future histories will agree on the damage > that you, Chalmers and everyone who so instists that this is a "logical > necessity" are slowing down progress. I feel it is my life work, to > overcome this falcy, to show experimentalists how not to be qualia blind, > so they can discover what it is that has a redness quality, we we can > finally falsify all this "crap in the gap" (functionalism is the largest > load of crap to me, even worse than substance dualism and quantum views on > consciousness.) And it is so frustrating to me, when I'm trying to help > the world to understand how to use experimental methods in qualia, on > social media, in places like Quora. Only to have people like you and James > Carroll and all the other "functionalists" (By far the most popular > consensu camp, still) who everyone knows is way smarter than I could ever > be come in and cut me off at the knees. > > I guess the reason I'm so emotional about this is it is far more than just > wanting to be right, and wanting to not be wrong. It is a matter of > wanting to push the science of consciousness forward. So people can better > understand what it will mean, and what it will be like to be uploaded, and > all that. Let me ask you this. Do you think your continued touting of > this functionalism, and what Chalmers is doing, and all the rest of you > functionalists, is moving the understanding of consciousness forwards or > backwards? Is it helping anyone to understanding what uploading could be > like? How do you think historians (after they discover what it is that has > a redness quality) will judge promoters of functionalism? Will they > consider "functionalists" as people that helped move the science forward, > or as clueless people that lead everyone down obviously mistaken rat holes, > preventing any progress in the field. Something that continues to keep > everyone from understanding what it means to be qualia blind, or having a > clue about what it might mean to be uploaded. > As a philosophical theory, functionalism gives neuroscientists confidence that one day it may be possible replace damaged brain tissue with a non-biological analogue, perhaps make conscious machines, or upload a human mind. I don?t see how it could impede progress as you suggest. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 19:27:53 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:27:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I appreciate your passion, but how can you be so sure your hypothesis is correct when there doesn't seem to be any more experimental evidence for it than any other theory of consciousness. If we get to a point where a mouse connectome is fully elucidated and simulated with enough fidelity in a computer, and the resulting entity seems to act/react like a mouse, will this give you pause? Do you consider animals automata? If not, why do you assume there are special qualia related to human consciousness the location of which cannot be identified in the brain, and that are unique to human consciousness. On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 2:11 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Right, but what you are telling people is that all we need to do to upload > and fix something, is to put it all in a computer that only has 1s and 0s. > What you are effectively telling people is that all we need to do is to > restore the ability of the robot to pick the strawberry. Nothing else > matters. > > > > But, when you go down that rat hole that ignores so many of the facts > (beng like Mary, not know the color all our abstract descriptions of > physics are describing) You are telling the experimentalists you don?t > need to step out of the room, and find out what color things are. You are > telling them it is perfectly OK to remain ?qualia blind?. You are telling > them the only thing that matters is restoring the ability to pick the > strawberry. > > > > In that world, as Chalmers has become famous for, there is a ?hard? (as in > impossible) problem. "fading dancing absent" qualia don't make any sense. There > is an ?explanatory gap?. And this huge ?gap? is where all the religious > and sloppy crap emerges. There is no experimental way to falsify any of > these crap theories. Nobody can know what consciousness is, nobody can > know what uploading will be like. They think that if they can pick the > strawberry, the upload will be a success, but they have this (very > justified) uncomfortable feeling that maybe this will not be the case, > because they realize that they don?t even really know if someone else is > conscious or not, or if anything else really exists or not. They can't > really know if there is "The Island > " or if they are > more likely like Logan in "Logan's Run > ". > > > The only reason experimentalists are still so qualia blind (like Mary) is > precisely because of functionalist using their sloppy sleight of hand, > leading them away from what is important: The real color of things. > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Stathis Papaioannou > Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:52 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Mental Phenomena > To: Brent Allsop > > > > > On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 09:42, Brent Allsop wrote: > >> Hi Stathis, >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:59 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> You have attempted to point out a problem, but you have not succeeded in >>> pointing out a problem. >>> >> >> Yes. This is so frustrating. I believe I fully understand what you are >> saying, and the arguments you are using which you think justify your belief >> that it is a "LOGICAL NECESSITY" that redness can arise from ones and >> zeros. And I've proven this in that I've repeated it back to you all of >> it in a way that says you agree that I understand what you are saying. >> Yet you can do nothing even close to the same in return. >> >> To me, It seems so obvious that there are multiple problems in what you >> are claiming. But no matter what words I try to use, to describe those >> problems, you still obviously just twist everything I say, to fit within >> your qualia blind model, and fail to understand anything about the model >> I'm trying to describe. You certainly can't describe anything about my >> model, and how it reveals the problems in your arguments. >> >> I guess my only solace is that I KNOW (It is a LOGICAL NECESSITY ;) That >> some day experimentalists will objectively observe something (as in some >> kind of substrate) in the brain, that is redness, and that nobody will ever >> be able to find anything other that THAT substrate (even if it is only some >> kind of function, the fact that redness results from that function must be >> considered a physical fact, and people will refer to that a s particular >> substrate on which conscious redness cannot exist without. My prediction >> is also, that this "functionalist" view is holding back scientific >> understanding of the brain, and future histories will agree on the damage >> that you, Chalmers and everyone who so instists that this is a "logical >> necessity" are slowing down progress. I feel it is my life work, to >> overcome this falcy, to show experimentalists how not to be qualia blind, >> so they can discover what it is that has a redness quality, we we can >> finally falsify all this "crap in the gap" (functionalism is the largest >> load of crap to me, even worse than substance dualism and quantum views on >> consciousness.) And it is so frustrating to me, when I'm trying to help >> the world to understand how to use experimental methods in qualia, on >> social media, in places like Quora. Only to have people like you and James >> Carroll and all the other "functionalists" (By far the most popular >> consensu camp, still) who everyone knows is way smarter than I could ever >> be come in and cut me off at the knees. >> >> I guess the reason I'm so emotional about this is it is far more than >> just wanting to be right, and wanting to not be wrong. It is a matter of >> wanting to push the science of consciousness forward. So people can better >> understand what it will mean, and what it will be like to be uploaded, and >> all that. Let me ask you this. Do you think your continued touting of >> this functionalism, and what Chalmers is doing, and all the rest of you >> functionalists, is moving the understanding of consciousness forwards or >> backwards? Is it helping anyone to understanding what uploading could be >> like? How do you think historians (after they discover what it is that has >> a redness quality) will judge promoters of functionalism? Will they >> consider "functionalists" as people that helped move the science forward, >> or as clueless people that lead everyone down obviously mistaken rat holes, >> preventing any progress in the field. Something that continues to keep >> everyone from understanding what it means to be qualia blind, or having a >> clue about what it might mean to be uploaded. >> > > As a philosophical theory, functionalism gives neuroscientists confidence > that one day it may be possible replace damaged brain tissue with a > non-biological analogue, perhaps make conscious machines, or upload a human > mind. I don?t see how it could impede progress as you suggest. > >> -- > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 20:21:08 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:21:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dylan, This is so frustrating. No matter how I try to say things so they won?t be misunderstood, people always map what I?m trying to say, onto their model, and it becomes something nothing like what I?m trying to say. On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 12:29 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I appreciate your passion, but how can you be so sure your hypothesis is > correct when there doesn't seem to be any more experimental evidence for it > than any other theory of consciousness. > You've missed most of what I've been saying. Representational Qualia Theory is not a real theory. It is just a set of facts about consciousness that everyone else, and all their theories agree on (they are all supporting sub camps to RQT). All RQT is saying, is that we have qualia, and that we should distinguish between reality and knowledge of reality (use more than one word for all things red). Even Dennett's unique "Predictive Bayesian Coding Theory " agrees with the facts which nobody can deny: we have qualia. All the sub camps of RQT are the many diverse predictions about what qualia are. Some predict qualia are a dual substance separate from physical reality, others predict qualia are down at the "quantum level " . The current popular consensus, as a result of the substitution argument, is what Stathis espouses: "Functionalism ". Currently, because of this popular belief, everyone thinks there is a "hard mind body problem", and an "explanatory gap " resulting in has having no idea how to approach color, and basically, nobody can conceive of a way to falsify any of these theories. All that RQT does, is acknowledge what everyone must agree on, that we have qualia. Then it points out how to think about color in a more rigorous way, by not being 'qualia blind'. If we do experimental methods that use more than one word for all things 'red', and stop 'correcting' for any physical differences we observe in different brains, labeling it all as the same 'red'. (This is what ALL experimentalists currently do) we will finally have a way to discover what it is that really has a redness quality. This is the experimental method that will finally provide the "experimental evidence" you are asking for so we can falsify all but THE ONE. RQT makes no predictions about the nature of qualia. It just proposes a way to of thinking about the facts we know about color in a more rigorous way, which accounts for all the facts we know. All RQT is doing is providing an experimental method which finally has the ability to bridge the explanatory gap and there by discover which of all the many sub camp theories is THE ONE, so we can discover which of alll our descriptions of stuff in the brain is the description of redness. Again, it could be dualism, functionalism, quantum.... RQT is just describing the experimental method required (not being qualia blind) to be able to start falsifying all but THE ONE. If we get to a point where a mouse connectome is fully elucidated and > simulated with enough fidelity in a computer, and the resulting entity > seems to act/react like a mouse, will this give you pause? > Again, you have missed most of what I've been saying. The 3 robots that are functionally the same, but qualitatively very different paper is meant to illustrate exactly the problem with what you are saying here. Each of these robots are 3 different versions of your mouse, all of which can pick the strawberry (seems to act/react like a mouse), yet their knowledge enabling them to pick the strawberry is qualitatively very different. It is THAT colored difference in their knowledge that is important. Do you consider animals automata? If not, why do you assume there are > special qualia related to human consciousness the location of which cannot > be identified in the brain, and that are unique to human consciousness. > Hopefully you can see from the above, that I am saying nothing even remotely close to any of this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 20:31:52 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 15:31:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Brent- I truly appreciate your thoughtful replies despite my persistence. I will try to digest more of the content behind the trailheads you've provided before grilling you further, but I guess I remain in the Functionalism camp at the moment. I believe I have the gist of your mapping argument at this point, but am still very suspect of the idea that substrate matters. I'm not afraid of changing my view or the implications (I don't expect to live to see uploading even if it is possible) so that is not where my digging in is coming from. On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 3:21 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > Hi Dylan, > > > This is so frustrating. No matter how I try to say things so they won?t > be misunderstood, people always map what I?m trying to say, onto their > model, and it becomes something nothing like what I?m trying to say. > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 12:29 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I appreciate your passion, but how can you be so sure your hypothesis is >> correct when there doesn't seem to be any more experimental evidence for it >> than any other theory of consciousness. >> > > You've missed most of what I've been saying. Representational Qualia > Theory is not > a real theory. It is just a set of facts about consciousness that everyone > else, and all their theories agree on (they are all supporting sub camps to > RQT). All RQT is saying, is that we have qualia, and that we should > distinguish between reality and knowledge of reality (use more than one > word for all things red). Even Dennett's unique "Predictive Bayesian > Coding Theory " > agrees with the facts which nobody can deny: we have qualia. All the sub > camps of RQT are the many diverse predictions about what qualia are. Some > predict qualia are a dual substance > separate from > physical reality, others predict qualia are down at the "quantum level > " . The current popular > consensus, as a result of the substitution argument, is what Stathis > espouses: "Functionalism > ". > Currently, because of this popular belief, everyone thinks there is a > "hard mind body problem", and an "explanatory gap > " resulting in has having > no idea how to approach color, and basically, nobody can conceive of a way > to falsify any of these theories. All that RQT does, is acknowledge what > everyone must agree on, that we have qualia. Then it points out how to > think about color in a more rigorous way, by not being 'qualia blind'. If > we do experimental methods that use more than one word for all things > 'red', and stop 'correcting' for any physical differences we observe in > different brains, labeling it all as the same 'red'. (This is what ALL > experimentalists currently do) we will finally have a way to discover what > it is that really has a redness quality. This is the experimental method > that will finally provide the "experimental evidence" you are asking for so > we can falsify all but THE ONE. > > RQT makes no predictions about the nature of qualia. It just proposes a > way to of thinking about the facts we know about color in a more rigorous > way, which accounts for all the facts we know. All RQT is doing is > providing an experimental method which finally has the ability to bridge > the explanatory gap and there by discover which of all the many sub camp > theories is THE ONE, so we can discover which of alll our descriptions of > stuff in the brain is the description of redness. Again, it could be > dualism, functionalism, quantum.... RQT is just describing the > experimental method required (not being qualia blind) to be able to start > falsifying all but THE ONE. > > If we get to a point where a mouse connectome is fully elucidated and >> simulated with enough fidelity in a computer, and the resulting entity >> seems to act/react like a mouse, will this give you pause? >> > > Again, you have missed most of what I've been saying. The 3 robots that > are functionally the same, but qualitatively very different > > paper is meant to illustrate exactly the problem with what you are saying > here. Each of these robots are 3 different versions of your mouse, all of > which can pick the strawberry (seems to act/react like a mouse), yet their > knowledge enabling them to pick the strawberry is qualitatively very > different. It is THAT colored difference in their knowledge that is > important. > > Do you consider animals automata? If not, why do you assume there are >> special qualia related to human consciousness the location of which cannot >> be identified in the brain, and that are unique to human consciousness. >> > > Hopefully you can see from the above, that I am saying nothing even > remotely close to any of this. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 20:57:10 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 07:57:10 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 06:00, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > > Yes, you take this as me contradicting what you and I are saying. > > I describe your model, in a way that you agree is complete. Then I try to > point out the inconsistencies in that model, in hopes that you will realize > that maybe we should think about it in a different way. When you take what > I am saying, and map it into your model, it becomes ?the replacement part > must be the same, then you say that the observable behavior would not > necessarily be the same? This is a complete misinterpretation of what > I?m trying to say. This is only twisting what I?m trying to say into your > model. If you could understand my model, you would see that I?m not saying > anything even remotely close to what you think I am saying. > > > > Try a model where knowledge of reality is different than reality, a model > in which there are real colors, which we can be directly aware of. A model > in which these real colors are the objectively observable initial causes of > us saying: ?That is red?. Try a model where it is the factual color that > is important, not what we are reporting it to be. If you do this, you will > discover that I am trying to say something very different than what you > think I am saying. > The ?factual colour? cannot cause a physical change without the application of a physical force. The same physical change could be effected using a different physical force; it?s just a question of pushing or pulling objects in a particular way. Therefore, the ?factual colour? cannot be substrate or physics specific. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 21:44:50 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 08:44:50 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 06:12, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Right, but what you are telling people is that all we need to do to upload > and fix something, is to put it all in a computer that only has 1s and 0s. > What you are effectively telling people is that all we need to do is to > restore the ability of the robot to pick the strawberry. Nothing else > matters. > No, humans do not just pick strawberries, they also see them, smell them, have emotional responses to them and so on. A human who had a brain implant that allowed them to pick strawberries without these other experiences would immediately tell us that there was something seriously wrong with their perception. A human who had artificial neurons that perfectly matched the I/O behaviour of their biological neurons, on the other hand, would not only pick the strawberries but also report that they looked, smelled, tasted and so on exactly the same. But, when you go down that rat hole that ignores so many of the facts (beng > like Mary, not know the color all our abstract descriptions of physics are > describing) You are telling the experimentalists you don?t need to step > out of the room, and find out what color things are. You are telling them > it is perfectly OK to remain ?qualia blind?. You are telling them the only > thing that matters is restoring the ability to pick the strawberry. > You seem to miss the fact that I keep saying it is impossible for the subject to become qualia blind when a qualia blind scientist does the neural replacement correctly. In that world, as Chalmers has become famous for, there is a ?hard? (as in > impossible) problem. "fading dancing absent" qualia don't make any sense. There > is an ?explanatory gap?. And this huge ?gap? is where all the religious > and sloppy crap emerges. There is no experimental way to falsify any of > these crap theories. Nobody can know what consciousness is, nobody can > know what uploading will be like. They think that if they can pick the > strawberry, the upload will be a success, but they have this (very > justified) uncomfortable feeling that maybe this will not be the case, > because they realize that they don?t even really know if someone else is > conscious or not, or if anything else really exists or not. They can't > really know if there is "The Island > " or if they are > more likely like Logan in "Logan's Run > ". > But you can be confident that if the experimentally verifiable behaviour of the neuronal model is all in order, then the consciousness will also be in order. Isn?t that exactly what you want? The only reason experimentalists are still so qualia blind (like Mary) is > precisely because of functionalist using their sloppy sleight of hand, > leading them away from what is important: The real color of things. > Experimentalist are still often contemptuous of philosophy and of the idea of qualia, which they think is philosophy rather than science. Nevertheless, this does not stop them doing a good job of elucidating and perhaps one day replicating the function of neurological tissue. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 22:19:21 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 15:19:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, No matter how I try to say things, you always twist them to be something different, so they can fit into your assumption that the ?forces? and ?behavior? are different than the qualia. I completely agree that everything you say is true, given the assumption that "forces", and "behavior" are different than qualia. So, if you are going to eternally map what I?m trying to say, into your assumption, we will never make any more progress. Let me know if you are willing to try looking at things in a different way, with some different assumptions. Let me know if you are going to make an attempt to do what I have done for you, the way I am repeating back to you, what you are trying to say to me, and working from within your model. Otherwise, progress will continue to be impossible. On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 2:46 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 06:12, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Right, but what you are telling people is that all we need to do to >> upload and fix something, is to put it all in a computer that only has 1s >> and 0s. What you are effectively telling people is that all we need to do >> is to restore the ability of the robot to pick the strawberry. Nothing >> else matters. >> > > No, humans do not just pick strawberries, they also see them, smell them, > have emotional responses to them and so on. A human who had a brain implant > that allowed them to pick strawberries without these other experiences > would immediately tell us that there was something seriously wrong with > their perception. A human who had artificial neurons that perfectly matched > the I/O behaviour of their biological neurons, on the other hand, would not > only pick the strawberries but also report that they looked, smelled, > tasted and so on exactly the same. > > But, when you go down that rat hole that ignores so many of the facts >> (beng like Mary, not know the color all our abstract descriptions of >> physics are describing) You are telling the experimentalists you don?t >> need to step out of the room, and find out what color things are. You are >> telling them it is perfectly OK to remain ?qualia blind?. You are telling >> them the only thing that matters is restoring the ability to pick the >> strawberry. >> > > You seem to miss the fact that I keep saying it is impossible for the > subject to become qualia blind when a qualia blind scientist does the > neural replacement correctly. > > In that world, as Chalmers has become famous for, there is a ?hard? (as in >> impossible) problem. "fading dancing absent" qualia don't make any sense. There >> is an ?explanatory gap?. And this huge ?gap? is where all the religious >> and sloppy crap emerges. There is no experimental way to falsify any of >> these crap theories. Nobody can know what consciousness is, nobody can >> know what uploading will be like. They think that if they can pick the >> strawberry, the upload will be a success, but they have this (very >> justified) uncomfortable feeling that maybe this will not be the case, >> because they realize that they don?t even really know if someone else is >> conscious or not, or if anything else really exists or not. They can't >> really know if there is "The Island >> " or if they are >> more likely like Logan in "Logan's Run >> ". >> > > But you can be confident that if the experimentally verifiable behaviour > of the neuronal model is all in order, then the consciousness will also be > in order. Isn?t that exactly what you want? > > The only reason experimentalists are still so qualia blind (like Mary) is >> precisely because of functionalist using their sloppy sleight of hand, >> leading them away from what is important: The real color of things. >> > > Experimentalist are still often contemptuous of philosophy and of the idea > of qualia, which they think is philosophy rather than science. > Nevertheless, this does not stop them doing a good job of elucidating and > perhaps one day replicating the function of neurological tissue. > >> -- > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 22:40:23 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 15:40:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi John, On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:40 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I still don't know what "computationally bound" means > This has to do with the so called "binding problem ". Or more specifically what that wikipedia article refers to as "BP2" [composite] added by me: "There is the *combination problem*: the problem of how objects, background and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single [composite] experience.[1] " As you point out, there must be something physical in the subconscious representing what the subconscious knows. The reason we are not consciously aware of the subconscious physical information is because it is not computationally bound into the "composite qualitative experience" that is our composite conscious awareness. Does that help? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 22:42:51 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 16:42:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: <20200215103113.Horde.j9s8xEfyuP_x1Vsg3c42ClR@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20200215103113.Horde.j9s8xEfyuP_x1Vsg3c42ClR@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Stuart and Dylan It was confusing to me because I have known about the RAS for a long time and if it was mentioned, I missed it. bill w On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 12:33 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Quoting William Flynn Wallace: > > > Perhaps they stimulated the ascending reticular activating system? RAS. > > They specifically targeted the central lateral thalamus by using an > array of 24 superfine (12.5 micrometer) electrodes and were guided by > hi resolution imaging technology, so I have to assume that their > anatomical targeting was precise. But according to their introduction, > the CL thalamus is directly connected to the RAS so maybe there was > some current leakage to the RAS? I don't know. The article is free to > download if you want to judge for yourself: > > "However, the central lateral thalamus (CL) may have a special > relation to consciousness. CL damage is linked to disorders of > consciousness (Schiff, 2008). Anatomically, CL receives input from the > brainstem reticular activating system. It also projects to superficial > layers and reciprocally connects with deep layers of the > frontoparietal cortex (Kaufman and Rosenquist, 1985, Purpura and > Schiff, 1997, Towns et al., 1990). Thus, CL is well positioned to > influence information flow between cortical layers and areas." > > from > https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30005-2#secsectitle0020 > > 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 Sat Feb 15 23:25:10 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 18:25:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 3:23 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *Hi Dylan,* > > *This is so frustrating. No matter how I try to say things so they won?t > be misunderstood, people always map what I?m trying to say, onto their > model, and it becomes something nothing like what I?m trying to say.* > Dylan asked 2 very good questions, so if you don't want to be misunderstood then don't ignore them. 1) How can you be so sure your hypothesis is correct when there doesn't seem to be any more experimental evidence for it than any other theory of consciousness? 2) If we get to a point where a mouse connectome is fully elucidated and simulated with enough fidelity in a computer, and the resulting entity seems to act/react like a mouse, will this give you pause? Even a good honest "I don't know" would be acceptable, that would certainly be my answer to a vast number of questions, but silence is not a good answer. *> **Representational Qualia Theory > is not a real > theory. It is just a set of facts about consciousness that everyone else, > and all their theories agree on (they are all supporting sub camps to > RQT). * > I agree it's not a theory because all it says is "*Representational qualia theory predicts that our conscious knowledge of things is represented by qualia*", it says nothing about behavior and thus makes no real predictions and does nothing but introduce a new synonym for consciousness. *All RQT is saying, is that we have qualia, and that we should distinguish > between reality and knowledge of reality * > Yes, the sound of broken glass and the sight of broken glass and the feel of broken glass is not broken glass, and so in that sense nobody knows what broken glass is or will ever know, but I don't think that line of thought will help you much in the study of consciousness, or in the study of anything else for that matter. > > * Even Dennett's unique "Predictive Bayesian Coding Theory > " agrees with the > facts which nobody can deny: we have qualia. * > In discussing consciousness in a serious way great care should be taken with the use of personal pronouns like "I" and "we". The above should have been "I can't doubt that I have qualia (aka I'm conscious) and everybody I've ever heard makes noises with their mouth that sound like "I'm conscious too". *> **The current popular consensus, as a result of the substitution > argument, is what Stathis espouses: "Functionalism > ". * > No doubt one reason it's so popular is that there is a huge amount of evidence that Darwinian Evolution is largely correct and it is the only one of your "camp statements" that is compatible with it. *> Do you think your continued touting of this functionalism, and what > Chalmers is doing, and all the rest of you functionalists, is moving the > understanding of consciousness forwards or backwards?* As far as consciousness is concerned it does neither, it does what all consciousness theories do, absolutely precisely nothing. However it can help us figure out which ideas are worth our time and which aren't worth the wear and tear on our valuable neurons. > *> RQT is just describing the experimental method required (not being > qualia blind) to be able to start falsifying all but THE ONE.* > If it describes what you really want and need, an experimental method that can distinguish between a process that produces intelligent behavior and consciousness and a process that just produces intelligent behavior with no consciousness then I most certainly have NOT seen even the hint of it. *The 3 robots that are functionally the same, but qualitatively very > different > > paper is meant to illustrate exactly the problem with what you are saying > here. * > One of the 3 robots makes no sense and there is no way to know if the other 2 robots subjective experience is different or not, or even know if they have a subjective experience at all. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 23:41:44 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 18:41:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 5:43 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> I still don't know what "computationally bound" means >> > > *> This has to do with the so called "binding problem > ". Or more specifically > what that wikipedia article refers to as "BP2" [composite] added by me: > "There is the combination problem: the problem of how objects, background > and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single [composite] > experience."* > I don't see the problem. Computer programs are computational and they have no problem reacting to numerous different types of inputs in a unified way. And I think emotions are easy but intelligence is hard, Evolution thought so too. Emotional behavior like fear has been around since multicellular creatures appeared at least 600 million years ago, but Evolution only figured out how to produce the sort of intelligence that makes humans fundamentally different from the other animals a few hundred thousand years ago. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 01:05:54 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 18:05:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi John, What does evolution and all you are saying here, have to do with whether something is bound into you composit conscious awareness or not? On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 4:43 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 5:43 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >> I still don't know what "computationally bound" means >>> >> >> *> This has to do with the so called "binding problem >> ". Or more specifically >> what that wikipedia article refers to as "BP2" [composite] added by me: >> "There is the combination problem: the problem of how objects, background >> and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single [composite] >> experience."* >> > > I don't see the problem. Computer programs are computational and they have > no problem reacting to numerous different types of inputs in a unified way. > And I think emotions are easy but intelligence is hard, Evolution thought > so too. Emotional behavior like fear has been around since multicellular > creatures appeared at least 600 million years ago, but Evolution only > figured out how to produce the sort of intelligence that makes humans > fundamentally different from the other animals a few hundred thousand years > ago. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 01:14:40 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 19:14:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: John, in what sense are emotions 'easy'? The recent finding that we cannot make decisions without emotions has thrown a big wrench into our understanding of decision-making and possibly a lot of other things. Biochemically emotional expression is very complex - each chemical affecting the brain, muscles and other body parts. Then there is the issue of emotional control, of which we have very little. I'd say that we understand intelligence far more than we do emotions. Easy? bill w On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 5:44 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 5:43 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >> I still don't know what "computationally bound" means >>> >> >> *> This has to do with the so called "binding problem >> ". Or more specifically >> what that wikipedia article refers to as "BP2" [composite] added by me: >> "There is the combination problem: the problem of how objects, background >> and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single [composite] >> experience."* >> > > I don't see the problem. Computer programs are computational and they have > no problem reacting to numerous different types of inputs in a unified way. > And I think emotions are easy but intelligence is hard, Evolution thought > so too. Emotional behavior like fear has been around since multicellular > creatures appeared at least 600 million years ago, but Evolution only > figured out how to produce the sort of intelligence that makes humans > fundamentally different from the other animals a few hundred thousand years > ago. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 11:30:50 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 06:30:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *Hi John, **What does evolution and all you are saying here, have to do > with whether something is bound into you composit conscious awareness or > not?* > Can intelligent behavior exist without consciousness or can it not? If it can then consciousness is not needed from Evolution's point of view and so could not have produced it. So how did a conscious being like you get here? If you can not have intelligent behavior without consciousness then logically you'd have no more reason to think a AI was a zombie than to think a intelligent human was a zombie. As for me I don't believe in zombies. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 12:38:59 2020 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 13:38:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Seems like the discussion is back at : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie Again........ My personal take on this is that consciousness is variable and subject to conditions surrounding the person/subject. When I am stressed enough, tired enough or in other ways impaired (not drunk since university) I do not think that I am properly conscious. At the same time I do know that I can exhibit a behaviour that my surroundings interpretate as intelligent. (How is that I know such things? As an senior anesthetist, I do get to experience that level of stress more often than I enjoy.) Anyway if in an situation where your physical incarnation ( what is the term for everything you that is not the conscious part ?) needs to act fast and follow a more or less automated program, then your consciousness is a hindrance and if it interferes with proceedings you loose time and effectiveness. So when writing a lecture my consciousness is up front, when my RN has fumbled an intubation, or in the trauma room, I most certainly am not leading with conscious thought. The rest of the day my conscious is dealing with logistics and some other part of me is handling the hands on stuff. Do this answer anything useful about qualia? Heck of I know. But I would like to. Know about true qualia that is. Next thought, in my daily grind there are also patients with chronic and acute pain, most of which are not pain free and won't ever be. What can be done to help them? (Painlessness is an illusion, not an option.) Modify the qualia of their pain and existence, that is what we can work with. Change the pain qualia from unbearable pain to bearable pain and you have done the patient a great service. Can a subject with disputable consciousness feel the qualia of pain? This is in the same category as tree fall forest sound stuff. If we block the expression of pain in a sedated body (is there an consciousness? I don't know) is there pain if there's no one to feel it? Seems like there's not. When we quit sedation and allow whatever level of consciousness to return, the patient do not express any signs of problems related to the pain. IE perform surgery on a patient who is treated with propofol ( hypnotic agent with dubious pain effectiveness) block sympathetic response to pain with ultrafast beta-blocker ( that is surgery without pain medication) and both surgeon and patient are happy afterwards. This always make me feel qualia-schmalia....... /Henrik Den s?n 16 feb. 2020 12:34John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> skrev: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *Hi John, **What does evolution and all you are saying here, have to do >> with whether something is bound into you composit conscious awareness or >> not?* >> > > Can intelligent behavior exist without consciousness or can it not? > > If it can then consciousness is not needed from Evolution's point of view > and so could not have produced it. So how did a conscious being like you > get here? > > If you can not have intelligent behavior without consciousness then logically > you'd have no more reason to think a AI was a zombie than to think a > intelligent human was a zombie. As for me I don't believe in zombies. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 14:06:54 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 09:06:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:17 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I'd say that we understand intelligence far more than we do emotions. I wouldn't. If given a box of parts it would be easy to design a circuit that would display fear and pain, just rig it up such that if a particular number showed up in a register it would change that number to something else and stop all other activities of the machine until that change was made. But it would be far more difficult to take that box a parts and, starting from scratch, make a circuit that could play even a mediocre game of checkers. > Biochemically emotional expression is very complex - each chemical > affecting the brain, muscles and other body parts. > You're talking about hormones, and I'm not impressed with hormones and I see nothing sacred in them. I don't see the slightest reason why they or any neurotransmitter would be especially difficult to simulate through computation, because chemical messengers are not a sign of sophisticated design on nature's part, rather it's an example of Evolution's bungling. If you need to inhibit a nearby neuron there are better ways of sending that signal then launching a GABA molecule like a message in a bottle thrown into the sea and waiting ages for it to diffuse to its random target. I'm not interested in chemicals only the information they contain, I want the information to get transmitted from cell to cell by the best method, and few would choose to send smoke signals if a fiber optic cable was available. The information content in each molecular message must be tiny, just a few bits, because only about 60 neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, norepinephrine and GABA are known, even if the true number is 100 times greater (or a million times for that matter) the information content of each signal must be very small. Also, for the long range stuff, exactly which neuron receives the signal can not be specified because it relies on a random process, diffusion. The fact that it's slow as molasses in February does not add to its charm. If your job is delivering packages and all the packages are very small, and your boss doesn't care who you give them to as long as it's on the correct continent, and you have until the next ice age to get the work done, then you don't have a very difficult profession. I see no reason why simulating that anachronism would present the slightest difficulty. Artificial neurons could be made to release neurotransmitters as inefficiently as natural ones if anybody really wanted to, but it would be pointless when there are much faster ways. Electronics is inherently fast because its electrical signals are sent by fast light electrons. The brain also uses some electrical signals,but it doesn't use electrons, it uses ions to send signals, the most important are chlorine and potassium. A chlorine ion is 65 thousand times as heavy as an electron, a potassium ion is even heavier, if you want to talk about gap junctions, the ions they use are millions of times more massive than electrons. There is no way to get around it, according to the fundamental laws of physics, something that has a large mass will be slow, very, very, slow. The great strength biology has over present day electronics is the ability of one neuron to make thousands of connections of various strengths with other neurons. However, I see absolutely nothing in the fundamental laws of physics that prevents nano machines from doing the same thing, or better and MUCH faster. > John, in what sense are emotions 'easy'? In the sense that Evolution found it much easier to invent emotions than intelligence. Some of our most powerful emotions like pleasure, pain, fear and lust come from the oldest parts of our brain that evolved during the Cambrian explosion, the same time multicellular creatures did 540 million years ago and perhaps even a bit earlier. Our spinal cord, the medulla and the pons is quite similar to the brain of a amphibian and first made an appearance on the earth about 400 million years ago, among other things it's responsible for our aggressiveness territoriality and social hierarchies. The Limbic System is younger, about 150 million years old, and ours is similar to that found in other mammals. Some think the Limbic system is the source of awe and exhilaration because it is the active sight of many psychotropic drugs. After some animals developed a Limbic system they started to spend much more time taking care of their young, so it probably has something to do with love too. But it is our grossly enlarged neocortex that makes the human brain so unusual and so recent, it started to get ridiculously large less than a million years ago. It deals in deliberation, spatial perception, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics; the one new emotion we got was worry, probably because the neocortex is also the place where we plan for the future. If nature came up with feeling first and high level intelligence much much later, I don't see why the opposite would be true for computers. It's probably a hell of a lot easier to make something that feels but doesn't think than something that thinks but doesn't feel. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 14:30:43 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 08:30:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: You are talking about computers, boxes, simulations, and evolution. Let's talk about people. I don't know much about biochemistry, but I know how complex it can be and you seem to be denying that. billw On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 8:09 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:17 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> > wrote: > > > I'd say that we understand intelligence far more than we do emotions. > > > I wouldn't. If given a box of parts it would be easy to design a circuit > that would display fear and pain, just rig it up such that if a particular > number showed up in a register it would change that number to something > else and stop all other activities of the machine until that change was > made. But it would be far more difficult to take that box a parts and, > starting from scratch, make a circuit that could play even a mediocre game > of checkers. > > > Biochemically emotional expression is very complex - each chemical >> affecting the brain, muscles and other body parts. >> > > You're talking about hormones, and I'm not impressed with hormones and I > see nothing sacred in them. I don't see the slightest reason why they or > any neurotransmitter would be especially difficult to simulate through > computation, because chemical messengers are not a sign of sophisticated > design on nature's part, rather it's an example of Evolution's bungling. > If you need to inhibit a nearby neuron there are better ways of sending > that signal then launching a GABA molecule like a message in a bottle > thrown into the sea and waiting ages for it to diffuse to its random > target. > > I'm not interested in chemicals only the information they contain, I want > the information to get transmitted from cell to cell by the best method, > and few would choose to send smoke signals if a fiber optic cable was > available. The information content in each molecular message must be tiny, > just a few bits, because only about 60 neurotransmitters such as > acetylcholine, norepinephrine and GABA are known, even if the true number > is 100 times greater (or a million times for that matter) the information > content of each signal must be very small. Also, for the long range stuff, > exactly which neuron receives the signal can not be specified because it > relies on a random process, diffusion. The fact that it's slow as molasses > in February does not add to its charm. > > If your job is delivering packages and all the packages are very small, > and your boss doesn't care who you give them to as long as it's on the > correct continent, and you have until the next ice age to get the work > done, then you don't have a very difficult profession. I see no reason why > simulating that anachronism would present the slightest difficulty. > Artificial neurons could be made to release neurotransmitters as > inefficiently as natural ones if anybody really wanted to, but it would be > pointless when there are much faster ways. > > Electronics is inherently fast because its electrical signals are sent by > fast light electrons. The brain also uses some electrical signals,but it > doesn't use electrons, it uses ions to send signals, the most important > are chlorine and potassium. A chlorine ion is 65 thousand times as heavy > as an electron, a potassium ion is even heavier, if you want to talk > about gap junctions, the ions they use are millions of times more massive > than electrons. There is no way to get around it, according to the fundamental > laws of physics, something that has a large mass will be slow, very, > very, slow. > > The great strength biology has over present day electronics is the ability > of one neuron to make thousands of connections of various strengths with > other neurons. However, I see absolutely nothing in the fundamental laws > of physics that prevents nano machines from doing the same thing, or > better and MUCH faster. > > > John, in what sense are emotions 'easy'? > > > In the sense that Evolution found it much easier to invent emotions than > intelligence. Some of our most powerful emotions like pleasure, pain, fear > and lust come from the oldest parts of our brain that evolved during the > Cambrian explosion, the same time multicellular creatures did 540 million > years ago and perhaps even a bit earlier. Our spinal cord, the medulla and > the pons is quite similar to the brain of a amphibian and first made an > appearance on the earth about 400 million years ago, among other things > it's responsible for our aggressiveness territoriality and social > hierarchies. > > The Limbic System is younger, about 150 million years old, and ours is > similar to that found in other mammals. Some think the Limbic system is the > source of awe and exhilaration because it is the active sight of many > psychotropic drugs. After some animals developed a Limbic system they > started to spend much more time taking care of their young, so it probably > has something to do with love too. But it is our grossly enlarged neocortex > that makes the human brain so unusual and so recent, it started to get > ridiculously large less than a million years ago. It deals in deliberation, > spatial perception, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics; the one new > emotion we got was worry, probably because the neocortex is also the place > where we plan for the future. > > If nature came up with feeling first and high level intelligence much much > later, I don't see why the opposite would be true for computers. It's > probably a hell of a lot easier to make something that feels but doesn't > think than something that thinks but doesn't feel. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 15:10:25 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 10:10:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 9:33 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > You are talking about computers, boxes, simulations, and evolution. > Let's talk about people. > OK let's talk about people. People were produced by Evolution. I am a person and I am conscious. If intelligent behavior and consciousness we're not inextricably linked then Evolution could not have done that. > I don't know much about biochemistry, but I know how complex it can be > and you seem to be denying that. > Biochemistry and biology in general is indeed fantastically complex, but complexity is a vice not a virtue when it is more complex than it needs to be, and in the life sciences you constantly see the silly Rube Goldberg ways Evolution chose to get things done. I've already given the example of hormones and there are plenty more. The vagus nerve connects the brain to the larynx, in a giraffe the two organs are less than a foot apart but its vagus nerve is more than 15 feet long because it runs all the way down the neck and then double backs and goes back up the neck to the larynx. No human designer would be that stupid. And the design of the vertebrate eye is even sillier. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 16:09:39 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 09:09:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi John, The goal here is to understand a fairly simple idea, which you said you are still struggling with. It's probably because when I try to describe it, you keep ignoring what is important and going off on completely unrelated tangents. The idea is the binding of multiple qualia, like redness and grenness (and a bunch of other knowledge) to make a bound composite experience where you are consciously aware of all of that. The reason you are not aware of information in the subconscious (or anywhere else outside of what you are consciously aware of), is because it is not "bound" into your awareness, the same way all the stuff you are aware of is. It's not about evolution (other than in a tangential way), it's about whether you are consciousness aware of it or not. Brent On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 4:32 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *Hi John, **What does evolution and all you are saying here, have to do >> with whether something is bound into you composit conscious awareness or >> not?* >> > > Can intelligent behavior exist without consciousness or can it not? > > If it can then consciousness is not needed from Evolution's point of view > and so could not have produced it. So how did a conscious being like you > get here? > > If you can not have intelligent behavior without consciousness then logically > you'd have no more reason to think a AI was a zombie than to think a > intelligent human was a zombie. As for me I don't believe in zombies. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 16:24:16 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 11:24:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brent- The binding you're speaking of can be fully explained by neuronal wiring/circuits/networks. You don't need your definition of where qualia sit to explain why we don't have access to subconscious information. Have you looked into brain damage of various areas and the outcomes in terms of your theory? On Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 11:10 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi John, > The goal here is to understand a fairly simple idea, which you said you > are still struggling with. > It's probably because when I try to describe it, you keep ignoring what is > important and going off on completely unrelated tangents. > > The idea is the binding of multiple qualia, like redness and grenness (and > a bunch of other knowledge) to make a bound composite experience where you > are consciously aware of all of that. The reason you are not aware of > information in the subconscious (or anywhere else outside of what you are > consciously aware of), is because it is not "bound" into your awareness, > the same way all the stuff you are aware of is. > > It's not about evolution (other than in a tangential way), it's about > whether you are consciousness aware of it or not. > > Brent > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 4:32 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> > *Hi John, **What does evolution and all you are saying here, have to >>> do with whether something is bound into you composit conscious awareness or >>> not?* >>> >> >> Can intelligent behavior exist without consciousness or can it not? >> >> If it can then consciousness is not needed from Evolution's point of >> view and so could not have produced it. So how did a conscious being >> like you get here? >> >> If you can not have intelligent behavior without consciousness then logically >> you'd have no more reason to think a AI was a zombie than to think a >> intelligent human was a zombie. As for me I don't believe in zombies. >> >> 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 17:05:59 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 12:05:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 11:12 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> It's not about evolution * It's all about Evolution! If what you say about consciousness is correct then Evolution would have never produced it, and yet I know for a fact that it did at least once. *> The reason you are not aware of information in the subconscious (or > anywhere else outside of what you are consciously aware of), is because it > is not "bound" into your awareness,* No great mystery there. Information processing is expensive in both time and energy so you can't think deeply about everything you see and hear. Most things can safely be ignored and for some problems, such as figuring out what to do when you touch a hot stove, speed is essential and the solution is obvious so fast stupid reflexes is all that's needed to get the job done. But some things require much more thought (aka data processing) and those are the things you're aware of; for example figuring out how to turn a flint rock into a spear point so you can kill a woolly mammoth and feed your family, those who were smart enough to figure this out got their genes passed onto the next generation, and those that were not smart enough didn't. It's all about Evolution. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 17:46:50 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 11:46:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just one last word on how 'easy ' emotions are: What are people's reactions to anger? Oh well, easy - 1 2 3 What are people's directions to fear? Oh well, easy 1 2 3 Wait. What about the person feeling the anger? What variables should we consider: Age, gender, race, religion, national origin, last food eaten, last thing drunk, how did their parents respond to anger, who else is there, how are they are they reacting, what are they wearing - and what about their age, gender, etc? Many more things are important to understanding anger and all the rest, including hormone levels like cortisol. General signs and symptoms of too much cortisol include: - weight gain, mostly around the midsection and upper back - weight gain and rounding of the face - acne - thinning skin - easy bruising - flushed face - slowed healing - muscle weakness - severe fatigue - irritability - difficulty concentrating - high blood pressure - headache Give it up , John. Emotions are extremely complex and we are just beginning to understand them. bill w On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 9:13 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 9:33 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > You are talking about computers, boxes, simulations, and evolution. >> Let's talk about people. >> > > OK let's talk about people. People were produced by Evolution. I am a > person and I am conscious. If intelligent behavior and consciousness we're > not inextricably linked then Evolution could not have done that. > > > I don't know much about biochemistry, but I know how complex it can be >> and you seem to be denying that. >> > > Biochemistry and biology in general is indeed fantastically complex, but > complexity is a vice not a virtue when it is more complex than it needs to > be, and in the life sciences you constantly see the silly Rube Goldberg > ways Evolution chose to get things done. I've already given the example of > hormones and there are plenty more. The vagus nerve connects the brain to > the larynx, in a giraffe the two organs are less than a foot apart but its > vagus nerve is more than 15 feet long because it runs all the way down the > neck and then double backs and goes back up the neck to the larynx. No > human designer would be that stupid. And the design of the vertebrate eye > is even sillier. > > 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 Mon Feb 17 16:42:21 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:42:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music Message-ID: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> Musician Hacks Prosthetic Arm To Control Synthesizer With His Thoughts https://bay-observer.com/musician-hacks-prosthetic-arm-to-control-synthesizer-with-his-thoughts-2 ?Bertolt Meyer, 42, was born without a lower left arm. He has worn a prosthetic arm since he was 3 months old, but now wears a high-tech ?i-limb? that looks like something out of a futuristic sci-fi movie. The i-limb is a myoelectric prosthesis, which uses electrical signals from the muscles inside the residual limb to control the prosthesis. As a musician, Meyer had the idea to swap out the prosthetic hand for a DIY controller for his modular synthesizers so he can play music just by thinking about it.? > x post from transhumanism reddit Very cool! SR Ballard Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Feb 17 17:41:36 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:41:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] follow-up for online betting Message-ID: <004701d5e5b9$80b195d0$8214c170$@rainier66.com> As an update to a previous comment I made a coupla weeks ago regarding online betting, I will offer the condensed version of that post. Former ExI poster Robin Hanson invented an early version of online betting with play money in about the mid 90s, plenty of ExI-ers played it. I was a shining star in that because of a math trick I discovered. Robin predicted in about 1999 that real-money online ideas-futures betting would happen, and he owned a lot of YES stock for that. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act failed that year and Robin won that bet, being as he introduced the first online ideas-futures game for real money. So Robin arranged to win his own bet. He became a self-made play-money billioneh. Then he went to work as an economics professor (for real money (?real? as in currency or legal tender (but not necessarily a lot of it (one usually does not get rich on a professor?s salary (although the job is said to have marvelous fringe benefits.)))))) We noticed back in the play-money days of the late 90s that political betting was very popular. Eventually the online betting is focused almost entirely on that and generally will not deal in sports betting, which was the focus of anti-gambling legislation to start with. Sports betting enables cheating. But politics welcomes all cheating with open arms, so? political gambling is not only accepted, it is? noichad. US primary season, 32 candidates, most YES bets are in the single digits, people pick their faves, buy 1000 shares for say? fifty bucks, with the notion that should their favorite win in the first primary, they would send the 1000 bucks to that candidate for his or her remaining primary season. The first primary was a week ago last Tuesday and it was a close tie between two guys whose names I do not recall, so let me nickname them Beavis and Butthead. In this commentary a disclaimer is necessary if the commentator owns shares in either candidate. I don?t, so I am a disinterested observer. Rather I am in interested observer with no real-money at stake. So I make the opposite of a disclaimer, which is logically a claimer: I have no money at stake. OK then, it was so close between Beavis and Butthead that after 12 days? we still don?t know who won that, and the site on which I bet still hasn?t paid anyone on that bet. This led me to speculate with enough confidence that I would be willing to bet that my online site will never pay on that bet. I read their rules carefully and realized that it is worded such that they can delay payment indefinitely. Result: they never pay that one at all. Alternative: they take their own rules very literally and pay the very few shareholders of? candidate Bennett. Reasoning: in the rules is found the comment {if this that an the other conditions exist, then}? the winner of the Iowa caucuses will be deemed to be the candidate with the first alphabetical last name?? The first alphabetical last name of the 32 candidates is Bennett, who no one ever heard of outside of (and perhaps including some inside of) his immediate family. Consequently few online betting people every bought any shares of Bennett, instead investing heavily in Beavis and Butthead shares. My new prediction: they will never pay on either Beavis or Butthead, but might eventually dole out a paltry sum on Bennett shareholders. This leads all the way back to the failed Gambling Prohibition Act, which ended up with the legal equivalent of the government will not stop online betting, but will do nothing if the online casino cheats or doesn?t pay. Fun part: ordinarily the sum of the YES votes is 1 dollar. Makes sense: if the sum of the YES votes drops below a dollar, one can buy a YES for every candidate, somebody wins, return 1 dollar, free money, ja? Nein. Part of the bet is that the online casino will pay. Right after the first US caucus, the sum of Butthead and Beavis was slightly over a dollar. We know one of those two has to win, ja? Nein. The sum of Beavis shares and Butthead shares was 95 cents yesterday, which is a way of expressing about a 5% chance the online casino will never pay (or will by Bennett holders.) Ain?t this grand fun? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Mon Feb 17 18:16:25 2020 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:16:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:08 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > It's all about Evolution! If what you say about consciousness is correct > then Evolution would have never produced it, and yet I know for a fact > that it did at least once. > You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Evolution isn't some omniscient overseer tweaking genes to achieve a desired result. It's random mutations that have completely unintended consequences. Consciousness happened not because "Evolution" wanted it to, but because the right pieces came together the right way. Maybe human-level intelligence requires consciousness, maybe it doesn't: it's possible that both intelligence and consciousness improve fitness but they're basically independent. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Feb 17 19:45:46 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:45:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Since no one has any idea,but many theories, what is wrong with the idea that any creature who makes a decision, an intelligent act, is conscious? Or capable of learning, if you want to put it that way. bill w On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:18 PM Dave Sill via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:08 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> It's all about Evolution! If what you say about consciousness is correct >> then Evolution would have never produced it, and yet I know for a fact >> that it did at least once. >> > > You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Evolution isn't some > omniscient overseer tweaking genes to achieve a desired result. It's > random mutations that have completely unintended consequences. > Consciousness happened not because "Evolution" wanted it to, but because > the right pieces came together the right way. Maybe human-level > intelligence requires consciousness, maybe it doesn't: it's possible that > both intelligence and consciousness improve fitness but they're basically > independent. > > -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 stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 17 20:10:00 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:10:00 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 06:47, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Since no one has any idea,but many theories, what is wrong with the idea > that any creature who makes a decision, an intelligent act, is conscious? > Or capable of learning, if you want to put it that way. > That would seem to be the best conjecture. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Feb 17 22:59:09 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:59:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't think so. You represent red things with knowledge that has your redness quality, like robot number one in this 3 robots that are functionally the same but qualitatively differen t paper. Robot number 2 is engineered to be red/green qualia inverted. It represents red things with knowledge that has your greenness quality. Stathis also claimed that robot 3 has qualia and that this ?is the best conjecture? since it is equally functional, it makes decisions about which strawberries to pick, identically to the first 2. So, my question to anyone who thinks robot number 3 has qualia is: What is robot number 3?s knowledge qualitatively like? (After all, the word 'red' isn't physically red or green, right?) On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:11 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 06:47, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Since no one has any idea,but many theories, what is wrong with the idea >> that any creature who makes a decision, an intelligent act, is conscious? >> Or capable of learning, if you want to put it that way. >> > > That would seem to be the best conjecture. > >> -- > 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 atymes at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 04:05:01 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:05:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> Message-ID: Now, when does this go from a neat trick in a lab, to commercial? On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 8:44 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Musician Hacks Prosthetic Arm To Control Synthesizer With His Thoughts > > > https://bay-observer.com/musician-hacks-prosthetic-arm-to-control-synthesizer-with-his-thoughts-2 > > ?Bertolt Meyer, 42, was born without a lower left arm. > > He has worn a prosthetic arm since he was 3 months old, but now wears a > high-tech ?i-limb? that looks like something out of a futuristic sci-fi > movie. > > The i-limb is a myoelectric prosthesis, which uses electrical signals from > the muscles inside the residual limb to control the prosthesis. > > As a musician, Meyer had the idea to swap out the prosthetic hand for a > DIY controller for his modular synthesizers so he can play music just by > thinking about it.? > > > x post from transhumanism reddit > > Very cool! > > SR Ballard > > > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 18 13:20:08 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:20:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:16 PM Dave Sill wrote: >> It's all about Evolution! If what you say about consciousness is correct >> then Evolution would have never produced it, and yet I know for a fact >> that it did at least once. >> > > *> You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. * > Repetition doesn't make it true but it's 100% true nevertheless. > *> Evolution isn't some omniscient overseer tweaking genes to achieve a > desired result.* > Thank you Captain Obvious. > *It's random mutations that have completely unintended consequences.* > Mutation is random but that's only half of Evolution, the other half is Natural Selection, neither half has intended consequences because neither half has foresight, but Natural Selection is very far from being random. Evolution will cause animals to be conscious ONLY if it causes BEHAVIOR that enhances the probability that the animal will survive long enough to reproduce or is the byproduct of something else that does. Evolution can't see my consciousness anymore than you can see my consciousness, so why did Evolution produce a sentient being like me? Because all animals express behavior, and that includes millions of generations of my ancestors, and intelligent behavior is much more likely to promote survival than stupid behavior and because consciousness is an inevitable byproduct of intelligence. There is simply no other explanation. Evolution can't tell the difference between conscious behavior and unconscious behavior and so Natural Selection can't select for it. But Evolution CAN tell the difference between smart behavior and stupid behavior and so it can select for that, and it has been doing it for many millions of years. Evolution is giving us a vital insight into the nature of consciousness we just have to look. *> Consciousness happened not because "Evolution" wanted it to, but because > the right pieces came together the right way.* > I don't understand the quotation marks but if the right pieces coming together to produce consciousness didn't also produce intelligent behavior that promoted survival then genetic drift would see to it that those pieces didn't stay together for long. *> it's possible that both intelligence and consciousness improve fitness > but they're basically independent.* > If both improve fitness then they have something in common and can't be totally independent. If consciousness improves fitness that means it affects behavior. So if a human's behavior was sufficient for you to make the judgment that he is not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead and thus was conscious then you'd have to also conclude that a robot that behaved the same way was conscious. In other words the Turing Test would work not just for intelligence but for consciousness too. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 13:36:07 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:36:07 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 05:18, Dave Sill via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:08 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> It's all about Evolution! If what you say about consciousness is correct >> then Evolution would have never produced it, and yet I know for a fact >> that it did at least once. >> > > You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Evolution isn't some > omniscient overseer tweaking genes to achieve a desired result. It's > random mutations that have completely unintended consequences. > Consciousness happened not because "Evolution" wanted it to, but because > the right pieces came together the right way. Maybe human-level > intelligence requires consciousness, maybe it doesn't: it's possible that > both intelligence and consciousness improve fitness but they're basically > independent. > The problem is that we can imagine a being that behaves the same way but is not conscious (a philosophical zombie), so why would a conscious being evolve rather than this non-conscious one? The most plausible answer seems to be that consciousness is a necessary side-effect of the type of behaviour that conscious beings display, rather than an optional extra. Another possibility is that this is the case for biological beings but not every possible intelligent being; but this is less plausible, as it would mean that we have this elaborate but superfluous quality purely by luck. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 14:24:28 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:24:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:48 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > what is wrong with the idea that any creature who makes a decision, an > intelligent act, is conscious? > There is absolutely nothing wrong with you making that conclusion, and it is the conclusion every one of us forms hundreds a times a day whenever we encounter a fellow member of the species Homo sapiens who is not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. The only ones who don't make that conclusion are those who just like the idea that only a brain that is wet and squishy can be conscious, and the logical contortions they undergo to try to preserve that belief are painful to behold. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 14:43:04 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:43:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 6:01 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > You represent red things with knowledge that has your redness quality, > like robot number one in this 3 robots that are functionally the same but > qualitatively differen > t > paper. Robot number 2 is engineered to be red/green qualia inverted. > No it is not. The labels on the qualia have been inverted but the behavior of the 2 robots are identical so there is no way science can ever tell me if the meanings of the internal qualia generating language has been inverted too, science can't even tell me if either robot experiences any sort of qualia at all. And there is nothing special about the robots, science can't tell me if you're conscious either, I can only make assumptions, observe your behavior, and make the best guess I can. And there is no third robot, there is just an incoherent word salad. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 14:54:55 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:54:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: The only ones who don't make that conclusion are those who just like the idea that only a brain that is wet and squishy can be conscious, john Ah yes, pride. How many mistakenly thought that evolution said that we were descended from monkeys, which obviously made the theory ridiculous. We are still at it. We have disgusting digestive functions that people are ashamed of and want to get rid of the ape suit, as someone earlier has said, and just be circuits. We resist the idea that lower species can be so smart,like some birds. And so on. Evolution: are we really at a place in our understanding of it that we can say with some certainly that evolution won't do that, or won't do this? I dunno, but I suspect we aren't - not nearly. Are all parts of the theory correct? Missing nothing? I have my doubts as an outsider. So something doesn't make sense in the context of evolutionary theory. Does that automatically make it wrong? An avenue not to be explored? Man is not always (or even mostly) rational and neither is Nature. Think about that: we are trying to make sense out of a partly irrational Nature with a partly irrational mind. Look what happened to economics when they finally gave up on the idea that man's choices were totally rational. bill w On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:27 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:48 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > what is wrong with the idea that any creature who makes a decision, an >> intelligent act, is conscious? >> > > There is absolutely nothing wrong with you making that conclusion, and it > is the conclusion every one of us forms hundreds a times a day whenever we > encounter a fellow member of the species Homo sapiens who is not sleeping > or under anesthesia or dead. The only ones who don't make that conclusion > are those who just like the idea that only a brain that is wet and squishy > can be conscious, and the logical contortions they undergo to try to > preserve that belief are painful to behold. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 14:58:42 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:58:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Let me add: many things appear to be irrational until you understand them. bill w On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:54 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > The only ones who don't make that conclusion are those who just like the > idea that only a brain that is wet and squishy can be conscious, john > > Ah yes, pride. How many mistakenly thought that evolution said that we > were descended from monkeys, which obviously made the theory ridiculous. We > are still at it. We have disgusting digestive functions that people are > ashamed of and want to get rid of the ape suit, as someone earlier has > said, and just be circuits. We resist the idea that lower species can be > so smart,like some birds. And so on. > > Evolution: are we really at a place in our understanding of it that we > can say with some certainly that evolution won't do that, or won't do > this? I dunno, but I suspect we aren't - not nearly. Are all parts of the > theory correct? Missing nothing? I have my doubts as an outsider. > > So something doesn't make sense in the context of evolutionary theory. > Does that automatically make it wrong? An avenue not to be explored? > > Man is not always (or even mostly) rational and neither is Nature. Think > about that: we are trying to make sense out of a partly irrational Nature > with a partly irrational mind. Look what happened to economics when they > finally gave up on the idea that man's choices were totally rational. > > bill w > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:27 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:48 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> > what is wrong with the idea that any creature who makes a decision, an >>> intelligent act, is conscious? >>> >> >> There is absolutely nothing wrong with you making that conclusion, and it >> is the conclusion every one of us forms hundreds a times a day whenever we >> encounter a fellow member of the species Homo sapiens who is not sleeping >> or under anesthesia or dead. The only ones who don't make that conclusion >> are those who just like the idea that only a brain that is wet and squishy >> can be conscious, and the logical contortions they undergo to try to >> preserve that belief are painful to behold. >> >> 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 Feb 18 15:30:24 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:30:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200213173245.Horde.gvYsS_f_kBRxwcnx5n0LIfJ@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <8F4B05AC-78B0-487E-95C6-CE3B8B1EBDB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:57 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Are all parts of the theory correct? Missing nothing? Of course not. We don't know everything but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. > Evolution: are we really at a place in our understanding of it that we > can say with some certainly that evolution won't do that, or won't do > this? Yes. We can be certain Evolution won't produce something that does not enhance the probability an animal's genes will make it into the next generation or is a side effect of something that does. And we can be certain that even if the thing was not produced by Evolution but by pure dumb luck Evolution will do nothing to prevent genetic drift from erasing it in a very small number of generations. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 15:43:13 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:43:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, Yes, exactly. And the inverter filter for half the knowledge could be anywhere in the chain of events between the target of perception and our knowledge of such. And you would know, as surely as you know "I think therefore I am" what redness was like and how it was inverted for both hemispheres of knowledge, right? Objective observation, since it requires interpretation, can be mistaken. After all, we could be a brain in a vat, or it could only be a 'seeming' But, experiencing half of your visual knowledge being red green inverted, could not be mistaken. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Stathis Papaioannou Date: Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:06 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: Mental Phenomena To: Brent Allsop On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 16:16, Brent Allsop wrote: > Hi Stathis, > So, if you re-engineered one hemisphere to have red / green inverted > physical knowledge compared to the other hemisphere, (i.e. info going to > one hemisphere would have a red/green inverter) > How surely would both hemispheres know the other had inverted red / green > knowledge? > Since the diorama of knowledge on one side would be computationally bound > to the other half of the diorama on the other side, which now was obviously > red / green inverted? > All to make one computationally bound composite set of conscious knowledge > of what the person was seeing (half of it red green inverted from the > other)? > As the strawberry moved from the left field of vision, to the right, it > would red / green invert, depending on what hemisphere the knowledge of > that strawberry was being represented with? > >From the description, the strawberry would indeed seem to change colour as it moved across the visual field. It would be like putting an inverting filter across one side of your face. On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 8:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 10:08, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Would you agree with the overwhelming evidence that our knowledge of our >>> left field of vision is represented with physics in the right hemisphere of >>> our brain, and visa versa for the the knowledge of our right field of >>> vision being represented by physics in our left brain hemisphere? >>> >>> >>> >> >> Yes. We know this because of what happens when the brain is damaged. >> >>> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 17:23:06 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:23:06 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 02:44, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > Yes, exactly. And the inverter filter for half the knowledge could be > anywhere in the chain of events between the target of perception and our > knowledge of such. > > And you would know, as surely as you know "I think therefore I am" what > redness was like and how it was inverted for both hemispheres of knowledge, > right? > Objective observation, since it requires interpretation, can be mistaken. > After all, we could be a brain in a vat, or it could only be a 'seeming' > But, experiencing half of your visual knowledge being red green inverted, > could not be mistaken. > But this does not imply that qualia are substrate specific. ---------- > >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 10:08, Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Would you agree with the overwhelming evidence that our knowledge of >>>> our left field of vision is represented with physics in the right >>>> hemisphere of our brain, and visa versa for the the knowledge of our right >>>> field of vision being represented by physics in our left brain hemisphere? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Yes. We know this because of what happens when the brain is damaged. >>> >> -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Tue Feb 18 18:34:00 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:34:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Brent, I reckon the reason you're not getting through to anyone here (and let's face it, you're not. I've yet to hear a single person say "ah, yes, I see what you mean") is that you keep saying things like "You represent red things with knowledge that has your redness quality", and "What is robot number 3?s knowledge qualitatively like?", but (I think I'm right in saying) /nobody has a clue what these phrases actually mean/. I certainly don't (your language reminds me of things produced by the Post-Modernist Essay Generator), and you show no willingness to try to explain, which is why I've given up on participating in these pointless discussions. It's not even amusing anymore. Constantly telling people they're wrong, 'qualia-blind', beside the point, or misinterpreting what you say, doesn't actually help. You seem to be persisting in 'doing what you always did', and you know what that leads to: 'getting what you always got'. Blank incomprehension, in this case. I still don't know, after literally years of reading your posts, on and off, if that's completely justified, and the correct response, or not. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 19:10:17 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:10:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:24 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > But this does not imply that qualia are substrate specific. > That is why I used the term qualiastrate or colorstrate, because I knew you would object to "substrate". The fact of the matter is our knowledge has qualities or colors, and elemental redness in one brain is going to be like elemental redness in another brain, even if that other brain uses redness to represent green things in that other brain. I know a synasthist who's letters of the alphabet have elemental redness and grenness qualities, these would be the same color qualities of knowledge. I'm just assuming you guys will be OK with the idea that whatever these colors are, will eventually could be objectively observable and perfectly predictable (i.e. able to discover when someone is red/green qualia inverted). That is what I'm referring to when I talk about colorstrate or qualiastrate. You, John, and everyone on this list continue to claim there is no way we could know what qualia were like in another brain. But using this type of neural ponytail, where you provide something like the 300 million neurons, computationally binding 4 hemispheres the way the corpus callosum computationally bind 2 hemispheres. You would know what elemental subjective qualia could be like in another's brain, as sure as you know that "I think therefore I am" since you would be directly aware of the physics in another's brain (does not require interpretation) not just objectively observing them (requires interpretation). That's what it means to say you would experience all of the experience (or at least as much of the experience as your partner wanted to share), not just half, when you hugged your partner. So why do you you or John or anyone continue to think that we can't know, given this #3 strongest form of effing the ineffable, along with the #1, week, and #2 stronger forms of effing the ineffable.? Brent On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:24 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 02:44, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> Yes, exactly. And the inverter filter for half the knowledge could be >> anywhere in the chain of events between the target of perception and our >> knowledge of such. >> >> And you would know, as surely as you know "I think therefore I am" what >> redness was like and how it was inverted for both hemispheres of knowledge, >> right? >> Objective observation, since it requires interpretation, can be >> mistaken. After all, we could be a brain in a vat, or it could only be a >> 'seeming' >> But, experiencing half of your visual knowledge being red green inverted, >> could not be mistaken. >> > > But this does not imply that qualia are substrate specific. > > ---------- >> >>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 10:08, Brent Allsop >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would you agree with the overwhelming evidence that our knowledge of >>>>> our left field of vision is represented with physics in the right >>>>> hemisphere of our brain, and visa versa for the the knowledge of our right >>>>> field of vision being represented by physics in our left brain hemisphere? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. We know this because of what happens when the brain is damaged. >>>> >>> -- > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 19:22:00 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:22:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi Ben, It all has to do with the color of things. What is it hat has a redness quality? It can't be the strawberry that has the redness quality, because you could invert the red/green signal anywhere in the chain of events that is perception as illustrated here . Using one word for all things 'red' tells you nothing of what color anything is. If you only use one word for all things red, that is qualia blind. In order to account for the color of things, you need two words: red, for anything that reflects or emits red light, and a different word redNESS, to account for the quality of you knowledge of such. If you can't model simple concepts in your thinking and in your language like: "My redness is like your grenness, both of which we refer to as red". That language/thinking is qualia blind. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:35 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Brent, I reckon the reason you're not getting through to anyone here (and > let's face it, you're not. I've yet to hear a single person say "ah, yes, I > see what you mean") is that you keep saying things like "You represent red > things with knowledge that has your redness quality", and "What is robot > number 3?s knowledge qualitatively like?", but (I think I'm right in > saying) *nobody has a clue what these phrases actually mean*. I certainly > don't (your language reminds me of things produced by the Post-Modernist > Essay Generator), and you show no willingness to try to explain, which is > why I've given up on participating in these pointless discussions. It's not > even amusing anymore. > > Constantly telling people they're wrong, 'qualia-blind', beside the point, > or misinterpreting what you say, doesn't actually help. You seem to be > persisting in 'doing what you always did', and you know what that leads to: > 'getting what you always got'. Blank incomprehension, in this case. I still > don't know, after literally years of reading your posts, on and off, if > that's completely justified, and the correct response, or not. > > -- > 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 19:46:58 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:46:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: All this talking about words takes things out of the ideal realm imo. Once you introduce words all bets are off. Red is a human word that I use to refer to the quale generated (by some mystery process) when 700nm light enters the human eye and interacts with the human brain. As such is is a fairly limited description. It just just a guess as to whether you share my qualia when responding to the same signals, but I assume this because of various credible assumptions, and because the visible light spectrum seems 'well-ordered' and parsimonious to me as if there is some underlying reason to it. You're the one that is mincing words about red and redness. In my opinion, referring to a strawberry as 'red' is more of a heuristic definition--it simply means that strawberries have a physical quality that leads to a redness quale being generated in my mind when I view them with my eyes. The strawberries themselves are not 'red'--just ask a blind person who cannot experience 'red'. They may tell you that strawberries are 'soft', or 'sweet', or 'fragrant', but they will never get 'red' from a strawberry, so they may as well not be red, unless they have been given this knowledge by someone else, which is a sort of Mary the Color Scientist problem. Individual things cannot possess qualia, as an argument by contradiction is extremely easy to make for all cases--simply remove all entities which can sense the quale in question. If there were no eyes in the entire universe, there is no more 'red'. Even if there are still strawberries. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > It all has to do with the color of things. What is it hat has a redness > quality? It can't be the strawberry that has the redness quality, because > you could invert the red/green signal anywhere in the chain of events that > is perception as illustrated here > > . > Using one word for all things 'red' tells you nothing of what color > anything is. If you only use one word for all things red, that is qualia > blind. In order to account for the color of things, you need two words: > red, for anything that reflects or emits red light, and a different word > redNESS, to account for the quality of you knowledge of such. If you can't > model simple concepts in your thinking and in your language like: "My > redness is like your grenness, both of which we refer to as red". That > language/thinking is qualia blind. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:35 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Brent, I reckon the reason you're not getting through to anyone here (and >> let's face it, you're not. I've yet to hear a single person say "ah, yes, I >> see what you mean") is that you keep saying things like "You represent red >> things with knowledge that has your redness quality", and "What is robot >> number 3?s knowledge qualitatively like?", but (I think I'm right in >> saying) *nobody has a clue what these phrases actually mean*. I >> certainly don't (your language reminds me of things produced by the >> Post-Modernist Essay Generator), and you show no willingness to try to >> explain, which is why I've given up on participating in these pointless >> discussions. It's not even amusing anymore. >> >> Constantly telling people they're wrong, 'qualia-blind', beside the >> point, or misinterpreting what you say, doesn't actually help. You seem to >> be persisting in 'doing what you always did', and you know what that leads >> to: 'getting what you always got'. Blank incomprehension, in this case. I >> still don't know, after literally years of reading your posts, on and off, >> if that's completely justified, and the correct response, or not. >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 20:09:52 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:09:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> Well, this wasn?t exactly a ?lab? setting. But likely a while as demand is low. SR Ballard 2020/02/17 22:05?Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat ????: > Now, when does this go from a neat trick in a lab, to commercial? > >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 8:44 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: >> Musician Hacks Prosthetic Arm To Control Synthesizer With His Thoughts >> >> https://bay-observer.com/musician-hacks-prosthetic-arm-to-control-synthesizer-with-his-thoughts-2 >> >> ?Bertolt Meyer, 42, was born without a lower left arm. >> He has worn a prosthetic arm since he was 3 months old, but now wears a high-tech ?i-limb? that looks like something out of a futuristic sci-fi movie. >> >> The i-limb is a myoelectric prosthesis, which uses electrical signals from the muscles inside the residual limb to control the prosthesis. >> >> As a musician, Meyer had the idea to swap out the prosthetic hand for a DIY controller for his modular synthesizers so he can play music just by thinking about it.? >> >> > x post from transhumanism reddit >> >> Very cool! >> >> SR Ballard >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Feb 18 21:47:23 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:47:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> Message-ID: The demand for controlling a synthesizer with thoughts alone - being able to create music while kicking back in one's chair, lying in bed, or otherwise mobility-limited (such as on a bus/train/airplane, presumably with headphones) - is low? That doesn't seem correct. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:11 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Well, this wasn?t exactly a ?lab? setting. But likely a while as demand is > low. > > SR Ballard > > 2020/02/17 22:05?Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>????: > > Now, when does this go from a neat trick in a lab, to commercial? > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 8:44 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Musician Hacks Prosthetic Arm To Control Synthesizer With His Thoughts >> >> >> https://bay-observer.com/musician-hacks-prosthetic-arm-to-control-synthesizer-with-his-thoughts-2 >> >> ?Bertolt Meyer, 42, was born without a lower left arm. >> >> He has worn a prosthetic arm since he was 3 months old, but now wears a >> high-tech ?i-limb? that looks like something out of a futuristic sci-fi >> movie. >> >> The i-limb is a myoelectric prosthesis, which uses electrical signals >> from the muscles inside the residual limb to control the prosthesis. >> >> As a musician, Meyer had the idea to swap out the prosthetic hand for a >> DIY controller for his modular synthesizers so he can play music just by >> thinking about it.? >> >> > x post from transhumanism reddit >> >> Very cool! >> >> SR Ballard >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 22:20:46 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:20:46 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 06:11, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:24 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> But this does not imply that qualia are substrate specific. >> > > That is why I used the term qualiastrate or colorstrate, because I knew > you would object to "substrate". The fact of the matter is our knowledge > has qualities or colors, and elemental redness in one brain is going to be > like elemental redness in another brain, even if that other brain uses > redness to represent green things in that other brain. I know a synasthist > who's letters of the alphabet have elemental redness and grenness > qualities, these would be the same color qualities of knowledge. I'm just > assuming you guys will be OK with the idea that whatever these colors are, > will eventually could be objectively observable and perfectly predictable > (i.e. able to discover when someone is red/green qualia inverted). That is > what I'm referring to when I talk about colorstrate or qualiastrate. > > You, John, and everyone on this list continue to claim there is no way we > could know what qualia were like in another brain. > But using this type of neural ponytail, where you provide something like > the 300 million neurons, computationally binding 4 hemispheres the way the > corpus callosum computationally bind 2 hemispheres. You would know what > elemental subjective qualia could be like in another's brain, as sure as > you know that "I think therefore I am" since you would be directly aware of > the physics in another's brain (does not require interpretation) not just > objectively observing them (requires interpretation). That's what it means > to say you would experience all of the experience (or at least as much of > the experience as your partner wanted to share), not just half, when you > hugged your partner. > > So why do you you or John or anyone continue to think that we can't know, > given this #3 strongest form of effing the ineffable, along with the #1, > week, and #2 stronger forms of effing the ineffable.? > It still does not mean that qualia are substrate specific if you could connect yourself to another person?s brain and see what they see. Because of our genetic similarities different people probably use similar structures for similar functions, but in theory they might use different ones. If you connected yourself to a different species, say a squid, it probably would not work at all but if it did, and you had novel experiences, I don?t think you would know what it is like to be a squid, or the squid what it is like to be a human. It would result in the experiences of a human-squid hybrid. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 22:35:15 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:35:15 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 06:23, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > It all has to do with the color of things. What is it hat has a redness > quality? It can't be the strawberry that has the redness quality, because > you could invert the red/green signal anywhere in the chain of events that > is perception as illustrated here > > . > Using one word for all things 'red' tells you nothing of what color > anything is. If you only use one word for all things red, that is qualia > blind. In order to account for the color of things, you need two words: > red, for anything that reflects or emits red light, and a different word > redNESS, to account for the quality of you knowledge of such. If you can't > model simple concepts in your thinking and in your language like: "My > redness is like your grenness, both of which we refer to as red". That > language/thinking is qualia blind. > I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red experience? is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also understood that it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the observer. Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge becomes confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if you mean that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my mind, and if ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:35 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Brent, I reckon the reason you're not getting through to anyone here (and >> let's face it, you're not. I've yet to hear a single person say "ah, yes, I >> see what you mean") is that you keep saying things like "You represent red >> things with knowledge that has your redness quality", and "What is robot >> number 3?s knowledge qualitatively like?", but (I think I'm right in >> saying) *nobody has a clue what these phrases actually mean*. I >> certainly don't (your language reminds me of things produced by the >> Post-Modernist Essay Generator), and you show no willingness to try to >> explain, which is why I've given up on participating in these pointless >> discussions. It's not even amusing anymore. >> >> Constantly telling people they're wrong, 'qualia-blind', beside the >> point, or misinterpreting what you say, doesn't actually help. You seem to >> be persisting in 'doing what you always did', and you know what that leads >> to: 'getting what you always got'. Blank incomprehension, in this case. I >> still don't know, after literally years of reading your posts, on and off, >> if that's completely justified, and the correct response, or not. >> >> -- >> 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 > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 22:47:54 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:47:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Now your talking at the composite qualia level. Of course composite qualia is going to be very unique for each individual. Everything from memories, to words, to names to specific training is going to effect composite conscious experiences. But all of these types of composite qualitative experiences can be broken down, and elemental parts isolated. This is especially true for color knowledge. For example, a bat may use redness (of course bound to lots of other bat info which humans would not understand) making their subjective knowledge of echolocation information, at least at an elemental subjective level, something like ours. There are some people that have ?synesthesia? for example. They have elemental colorness qualities bound to letters of the alphabet. Again, this could be the same way a bat uses redness. >> It still does not mean that qualia are substrate specific Right, but they are colorstrate or qualia specific. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:21 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 06:11, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:24 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> But this does not imply that qualia are substrate specific. >>> >> >> That is why I used the term qualiastrate or colorstrate, because I knew >> you would object to "substrate". The fact of the matter is our knowledge >> has qualities or colors, and elemental redness in one brain is going to be >> like elemental redness in another brain, even if that other brain uses >> redness to represent green things in that other brain. I know a synasthist >> who's letters of the alphabet have elemental redness and grenness >> qualities, these would be the same color qualities of knowledge. I'm just >> assuming you guys will be OK with the idea that whatever these colors are, >> will eventually could be objectively observable and perfectly predictable >> (i.e. able to discover when someone is red/green qualia inverted). That is >> what I'm referring to when I talk about colorstrate or qualiastrate. >> >> You, John, and everyone on this list continue to claim there is no way we >> could know what qualia were like in another brain. >> But using this type of neural ponytail, where you provide something like >> the 300 million neurons, computationally binding 4 hemispheres the way the >> corpus callosum computationally bind 2 hemispheres. You would know what >> elemental subjective qualia could be like in another's brain, as sure as >> you know that "I think therefore I am" since you would be directly aware of >> the physics in another's brain (does not require interpretation) not just >> objectively observing them (requires interpretation). That's what it means >> to say you would experience all of the experience (or at least as much of >> the experience as your partner wanted to share), not just half, when you >> hugged your partner. >> >> So why do you you or John or anyone continue to think that we can't know, >> given this #3 strongest form of effing the ineffable, along with the #1, >> week, and #2 stronger forms of effing the ineffable.? >> > > It still does not mean that qualia are substrate specific if you could > connect yourself to another person?s brain and see what they see. Because > of our genetic similarities different people probably use similar > structures for similar functions, but in theory they might use different > ones. If you connected yourself to a different species, say a squid, it > probably would not work at all but if it did, and you had novel > experiences, I don?t think you would know what it is like to be a squid, or > the squid what it is like to be a human. It would result in the experiences > of a human-squid hybrid. > >> -- > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 22:51:44 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:51:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red experience? > is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also understood that > it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the observer. > Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge becomes > confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if you mean > that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my mind, and if > ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. > That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 22:54:08 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:54:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: How about the color of knowledge. For example the color of your knowledge of the strawberry could be the same color as my knowledge of the leaves. The bottom line, everyone, including all neural researchers of color perception, have a very sloppy epistemology of what color is. They all use one word 'red' for all things red, which can't tell you anything about color perception. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 06:23, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi Ben, >> >> It all has to do with the color of things. What is it hat has a redness >> quality? It can't be the strawberry that has the redness quality, because >> you could invert the red/green signal anywhere in the chain of events that >> is perception as illustrated here >> >> . >> Using one word for all things 'red' tells you nothing of what color >> anything is. If you only use one word for all things red, that is qualia >> blind. In order to account for the color of things, you need two words: >> red, for anything that reflects or emits red light, and a different word >> redNESS, to account for the quality of you knowledge of such. If you can't >> model simple concepts in your thinking and in your language like: "My >> redness is like your grenness, both of which we refer to as red". That >> language/thinking is qualia blind. >> > > I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red experience? > is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also understood that > it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the observer. > Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge becomes > confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if you mean > that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my mind, and if > ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:35 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Brent, I reckon the reason you're not getting through to anyone here >>> (and let's face it, you're not. I've yet to hear a single person say "ah, >>> yes, I see what you mean") is that you keep saying things like "You >>> represent red things with knowledge that has your redness quality", and >>> "What is robot number 3?s knowledge qualitatively like?", but (I think I'm >>> right in saying) *nobody has a clue what these phrases actually mean*. >>> I certainly don't (your language reminds me of things produced by the >>> Post-Modernist Essay Generator), and you show no willingness to try to >>> explain, which is why I've given up on participating in these pointless >>> discussions. It's not even amusing anymore. >>> >>> Constantly telling people they're wrong, 'qualia-blind', beside the >>> point, or misinterpreting what you say, doesn't actually help. You seem to >>> be persisting in 'doing what you always did', and you know what that leads >>> to: 'getting what you always got'. Blank incomprehension, in this case. I >>> still don't know, after literally years of reading your posts, on and off, >>> if that's completely justified, and the correct response, or not. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 23:07:07 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *>You, John, and everyone on this list continue to claim there is no way we > could know what qualia were like in another brain. But using this type of > neural ponytail, where you provide something like the 300 million neurons, > computationally binding 4 hemispheres the way the corpus callosum > computationally bind 2 hemispheres.* [...] *So why do you you or John or > anyone continue to think that we can't know, given this* I'll do this one more time. I'm what a unified 2 hemisphere brain does because my corpus callosum has NOT been cut so I don't know what it's like to be a isolated hemisphere, and if it was cut neither hemisphere would know what it's like to be a non-isolated unified 2 hemisphere brain. And a 4 hemisphere brain wouldn't know what it's like to be a 2 hemisphere brain. I've said all this before more than once but rather than challenge my answer you just keep asking the exact same question, why don't I think it will work. *> your talking at the composite qualia level. Of course composite qualia > is going to be very unique for each individual.* [...] *This is > especially true for color knowledge. * Brown is just dim orange and the only way you can know it's dim is if you have access to something that is not dim. Qualia is no different from everything else in that regard, it needs contrast to be meaningful. So it's meaningless to talk about elemental qualia in isolation because all qualia is composite. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 23:27:17 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:27:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings Message-ID: This is a interesting column by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman: The latest numbers from Japan are in, and they?re terrible : In the fourth quarter of last year Japan?s economy shrank at an annual rate of 6 percent. And no, it wasn?t the coronavirus: we won?t see the negative effects of that shock until the next set of numbers. But there?s nothing mysterious about Japan?s stumble. It was the result of an extremely ill-advised turn toward fiscal austerity, in this case taking the form of a hike in the value-added tax. The thing is, nobody should have been surprised at this outcome. Over the past decade we?ve seen many, many experiments in fiscal austerity ? raising taxes or cutting spending. And without exception the impact of fiscal tightening has been to shrink the economy. We?ve also seen a few experiments in deficit spending, most notably the explosion of the U.S. deficit under Donald Trump, and bigger deficits have consistently given the economy a boost. So was fiscal responsibility always a terrible idea? No. It was never a great idea ? claims that deficit reduction would produce a surge in private investment, which I once mocked as belief in the ?confidence fairy ,? were never supported by the evidence. But the world has changed in ways that make austerity policies more destructive than they used to be. You see, in the past it was relatively easy to offset the negative effects of austerity with other policies: as nations tried to balance their budgets, their central banks ? the Federal Reserve and its sister institutions ? could help sustain the economy by cutting interest rates. Today, however, interest rates are very low even when economies are strong ? around 1.5 percentage points in the U.S., actually negative in much of Europe and Japan. So there?s little or no room to cut to offset the depressing effects of austerity. But why are interest rates so low? The answer basically comes down to a global excess supply of saving: around the world, people want to save more than businesses are willing to invest in new factories, office parks, and so on. This leaves the world awash in savings that are all dressed up with nowhere to go, which is in turn a world in which bond markets are effectively begging governments to borrow and spend. And governments should take them up on the offer. The sensible, prudent thing to be doing now would be to borrow at these low, low rates and use the money for public investment: rebuilding our creaking infrastructure, subsidizing new technologies (especially green energy), and making sure that children have adequate health care and nutrition. Of course, we?re not doing that in America: the Trump administration is borrowing vast sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Yet even that is preferable to the behavior of governments that are still hung up on the notion that prudence means balancing the budget ? and as we?ve just seen in Japan, seem unwilling to learn from the repeated disasters of austerity. Now is the time to borrow and invest. But is anyone willing to do the obviously right thing? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 23:37:42 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 17:37:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The economy is horrible all around the world because we are saving too much, yet, the average American has less than $400 in savings, and a large number are at risk of becoming homeless if they had an expense greater than $1000. Odd. Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. SR Ballard 2020/02/18 17:27?John Clark via extropy-chat ????: > This is a interesting column by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman: > > The latest numbers from Japan are in, and they?re terrible: In the fourth quarter of last year Japan?s economy shrank at an annual rate of 6 percent. And no, it wasn?t the coronavirus: we won?t see the negative effects of that shock until the next set of numbers. > > But there?s nothing mysterious about Japan?s stumble. It was the result of an extremely ill-advised turn toward fiscal austerity, in this case taking the form of a hike in the value-added tax. > > The thing is, nobody should have been surprised at this outcome. Over the past decade we?ve seen many, many experiments in fiscal austerity ? raising taxes or cutting spending. And without exception the impact of fiscal tightening has been to shrink the economy. We?ve also seen a few experiments in deficit spending, most notably the explosion of the U.S. deficit under Donald Trump, and bigger deficits have consistently given the economy a boost. > > So was fiscal responsibility always a terrible idea? No. It was never a great idea ? claims that deficit reduction would produce a surge in private investment, which I once mocked as belief in the ?confidence fairy,? were never supported by the evidence. But the world has changed in ways that make austerity policies more destructive than they used to be. > > You see, in the past it was relatively easy to offset the negative effects of austerity with other policies: as nations tried to balance their budgets, their central banks ? the Federal Reserve and its sister institutions ? could help sustain the economy by cutting interest rates. > > Today, however, interest rates are very low even when economies are strong ? around 1.5 percentage points in the U.S., actually negative in much of Europe and Japan. So there?s little or no room to cut to offset the depressing effects of austerity. > > But why are interest rates so low? The answer basically comes down to a global excess supply of saving: around the world, people want to save more than businesses are willing to invest in new factories, office parks, and so on. This leaves the world awash in savings that are all dressed up with nowhere to go, which is in turn a world in which bond markets are effectively begging governments to borrow and spend. > > And governments should take them up on the offer. The sensible, prudent thing to be doing now would be to borrow at these low, low rates and use the money for public investment: rebuilding our creaking infrastructure, subsidizing new technologies (especially green energy), and making sure that children have adequate health care and nutrition. > > Of course, we?re not doing that in America: the Trump administration is borrowing vast sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Yet even that is preferable to the behavior of governments that are still hung up on the notion that prudence means balancing the budget ? and as we?ve just seen in Japan, seem unwilling to learn from the repeated disasters of austerity. > > Now is the time to borrow and invest. But is anyone willing to do the obviously right thing? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Feb 18 23:39:47 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 17:39:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> Message-ID: The demand for a prosthetic arm which does these thing is low. And demand for any technology which people don?t know exists is going to be quite low. 0 probably. If people knew it was possible for there to be one, right now, there might actually be demand. SR Ballard 2020/02/18 15:47?Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat ????: > The demand for controlling a synthesizer with thoughts alone - being able to create music while kicking back in one's chair, lying in bed, or otherwise mobility-limited (such as on a bus/train/airplane, presumably with headphones) - is low? That doesn't seem correct. > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:11 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: >> Well, this wasn?t exactly a ?lab? setting. But likely a while as demand is low. >> >> SR Ballard >> >> 2020/02/17 22:05?Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat ????: >> >>> Now, when does this go from a neat trick in a lab, to commercial? >>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 8:44 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> Musician Hacks Prosthetic Arm To Control Synthesizer With His Thoughts >>>> >>>> https://bay-observer.com/musician-hacks-prosthetic-arm-to-control-synthesizer-with-his-thoughts-2 >>>> >>>> ?Bertolt Meyer, 42, was born without a lower left arm. >>>> He has worn a prosthetic arm since he was 3 months old, but now wears a high-tech ?i-limb? that looks like something out of a futuristic sci-fi movie. >>>> >>>> The i-limb is a myoelectric prosthesis, which uses electrical signals from the muscles inside the residual limb to control the prosthesis. >>>> >>>> As a musician, Meyer had the idea to swap out the prosthetic hand for a DIY controller for his modular synthesizers so he can play music just by thinking about it.? >>>> >>>> > x post from transhumanism reddit >>>> >>>> Very cool! >>>> >>>> SR Ballard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 atymes at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 00:19:23 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:19:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Right, so someone needs to hack this to be usable without a prosthetic arm (just based off brain or shoulder reading), then market it. And probably either convince the guy who made it to help, or reverse engineer what he has done and recreate it. Anyone up for the task? On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:47 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The demand for a prosthetic arm which does these thing is low. > > And demand for any technology which people don?t know exists is going to > be quite low. 0 probably. > > If people knew it was possible for there to be one, right now, there might > actually be demand. > > SR Ballard > > 2020/02/18 15:47?Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>????: > > The demand for controlling a synthesizer with thoughts alone - being able > to create music while kicking back in one's chair, lying in bed, or > otherwise mobility-limited (such as on a bus/train/airplane, presumably > with headphones) - is low? That doesn't seem correct. > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:11 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Well, this wasn?t exactly a ?lab? setting. But likely a while as demand >> is low. >> >> SR Ballard >> >> 2020/02/17 22:05?Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>????: >> >> Now, when does this go from a neat trick in a lab, to commercial? >> >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 8:44 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Musician Hacks Prosthetic Arm To Control Synthesizer With His Thoughts >>> >>> >>> https://bay-observer.com/musician-hacks-prosthetic-arm-to-control-synthesizer-with-his-thoughts-2 >>> >>> ?Bertolt Meyer, 42, was born without a lower left arm. >>> >>> He has worn a prosthetic arm since he was 3 months old, but now wears a >>> high-tech ?i-limb? that looks like something out of a futuristic sci-fi >>> movie. >>> >>> The i-limb is a myoelectric prosthesis, which uses electrical signals >>> from the muscles inside the residual limb to control the prosthesis. >>> >>> As a musician, Meyer had the idea to swap out the prosthetic hand for a >>> DIY controller for his modular synthesizers so he can play music just by >>> thinking about it.? >>> >>> > x post from transhumanism reddit >>> >>> Very cool! >>> >>> SR Ballard >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 01:04:56 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:04:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And the average credit card debt is around $7000. Oversaving? bill w On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:41 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The economy is horrible all around the world because we are saving too > much, yet, the average American has less than $400 in savings, and a large > number are at risk of becoming homeless if they had an expense greater than > $1000. Odd. > > Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments > clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. > > SR Ballard > > 2020/02/18 17:27?John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>????: > > This is a interesting column by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman: > > The latest numbers from Japan are in, and they?re terrible > > : In the fourth quarter of last year Japan?s economy shrank at an annual > rate of 6 percent. And no, it wasn?t the coronavirus: we won?t see the > negative effects of that shock until the next set of numbers. > > > But there?s nothing mysterious about Japan?s stumble. It was the result of > an extremely ill-advised turn toward fiscal austerity, in this case taking > the form of a hike in the value-added tax. > > The thing is, nobody should have been surprised at this outcome. Over the > past decade we?ve seen many, many experiments in fiscal austerity ? raising > taxes or cutting spending. And without exception the impact of fiscal > tightening has been to shrink the economy. We?ve also seen a few > experiments in deficit spending, most notably the explosion of the U.S. > deficit under Donald Trump, and bigger deficits have consistently given the > economy a boost. > > So was fiscal responsibility always a terrible idea? No. It was never a > great idea ? claims that deficit reduction would produce a surge in private > investment, which I once mocked as belief in the ?confidence fairy > ,? > were never supported by the evidence. But the world has changed in ways > that make austerity policies more destructive than they used to be. > > You see, in the past it was relatively easy to offset the negative effects > of austerity with other policies: as nations tried to balance their > budgets, their central banks ? the Federal Reserve and its sister > institutions ? could help sustain the economy by cutting interest rates. > > Today, however, interest rates are very low > even > when economies are strong ? around 1.5 percentage points in the U.S., > actually negative in much of Europe and Japan. So there?s little or no room > to cut to offset the depressing effects of austerity. > > But why are interest rates so low? The answer basically comes down to a > global excess supply of saving: around the world, people want to save more > than businesses are willing to invest in new factories, office parks, and > so on. This leaves the world awash in savings that are all dressed up with > nowhere to go, which is in turn a world in which bond markets are > effectively begging governments to borrow and spend. > > And governments should take them up on the offer. The sensible, prudent > thing to be doing now would be to borrow at these low, low rates and use > the money for public investment: rebuilding our creaking infrastructure, > subsidizing new technologies (especially green energy), and making sure > that children have adequate health care and nutrition. > > Of course, we?re not doing that in America: the Trump administration is > borrowing vast sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations > and the wealthy. Yet even that is preferable to the behavior of governments > that are still hung up on the notion that prudence means balancing the > budget ? and as we?ve just seen in Japan, seem unwilling to learn from the > repeated disasters of austerity. > > Now is the time to borrow and invest. But is anyone willing to do the > obviously right thing? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 veronesepk at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 01:06:52 2020 From: veronesepk at gmail.com (Keith Veronese) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:06:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I won't rest until Dave Ramsey is in jail for this. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:05 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > And the average credit card debt is around $7000. Oversaving? bill w > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:41 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> The economy is horrible all around the world because we are saving too >> much, yet, the average American has less than $400 in savings, and a large >> number are at risk of becoming homeless if they had an expense greater than >> $1000. Odd. >> >> Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments >> clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. >> >> SR Ballard >> >> 2020/02/18 17:27?John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>????: >> >> This is a interesting column by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul >> Krugman: >> >> The latest numbers from Japan are in, and they?re terrible >> >> : In the fourth quarter of last year Japan?s economy shrank at an annual >> rate of 6 percent. And no, it wasn?t the coronavirus: we won?t see the >> negative effects of that shock until the next set of numbers. >> >> >> But there?s nothing mysterious about Japan?s stumble. It was the result >> of an extremely ill-advised turn toward fiscal austerity, in this case >> taking the form of a hike in the value-added tax. >> >> The thing is, nobody should have been surprised at this outcome. Over the >> past decade we?ve seen many, many experiments in fiscal austerity ? raising >> taxes or cutting spending. And without exception the impact of fiscal >> tightening has been to shrink the economy. We?ve also seen a few >> experiments in deficit spending, most notably the explosion of the U.S. >> deficit under Donald Trump, and bigger deficits have consistently given the >> economy a boost. >> >> So was fiscal responsibility always a terrible idea? No. It was never a >> great idea ? claims that deficit reduction would produce a surge in private >> investment, which I once mocked as belief in the ?confidence fairy >> ,? >> were never supported by the evidence. But the world has changed in ways >> that make austerity policies more destructive than they used to be. >> >> You see, in the past it was relatively easy to offset the negative >> effects of austerity with other policies: as nations tried to balance their >> budgets, their central banks ? the Federal Reserve and its sister >> institutions ? could help sustain the economy by cutting interest rates. >> >> Today, however, interest rates are very low >> even >> when economies are strong ? around 1.5 percentage points in the U.S., >> actually negative in much of Europe and Japan. So there?s little or no room >> to cut to offset the depressing effects of austerity. >> >> But why are interest rates so low? The answer basically comes down to a >> global excess supply of saving: around the world, people want to save more >> than businesses are willing to invest in new factories, office parks, and >> so on. This leaves the world awash in savings that are all dressed up with >> nowhere to go, which is in turn a world in which bond markets are >> effectively begging governments to borrow and spend. >> >> And governments should take them up on the offer. The sensible, prudent >> thing to be doing now would be to borrow at these low, low rates and use >> the money for public investment: rebuilding our creaking infrastructure, >> subsidizing new technologies (especially green energy), and making sure >> that children have adequate health care and nutrition. >> >> Of course, we?re not doing that in America: the Trump administration is >> borrowing vast sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations >> and the wealthy. Yet even that is preferable to the behavior of governments >> that are still hung up on the notion that prudence means balancing the >> budget ? and as we?ve just seen in Japan, seem unwilling to learn from the >> repeated disasters of austerity. >> >> Now is the time to borrow and invest. But is anyone willing to do the >> obviously right thing? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 01:45:06 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:45:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: But Ramsey is right, honestly. The average consumer should avoid high interest debt, like credit cards or payday loans. I?m not against car and home loans, though he usually tells people to save for them. I agree with his preference for a 15 year fixed. Adjustable mortgages bring uncertainty to a budget. Is Dave Ramsey?s decision to get people to pay cash for cars and houses really killing the economy? Seems like economies did just fine back when people paid cash for those things. I don?t think that the entire economy should rest on interest payments. While money isn?t finite, it feels finite. How much of our ?increased economy? is just inflation? ?We?re making $10 million more this year! We?re up 3%! If inflation is three percent, then you?re just flatlined from last year. I don?t know how people figure these things out on a huge scale, but locally ?the economy? is easy to see. If there are ?help wanted? signs everywhere, things are going well and there?s a bustle of energy. If everything is dead and people are stressed, then the opposite. In 2008 when everything popped, it was really hard on my family. But why exactly? What really changed. Like the tulip bubble ... nothing changed except for perception. People perceived the tulip to go up in value, then down. But really, the physical facts of things didn?t change one single bit. Markets, I think, are probably the same. Trading stocks, short term, is basically ?nothing?, it?s just timing perception. It doesn?t produce a product or service. It?s a non-thing. Yet it somehow has real consequences. I kind of... just don?t get it. I have taken Economics classes and read a few books but the whole thing makes less sense to me than psychology. SR Ballard > On Feb 18, 2020, at 7:06 PM, Keith Veronese via extropy-chat wrote: > > I won't rest until Dave Ramsey is in jail for this. > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:05 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: >> And the average credit card debt is around $7000. Oversaving? bill w >> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:41 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: >>> The economy is horrible all around the world because we are saving too much, yet, the average American has less than $400 in savings, and a large number are at risk of becoming homeless if they had an expense greater than $1000. Odd. >>> >>> Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. >>> >>> SR Ballard >>> >>> 2020/02/18 17:27?John Clark via extropy-chat ????: >>> >>>> This is a interesting column by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman: >>>> >>>> The latest numbers from Japan are in, and they?re terrible: In the fourth quarter of last year Japan?s economy shrank at an annual rate of 6 percent. And no, it wasn?t the coronavirus: we won?t see the negative effects of that shock until the next set of numbers. >>>> >>>> But there?s nothing mysterious about Japan?s stumble. It was the result of an extremely ill-advised turn toward fiscal austerity, in this case taking the form of a hike in the value-added tax. >>>> >>>> The thing is, nobody should have been surprised at this outcome. Over the past decade we?ve seen many, many experiments in fiscal austerity ? raising taxes or cutting spending. And without exception the impact of fiscal tightening has been to shrink the economy. We?ve also seen a few experiments in deficit spending, most notably the explosion of the U.S. deficit under Donald Trump, and bigger deficits have consistently given the economy a boost. >>>> >>>> So was fiscal responsibility always a terrible idea? No. It was never a great idea ? claims that deficit reduction would produce a surge in private investment, which I once mocked as belief in the ?confidence fairy,? were never supported by the evidence. But the world has changed in ways that make austerity policies more destructive than they used to be. >>>> >>>> You see, in the past it was relatively easy to offset the negative effects of austerity with other policies: as nations tried to balance their budgets, their central banks ? the Federal Reserve and its sister institutions ? could help sustain the economy by cutting interest rates. >>>> >>>> Today, however, interest rates are very low even when economies are strong ? around 1.5 percentage points in the U.S., actually negative in much of Europe and Japan. So there?s little or no room to cut to offset the depressing effects of austerity. >>>> >>>> But why are interest rates so low? The answer basically comes down to a global excess supply of saving: around the world, people want to save more than businesses are willing to invest in new factories, office parks, and so on. This leaves the world awash in savings that are all dressed up with nowhere to go, which is in turn a world in which bond markets are effectively begging governments to borrow and spend. >>>> >>>> And governments should take them up on the offer. The sensible, prudent thing to be doing now would be to borrow at these low, low rates and use the money for public investment: rebuilding our creaking infrastructure, subsidizing new technologies (especially green energy), and making sure that children have adequate health care and nutrition. >>>> >>>> Of course, we?re not doing that in America: the Trump administration is borrowing vast sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Yet even that is preferable to the behavior of governments that are still hung up on the notion that prudence means balancing the budget ? and as we?ve just seen in Japan, seem unwilling to learn from the repeated disasters of austerity. >>>> >>>> Now is the time to borrow and invest. But is anyone willing to do the obviously right thing? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 02:08:25 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:08:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have taken Economics classes and read a few books but the whole thing makes less sense to me than psychology. SR Ballard *I am with you. Maybe it's because psychology makes sense and economics doesn't. bill w* On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:47 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > But Ramsey is right, honestly. The average consumer should avoid high > interest debt, like credit cards or payday loans. I?m not against car and > home loans, though he usually tells people to save for them. I agree with > his preference for a 15 year fixed. Adjustable mortgages bring uncertainty > to a budget. > > Is Dave Ramsey?s decision to get people to pay cash for cars and houses > really killing the economy? Seems like economies did just fine back when > people paid cash for those things. I don?t think that the entire economy > should rest on interest payments. While money isn?t finite, it feels > finite. How much of our ?increased economy? is just inflation? > > ?We?re making $10 million more this year! We?re up 3%! If inflation is > three percent, then you?re just flatlined from last year. > > I don?t know how people figure these things out on a huge scale, but > locally ?the economy? is easy to see. If there are ?help wanted? signs > everywhere, things are going well and there?s a bustle of energy. If > everything is dead and people are stressed, then the opposite. > > In 2008 when everything popped, it was really hard on my family. But why > exactly? What really changed. Like the tulip bubble ... nothing changed > except for perception. People perceived the tulip to go up in value, then > down. But really, the physical facts of things didn?t change one single bit. > > Markets, I think, are probably the same. Trading stocks, short term, is > basically ?nothing?, it?s just timing perception. It doesn?t produce a > product or service. It?s a non-thing. Yet it somehow has real consequences. > I kind of... just don?t get it. > > I have taken Economics classes and read a few books but the whole thing > makes less sense to me than psychology. > > SR Ballard > > On Feb 18, 2020, at 7:06 PM, Keith Veronese via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I won't rest until Dave Ramsey is in jail for this. > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:05 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> And the average credit card debt is around $7000. Oversaving? bill w >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:41 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> The economy is horrible all around the world because we are saving too >>> much, yet, the average American has less than $400 in savings, and a large >>> number are at risk of becoming homeless if they had an expense greater than >>> $1000. Odd. >>> >>> Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments >>> clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. >>> >>> SR Ballard >>> >>> 2020/02/18 17:27?John Clark via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>????: >>> >>> This is a interesting column by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul >>> Krugman: >>> >>> The latest numbers from Japan are in, and they?re terrible >>> >>> : In the fourth quarter of last year Japan?s economy shrank at an >>> annual rate of 6 percent. And no, it wasn?t the coronavirus: we won?t see >>> the negative effects of that shock until the next set of numbers. >>> >>> >>> But there?s nothing mysterious about Japan?s stumble. It was the result >>> of an extremely ill-advised turn toward fiscal austerity, in this case >>> taking the form of a hike in the value-added tax. >>> >>> The thing is, nobody should have been surprised at this outcome. Over >>> the past decade we?ve seen many, many experiments in fiscal austerity ? >>> raising taxes or cutting spending. And without exception the impact of >>> fiscal tightening has been to shrink the economy. We?ve also seen a few >>> experiments in deficit spending, most notably the explosion of the U.S. >>> deficit under Donald Trump, and bigger deficits have consistently given the >>> economy a boost. >>> >>> So was fiscal responsibility always a terrible idea? No. It was never a >>> great idea ? claims that deficit reduction would produce a surge in private >>> investment, which I once mocked as belief in the ?confidence fairy >>> ,? >>> were never supported by the evidence. But the world has changed in ways >>> that make austerity policies more destructive than they used to be. >>> >>> You see, in the past it was relatively easy to offset the negative >>> effects of austerity with other policies: as nations tried to balance their >>> budgets, their central banks ? the Federal Reserve and its sister >>> institutions ? could help sustain the economy by cutting interest rates. >>> >>> Today, however, interest rates are very low >>> even >>> when economies are strong ? around 1.5 percentage points in the U.S., >>> actually negative in much of Europe and Japan. So there?s little or no room >>> to cut to offset the depressing effects of austerity. >>> >>> But why are interest rates so low? The answer basically comes down to a >>> global excess supply of saving: around the world, people want to save more >>> than businesses are willing to invest in new factories, office parks, and >>> so on. This leaves the world awash in savings that are all dressed up with >>> nowhere to go, which is in turn a world in which bond markets are >>> effectively begging governments to borrow and spend. >>> >>> And governments should take them up on the offer. The sensible, prudent >>> thing to be doing now would be to borrow at these low, low rates and use >>> the money for public investment: rebuilding our creaking infrastructure, >>> subsidizing new technologies (especially green energy), and making sure >>> that children have adequate health care and nutrition. >>> >>> Of course, we?re not doing that in America: the Trump administration is >>> borrowing vast sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations >>> and the wealthy. Yet even that is preferable to the behavior of governments >>> that are still hung up on the notion that prudence means balancing the >>> budget ? and as we?ve just seen in Japan, seem unwilling to learn from the >>> repeated disasters of austerity. >>> >>> Now is the time to borrow and invest. But is anyone willing to do the >>> obviously right thing? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From veronesepk at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 02:09:33 2020 From: veronesepk at gmail.com (Keith Veronese) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:09:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What do you all think of passive investing/ETFs/indexing? I've seen as high as 90% of money invested a pay period is through passive investing. At what point does this uncouple from accurate price prediction for individual companies? At what point does it just become unhinged? On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 7:45 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > But Ramsey is right, honestly. The average consumer should avoid high > interest debt, like credit cards or payday loans. I?m not against car and > home loans, though he usually tells people to save for them. I agree with > his preference for a 15 year fixed. Adjustable mortgages bring uncertainty > to a budget. > > Is Dave Ramsey?s decision to get people to pay cash for cars and houses > really killing the economy? Seems like economies did just fine back when > people paid cash for those things. I don?t think that the entire economy > should rest on interest payments. While money isn?t finite, it feels > finite. How much of our ?increased economy? is just inflation? > > ?We?re making $10 million more this year! We?re up 3%! If inflation is > three percent, then you?re just flatlined from last year. > > I don?t know how people figure these things out on a huge scale, but > locally ?the economy? is easy to see. If there are ?help wanted? signs > everywhere, things are going well and there?s a bustle of energy. If > everything is dead and people are stressed, then the opposite. > > In 2008 when everything popped, it was really hard on my family. But why > exactly? What really changed. Like the tulip bubble ... nothing changed > except for perception. People perceived the tulip to go up in value, then > down. But really, the physical facts of things didn?t change one single bit. > > Markets, I think, are probably the same. Trading stocks, short term, is > basically ?nothing?, it?s just timing perception. It doesn?t produce a > product or service. It?s a non-thing. Yet it somehow has real consequences. > I kind of... just don?t get it. > > I have taken Economics classes and read a few books but the whole thing > makes less sense to me than psychology. > > SR Ballard > > On Feb 18, 2020, at 7:06 PM, Keith Veronese via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I won't rest until Dave Ramsey is in jail for this. > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:05 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> And the average credit card debt is around $7000. Oversaving? bill w >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:41 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> The economy is horrible all around the world because we are saving too >>> much, yet, the average American has less than $400 in savings, and a large >>> number are at risk of becoming homeless if they had an expense greater than >>> $1000. Odd. >>> >>> Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments >>> clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. >>> >>> SR Ballard >>> >>> 2020/02/18 17:27?John Clark via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>????: >>> >>> This is a interesting column by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul >>> Krugman: >>> >>> The latest numbers from Japan are in, and they?re terrible >>> >>> : In the fourth quarter of last year Japan?s economy shrank at an >>> annual rate of 6 percent. And no, it wasn?t the coronavirus: we won?t see >>> the negative effects of that shock until the next set of numbers. >>> >>> >>> But there?s nothing mysterious about Japan?s stumble. It was the result >>> of an extremely ill-advised turn toward fiscal austerity, in this case >>> taking the form of a hike in the value-added tax. >>> >>> The thing is, nobody should have been surprised at this outcome. Over >>> the past decade we?ve seen many, many experiments in fiscal austerity ? >>> raising taxes or cutting spending. And without exception the impact of >>> fiscal tightening has been to shrink the economy. We?ve also seen a few >>> experiments in deficit spending, most notably the explosion of the U.S. >>> deficit under Donald Trump, and bigger deficits have consistently given the >>> economy a boost. >>> >>> So was fiscal responsibility always a terrible idea? No. It was never a >>> great idea ? claims that deficit reduction would produce a surge in private >>> investment, which I once mocked as belief in the ?confidence fairy >>> ,? >>> were never supported by the evidence. But the world has changed in ways >>> that make austerity policies more destructive than they used to be. >>> >>> You see, in the past it was relatively easy to offset the negative >>> effects of austerity with other policies: as nations tried to balance their >>> budgets, their central banks ? the Federal Reserve and its sister >>> institutions ? could help sustain the economy by cutting interest rates. >>> >>> Today, however, interest rates are very low >>> even >>> when economies are strong ? around 1.5 percentage points in the U.S., >>> actually negative in much of Europe and Japan. So there?s little or no room >>> to cut to offset the depressing effects of austerity. >>> >>> But why are interest rates so low? The answer basically comes down to a >>> global excess supply of saving: around the world, people want to save more >>> than businesses are willing to invest in new factories, office parks, and >>> so on. This leaves the world awash in savings that are all dressed up with >>> nowhere to go, which is in turn a world in which bond markets are >>> effectively begging governments to borrow and spend. >>> >>> And governments should take them up on the offer. The sensible, prudent >>> thing to be doing now would be to borrow at these low, low rates and use >>> the money for public investment: rebuilding our creaking infrastructure, >>> subsidizing new technologies (especially green energy), and making sure >>> that children have adequate health care and nutrition. >>> >>> Of course, we?re not doing that in America: the Trump administration is >>> borrowing vast sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations >>> and the wealthy. Yet even that is preferable to the behavior of governments >>> that are still hung up on the notion that prudence means balancing the >>> budget ? and as we?ve just seen in Japan, seem unwilling to learn from the >>> repeated disasters of austerity. >>> >>> Now is the time to borrow and invest. But is anyone willing to do the >>> obviously right thing? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Feb 19 02:10:51 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:10:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> > wrote: Musician Hacks Prosthetic Arm To Control Synthesizer With His Thoughts OK so the guy somehow makes his prosthetic arm operate a synthesizer using thoughts. I can kinda see that working for classical and jazz and rock and those genres. But eventually someone with such a device will attempt hip hop. Then the arm will reach over, pick up the 44 magnum and blast some hapless prole. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Feb 19 02:22:28 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:22:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. SR Ballard > On Behalf Of Keith Veronese via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings >?I won't rest until Dave Ramsey is in jail for this. Ramsey has done untold damage! He is the one who has been encouraging young couples to act with fiscal responsibly. His treacherous un-American tagline: The Dave Ramsey Show, where cash is king, debt is dumb and the paid off mortgage is the new BMW as the status symbol of choice! Heh. That debt-free scream stuff hasta go too. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 02:27:59 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:27:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is unfortunately a vicious cycle at work here between that and other factors such as central bank price distortion of fixed income demand, pensions and other conservative vehicles being forced to hold bonds regardless of yield (negative interest rates would not ever be seen otherwise), large numbers of retiring boomers who need income, and investors chasing yield in equities and taking on higher levels of risk as a result. Markets were not allowed to clear properly after 2008 and fixed income markets no longer transmit true pricing properly due to continuing central bank distortions. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 9:18 PM Keith Veronese via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What do you all think of passive investing/ETFs/indexing? I've seen as > high as 90% of money invested a pay period is through passive investing. At > what point does this uncouple from accurate price prediction for individual > companies? At what point does it just become unhinged? > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 7:45 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> But Ramsey is right, honestly. The average consumer should avoid high >> interest debt, like credit cards or payday loans. I?m not against car and >> home loans, though he usually tells people to save for them. I agree with >> his preference for a 15 year fixed. Adjustable mortgages bring uncertainty >> to a budget. >> >> Is Dave Ramsey?s decision to get people to pay cash for cars and houses >> really killing the economy? Seems like economies did just fine back when >> people paid cash for those things. I don?t think that the entire economy >> should rest on interest payments. While money isn?t finite, it feels >> finite. How much of our ?increased economy? is just inflation? >> >> ?We?re making $10 million more this year! We?re up 3%! If inflation is >> three percent, then you?re just flatlined from last year. >> >> I don?t know how people figure these things out on a huge scale, but >> locally ?the economy? is easy to see. If there are ?help wanted? signs >> everywhere, things are going well and there?s a bustle of energy. If >> everything is dead and people are stressed, then the opposite. >> >> In 2008 when everything popped, it was really hard on my family. But why >> exactly? What really changed. Like the tulip bubble ... nothing changed >> except for perception. People perceived the tulip to go up in value, then >> down. But really, the physical facts of things didn?t change one single bit. >> >> Markets, I think, are probably the same. Trading stocks, short term, is >> basically ?nothing?, it?s just timing perception. It doesn?t produce a >> product or service. It?s a non-thing. Yet it somehow has real consequences. >> I kind of... just don?t get it. >> >> I have taken Economics classes and read a few books but the whole thing >> makes less sense to me than psychology. >> >> SR Ballard >> >> On Feb 18, 2020, at 7:06 PM, Keith Veronese via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> I won't rest until Dave Ramsey is in jail for this. >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:05 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> And the average credit card debt is around $7000. Oversaving? bill w >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:41 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> The economy is horrible all around the world because we are saving too >>>> much, yet, the average American has less than $400 in savings, and a large >>>> number are at risk of becoming homeless if they had an expense greater than >>>> $1000. Odd. >>>> >>>> Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments >>>> clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. >>>> >>>> SR Ballard >>>> >>>> 2020/02/18 17:27?John Clark via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>????: >>>> >>>> This is a interesting column by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul >>>> Krugman: >>>> >>>> The latest numbers from Japan are in, and they?re terrible >>>> >>>> : In the fourth quarter of last year Japan?s economy shrank at an >>>> annual rate of 6 percent. And no, it wasn?t the coronavirus: we won?t see >>>> the negative effects of that shock until the next set of numbers. >>>> >>>> >>>> But there?s nothing mysterious about Japan?s stumble. It was the result >>>> of an extremely ill-advised turn toward fiscal austerity, in this case >>>> taking the form of a hike in the value-added tax. >>>> >>>> The thing is, nobody should have been surprised at this outcome. Over >>>> the past decade we?ve seen many, many experiments in fiscal austerity ? >>>> raising taxes or cutting spending. And without exception the impact of >>>> fiscal tightening has been to shrink the economy. We?ve also seen a few >>>> experiments in deficit spending, most notably the explosion of the U.S. >>>> deficit under Donald Trump, and bigger deficits have consistently given the >>>> economy a boost. >>>> >>>> So was fiscal responsibility always a terrible idea? No. It was never a >>>> great idea ? claims that deficit reduction would produce a surge in private >>>> investment, which I once mocked as belief in the ?confidence fairy >>>> ,? >>>> were never supported by the evidence. But the world has changed in ways >>>> that make austerity policies more destructive than they used to be. >>>> >>>> You see, in the past it was relatively easy to offset the negative >>>> effects of austerity with other policies: as nations tried to balance their >>>> budgets, their central banks ? the Federal Reserve and its sister >>>> institutions ? could help sustain the economy by cutting interest rates. >>>> >>>> Today, however, interest rates are very low >>>> even >>>> when economies are strong ? around 1.5 percentage points in the U.S., >>>> actually negative in much of Europe and Japan. So there?s little or no room >>>> to cut to offset the depressing effects of austerity. >>>> >>>> But why are interest rates so low? The answer basically comes down to a >>>> global excess supply of saving: around the world, people want to save more >>>> than businesses are willing to invest in new factories, office parks, and >>>> so on. This leaves the world awash in savings that are all dressed up with >>>> nowhere to go, which is in turn a world in which bond markets are >>>> effectively begging governments to borrow and spend. >>>> >>>> And governments should take them up on the offer. The sensible, prudent >>>> thing to be doing now would be to borrow at these low, low rates and use >>>> the money for public investment: rebuilding our creaking infrastructure, >>>> subsidizing new technologies (especially green energy), and making sure >>>> that children have adequate health care and nutrition. >>>> >>>> Of course, we?re not doing that in America: the Trump administration is >>>> borrowing vast sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations >>>> and the wealthy. Yet even that is preferable to the behavior of governments >>>> that are still hung up on the notion that prudence means balancing the >>>> budget ? and as we?ve just seen in Japan, seem unwilling to learn from the >>>> repeated disasters of austerity. >>>> >>>> Now is the time to borrow and invest. But is anyone willing to do the >>>> obviously right thing? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 02:40:04 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:40:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> References: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: It's not companies. They've been happy to take advantage of cheap loans: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-corporate-debt-10-trillion-record-percentage-economy-expert-warnings-2019-12-1028731031 As an aside, and in the interest of full disclosure, I put zero stock in Krugman and think he's a partisan hack. He lost his way a very long time ago regardless of his prize. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 9:34 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments > clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. > > SR Ballard > > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Keith Veronese via extropy-chat > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings > > > > >?I won't rest until Dave Ramsey is in jail for this. > > > > Ramsey has done untold damage! He is the one who has been encouraging > young couples to act with fiscal responsibly. His treacherous un-American > tagline: The Dave Ramsey Show, where cash is king, debt is dumb and the > paid off mortgage is the new BMW as the status symbol of choice! > > > > Heh. That debt-free scream stuff hasta go too. > > > > 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 03:07:04 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:07:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > But eventually someone with such a device will attempt hip hop. Then > the arm will reach over, pick up the 44 magnum and blast some hapless prole. > > > Oh you sweet thing. There is a lot more to hip hop than 'Straight Outta Compton'. It is certainly the genre with the most intelligently crafted lyrics in all modern music owing to the need to craft complex mathematical patterns with words. Also probably the genre with the least intelligently crafted lyrics in all modern music! But good hip hop is fucking incredible. I can turn you on to some if you wish. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Feb 19 04:11:33 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:11:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Direct Music On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: But eventually someone with such a device will attempt hip hop. Then the arm will reach over, pick up the 44 magnum and blast some hapless prole. >?Oh you sweet thing? {8^D Sensa huma, Will! If I stopped my snarky ways, I would be nothing. Understatement, I would be negative, less that nothing. I would be subterranean, total garbage, wriggly goo under the trash can! I don?t want to be any of that, so I keep my sensa huma. >?There is a lot more to hip hop than 'Straight Outta Compton'? I don?t know what that is, but I play the sax. I tried to do hip hop on it. I didn?t even need to move my fingers. But no one recognized it. I can?t imagine playing Name That Tune in hip hop. Think about it: the Beatles were so great, but decades later they violinized it and made it into elevator music. How will hip hop ever be violinized when the surviving fans are in their 60s? >? I can turn you on to some if you wish? Eh, probably at least 4 decades too late for that, me lad. Fun aside, not even kiddng. I did DNA and learned I have a second cousin once removed who is a hip hop star. His name is Shinoda. His mother and I are second cousins, so the rap star is second once removed. I talked to her (my second cousin) on the phone, she seemed very nice. Never met her in person. Hipsters, is there a rap star Shinoda who is in a group called Lincoln Park? I looked it up once and hated the music, so I fear I won?t get turned on by it now. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 04:49:52 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:49:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: LOL Spike it is too perfect that you are related to the Linkin Park guy. That is some grade A hilarity. They are kind of bad so no shame for not liking them. There's some really poetic shit out there though. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 23:12 spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Direct Music > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > But eventually someone with such a device will attempt hip hop. Then > the arm will reach over, pick up the 44 magnum and blast some hapless prole. > > > > > > >?Oh you sweet thing? > > > > {8^D > > > > Sensa huma, Will! If I stopped my snarky ways, I would be nothing. > Understatement, I would be negative, less that nothing. I would be > subterranean, total garbage, wriggly goo under the trash can! > > > > I don?t want to be any of that, so I keep my sensa huma. > > > > >?There is a lot more to hip hop than 'Straight Outta Compton'? > > > > I don?t know what that is, but I play the sax. I tried to do hip hop on > it. I didn?t even need to move my fingers. But no one recognized it. I > can?t imagine playing Name That Tune in hip hop. Think about it: the > Beatles were so great, but decades later they violinized it and made it > into elevator music. How will hip hop ever be violinized when the > surviving fans are in their 60s? > > > > >? I can turn you on to some if you wish? > > > > Eh, probably at least 4 decades too late for that, me lad. Fun aside, not > even kiddng. I did DNA and learned I have a second cousin once removed who > is a hip hop star. His name is Shinoda. His mother and I are second > cousins, so the rap star is second once removed. I talked to her (my > second cousin) on the phone, she seemed very nice. Never met her in person. > > > > Hipsters, is there a rap star Shinoda who is in a group called Lincoln > Park? I looked it up once and hated the music, so I fear I won?t get > turned on by it 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 spike at rainier66.com Wed Feb 19 05:18:08 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:18:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Direct Music >?LOL Spike it is too perfect that you are related to the Linkin Park guy. That is some grade A hilarity. They are kind of bad so no shame for not liking them. There's some really poetic shit out there though? Ah, OK then. I have a young 4th cousin who explained to me who this Shinoda character is. She said the group is big, football game halftime big. I asked for a link to one of their songs, she sent one. I listened to about 30 seconds of it and wrote back: please alternate link? Do they get any better? She knows my taste leans more towards Merle Haggard, Elvis, Roy Orbison, James Taylor that sort. She considered my question and answered: Ehhhhh, not really. They get worse however. She didn?t bother sending another link. {8^D Regarding hip hop. Rock and roll is all about how guys feel about their girls. Most of it is anyway. Dancing, copulating, that sorta thing. I can?t understand the lyrics the hip hopsters are rapping. I heard Mr. Hussle was slain, so I Googled on Nipsey Hussle lyrics. This came up: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nipseyhussle/bulletsaintgotnonames.html I know I am being geezerly here, but from my point of view, it looks like this is an entire genre all about murder and racism. I clearly recall the geezers commenting that rock&roll suggestive lyrics inspired young people to copulate. Entirely possible. OK then, consider this: I found a list of about a dozen rappers who were slain in just the first quarter of 2019: https://heavy.com/entertainment/2019/04/rappers-killed-died-2019/ Please can someone please explain why we need rhythmic poetry about murder, which appears to somehow quite inexplicably inspire murderers to slay those reciting rhythmic poetry about murder? spike On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 23:12 spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Direct Music On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: But eventually someone with such a device will attempt hip hop. Then the arm will reach over, pick up the 44 magnum and blast some hapless prole. >?Oh you sweet thing? {8^D Sensa huma, Will! If I stopped my snarky ways, I would be nothing. Understatement, I would be negative, less that nothing. I would be subterranean, total garbage, wriggly goo under the trash can! I don?t want to be any of that, so I keep my sensa huma. >?There is a lot more to hip hop than 'Straight Outta Compton'? I don?t know what that is, but I play the sax. I tried to do hip hop on it. I didn?t even need to move my fingers. But no one recognized it. I can?t imagine playing Name That Tune in hip hop. Think about it: the Beatles were so great, but decades later they violinized it and made it into elevator music. How will hip hop ever be violinized when the surviving fans are in their 60s? >? I can turn you on to some if you wish? Eh, probably at least 4 decades too late for that, me lad. Fun aside, not even kiddng. I did DNA and learned I have a second cousin once removed who is a hip hop star. His name is Shinoda. His mother and I are second cousins, so the rap star is second once removed. I talked to her (my second cousin) on the phone, she seemed very nice. Never met her in person. Hipsters, is there a rap star Shinoda who is in a group called Lincoln Park? I looked it up once and hated the music, so I fear I won?t get turned on by it 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 05:31:55 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:31:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> References: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <62E1157F-F1CD-4D13-A970-CC2308DEE985@gmail.com> I listen to Ramsey basically every morning while I open my restaurant. People get so clouded by their emotions that they become literally unable to make rational, long-term choices. Economics is not driven by rational, self-interested actors. If it were, advertising would look completely different. What if we had a Ramsey type podcast for STEM majors that steered them towards transhumanist projects. Wouldn?t that be something? I?d listen to that while I work my worst-than-every-other-list-member-job. Ah, I had such high hopes for myself. I suppose I could still do something but I seem to dabble far too much and have now dropped out of college 3 times. Oh well! SR Ballard > On Feb 18, 2020, at 8:22 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Who is doing this ?excess saving?? Rich people? Companies? Governments clearly aren?t, because, you know, deficits. > > SR Ballard > > > > On Behalf Of Keith Veronese via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings > > >?I won't rest until Dave Ramsey is in jail for this. > > Ramsey has done untold damage! He is the one who has been encouraging young couples to act with fiscal responsibly. His treacherous un-American tagline: The Dave Ramsey Show, where cash is king, debt is dumb and the paid off mortgage is the new BMW as the status symbol of choice! > > Heh. That debt-free scream stuff hasta go too. > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 06:07:26 2020 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:07:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The hippest of the really hip hip hop is chap hop. Your life isn't complete without enjoying professor Elemental and Mr B the gentleman rhymer. /Henrik Den ons 19 feb. 2020 06:20spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> skrev: > > > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Direct Music > > > > >?LOL Spike it is too perfect that you are related to the Linkin Park > guy. That is some grade A hilarity. They are kind of bad so no shame for > not liking them. There's some really poetic shit out there though? > > > > > > Ah, OK then. I have a young 4th cousin who explained to me who this > Shinoda character is. She said the group is big, football game halftime > big. I asked for a link to one of their songs, she sent one. I listened > to about 30 seconds of it and wrote back: please alternate link? Do they > get any better? > > > > She knows my taste leans more towards Merle Haggard, Elvis, Roy Orbison, > James Taylor that sort. She considered my question and answered: Ehhhhh, > not really. They get worse however. > > > > She didn?t bother sending another link. {8^D > > > > Regarding hip hop. Rock and roll is all about how guys feel about their > girls. Most of it is anyway. Dancing, copulating, that sorta thing. I > can?t understand the lyrics the hip hopsters are rapping. I heard Mr. > Hussle was slain, so I Googled on Nipsey Hussle lyrics. This came up: > > > > https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nipseyhussle/bulletsaintgotnonames.html > > > > I know I am being geezerly here, but from my point of view, it looks like > this is an entire genre all about murder and racism. I clearly recall the > geezers commenting that rock&roll suggestive lyrics inspired young people > to copulate. Entirely possible. OK then, consider this: I found a list > of about a dozen rappers who were slain in just the first quarter of 2019: > > > > https://heavy.com/entertainment/2019/04/rappers-killed-died-2019/ > > > > Please can someone please explain why we need rhythmic poetry about > murder, which appears to somehow quite inexplicably inspire murderers to > slay those reciting rhythmic poetry about murder? > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 23:12 spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Direct Music > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > But eventually someone with such a device will attempt hip hop. Then > the arm will reach over, pick up the 44 magnum and blast some hapless prole. > > > > > > >?Oh you sweet thing? > > > > {8^D > > > > Sensa huma, Will! If I stopped my snarky ways, I would be nothing. > Understatement, I would be negative, less that nothing. I would be > subterranean, total garbage, wriggly goo under the trash can! > > > > I don?t want to be any of that, so I keep my sensa huma. > > > > >?There is a lot more to hip hop than 'Straight Outta Compton'? > > > > I don?t know what that is, but I play the sax. I tried to do hip hop on > it. I didn?t even need to move my fingers. But no one recognized it. I > can?t imagine playing Name That Tune in hip hop. Think about it: the > Beatles were so great, but decades later they violinized it and made it > into elevator music. How will hip hop ever be violinized when the > surviving fans are in their 60s? > > > > >? I can turn you on to some if you wish? > > > > Eh, probably at least 4 decades too late for that, me lad. Fun aside, not > even kiddng. I did DNA and learned I have a second cousin once removed who > is a hip hop star. His name is Shinoda. His mother and I are second > cousins, so the rap star is second once removed. I talked to her (my > second cousin) on the phone, she seemed very nice. Never met her in person. > > > > Hipsters, is there a rap star Shinoda who is in a group called Lincoln > Park? I looked it up once and hated the music, so I fear I won?t get > turned on by it now. > > > > 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 atymes at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 06:39:16 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:39:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:09 PM Henrik Ohrstrom via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The hippest of the really hip hip hop is chap hop. > Your life isn't complete without enjoying professor Elemental and Mr B the > gentleman rhymer. > Huh. Someone other than me on this list has heard of them? Though I suppose I should not be too surprised. Anyway - Spike, I second the rec for Professor Elemental. (I haven't heard enough Mr. B to say, yet.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kn9mCeCZzQ is an example, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j0eX1m2Pss for one of his crossover works with another fine band. He's got a few albums out, too. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 07:24:53 2020 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:24:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: https://youtu.be/4hFwI8CUxZA Mr B and the professor had the most British rap tiff you could ever imagine. The ending is rather spiffy, sherry and opium gents? The professors preparation when he dons his fighting trousers are rather piffy too. https://youtu.be/RhpHbr19GWA Thanks Adrian, I had not realised the the professor had a YouTube channel ( of course he does) Now happily subscribed and of to find the gentleman rhymers 'tube too. /Henrik Den ons 19 feb. 2020 07:42Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> skrev: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:09 PM Henrik Ohrstrom via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> The hippest of the really hip hip hop is chap hop. >> Your life isn't complete without enjoying professor Elemental and Mr B >> the gentleman rhymer. >> > > Huh. Someone other than me on this list has heard of them? Though I > suppose I should not be too surprised. > > Anyway - Spike, I second the rec for Professor Elemental. (I haven't > heard enough Mr. B to say, yet.) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kn9mCeCZzQ is an example, and > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j0eX1m2Pss for one of his crossover > works with another fine band. He's got a few albums out, too. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 07:40:06 2020 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:40:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: And of course, to spa^H^H^Hfuel the list just a little further, steam powered giraffe, fire fire is not what we desire..... This one is really good. https://youtu.be/hZb_6_WfquU Den ons 19 feb. 2020 08:24Henrik Ohrstrom skrev: > https://youtu.be/4hFwI8CUxZA > Mr B and the professor had the most British rap tiff you could ever > imagine. The ending is rather spiffy, sherry and opium gents? > The professors preparation when he dons his fighting trousers are rather > piffy too. > https://youtu.be/RhpHbr19GWA > > Thanks Adrian, I had not realised the the professor had a YouTube channel > ( of course he does) > Now happily subscribed and of to find the gentleman rhymers 'tube too. > /Henrik > > > Den ons 19 feb. 2020 07:42Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> skrev: > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:09 PM Henrik Ohrstrom via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> The hippest of the really hip hip hop is chap hop. >>> Your life isn't complete without enjoying professor Elemental and Mr B >>> the gentleman rhymer. >>> >> >> Huh. Someone other than me on this list has heard of them? Though I >> suppose I should not be too surprised. >> >> Anyway - Spike, I second the rec for Professor Elemental. (I haven't >> heard enough Mr. B to say, yet.) >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kn9mCeCZzQ is an example, and >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j0eX1m2Pss for one of his crossover >> works with another fine band. He's got a few albums out, too. >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 08:10:20 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:10:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Steam Powered Giraffe? Heck, try the whole album that's from (but that is arguably the best song in the album): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0S7We3GmOY&list=PL5Z_Ad4LDKGRKW2Jm7Ure706swssZk6b5 . But we're getting a bit far from hip hop. Though if that's okay, maybe try to get Spike to listen to The Dolls of New Albion and its sequels - in particular, Blood Red Dogs. (I'd link to it, but it makes more sense if encountered as part of The New Albion Radio Hour, the immediate sequel to Dolls.) On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:41 PM Henrik Ohrstrom via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > And of course, to spa^H^H^Hfuel the list just a little further, steam > powered giraffe, fire fire > is not what we desire..... > This one is really good. > https://youtu.be/hZb_6_WfquU > > > Den ons 19 feb. 2020 08:24Henrik Ohrstrom > skrev: > >> https://youtu.be/4hFwI8CUxZA >> Mr B and the professor had the most British rap tiff you could ever >> imagine. The ending is rather spiffy, sherry and opium gents? >> The professors preparation when he dons his fighting trousers are rather >> piffy too. >> https://youtu.be/RhpHbr19GWA >> >> Thanks Adrian, I had not realised the the professor had a YouTube channel >> ( of course he does) >> Now happily subscribed and of to find the gentleman rhymers 'tube too. >> /Henrik >> >> >> Den ons 19 feb. 2020 07:42Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> skrev: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:09 PM Henrik Ohrstrom via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> The hippest of the really hip hip hop is chap hop. >>>> Your life isn't complete without enjoying professor Elemental and Mr B >>>> the gentleman rhymer. >>>> >>> >>> Huh. Someone other than me on this list has heard of them? Though I >>> suppose I should not be too surprised. >>> >>> Anyway - Spike, I second the rec for Professor Elemental. (I haven't >>> heard enough Mr. B to say, yet.) >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kn9mCeCZzQ is an example, and >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j0eX1m2Pss for one of his crossover >>> works with another fine band. He's got a few albums out, too. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 11:45:00 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:45:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:54 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: * > I put zero stock in Krugman and think he's a partisan hack. * A see no evidence of that. A partisan hack will scream loudly that deficit spending will bring the end to western civilization when a Democrat is President but remain strangely quiet when a Republican is President even though the deficit is ballooning faster than ever, but Krugman doesn't do that. When a partisan hack has a economic theory he refuses to modify it one iota regardless of what new evidence arrives, but Krugman follows the scientific method and knows that regardless of how beautiful a theory may be if it doesn't fit the facts it must be rejected. This is from Krugman's Feb 3 column and all the facts in it are objectively true, so a scientific man would have no choice but to modify his previous belief that deficits are always bad and that high taxes always mean high deficits. == "A zombie idea is a belief or doctrine that has repeatedly been proved false, but refuses to die; instead, it just keeps shambling along, eating people?s brains. The ultimate zombie in American politics is the assertion that tax cuts pay for themselves ? a claim that has been proved wrong again and again over the past 40 years. Back in 1980 George H.W. Bush called Ronald Reagan?s extravagant claims about the effectiveness of tax cuts ?voodoo economic policy .? Everything that has happened since has vindicated his original assessment. Deficits ballooned after Reagan cut taxes; they shrank and eventually turned into surpluses after Bill Clinton raised taxes, then ballooned again after George W. Bush?s tax cuts. Voodoo has also crashed and burned at the state level: The Kansas experiment in radical tax cuts was a dismal failure, while California?s tax hike under Jerry Brown, which conservatives declared a case of ?economic suicide ,? was followed by a revenue and economic boom. Yet voodoo economics has become unchallengeable doctrine within the Republican Party. Even fake moderates like Susan Collins justified their support for the 2017 Trump tax cut by claiming that it would reduce the budget deficit . Predictably, the deficit actually exploded, and now exceeds $1 trillion a year ." John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 12:57:16 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:57:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> References: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:35 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Who is doing this ?excess saving?? * > Well, ordinary people among others... 19.1 Trillion dollars is in retirement and pension plans. > > *Rich people?* > Yes, $ 35,000,000,000,000 in Hedge funds and other mutual funds. *> Companies?* > Yes, in dividends and in 1.2 trillion dollars worth of stock buybacks in 2018 alone, the first full year after Trump's big corporate tax cut. Companies did NOT use the money from the tax cut to invest in their own company. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Feb 19 13:54:40 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 05:54:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <009301d5e72c$21c036c0$6540a440$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Anyway - Spike, I second the rec for Professor Elemental. (I haven't heard enough Mr. B to say, yet.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kn9mCeCZzQ is an example, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j0eX1m2Pss for one of his crossover works with another fine band. He's got a few albums out, too. I do like this one a lot better. It isn?t about murder and I didn?t hear any racist terms in there. The British guy is one I can relate to. I don?t understand why murder rap became so popular and why it is still so widely embraced. Perhaps I just am not getting it: are there still gang wars going on and they feel the need to write poetry about it? My world just doesn?t have that in it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Feb 19 14:40:03 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:40:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00ce01d5e732$7929c7e0$6b7d57a0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:35 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: >> Who is doing this ?excess saving?? >?Well, ordinary people among others... 19.1 Trillion dollars is in retirement and pension plans. Why that bad old Dave Ramsey. That ne-er-do-well is encouraging young people to save for their own retirement in a pension plan one the very remote tiny risk that Social Security will fail or be grossly inadequate when it is time for them to retire, because the government had borrowed the money out of the fund with no realistic plan to pay it back. This is absurd of course: the government would neeeever do that. My own grandfather predicted exactly the course of Social Security in 1974, using only a slide rule and an almanac. He estimated inflation rates and increased life spans, and estimated that this whole Ponzi scheme would transition to a pay-as-you-go in about 2035, at which time those who rely on it for their retirement would be in for a rude awakening. He was a smart man. > Companies? Yes, in dividends and in 1.2 trillion dollars worth of stock buybacks in 2018 alone, the first full year after Trump's big corporate tax cut. Companies did NOT use the money from the tax cut to invest in their own company. John K Clark A wise course is to diversify one?s investments into other companies, in case one?s own fails. Get into some international funds and even put a little into the oddball stuff like BitCoin, since that is currency not dependent on any particular government?s stability, and it is international. Note that none of this discussion requires mention of a political party or any politician. These are universal concepts that span time and party. Dave Ramsey is all about helping lower-end families live responsibly now so that later they may live alively. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbard at wisc.edu Wed Feb 19 15:22:31 2020 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:22:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings Message-ID: > In 2008 when everything popped, it was really hard on my family. > But why exactly? What really changed. Like the tulip bubble ... > nothing changed except for perception. Here's what happened, IMO: Glass-Steagall Act repealed. This had kept federally-insured commercial banking seperate from speculative investment banking. Repeal during the Clinton admin gave federal insurance to speculators. Note both Bill and Hillary had strong political support from the banking industry. On the advice of Robert Rubin, Clinton refused to let the feds regulate the market for credit default swaps. In particular this made that market non-transparent. No one knew the ability of their counter-parties to pay. Failure of regulation to keep pace with the evolving housing credit market. This is all down to the political influence of the banking industry. And if you didn't like that, wait until you see what the political influence of the AI industry gives us. From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 15:48:01 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:48:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <94AEAE21-53AC-4BA3-86A3-EB6C0C8EF37A@gmail.com> I?m a little confused here. >> > Who is doing this ?excess saving?? >> > > Well, ordinary people among others... 19.1 Trillion dollars is in retirement and pension plans. > If someone doesn?t save for retirement, how are they doing to retire? If I woke up tomorrow and was magically 72 and unable/unwilling to work, I?d get social security, right? That?s gonna pay me all of what? 1200? For me now, that?d be fine. But as an older person I would have medical needs, and it would not be nearly enough money. It?s like I tell my communist friends. ?Sure, I understand your goals, but we live under Capitalism now, and you need to live your life in accordance with that.? And last I remembered, most retirements are invested, aren?t they? >> > Rich people? >> > > Yes, $ 35,000,000,000,000 in Hedge funds and other mutual funds. > So these savings are actually invested? >> > Companies? >> > > Yes, in dividends and in 1.2 trillion dollars worth of stock buybacks in 2018 alone, the first full year after Trump's big corporate tax cut. Companies did NOT use the money from the tax cut to invest in their own company. > > John K Clark Aren?t dividends paid out? Don?t stock buybacks push up the price of a company?s stock making them seem more desirable? Isn?t a stock buyback spending money? Investors are selling, the company is buying. I assumed we were talking about actual savings, like savings accounts and maybe CDs. Things with basically no ROI, or an ROI less than inflation. If people save money, they just means they spend it later. It?s just ?deferred spending?. Retirement & pensions are spent when you get old. Cash savings like an emergency fund don?t grow forever ? people create a buffer, they pay off their debts, then they buy stuff: housing, cars, boats, etc. The only reason that saving->spending is a problem is because our entire economy has based itself on loan->buy->repay. That was bound to correct eventually. I?m also pretty sure people with millions in hedge funds actually do spend money? they buy computers, they buy suits, they get haircuts, all things I cannot afford to do. And companies pay their top execs the big bucks, which they seem to blow. That money goes somewhere. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 15:50:38 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:50:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: <009301d5e72c$21c036c0$6540a440$@rainier66.com> References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> <009301d5e72c$21c036c0$6540a440$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <7B2939F0-8D6F-4502-8741-8F567E88EB04@gmail.com> Sometimes there are gang problems, but in my experience, my peers listen to it because they feel isolated from others and feel they can?t trust them, and like to think about being powerful enough to control the situation, and receive respect. SR Ballard > On Feb 19, 2020, at 7:54 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > > > Anyway - Spike, I second the rec for Professor Elemental. (I haven't heard enough Mr. B to say, yet.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kn9mCeCZzQ is an example, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j0eX1m2Pss for one of his crossover works with another fine band. He's got a few albums out, too. > > > > I do like this one a lot better. It isn?t about murder and I didn?t hear any racist terms in there. The British guy is one I can relate to. I don?t understand why murder rap became so popular and why it is still so widely embraced. Perhaps I just am not getting it: are there still gang wars going on and they feel the need to write poetry about it? My world just doesn?t have that in it. > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Feb 19 15:54:52 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:54:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002c01d5e73c$ecaef280$c60cd780$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Bill Hibbard via extropy-chat >...This is all down to the political influence of the banking industry. And if you didn't like that, wait until you see what the political influence of the AI industry gives us. _______________________________________________ Bill, try to think of a development which is the opposite of what we humans are tuned to sense, which is the ominous threat. We evolved because of our ability to detect in sufficient advance the ominous threat and prepare to flee or defend. We are really good at that. But what is the opposite? Think of a development which had such a marvelous and largely unforeseen benefit. It went mostly unforeseen because we just are not generally tuned to foresee marvelous opportunities and benefits, we are tuned to prevent loss and catastrophe. Consider one that even escaped a lot of tech hipsters, the appearance of HTML. In 1990. I do remember this well, because I was starting a motorcycle trip. My bride and were eating breakfast in our favorite restaurant in Santa Clara. We watched as all these geeks were crowding into a parking lot, a couple hundred. After breakfast I went out there and asked what they were doing. A guy explained there was this new computer trick, HTML, which would be kinda like a more general version of Apple's HyperCard, where you can create these computer graphics pages and links and stuff and it doesn't cost much to have a web presence. Next day in the office, I mentioned it to my colleague Dalid Aman, who was a Jordanian engineer with a side business of antique old west firearms, the kind you see in western movies. Dalid immediately realized he could create free advertising and put it on the World Wide Web, being as advertising was his biggest expense. He did. He started making a ton of money, the classic definition of the cubic buttload of money on his antique firearm and ammo business. He left Lockheed and did that full time. I posted about that here in the early days of ExI. Think of now. In the past when we needed to do a home repair, we would generally fumble around, get a friend to help, call a professional, generally take a long time and mess up something else. But now, any home repair, anything that breaks, you can go to the web, Google who had a similar problem, find a YouTube where someone will teach you exactly how to fix it and it is all free. Now you go to the hardware store ONCE and get everything and fix it right on the first try. We are drowning in excess wisdom. What a pleasant thing to drown in. Death by hyperorgasm (mmmm OK.) Think of how much more efficiently our world operates today because of the largely-unforeseen appearance of HTML. Yet we still focus on the big negative things, like the bank failures of 2008. Who here lost money in that? Neither did I. Who here has benefitted in ways difficult to imagine or estimate by HTML? So did I. spike From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 16:14:46 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:14:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Direct Music In-Reply-To: <009301d5e72c$21c036c0$6540a440$@rainier66.com> References: <11D08081-4571-4493-9C56-B09F09506309@gmail.com> <271C5ACE-61DB-4AB2-B8FE-455E23DA705E@gmail.com> <00b601d5e6c9$cf47c5a0$6dd750e0$@rainier66.com> <013601d5e6da$ac5ef160$051cd420$@rainier66.com> <017901d5e6e3$f97b26e0$ec7174a0$@rainier66.com> <009301d5e72c$21c036c0$6540a440$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 8:55 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps I just am not getting it: are there still gang wars going on and > they feel the need to write poetry about it? > Yes there is still a lot of violence unfortunately. Some hip-hop songs not about murder: https://youtu.be/AwS089gkqwM https://youtu.be/7D_JwgIM-y4 https://youtu.be/xWvWDu6IAyY https://youtu.be/ftSUchAdVTE https://youtu.be/jnzrnctCYXI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 16:32:20 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:32:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: <002c01d5e73c$ecaef280$c60cd780$@rainier66.com> References: <002c01d5e73c$ecaef280$c60cd780$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I agree with your wonderful outlook overall, but have a nit to pick. Plenty of people lost money in 2008-2009, especially ones who were planning on accessing a nest egg for retirement in that time frame that had quickly dropped in value by 50+%. Some of them also sold (or had to sell) for various reasons including overwhelming fear and attempting to preserve what was left of desperately needed capital at the worst possible prices. Many people also lost their homes. Anyone working in the most heavily impacted industries in some cases had heavy losses in company stock including that held in 401ks. Not a single person of those most responsible for the financial crisis has been held responsible in the criminal justice system. With the exception of Lehman Brothers, markets were not allowed to clear, and tons of those involved were made whole (i.e. bailed out) when they shouldn't have been. We're still dealing with the results of that now with central banks continuing to goose financial markets across the globe. Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac were also a lesson in why the US government shouldn't be in the mortgage business. When risk is removed from banks, they do what is expected. Take as much of it as possible on someone else's dime. The federal backstop on student loans is why college costs continue to skyrocket. There is no risk to banks in providing as much money as students would like to borrow. It's all on OUR backs as taxpayers (at least in the US). Markets need to clear and not be distorted or they are not really markets that properly transmit a true price. This isn't sour grapes on my part. I came through it fine, but many didn't. I'm also happy to see the stock market continue to climb and my accounts grow, but this interest rate environment is already having serious impacts on pensions/insurers and others whose assumptions on real returns no longer hold true. If it continues, it will ultimately not end well. On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:05 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Yet we still focus on the big negative things, like the bank failures of > 2008. Who here lost money in that? Neither did I. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 17:05:35 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:05:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: <00ce01d5e732$7929c7e0$6b7d57a0$@rainier66.com> References: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> <00ce01d5e732$7929c7e0$6b7d57a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:42 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *Why that bad old Dave Ramsey. * I'm not sure if I should be embarrassed by my ignorance or not but until today I've never heard of Dave Ramsey, Google tells me the man has some sort of radio show. > *> My own grandfather predicted exactly the course of Social Security in > 1974, using only a slide rule and an almanac. He estimated inflation rates > and increased life spans, and estimated that this whole Ponzi scheme would > transition to a pay-as-you-go in about 2035, at which time those who rely > on it for their retirement would be in for a rude awakening. He was a > smart man.* > What will happen to Social Security in 2035 depends critically on what the GDP will be in 2035, if your grandfather could figure that out in 1974 with nothing but a slide rule and an almanac then he was a very smart man indeed! John K Clark > > > > A wise course is to diversify one?s investments into other companies, in > case one?s own fails. Get into some international funds and even put a > little into the oddball stuff like BitCoin, since that is currency not > dependent on any particular government?s stability, and it is international. > > > > *Note that none of this discussion requires mention of a political party > or any politician. These are universal concepts that span time and party.* > Then why were the deficit hawks so loud 4 years ago and so quiet today? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 17:54:54 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:54:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings In-Reply-To: <94AEAE21-53AC-4BA3-86A3-EB6C0C8EF37A@gmail.com> References: <00de01d5e6cb$6ebf5480$4c3dfd80$@rainier66.com> <94AEAE21-53AC-4BA3-86A3-EB6C0C8EF37A@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:50 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> ordinary people among others... 19.1 Trillion dollars is in retirement >> and pension plans. > > > *If someone doesn?t save for retirement, how are they doing to retire?* > They can't. I'm not saying they shouldn't save, I'm saying those who claim people aren't saving are wrong. There are more people saving money than borrowing money and that is the sign of a economy that is growing slower than it could. >> Yes, $ 35,000,000,000,000 in Hedge funds and other mutual funds. > > > *> So these savings are actually invested?* > Yes and their investments are receiving historically low interest rates because there is lots of investment money but few people who want to borrow that money to actually build something. > *If people save money, they just means they spend it later. It?s just > ?deferred spending?. * A dollar spent today has a larger effect on the economy than a dollar spent tomorrow. > >> Yes, in dividends and in 1.2 trillion dollars worth of stock buybacks >> in 2018 alone, the first full year after Trump's big corporate tax cut. >> Companies did NOT use the money from the tax cut to invest in their own >> company. > > > *>Aren?t dividends paid out?* > Yes, and the data indicates the stockholders take most of that money and save it, they put it in a mutual fund and receive very low interest on it because nobody wants to borrow it because the economy is growing so slowly. And this isn't just a problem in the USA it's worldwide, incredibly in Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and Japan interest rates aren't just low they're actually NEGATIVE, and that isn't healthy. Inflation is the last thing the world should be worrying about! > *> Don?t stock buybacks push up the price of a company?s stock making them > seem more desirable?* > Yes and that's all they do. If INTEL uses its profits to build a new chip fabrication plant it is using wealth to create more wealth, if instead it's using its profits to buy back its own stock it's just using one type of paper to buy another type of paper and a new wealth generating machine has not been built. *> I?m also pretty sure people with millions in hedge funds actually do > spend money? they buy computers, they buy suits, they get haircuts, all > things I cannot afford to do. * > Sure rich people buy things, Jeff Bezos just bought a house for 160 million dollars. That's sounds like a lot of money but the man is worth 160 BILLION, he could afford to pay cash for a thousand such houses, but of course he's not going to do that, instead he's saving the rest. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbard at wisc.edu Wed Feb 19 21:00:02 2020 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:00:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings Message-ID: > > ...This is all down to the political influence of the banking > > industry. And if you didn't like that, wait until you see what > > the political influence of the AI industry gives us. > Bill, try to think of a development which is the opposite ... Spike, I agree that html has been a terrific benefit. But html happened because of a lot of creative people building cool stuff. I don't think it happened because of the political influence of a wealthy and powerful industry. AI will bring enormous benefits but also has great potential to concentrate power. > ... of what we humans are tuned to sense, which is the ominous threat. History teaches us that concentration of power is an ominous threat. Often those with the power intend to do good with it, but are corrupted [Lord Acton]. Bill From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 22:09:22 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:09:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Most everything you say is obviously true, but unrelated to what I?m trying to talk about. So, I don?t understand why you act as though I?m wrong, or something. I completely agree with you. But just because some unrelated things you change the topic to (?one more time?) are obviously true, doesn't make the unrelated thing I am talking about wrong. I?m not talking about what a one hemisphere brain can know after being severed from the other hemisphere. I?m talking about what a hemisphere can know, when not severed. Our visual knowledge is a composite qualitative experience with half of the knowledge in one hemisphere and visa versa. The knowledge in one hemisphere could be engineered to be red/green inverted from the other. Whether or not this had been done, both hemispheres could know what red is like for both hemispheres with unmistakable surety. This computational binding, enabling you to directly experience all of the knowledge, as one composite conscious experience, is mechanically enabled via the 300 or so million neurons that are the corpus callosum. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:12 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *>You, John, and everyone on this list continue to claim there is no way >> we could know what qualia were like in another brain. But using this type >> of neural ponytail, where you provide something like the 300 million >> neurons, computationally binding 4 hemispheres the way the corpus callosum >> computationally bind 2 hemispheres.* [...] *So why do you you or John or >> anyone continue to think that we can't know, given this* > > > I'll do this one more time. I'm what a unified 2 hemisphere brain does > because my corpus callosum has NOT been cut so I don't know what it's like > to be a isolated hemisphere, and if it was cut neither hemisphere would > know what it's like to be a non-isolated unified 2 hemisphere brain. And a > 4 hemisphere brain wouldn't know what it's like to be a 2 hemisphere brain. > I've said all this before more than once but rather than challenge my > answer you just keep asking the exact same question, why don't I think it > will work. > > *> your talking at the composite qualia level. Of course composite qualia >> is going to be very unique for each individual.* [...] *This is >> especially true for color knowledge. * > > > Brown is just dim orange and the only way you can know it's dim is if you > have access to something that is not dim. Qualia is no different from > everything else in that regard, it needs contrast to be meaningful. So it's > meaningless to talk about elemental qualia in isolation because all qualia > is composite. > > 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 Wed Feb 19 22:15:55 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:15:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, So then does it help if I point out the fact that consciousness is red and green qualia strate dependent (as opposed to saying sub strate dependent)? On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red >> experience? is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also >> understood that it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the >> observer. Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge >> becomes confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if >> you mean that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my >> mind, and if ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. >> > > That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this information. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbard at wisc.edu Thu Feb 20 21:05:51 2020 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:05:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ExI] A world drowning in excess savings Message-ID: Spike wrote: > Bill, try to think of a development which is the opposite of > what we humans are tuned to sense, which is the ominous threat. Right on cue: http://news.mit.edu/2020/artificial-intelligence-identifies-new-antibiotic-0220 From avant at sollegro.com Thu Feb 20 17:30:39 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:30:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: <1434213986.4195759.1582216683694@mail.yahoo.com> References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> <1434213986.4195759.1582216683694@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20200220093039.Horde.2DYZaAv6gwi3FhFVpm1GgAL@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Brent Allsop: > Hi Stathis,So then does it help if I point out the fact that > consciousness is red and green qualia strate dependent (as opposed > to saying sub strate dependent)? Are you trolling Stathis? When did your far-fetched assumption of elemental qualia become a fact? You have deluded yourself. In your mind, material qualia supports Representational Qualia Theory and therefore must be true. That is not at all scientific and isn't even tenable philosophically. Your notion of "elemental redness" aka glutamate being experienced by a bat echo-locating a moth is ridiculous. MSG contains glutamate, but Chinese food does not taste at all "red" to me but does taste savory. How could that be if glutamate was elemental redness? Is it also elemental savoriness? If I rub glutamate between between my fingers does it because elemental courseness? There is no redness that is not the simple knowledge of red and knowledge is simply remembered information. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 20 22:04:40 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:04:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: <20200220093039.Horde.2DYZaAv6gwi3FhFVpm1GgAL@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> <1434213986.4195759.1582216683694@mail.yahoo.com> <20200220093039.Horde.2DYZaAv6gwi3FhFVpm1GgAL@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 4:51 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Are you trolling Stathis?* I don't think Brent is trolling anybody, I think he sincerely believes what he says, I just think he's wrong. And that's OK. Hell... I know it's hard to believe but I think even I might have been wrong once or twice in my life. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 20 23:21:45 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:21:45 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 09:19, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > So then does it help if I point out the fact that consciousness is red and > green qualia strate dependent (as opposed to saying sub strate dependent)? > No, because I won't know what "qualia strate dependent" means and how it is different from "sub strate dependent". You could define them but you would have to do so every time you use them. These are some terms that I find unambiguous: Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal consciousness Behaviour = that which an external observer can see Qualia are substrate dependent = only a particular substance or physical process can give rise to the particular qualia Are there more terms that are necessary for this discussion and need to be defined? Using even some apparently simple terms such as "knowledge", for example, can become confusing. "Knowledge" can have an objective as well as a subjective element; "knowledge of qualia" is doubly confusing, because it could mean directly experiencing qualia or it could mean observing behaviour which might be associated with qualia. > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red >>> experience? is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also >>> understood that it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the >>> observer. Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge >>> becomes confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if >>> you mean that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my >>> mind, and if ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. >>> >> >> That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this information. >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 08:40:43 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:40:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The space frontier and our divine cosmic destiny Message-ID: The space frontier and our divine cosmic destiny Back to the future: Space should be seen as the new frontier, and space exploration should be promoted as our sacred, divine cosmic destiny... https://turingchurch.net/the-space-frontier-and-our-divine-cosmic-destiny-80a6a729643 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 18:21:59 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:21:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] new antibiotic Message-ID: I am sure you have seen that on the news. An AI discovers a new antibiotic that might work on previously intractable bacteria. My question is: did the AI do something nobody could ever have done with just a human brain? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 19:24:09 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:24:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] new antibiotic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A lucky enough brain that stumbled across just the right combination, perhaps. Part of what AI can do is quickly test a far larger variety of things than one human, or even several, can with the same resources (in particular, time). On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:24 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I am sure you have seen that on the news. An AI discovers a new > antibiotic that might work on previously intractable bacteria. > > My question is: did the AI do something nobody could ever have done with > just a human brain? > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 19:28:21 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:28:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] modularity Message-ID: Is anyone in this group familiar with Robert Kurzban's book "Why Everyone is a Hypocrite" or in general the modular view of the mind, resulting the the idea that there is no 'self' or 'ghost in the machine'? Ten year old book buy highly interesting. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 20:18:48 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:18:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, OK, so we have "Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal consciousness". And we have " Behaviour = that which an external observer can see" and we have ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must also remain the same.*? which connects the two in a consistent and factual way. Would you also agree with the converse of the above statement?: ?*As long as the 'subjectivity' (quale) remains the same the behavior must also remain the same.*? Or at least if there is a set of behavior for a particular 'subjectivity' redness, and a set of behavior for a different subjectivity 'greenness,' if the subjectivity is different the corresponding sets of behaviors for each of those different 'subjectivity' (quale), must be disjoint. In other words any particular set of behavior can't have two different 'subjectivity' (quale). And, for you, these behaviors which are factually related to particular subjectivity (qualia) are independent of any particular set of physics (only because of the substitution argument). In other words, we have a dependent subjective layer like redness and greenness (and corresponding disjoint sets of behavior) out of which consciousness is constructed, that rides on top of any physical layer in a way that can be considered physical substrate independent. The terminology I think we should use is the former is consciousness is substrate dependent (where that substrate is subjectivity or quala) the behavior of which is independent of any particular set of physics. But I'm imagining you won't like even this kind of qualia being any kind of substrate, so I was trying to come up with another term qualia strate to make you happy. So, my question to you is: "Do we need a different terminology, or can we consider qualia (and the associated behaviors) as a substrate on which consciousness is dependent?" No matter what you call it, it is still the same thing, right? On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 4:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 09:19, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi Stathis, >> So then does it help if I point out the fact that consciousness is red >> and green qualia strate dependent (as opposed to saying sub strate >> dependent)? >> > > No, because I won't know what "qualia strate dependent" means and how it > is different from "sub strate dependent". You could define them but you > would have to do so every time you use them. > > These are some terms that I find unambiguous: > > Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal consciousness > Behaviour = that which an external observer can see > Qualia are substrate dependent = only a particular substance or physical > process can give rise to the particular qualia > > Are there more terms that are necessary for this discussion and need to be > defined? > > Using even some apparently simple terms such as "knowledge", for example, > can become confusing. "Knowledge" can have an objective as well as a > subjective element; "knowledge of qualia" is doubly confusing, because it > could mean directly experiencing qualia or it could mean observing > behaviour which might be associated with qualia. > > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red >>>> experience? is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also >>>> understood that it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the >>>> observer. Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge >>>> becomes confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if >>>> you mean that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my >>>> mind, and if ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. >>>> >>> >>> That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this information. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > -- > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 21:30:24 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 08:30:24 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 07:20, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > > OK, so we have > "Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal > consciousness". > > And we have > " Behaviour = that which an external observer can see" > > and we have > ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must > also remain the same.*? > > which connects the two in a consistent and factual way. > > Would you also agree with the converse of the above statement?: > ?*As long as the 'subjectivity' (quale) remains the same the behavior > must also remain the same.*? > Yes. If we consider a behaviour such as speech, the subject will not say that their qualia have changed unless they think that they have changed. Or at least if there is a set of behavior for a particular 'subjectivity' > redness, and a set of behavior for a different subjectivity 'greenness,' > if the subjectivity is different the corresponding sets of behaviors for > each of those different 'subjectivity' (quale), must be disjoint. In other > words any particular set of behavior can't have two different > 'subjectivity' (quale). > Yes, but there is a potential problem here. If we speculate that the subject?s qualia have changed from redness to greenness, but their behaviour does not change because they do not notice a change, then in what sense is it meaningful to say that the qualia have changed? And, for you, these behaviors which are factually related to particular > subjectivity (qualia) are independent of any particular set of physics > (only because of the substitution argument). > > In other words, we have a dependent subjective layer like redness and > greenness (and corresponding disjoint sets of behavior) out of which > consciousness is constructed, that rides on top of any physical layer in a > way that can be considered physical substrate independent. > > The terminology I think we should use is the former is consciousness is > substrate dependent (where that substrate is subjectivity or quala) the > behavior of which is independent of any particular set of physics. > > But I'm imagining you won't like even this kind of qualia being any kind > of substrate, so I was trying to come up with another term qualia strate to > make you happy. > You?re right, I don?t think it is good to use the word ?substrate? referring to qualia because ?substrate? specifically refers to a physical substance. But I am confused as to why you would say consciousness is dependent on qualia, since consciousness and qualia are essentially the same thing. The only difference is that consciousness is usually used to mean multiple qualia taken together. So, my question to you is: "Do we need a different terminology, or can we > consider qualia (and the associated behaviors) as a substrate on which > consciousness is dependent?" > > No matter what you call it, it is still the same thing, right? > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 4:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 09:19, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Stathis, >>> So then does it help if I point out the fact that consciousness is red >>> and green qualia strate dependent (as opposed to saying sub strate >>> dependent)? >>> >> >> No, because I won't know what "qualia strate dependent" means and how it >> is different from "sub strate dependent". You could define them but you >> would have to do so every time you use them. >> >> These are some terms that I find unambiguous: >> >> Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal consciousness >> Behaviour = that which an external observer can see >> Qualia are substrate dependent = only a particular substance or physical >> process can give rise to the particular qualia >> >> Are there more terms that are necessary for this discussion and need to >> be defined? >> >> Using even some apparently simple terms such as "knowledge", for example, >> can become confusing. "Knowledge" can have an objective as well as a >> subjective element; "knowledge of qualia" is doubly confusing, because it >> could mean directly experiencing qualia or it could mean observing >> behaviour which might be associated with qualia. >> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red >>>>> experience? is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also >>>>> understood that it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the >>>>> observer. Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge >>>>> becomes confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if >>>>> you mean that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my >>>>> mind, and if ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this information. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 21:51:48 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:51:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The space frontier and our divine cosmic destiny In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That Space 1.0 lost funding for not being the version that the public wanted - specifically, for not allowing the common masses to directly participate - is an interesting argument I had not heard before. It tracks with the sizable public interest I have seen while promoting a space access means that, by having just the one small satellite as the only payload, would minimize involvement of parties other than the satellite owner and the launcher. (Government licensing still needed, but much less regulation when they're not paying for it.) On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 12:52 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The space frontier and our divine cosmic destiny > > Back to the future: Space should be seen as the new frontier, and space > exploration should be promoted as our sacred, divine cosmic destiny... > > > https://turingchurch.net/the-space-frontier-and-our-divine-cosmic-destiny-80a6a729643 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 22:06:09 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 16:06:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must also remain the same.*? This is false - clearly. The taste of something fades as you eat more and more of it. This is true of other senses as well. It's called habituation. The converse is also false - even if the taste remains the same (say you only had two) you can still quit eating. bill w On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 07:20, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi Stathis, >> >> OK, so we have >> "Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal >> consciousness". >> >> And we have >> " Behaviour = that which an external observer can see" >> >> and we have >> ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must >> also remain the same.*? >> >> which connects the two in a consistent and factual way. >> >> Would you also agree with the converse of the above statement?: >> ?*As long as the 'subjectivity' (quale) remains the same the >> behavior must also remain the same.*? >> > > Yes. If we consider a behaviour such as speech, the subject will not say > that their qualia have changed unless they think that they have changed. > > Or at least if there is a set of behavior for a particular 'subjectivity' >> redness, and a set of behavior for a different subjectivity 'greenness,' >> if the subjectivity is different the corresponding sets of behaviors for >> each of those different 'subjectivity' (quale), must be disjoint. In other >> words any particular set of behavior can't have two different >> 'subjectivity' (quale). >> > > Yes, but there is a potential problem here. If we speculate that the > subject?s qualia have changed from redness to greenness, but their > behaviour does not change because they do not notice a change, then in what > sense is it meaningful to say that the qualia have changed? > > And, for you, these behaviors which are factually related to particular >> subjectivity (qualia) are independent of any particular set of physics >> (only because of the substitution argument). >> >> In other words, we have a dependent subjective layer like redness and >> greenness (and corresponding disjoint sets of behavior) out of which >> consciousness is constructed, that rides on top of any physical layer in a >> way that can be considered physical substrate independent. >> >> The terminology I think we should use is the former is consciousness is >> substrate dependent (where that substrate is subjectivity or quala) the >> behavior of which is independent of any particular set of physics. >> >> But I'm imagining you won't like even this kind of qualia being any kind >> of substrate, so I was trying to come up with another term qualia strate to >> make you happy. >> > > You?re right, I don?t think it is good to use the word ?substrate? > referring to qualia because ?substrate? specifically refers to a physical > substance. But I am confused as to why you would say consciousness is > dependent on qualia, since consciousness and qualia are essentially the > same thing. The only difference is that consciousness is usually used to > mean multiple qualia taken together. > > So, my question to you is: "Do we need a different terminology, or can we >> consider qualia (and the associated behaviors) as a substrate on which >> consciousness is dependent?" >> >> No matter what you call it, it is still the same thing, right? >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 4:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 09:19, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Stathis, >>>> So then does it help if I point out the fact that consciousness is red >>>> and green qualia strate dependent (as opposed to saying sub strate >>>> dependent)? >>>> >>> >>> No, because I won't know what "qualia strate dependent" means and how it >>> is different from "sub strate dependent". You could define them but you >>> would have to do so every time you use them. >>> >>> These are some terms that I find unambiguous: >>> >>> Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal consciousness >>> Behaviour = that which an external observer can see >>> Qualia are substrate dependent = only a particular substance or physical >>> process can give rise to the particular qualia >>> >>> Are there more terms that are necessary for this discussion and need to >>> be defined? >>> >>> Using even some apparently simple terms such as "knowledge", for >>> example, can become confusing. "Knowledge" can have an objective as well as >>> a subjective element; "knowledge of qualia" is doubly confusing, because it >>> could mean directly experiencing qualia or it could mean observing >>> behaviour which might be associated with qualia. >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Brent Allsop >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red >>>>>> experience? is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also >>>>>> understood that it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the >>>>>> observer. Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge >>>>>> becomes confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if >>>>>> you mean that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my >>>>>> mind, and if ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this information. >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -- > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 22:10:43 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:10:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 2:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 07:20, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi Stathis, >> >> OK, so we have >> "Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal >> consciousness". >> >> And we have >> " Behaviour = that which an external observer can see" >> >> and we have >> ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must >> also remain the same.*? >> >> which connects the two in a consistent and factual way. >> >> Would you also agree with the converse of the above statement?: >> ?*As long as the 'subjectivity' (quale) remains the same the >> behavior must also remain the same.*? >> > > Yes. If we consider a behaviour such as speech, the subject will not say > that their qualia have changed unless they think that they have changed. > > Or at least if there is a set of behavior for a particular 'subjectivity' >> redness, and a set of behavior for a different subjectivity 'greenness,' >> if the subjectivity is different the corresponding sets of behaviors for >> each of those different 'subjectivity' (quale), must be disjoint. In other >> words any particular set of behavior can't have two different >> 'subjectivity' (quale). >> > > Yes, but there is a potential problem here. If we speculate that the > subject?s qualia have changed from redness to greenness, but their > behaviour does not change because they do not notice a change, then in what > sense is it meaningful to say that the qualia have changed? > Wait, what? We're not talking about the substrate independent layer, were talking about what consciousness is made of: qualia. That which we know (i.e. that which we can notice) is what consciousness is, and this noticeable knowledge is composed of diverse colored qualia. We are only talking about qualia being sufficiently different (i.e. redness and greenness) that we can notice such differences. If you can't notice the difference, then that qualia is defined to be in the set that is considered to be that singe quale. It is only a different quale if you can notice that it is different. To me, what you are saying is like saying: Despite *ALL* of our objective measurements and experiences being consistent with the earth being round, and *NONE *of our objective measurements and experiences being consistent with it being flat, it still could be flat. We know the world is round, because of what astronauts in orbit experience and ALL of our objective measurements are consistent with. Then a flat earther replying: But despite EVERYTHING being consistent with the earth being round, it still could be flat. We just can't know that it is not flat, despite ALL observations being consistent with it being round and no observation consistent with it being flat. And, for you, these behaviors which are factually related to particular >> subjectivity (qualia) are independent of any particular set of physics >> (only because of the substitution argument). >> >> In other words, we have a dependent subjective layer like redness and >> greenness (and corresponding disjoint sets of behavior) out of which >> consciousness is constructed, that rides on top of any physical layer in a >> way that can be considered physical substrate independent. >> >> The terminology I think we should use is the former is consciousness is >> substrate dependent (where that substrate is subjectivity or quala) the >> behavior of which is independent of any particular set of physics. >> >> But I'm imagining you won't like even this kind of qualia being any kind >> of substrate, so I was trying to come up with another term qualia strate to >> make you happy. >> > > You?re right, I don?t think it is good to use the word ?substrate? > referring to qualia because ?substrate? specifically refers to a physical > substance. But I am confused as to why you would say consciousness is > dependent on qualia, since consciousness and qualia are essentially the > same thing. > My recollection is that you often respond to what I've said, above, claiming something like: "We can never know for sure." Here is the all important part relevant to this: > The only difference is that consciousness is usually used to mean multiple > qualia taken together > Exactly. If we are aware of redness and greenness, at the same time, as a composite experience that is our knowledge of the strawberry, there must be something that is "binding" all this together, otherwise, it would be like the physics that is subconscious, and we wouldn't be aware of it with the redness and greenness that is our knowledge of the strawberry. We know, as surely as we know "I think therefore I am" what redness is qualitatively like, and we necessarily know how this is different than greenness. And when we experience them together (computationally bound) we can necessary notice that they are qualitatively different. If you computationally bind conscious knowledge in 4 hemispheres together, you will directly experience the qualia behavior in another's brain, in addition to both hemispheres of your own brain, and if the other two hemispheres are red green inverted from your qualia, you will necessarily notice it is different. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 22:29:12 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:29:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi William, I described Stathis model back to him. Then he replied that I needed to include: *As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must also remain the same.*? Then I explicitly pointed to where I said exactly that, in my description which I had sent. That is why I bolded it, so that he would notice that I am reiterating it back to him, as he insists. And as usual, just like John always does, you are stating facts me, stathis, and everyone agree with, they are just completely unrelated to what we are talking about. You said: "The taste of something fades as you eat more and more of it." It is this kind of 'fading' or change, we are talking about, you are talking about something that isn't changing, which is true, but completely unrelated to the 'fading' conscious knowledge changes we are talking about. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:07 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must also > remain the same.*? > > This is false - clearly. The taste of something fades as you eat more and > more of it. This is true of other senses as well. It's called habituation. > The converse is also false - even if the taste remains the same (say you > only had two) you can still quit eating. > > bill w > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 07:20, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Stathis, >>> >>> OK, so we have >>> "Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal >>> consciousness". >>> >>> And we have >>> " Behaviour = that which an external observer can see" >>> >>> and we have >>> ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must >>> also remain the same.*? >>> >>> which connects the two in a consistent and factual way. >>> >>> Would you also agree with the converse of the above statement?: >>> ?*As long as the 'subjectivity' (quale) remains the same the >>> behavior must also remain the same.*? >>> >> >> Yes. If we consider a behaviour such as speech, the subject will not say >> that their qualia have changed unless they think that they have changed. >> >> Or at least if there is a set of behavior for a particular 'subjectivity' >>> redness, and a set of behavior for a different subjectivity 'greenness,' >>> if the subjectivity is different the corresponding sets of behaviors for >>> each of those different 'subjectivity' (quale), must be disjoint. In other >>> words any particular set of behavior can't have two different >>> 'subjectivity' (quale). >>> >> >> Yes, but there is a potential problem here. If we speculate that the >> subject?s qualia have changed from redness to greenness, but their >> behaviour does not change because they do not notice a change, then in what >> sense is it meaningful to say that the qualia have changed? >> >> And, for you, these behaviors which are factually related to particular >>> subjectivity (qualia) are independent of any particular set of physics >>> (only because of the substitution argument). >>> >>> In other words, we have a dependent subjective layer like redness and >>> greenness (and corresponding disjoint sets of behavior) out of which >>> consciousness is constructed, that rides on top of any physical layer in a >>> way that can be considered physical substrate independent. >>> >>> The terminology I think we should use is the former is consciousness is >>> substrate dependent (where that substrate is subjectivity or quala) the >>> behavior of which is independent of any particular set of physics. >>> >>> But I'm imagining you won't like even this kind of qualia being any kind >>> of substrate, so I was trying to come up with another term qualia strate to >>> make you happy. >>> >> >> You?re right, I don?t think it is good to use the word ?substrate? >> referring to qualia because ?substrate? specifically refers to a physical >> substance. But I am confused as to why you would say consciousness is >> dependent on qualia, since consciousness and qualia are essentially the >> same thing. The only difference is that consciousness is usually used to >> mean multiple qualia taken together. >> >> So, my question to you is: "Do we need a different terminology, or can we >>> consider qualia (and the associated behaviors) as a substrate on which >>> consciousness is dependent?" >>> >>> No matter what you call it, it is still the same thing, right? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 4:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 09:19, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Stathis, >>>>> So then does it help if I point out the fact that consciousness is red >>>>> and green qualia strate dependent (as opposed to saying sub strate >>>>> dependent)? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, because I won't know what "qualia strate dependent" means and how >>>> it is different from "sub strate dependent". You could define them but you >>>> would have to do so every time you use them. >>>> >>>> These are some terms that I find unambiguous: >>>> >>>> Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal consciousness >>>> Behaviour = that which an external observer can see >>>> Qualia are substrate dependent = only a particular substance or >>>> physical process can give rise to the particular qualia >>>> >>>> Are there more terms that are necessary for this discussion and need to >>>> be defined? >>>> >>>> Using even some apparently simple terms such as "knowledge", for >>>> example, can become confusing. "Knowledge" can have an objective as well as >>>> a subjective element; "knowledge of qualia" is doubly confusing, because it >>>> could mean directly experiencing qualia or it could mean observing >>>> behaviour which might be associated with qualia. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Brent Allsop >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red >>>>>>> experience? is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also >>>>>>> understood that it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the >>>>>>> observer. Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge >>>>>>> becomes confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if >>>>>>> you mean that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my >>>>>>> mind, and if ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this information. >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 22:49:53 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 16:49:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: OK - just wanted to correct something I knew was false. I don't know what kind of reality you are dealing with where those statements are true, but I'll stay out of it. bill w On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:31 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi William, > I described Stathis model back to him. Then he replied that I needed to > include: *As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity > must also remain the same.*? > Then I explicitly pointed to where I said exactly that, in my description > which I had sent. That is why I bolded it, so that he would notice that I > am reiterating it back to him, as he insists. > > And as usual, just like John always does, you are stating facts me, > stathis, and everyone agree with, they are just completely unrelated to > what we are talking about. > You said: "The taste of something fades as you eat more and more of it." > It is this kind of 'fading' or change, we are talking about, you are > talking about something that isn't changing, which is true, but completely > unrelated to the 'fading' conscious knowledge changes we are talking about. > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:07 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must also >> remain the same.*? >> >> This is false - clearly. The taste of something fades as you eat more >> and more of it. This is true of other senses as well. It's called >> habituation. The converse is also false - even if the taste remains the >> same (say you only had two) you can still quit eating. >> >> bill w >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 07:20, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Stathis, >>>> >>>> OK, so we have >>>> "Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal >>>> consciousness". >>>> >>>> And we have >>>> " Behaviour = that which an external observer can see" >>>> >>>> and we have >>>> ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must >>>> also remain the same.*? >>>> >>>> which connects the two in a consistent and factual way. >>>> >>>> Would you also agree with the converse of the above statement?: >>>> ?*As long as the 'subjectivity' (quale) remains the same the >>>> behavior must also remain the same.*? >>>> >>> >>> Yes. If we consider a behaviour such as speech, the subject will not say >>> that their qualia have changed unless they think that they have changed. >>> >>> Or at least if there is a set of behavior for a particular >>>> 'subjectivity' redness, and a set of behavior for a different subjectivity >>>> 'greenness,' if the subjectivity is different the corresponding sets of >>>> behaviors for each of those different 'subjectivity' (quale), must be >>>> disjoint. In other words any particular set of behavior can't have two >>>> different 'subjectivity' (quale). >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but there is a potential problem here. If we speculate that the >>> subject?s qualia have changed from redness to greenness, but their >>> behaviour does not change because they do not notice a change, then in what >>> sense is it meaningful to say that the qualia have changed? >>> >>> And, for you, these behaviors which are factually related to particular >>>> subjectivity (qualia) are independent of any particular set of physics >>>> (only because of the substitution argument). >>>> >>>> In other words, we have a dependent subjective layer like redness and >>>> greenness (and corresponding disjoint sets of behavior) out of which >>>> consciousness is constructed, that rides on top of any physical layer in a >>>> way that can be considered physical substrate independent. >>>> >>>> The terminology I think we should use is the former is consciousness is >>>> substrate dependent (where that substrate is subjectivity or quala) the >>>> behavior of which is independent of any particular set of physics. >>>> >>>> But I'm imagining you won't like even this kind of qualia being any >>>> kind of substrate, so I was trying to come up with another term qualia >>>> strate to make you happy. >>>> >>> >>> You?re right, I don?t think it is good to use the word ?substrate? >>> referring to qualia because ?substrate? specifically refers to a physical >>> substance. But I am confused as to why you would say consciousness is >>> dependent on qualia, since consciousness and qualia are essentially the >>> same thing. The only difference is that consciousness is usually used to >>> mean multiple qualia taken together. >>> >>> So, my question to you is: "Do we need a different terminology, or can >>>> we consider qualia (and the associated behaviors) as a substrate on which >>>> consciousness is dependent?" >>>> >>>> No matter what you call it, it is still the same thing, right? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 4:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 09:19, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Stathis, >>>>>> So then does it help if I point out the fact that consciousness is >>>>>> red and green qualia strate dependent (as opposed to saying sub strate >>>>>> dependent)? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, because I won't know what "qualia strate dependent" means and how >>>>> it is different from "sub strate dependent". You could define them but you >>>>> would have to do so every time you use them. >>>>> >>>>> These are some terms that I find unambiguous: >>>>> >>>>> Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal consciousness >>>>> Behaviour = that which an external observer can see >>>>> Qualia are substrate dependent = only a particular substance or >>>>> physical process can give rise to the particular qualia >>>>> >>>>> Are there more terms that are necessary for this discussion and need >>>>> to be defined? >>>>> >>>>> Using even some apparently simple terms such as "knowledge", for >>>>> example, can become confusing. "Knowledge" can have an objective as well as >>>>> a subjective element; "knowledge of qualia" is doubly confusing, because it >>>>> could mean directly experiencing qualia or it could mean observing >>>>> behaviour which might be associated with qualia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Brent Allsop >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you could simplify your language. ?Red qualia? or ?red >>>>>>>> experience? is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also >>>>>>>> understood that it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the >>>>>>>> observer. Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge >>>>>>>> becomes confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if >>>>>>>> you mean that ?redness quality? is something in the strawberry or in my >>>>>>>> mind, and if ?redness knowledge? is the same or different. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this information. >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 21 22:52:20 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:52:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] new antibiotic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I like the fact that they call this new antibiotic "Halicin" after Hal, the computer in my favorite movie 2001. The cool thing is its structurally quite different from all other known antibiotics, and it was found without any human supervision, they just turned it on and let it do its thing. The neural net was able to predict that some molecules would have antibacterial properties even though they looked nothing like any antibiotics we use today. They then tested Halicin against 36 human pathogens and it worked against 35 of them. And it showed no obvious toxic effects, at least against mice. Nigam Shah a professor at Stanford University said: ?*Now we?re finding leads among chemical structures that in the past we wouldn?t have even hallucinated that those could be an antibiotic. It greatly expands the search space into dimensions we never knew existed*." Here is the journal article: A Deep Learning Approach to Antibiotic Discovery John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 23:07:12 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 18:07:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:08 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must also > remain the same.*? > > *This is false - clearly. * > It may indeed be false, but it isn't clearly false, it isn't even clear that subjectivity exists except in me. > > *The taste of something fades as you eat more and more of it. * > And that surmise about subjectivity is consistent with the observation that people eventually stop eating, but does not prove it. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 23:33:21 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:33:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Some of the things I post are just opinions, but opinions based on a long history of reading psychology and the relevant research. Some are just opinions based on common sense or something. I suppose I could start citing research to validate my based opinions, but I just don't have time for it. Believe them or not. I certainly am not going to start arguing Psych 101 psychology with anyone. And I certainly do not want to patronize people who don't have the background and knowledge that I have. I would say that if you want to know something you could ask me, but this doesn't seem to be that kind of crowd. I am guilty of talking about some things that I have little knowledge of, but I am not the only one. And I enjoy being corrected. bill w On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:09 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:08 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must also >> remain the same.*? >> >> *This is false - clearly. * >> > > It may indeed be false, but it isn't clearly false, it isn't even clear > that subjectivity exists except in me. > > >> > *The taste of something fades as you eat more and more of it. * >> > > And that surmise about subjectivity is consistent with the observation > that people eventually stop eating, but does not prove it. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 23:36:28 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 16:36:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi William, On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > OK - just wanted to correct something I knew was false. I don't know what > kind of reality you are dealing with where those statements are true, but > I'll stay out of it. bill w > OK, so let me see if I clearly understand your reality. So, you say we continue to eat something that is not change, but our perception of it 'fades'. In your reality, is the fact that something is 'fading" a change that is not real, or this change doesn't exist? Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 00:00:23 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 18:00:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Our eyes vibrate at 60 Hz. If you overcome this with a special camera, you can focus light on the same cells continuously. What the person reports is that the light fades and comes back, fades again and comes back. The explanation is that with continuous stimulation the neurons cannot make enough transmitter substance fast enough to send a continuous signal to the brain. So it rests for a brief time to make more transmitter substance. Similarly, continuously stimulating nose and tongue receptors makes the underlying neurons run out of transmitters, and so the signals to the brain get weaker and weaker, and thus so do the sensations. These neurons do not recover as fast as the eye neurons do (I don't remember the down time data - absolute refractory period followed by relative refractory period (during which a stronger than usual stimulus can elicit a response), followed by normal sensation).. So we have real, measurable changes in neurons causing lessening reported sensations until the transmitters can be made in sufficient quantity again. Of course you can keep on eating even though the sensations diminish, or other reasons. These changes are temporary, so of course they do not qualify as learning. This is from quite a while back. I have not kept up with research on neurons. bill w On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:42 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi William, > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> OK - just wanted to correct something I knew was false. I don't know >> what kind of reality you are dealing with where those statements are true, >> but I'll stay out of it. bill w >> > > OK, so let me see if I clearly understand your reality. > So, you say we continue to eat something that is not change, but our > perception of it 'fades'. > > In your reality, is the fact that something is 'fading" a change that is > not real, or this change doesn't exist? > > Brent > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 22 00:05:46 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:05:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi William, My simple claim is that we currently have a less than rigorous (Naive and mistaken) epistemology of color. I'm trying to point out the problems in that naive model, using easy, simply, demonstrations of known facts about perception of color. It's not complicated stuff. Nobody needs to provide any references to any papers (whether philosophy 101 or more advanced), It's just simple solid and rigorous thinking about colors of things. We are creating a video attempting to make these simple facts of color more clear. The natural thing to do is to map what I am trying to say, (and everything in this video) into your model. I completely agree that what you say is true, given this naive model. What is frustrating to me, is nobody attempts to understand my model, and nobody is attempting to understand what I'm trying to say. You guys just continue to take what I'm saying, using the same mistaken epistemology (such as the strawberry just 'seems' green) you've used your entire life about what color something is. I bet if You, Stathis, John, and everyone, would make an attempt to understand, and prove you understand my model by repeating it back to me (the way I am doing with your models), things would make a lot more sense to all of you. Once you understand it, maybe you'll find faults with it. That wold be great. But at least make an attempt to understand a different model of what color something is, and try thinking from within that model. Don't just continue to ignore the fact that I"m trying to describe a different model, and map my words into your model, in which of course they are going to be incorrect ir just nonsense. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:34 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Some of the things I post are just opinions, but opinions based on a long > history of reading psychology and the relevant research. Some are just > opinions based on common sense or something. I suppose I could start > citing research to validate my based opinions, but I just don't have time > for it. Believe them or not. I certainly am not going to start arguing > Psych 101 psychology with anyone. > > And I certainly do not want to patronize people who don't have the > background and knowledge that I have. I would say that if you want to know > something you could ask me, but this doesn't seem to be that kind of > crowd. I am guilty of talking about some things that I have little > knowledge of, but I am not the only one. And I enjoy being corrected. > bill w > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:09 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:08 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> >?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must also >>> remain the same.*? >>> >>> *This is false - clearly. * >>> >> >> It may indeed be false, but it isn't clearly false, it isn't even clear >> that subjectivity exists except in me. >> >> >>> > *The taste of something fades as you eat more and more of it. * >>> >> >> And that surmise about subjectivity is consistent with the observation >> that people eventually stop eating, but does not prove it. >> >> John K Clark >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 00:12:56 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:12:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi William, Yes of course, all this is absolutely true. Nobody is disaputing any of this. But you are completely missing the point. That point is the initial cause of perception is what we are eating, or looking at. The final result is our conscious knowledge of that. Our eyes, and everything else need to do lots of tricks (such as the 60 HZ saccades your are describing) so that we can have accurate and consistent knowledge. If our conscious knowledge of such, fades, because we are overriding the tricks our eyes are attempting to do, this change or fading in our awareness of what we are seeing is what we are talking about, which you seem to be completely ignoring. You just continue to map everything I say into a world where this changing conscious awareness isn't real or something. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:01 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Our eyes vibrate at 60 Hz. If you overcome this with a special camera, > you can focus light on the same cells continuously. What the person > reports is that the light fades and comes back, fades again and comes > back. The explanation is that with continuous stimulation the neurons > cannot make enough transmitter substance fast enough to send a continuous > signal to the brain. So it rests for a brief time to make more transmitter > substance. > > Similarly, continuously stimulating nose and tongue receptors makes the > underlying neurons run out of transmitters, and so the signals to the brain > get weaker and weaker, and thus so do the sensations. These neurons do not > recover as fast as the eye neurons do (I don't remember the down time data > - absolute refractory period followed by relative refractory period (during > which a stronger than usual stimulus can elicit a response), followed by > normal sensation).. > > So we have real, measurable changes in neurons causing lessening reported > sensations until the transmitters can be made in sufficient quantity again. > > Of course you can keep on eating even though the sensations diminish, or > other reasons. > > These changes are temporary, so of course they do not qualify as > learning. > > This is from quite a while back. I have not kept up with research on > neurons. > > bill w > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:42 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi William, >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> OK - just wanted to correct something I knew was false. I don't know >>> what kind of reality you are dealing with where those statements are true, >>> but I'll stay out of it. bill w >>> >> >> OK, so let me see if I clearly understand your reality. >> So, you say we continue to eat something that is not change, but our >> perception of it 'fades'. >> >> In your reality, is the fact that something is 'fading" a change that is >> not real, or this change doesn't exist? >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 giulio at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 07:29:09 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 08:29:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The space frontier and our divine cosmic destiny In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have been reading and watching all the sources analyzed by Newell (list with links at the end of my post), and I think she has a good point. In the 1950s, the impression was there that the space frontier would one day be open to ordinary people from settlement, just like the Western frontier in the 19th century. Perhaps "Space version 1.0" WAS what our collective mind wanted, and we lost interest after realizing that Space version Apollo was reserved to the government. To recover Space version 1.0, I think whatever lowers the cost of access to space (like your own work), and especially what lowers the cost of human access to deep space (Musk, Bezos), is a step in the right direction. Plus suitable cultural engineering initiatives. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:53 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > That Space 1.0 lost funding for not being the version that the public > wanted - specifically, for not allowing the common masses to directly > participate - is an interesting argument I had not heard before. > > It tracks with the sizable public interest I have seen while promoting a > space access means that, by having just the one small satellite as the only > payload, would minimize involvement of parties other than the satellite > owner and the launcher. (Government licensing still needed, but much less > regulation when they're not paying for it.) > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 12:52 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> The space frontier and our divine cosmic destiny >> >> Back to the future: Space should be seen as the new frontier, and space >> exploration should be promoted as our sacred, divine cosmic destiny... >> >> >> https://turingchurch.net/the-space-frontier-and-our-divine-cosmic-destiny-80a6a729643 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 07:58:25 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 18:58:25 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 09:15, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 2:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 07:20, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Stathis, >>> >>> OK, so we have >>> "Qualia = subjective experiences = an aspect of phenomenal >>> consciousness". >>> >>> And we have >>> " Behaviour = that which an external observer can see" >>> >>> and we have >>> ?*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must >>> also remain the same.*? >>> >>> which connects the two in a consistent and factual way. >>> >>> Would you also agree with the converse of the above statement?: >>> ?*As long as the 'subjectivity' (quale) remains the same the >>> behavior must also remain the same.*? >>> >> >> Yes. If we consider a behaviour such as speech, the subject will not say >> that their qualia have changed unless they think that they have changed. >> >> Or at least if there is a set of behavior for a particular 'subjectivity' >>> redness, and a set of behavior for a different subjectivity 'greenness,' >>> if the subjectivity is different the corresponding sets of behaviors for >>> each of those different 'subjectivity' (quale), must be disjoint. In other >>> words any particular set of behavior can't have two different >>> 'subjectivity' (quale). >>> >> >> Yes, but there is a potential problem here. If we speculate that the >> subject?s qualia have changed from redness to greenness, but their >> behaviour does not change because they do not notice a change, then in what >> sense is it meaningful to say that the qualia have changed? >> > > Wait, what? We're not talking about the substrate independent layer, were > talking about what consciousness is made of: qualia. That which we know > (i.e. that which we can notice) is what consciousness is, and this > noticeable knowledge is composed of diverse colored qualia. > We are only talking about qualia being sufficiently different (i.e. > redness and greenness) that we can notice such differences. If you can't > notice the difference, then that qualia is defined to be in the set that is > considered to be that singe quale. It is only a different quale if you can > notice that it is different. > Yes, I agree. If a change in qualia is impossible to notice then it isn?t really a change. It also won?t be associated with a change in behaviour. So if it is noticed, there will be a change in behaviour: ?colours look different than they used to?. A corollary of this is that if there is no change in behaviour, there can be no change in qualia. To me, what you are saying is like saying: Despite *ALL* of our objective > measurements and experiences being consistent with the earth being round, > and *NONE *of our objective measurements and experiences being consistent > with it being flat, it still could be flat. > > We know the world is round, because of what astronauts in orbit experience > and ALL of our objective measurements are consistent with. Then a flat > earther replying: But despite EVERYTHING being consistent with the earth > being round, it still could be flat. We just can't know that it is not > flat, despite ALL observations being consistent with it being round and no > observation consistent with it being flat. > > And, for you, these behaviors which are factually related to particular >>> subjectivity (qualia) are independent of any particular set of physics >>> (only because of the substitution argument). >>> >>> In other words, we have a dependent subjective layer like redness and >>> greenness (and corresponding disjoint sets of behavior) out of which >>> consciousness is constructed, that rides on top of any physical layer in a >>> way that can be considered physical substrate independent. >>> >>> The terminology I think we should use is the former is consciousness is >>> substrate dependent (where that substrate is subjectivity or quala) the >>> behavior of which is independent of any particular set of physics. >>> >>> But I'm imagining you won't like even this kind of qualia being any kind >>> of substrate, so I was trying to come up with another term qualia strate to >>> make you happy. >>> >> >> You?re right, I don?t think it is good to use the word ?substrate? >> referring to qualia because ?substrate? specifically refers to a physical >> substance. But I am confused as to why you would say consciousness is >> dependent on qualia, since consciousness and qualia are essentially the >> same thing. >> > > My recollection is that you often respond to what I've said, above, > claiming something like: "We can never know for sure." > We know for sure that consciousness and qualia are essentially the same thing because we have defined the words that way. Here is the all important part relevant to this: > >> The only difference is that consciousness is usually used to mean >> multiple qualia taken together >> > > Exactly. > If we are aware of redness and greenness, at the same time, as a composite > experience that is our knowledge of the strawberry, there must be something > that is "binding" all this together, otherwise, it would be like the > physics that is subconscious, and we wouldn't be aware of it with the > redness and greenness that is our knowledge of the strawberry. > Robots and computers manage multiple inputs without any specific ?binding?. The ?binding? consists in the fact that the different inputs and outputs intimately interact. We know, as surely as we know "I think therefore I am" what redness is > qualitatively like, and we necessarily know how this is different than > greenness. And when we experience them together (computationally bound) we > can necessary notice that they are qualitatively different. > If you computationally bind conscious knowledge in 4 hemispheres together, > you will directly experience the qualia behavior in another's brain, in > addition to both hemispheres of your own brain, and if the other two > hemispheres are red green inverted from your qualia, you will necessarily > notice it is different. > You might notice something, but you won?t know what the other two hemispheres on their own experience. For example, if you connect yourself to someone else?s brain and notice that, through their eyes, strawberries look green, whereas before they looked red, this is not just you noticing it but both of you. After you are disconnected, both of you will remember the colours changing, and neither will be sure what the other experiences on his own. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sat Feb 22 07:09:35 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 23:09:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found Message-ID: <20200221230935.Horde.aWVKbGzsrCGolk1tUJHCMVh@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Brent Allsop: > If you computationally bind conscious knowledge in 4 hemispheres together, > you will directly experience the qualia behavior in another's brain, in > addition to both hemispheres of your own brain, and if the other two > hemispheres are red green inverted from your qualia, you will necessarily > notice it is different. You might try contacting and asking these girls whether things look different out of one another's eyes. Although since their thalamuses (thalami?) are connected, it is debatable whether they are actually two girls or a single unique being. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/m/features/the-hogan-twins-share-a-brain-and-see-out-of-each-others-eyes Excerpt------------------ "The structure of the twins? brains makes them unique in the world. Their brains are connected by a thalamic bridge, connecting the thalamus of one with that of the other. The thalamus acts like a switchboard relaying sensory and motor signals and regulating consciousness. The Hogan twins demonstrate how they can see out of each other's eyes. Krista and Tatiana Hogan share the senses of touch and taste and even control one another?s limbs. Tatiana can see out of both of Krista?s eyes, while Krista can only see out of one of Tatiana?s." Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 14:56:09 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 08:56:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I said that I will bow out of this conversation and I will. I don't belong in it. bill w On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 6:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi William, > Yes of course, all this is absolutely true. Nobody is disaputing any of > this. > But you are completely missing the point. > That point is the initial cause of perception is what we are eating, or > looking at. > The final result is our conscious knowledge of that. > Our eyes, and everything else need to do lots of tricks (such as the 60 HZ > saccades your are describing) so that we can have accurate and > consistent knowledge. > If our conscious knowledge of such, fades, because we are overriding the > tricks our eyes are attempting to do, this change or fading in our > awareness of what we are seeing is what we are talking about, which you > seem to be completely ignoring. > You just continue to map everything I say into a world where this > changing conscious awareness isn't real or something. > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:01 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Our eyes vibrate at 60 Hz. If you overcome this with a special camera, >> you can focus light on the same cells continuously. What the person >> reports is that the light fades and comes back, fades again and comes >> back. The explanation is that with continuous stimulation the neurons >> cannot make enough transmitter substance fast enough to send a continuous >> signal to the brain. So it rests for a brief time to make more transmitter >> substance. >> >> Similarly, continuously stimulating nose and tongue receptors makes the >> underlying neurons run out of transmitters, and so the signals to the brain >> get weaker and weaker, and thus so do the sensations. These neurons do not >> recover as fast as the eye neurons do (I don't remember the down time data >> - absolute refractory period followed by relative refractory period (during >> which a stronger than usual stimulus can elicit a response), followed by >> normal sensation).. >> >> So we have real, measurable changes in neurons causing lessening reported >> sensations until the transmitters can be made in sufficient quantity again. >> >> Of course you can keep on eating even though the sensations diminish, or >> other reasons. >> >> These changes are temporary, so of course they do not qualify as >> learning. >> >> This is from quite a while back. I have not kept up with research on >> neurons. >> >> bill w >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:42 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi William, >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> OK - just wanted to correct something I knew was false. I don't know >>>> what kind of reality you are dealing with where those statements are true, >>>> but I'll stay out of it. bill w >>>> >>> >>> OK, so let me see if I clearly understand your reality. >>> So, you say we continue to eat something that is not change, but our >>> perception of it 'fades'. >>> >>> In your reality, is the fact that something is 'fading" a change that is >>> not real, or this change doesn't exist? >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Sat Feb 22 17:45:17 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 10:45:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Dang, Why is it always this? Almost never does anyone say: "Wow, given your arguments and videos, I now really understand how factual it is that we don't know what color anything is. There is no "hard mind body problem" after all, it's just a color problem. What can I do to help push this theoretical field forward? How about I join a camp or sign a petition, now that I understand, so we can further amplify the wisdom of the crowd? Instead, it's always: "I don't belong in this conversation." I guess this is evidence supporting Max Planck's adage "Science progresses one funeral at a time" ? Don't get me wrong. I very much appreciate all you have provided to the conversation. That helped me better understand faults in my communication methods, and to better understand how others think. On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 7:57 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I said that I will bow out of this conversation and I will. I don't > belong in it. > > bill w > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 6:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi William, >> Yes of course, all this is absolutely true. Nobody is disaputing any of >> this. >> But you are completely missing the point. >> That point is the initial cause of perception is what we are eating, or >> looking at. >> The final result is our conscious knowledge of that. >> Our eyes, and everything else need to do lots of tricks (such as the 60 >> HZ saccades your are describing) so that we can have accurate and >> consistent knowledge. >> If our conscious knowledge of such, fades, because we are overriding the >> tricks our eyes are attempting to do, this change or fading in our >> awareness of what we are seeing is what we are talking about, which you >> seem to be completely ignoring. >> You just continue to map everything I say into a world where this >> changing conscious awareness isn't real or something. >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:01 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Our eyes vibrate at 60 Hz. If you overcome this with a special camera, >>> you can focus light on the same cells continuously. What the person >>> reports is that the light fades and comes back, fades again and comes >>> back. The explanation is that with continuous stimulation the neurons >>> cannot make enough transmitter substance fast enough to send a continuous >>> signal to the brain. So it rests for a brief time to make more transmitter >>> substance. >>> >>> Similarly, continuously stimulating nose and tongue receptors makes the >>> underlying neurons run out of transmitters, and so the signals to the brain >>> get weaker and weaker, and thus so do the sensations. These neurons do not >>> recover as fast as the eye neurons do (I don't remember the down time data >>> - absolute refractory period followed by relative refractory period (during >>> which a stronger than usual stimulus can elicit a response), followed by >>> normal sensation).. >>> >>> So we have real, measurable changes in neurons causing lessening >>> reported sensations until the transmitters can be made in sufficient >>> quantity again. >>> >>> Of course you can keep on eating even though the sensations diminish, or >>> other reasons. >>> >>> These changes are temporary, so of course they do not qualify as >>> learning. >>> >>> This is from quite a while back. I have not kept up with research on >>> neurons. >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:42 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi William, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> OK - just wanted to correct something I knew was false. I don't know >>>>> what kind of reality you are dealing with where those statements are true, >>>>> but I'll stay out of it. bill w >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK, so let me see if I clearly understand your reality. >>>> So, you say we continue to eat something that is not change, but our >>>> perception of it 'fades'. >>>> >>>> In your reality, is the fact that something is 'fading" a change that >>>> is not real, or this change doesn't exist? >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 17:50:05 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:50:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] evolution and the supernatural Message-ID: "If one combines the view that supernatural beliefs are wrong with the idea that our minds have evolved to acquire beliefs that are useful, one arrives at the question of why humans' brains seem to have systems that cause them to acquire beliefs that are guaranteed to be false. In this sense, supernatural beliefs are weird. Not only are they all wrong, but historically they've caused people to do all sorts of seemingly odd things, from spending precious time in rituals to destroying property to wearing silly hats." Robert Kurzban -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 17:52:34 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:52:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I don't know if your ideas are over my head, under my head or what. I just know that I don't understand them. I read some of your and Stathis' stuff and say to myself "What the hell are they talking about?" bill w On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:47 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Dang, > > Why is it always this? Almost never does anyone say: "Wow, given your > arguments and videos, I now really understand how factual it is that we > don't know what color anything is. There is no "hard mind body problem" > after all, it's just a color problem. What can I do to help push this > theoretical field forward? How about I join a camp or sign a petition, now > that I understand, so we can further amplify the wisdom of the crowd? > > Instead, it's always: "I don't belong in this conversation." > > I guess this is evidence supporting Max Planck's adage "Science progresses > one funeral at a time" ? > > Don't get me wrong. I very much appreciate all you have provided to the > conversation. That helped me better understand faults in my communication > methods, and to better understand how others think. > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 7:57 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I said that I will bow out of this conversation and I will. I don't >> belong in it. >> >> bill w >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 6:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi William, >>> Yes of course, all this is absolutely true. Nobody is disaputing any of >>> this. >>> But you are completely missing the point. >>> That point is the initial cause of perception is what we are eating, or >>> looking at. >>> The final result is our conscious knowledge of that. >>> Our eyes, and everything else need to do lots of tricks (such as the 60 >>> HZ saccades your are describing) so that we can have accurate and >>> consistent knowledge. >>> If our conscious knowledge of such, fades, because we are overriding the >>> tricks our eyes are attempting to do, this change or fading in our >>> awareness of what we are seeing is what we are talking about, which you >>> seem to be completely ignoring. >>> You just continue to map everything I say into a world where this >>> changing conscious awareness isn't real or something. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:01 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Our eyes vibrate at 60 Hz. If you overcome this with a special camera, >>>> you can focus light on the same cells continuously. What the person >>>> reports is that the light fades and comes back, fades again and comes >>>> back. The explanation is that with continuous stimulation the neurons >>>> cannot make enough transmitter substance fast enough to send a continuous >>>> signal to the brain. So it rests for a brief time to make more transmitter >>>> substance. >>>> >>>> Similarly, continuously stimulating nose and tongue receptors makes the >>>> underlying neurons run out of transmitters, and so the signals to the brain >>>> get weaker and weaker, and thus so do the sensations. These neurons do not >>>> recover as fast as the eye neurons do (I don't remember the down time data >>>> - absolute refractory period followed by relative refractory period (during >>>> which a stronger than usual stimulus can elicit a response), followed by >>>> normal sensation).. >>>> >>>> So we have real, measurable changes in neurons causing lessening >>>> reported sensations until the transmitters can be made in sufficient >>>> quantity again. >>>> >>>> Of course you can keep on eating even though the sensations diminish, >>>> or other reasons. >>>> >>>> These changes are temporary, so of course they do not qualify as >>>> learning. >>>> >>>> This is from quite a while back. I have not kept up with research on >>>> neurons. >>>> >>>> bill w >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:42 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi William, >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> OK - just wanted to correct something I knew was false. I don't know >>>>>> what kind of reality you are dealing with where those statements are true, >>>>>> but I'll stay out of it. bill w >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, so let me see if I clearly understand your reality. >>>>> So, you say we continue to eat something that is not change, but our >>>>> perception of it 'fades'. >>>>> >>>>> In your reality, is the fact that something is 'fading" a change that >>>>> is not real, or this change doesn't exist? >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 18:16:51 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:16:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Thanks WIlliam, That really helps. The hardest part of all this is communicating it in a way that people can understand. It requires some significant reprogramming of the way people think about color. And if someone as brilliant as you is struggling, what hope do I have with most neuroscientists, let alone lay people? We've got big plans and goals along this direction with the continued development of this video . It will sone have narration and a whole lot more. Constantly improving. So, once more if it is up, I hope you'll let me know if that helps, at all. Thanks, Brent On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:03 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I don't know if your ideas are over my head, under my head or what. I > just know that I don't understand them. I read some of your and Stathis' > stuff and say to myself "What the hell are they talking about?" bill w > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:47 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Dang, >> >> Why is it always this? Almost never does anyone say: "Wow, given your >> arguments and videos, I now really understand how factual it is that we >> don't know what color anything is. There is no "hard mind body problem" >> after all, it's just a color problem. What can I do to help push this >> theoretical field forward? How about I join a camp or sign a petition, now >> that I understand, so we can further amplify the wisdom of the crowd? >> >> Instead, it's always: "I don't belong in this conversation." >> >> I guess this is evidence supporting Max Planck's adage "Science >> progresses one funeral at a time" ? >> >> Don't get me wrong. I very much appreciate all you have provided to the >> conversation. That helped me better understand faults in my communication >> methods, and to better understand how others think. >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 7:57 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I said that I will bow out of this conversation and I will. I don't >>> belong in it. >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 6:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi William, >>>> Yes of course, all this is absolutely true. Nobody is disaputing any >>>> of this. >>>> But you are completely missing the point. >>>> That point is the initial cause of perception is what we are eating, or >>>> looking at. >>>> The final result is our conscious knowledge of that. >>>> Our eyes, and everything else need to do lots of tricks (such as the 60 >>>> HZ saccades your are describing) so that we can have accurate and >>>> consistent knowledge. >>>> If our conscious knowledge of such, fades, because we are overriding >>>> the tricks our eyes are attempting to do, this change or fading in our >>>> awareness of what we are seeing is what we are talking about, which you >>>> seem to be completely ignoring. >>>> You just continue to map everything I say into a world where this >>>> changing conscious awareness isn't real or something. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:01 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Our eyes vibrate at 60 Hz. If you overcome this with a special >>>>> camera, you can focus light on the same cells continuously. What the >>>>> person reports is that the light fades and comes back, fades again and >>>>> comes back. The explanation is that with continuous stimulation the >>>>> neurons cannot make enough transmitter substance fast enough to send a >>>>> continuous signal to the brain. So it rests for a brief time to make more >>>>> transmitter substance. >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, continuously stimulating nose and tongue receptors makes >>>>> the underlying neurons run out of transmitters, and so the signals to the >>>>> brain get weaker and weaker, and thus so do the sensations. These neurons >>>>> do not recover as fast as the eye neurons do (I don't remember the down >>>>> time data - absolute refractory period followed by relative refractory >>>>> period (during which a stronger than usual stimulus can elicit a response), >>>>> followed by normal sensation).. >>>>> >>>>> So we have real, measurable changes in neurons causing lessening >>>>> reported sensations until the transmitters can be made in sufficient >>>>> quantity again. >>>>> >>>>> Of course you can keep on eating even though the sensations diminish, >>>>> or other reasons. >>>>> >>>>> These changes are temporary, so of course they do not qualify as >>>>> learning. >>>>> >>>>> This is from quite a while back. I have not kept up with research on >>>>> neurons. >>>>> >>>>> bill w >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:42 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi William, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM William Flynn Wallace via >>>>>> extropy-chat wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> OK - just wanted to correct something I knew was false. I don't >>>>>>> know what kind of reality you are dealing with where those statements are >>>>>>> true, but I'll stay out of it. bill w >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, so let me see if I clearly understand your reality. >>>>>> So, you say we continue to eat something that is not change, but our >>>>>> perception of it 'fades'. >>>>>> >>>>>> In your reality, is the fact that something is 'fading" a change that >>>>>> is not real, or this change doesn't exist? >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 20:35:26 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 15:35:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:48 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I guess this is evidence supporting Max Planck's adage "Science > progresses one funeral at a time" ?* Yeah, but which one of us is going to die first? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 21:24:21 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:24:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] evolution and the supernatural In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 1William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: "If one combines the view that supernatural beliefs are wrong with the idea > that our minds have evolved to acquire beliefs that are useful, one arrives > at the question of why humans' brains seem to have systems that cause them > to acquire beliefs that are guaranteed to be false. In this sense, > supernatural beliefs are weird. Not only are they all wrong, but > historically they've caused people to do all sorts of seemingly odd things, > from spending precious time in rituals to destroying property to wearing > silly hats." > Robert Kurzban > First of all Evolution can't make perfect brains or perfect anything, nor does it need to, it just needs for an animal to be better than the competition. And science is not the only way to make smart decisions, induction is another, animals have been using it for half a billion years and although it occasionally fails it works pretty well on most things most of the time. We still use it today and so did Og the caveman, so if Og happened to be holding a severed rabbit's foot when a Sabre Toothed Tiger caught sight of him and gave chase and by a unusual stroke of luck Og managed to escape the beast he'd use induction and start to think there is a connection between his good fortune and the rabbit's foot. He would be wrong but nobody said induction was always exactly right, most of the decisions based on induction are usually approximately right most of the time. I love the scientific method and it makes far fewer errors than induction but I must admit it does have 2 big disadvantages that induction doesn't have: 1) It takes a lot of brainpower, so unless you have loads of neurons at your disposal you really can't use the scientific method; for this reason snails make poor theorists, but induction is easy so snails even with their primitive nervous system can make good use of it. 2) The scientific method is slow, if you see a saber toothed tiger about to jump on you there just isn't time to formulate a scientific theory about the situation and make a falsifiable prediction about the outcome; better for Og to just remember how his friend Ug survived a similar attack and then use induction. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 21:41:15 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 15:41:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] evolution and the supernatural In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My recent psych books have been about human cognitive errors, at least in part. There are so many (see a list in Wikipedia) that is hard to see just how we survived. It also set me to wondering if the far more limited cognitive abilities of apes contained errors as well, such as superstitions. Hmmm. Kurzban's book continues to amaze. No self - lots of modules. Assertions that some work better when they are wrong! More to come. bill w On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 1William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > "If one combines the view that supernatural beliefs are wrong with the >> idea that our minds have evolved to acquire beliefs that are useful, one >> arrives at the question of why humans' brains seem to have systems that >> cause them to acquire beliefs that are guaranteed to be false. In this >> sense, supernatural beliefs are weird. Not only are they all wrong, but >> historically they've caused people to do all sorts of seemingly odd things, >> from spending precious time in rituals to destroying property to wearing >> silly hats." >> Robert Kurzban >> > > First of all Evolution can't make perfect brains or perfect anything, nor > does it need to, it just needs for an animal to be better than the > competition. And science is not the only way to make smart decisions, > induction is another, animals have been using it for half a billion years > and although it occasionally fails it works pretty well on most things most > of the time. We still use it today and so did Og the caveman, so if Og > happened to be holding a severed rabbit's foot when a Sabre Toothed Tiger > caught sight of him and gave chase and by a unusual stroke of luck Og > managed to escape the beast he'd use induction and start to think there is > a connection between his good fortune and the rabbit's foot. He would be > wrong but nobody said induction was always exactly right, most of the > decisions based on induction are usually approximately right most of the > time. > > I love the scientific method and it makes far fewer errors than induction > but I must admit it does have 2 big disadvantages that induction doesn't > have: > > 1) It takes a lot of brainpower, so unless you have loads of neurons at > your disposal you really can't use the scientific method; for this reason > snails make poor theorists, but induction is easy so snails even with their > primitive nervous system can make good use of it. > > 2) The scientific method is slow, if you see a saber toothed tiger about > to jump on you there just isn't time to formulate a scientific theory > about the situation and make a falsifiable prediction about the outcome; > better for Og to just remember how his friend Ug survived a similar > attack and then use induction. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Feb 23 05:49:27 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 21:49:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found Message-ID: <20200222214927.Horde.hHkisxvEWLrQ1jq0fwPyzc9@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Brent Allsop: > Our eyes, and everything else need to do lots of tricks (such as the 60 HZ > saccades your are describing) so that we can have accurate and > consistent knowledge. But we don't have accurate and consistent knowledge due to those tricks. We have a hastily constructed Umvelt of convenience that is biased, self-serving, and sometimes even in direct conflict with the actual underlying physical reality. Without specialized instrumentation, we can perceive maybe 1% of reality. Without our technology, we really are looking at shadows in Plato's cave. For example the ongoing continuity of the present moment that you sense is a construct of your brain. Everything that you see happening around you has already happened several microseconds in the past. Your sight and hearing are bounded from both below and above by the minimum and maximum frequencies that you can sense. And you are prone to zoning out on the occasional sexual fantasy. Half the cells in your body are a diverse ecosystem of microorganisms that you are for the most part blissfully unaware of until they wander into the wrong areas cause you to feel ill. > If our conscious knowledge of such, fades, because we are overriding the > tricks our eyes are attempting to do, this change or fading in our > awareness of what we are seeing is what we are talking about, which you > seem to be completely ignoring. I am not sure what your point is here. Qualia fade when you stop tickling the sensory apparatus that activates them. Or are you talking about attenuation or the Ganzfield effect? The Ganzfield effect is such that you stare at uniform color field like red with no detail of distinguishing feature, for example, after a few minutes you will stop seeing red and your vision will just go black. > You just continue to map everything I say into a world where this changing > conscious awareness isn't real or something. Your changing conscious awareness is real, it is still however a mental construct, just as thoughts are real but nonetheless mental constructs. Your constructed awareness is meant to model those aspects of the world important to your genes and to a lesser extent you yourself. The problem is not that your conscious awareness is not real; the problem is that without compensatory technology, it is very limited and rather inaccurate. For what it's worth, I checked out your video and some of your more recent content on your site, and I noticed that you didn't mention glutamate or reference material qualia at all and it actually made your argument much more credible. Good job. The animation and graphics are pretty slick as well. Incidentally, I think you might have been too reductionist in your search for the material correlates of color. Material redness is not a molecule, material redness is the L-cone cell in your retina that fires more strongly in response to red light than green light. M-cone cells conversely fire more strongly in response to green light than red. if you could somehow switch the wiring of the two types of one cells between the retina and the visual cortex, you might be able to achieve your inverted qualia or whatever you call it. Stuart LaForge From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 23 18:14:47 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:14:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: <20200222214927.Horde.hHkisxvEWLrQ1jq0fwPyzc9@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20200222214927.Horde.hHkisxvEWLrQ1jq0fwPyzc9@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Hi Stuart, Thanks for jumping in with so much great thinking. I think you are really understanding, mostly. I must really be failing at communication. Both you, John, and others often appear to disagree, but then what you talk about as if it was a different view than what I was saying, it is exactly the point I was trying to make. On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:58 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Quoting Brent Allsop: > > > Our eyes, and everything else need to do lots of tricks (such as the 60 > HZ > > saccades your are describing) so that we can have accurate and > > consistent knowledge. > > But we don't have accurate and consistent knowledge due to those > tricks. We have a hastily constructed Umvelt of convenience that is > biased, self-serving, and sometimes even in direct conflict with the > actual underlying physical reality. Without specialized > instrumentation, we can perceive maybe 1% of reality. Without our > technology, we really are looking at shadows in Plato's cave. > > For example the ongoing continuity of the present moment that you > sense is a construct of your brain. Everything that you see happening > around you has already happened several microseconds in the past. Your > sight and hearing are bounded from both below and above by the minimum > and maximum frequencies that you can sense. And you are prone to > zoning out on the occasional sexual fantasy. Half the cells in your > body are a diverse ecosystem of microorganisms that you are for the > most part blissfully unaware of until they wander into the wrong areas > cause you to feel ill. > Yes, all this is all exactly what I've been trying to say. > > > If our conscious knowledge of such, fades, because we are overriding the > > tricks our eyes are attempting to do, this change or fading in our > > awareness of what we are seeing is what we are talking about, which you > > seem to be completely ignoring. > > I am not sure what your point is here. Qualia fade when you stop > tickling the sensory apparatus that activates them. Or are you talking > about attenuation or the Ganzfield effect? The Ganzfield effect is > such that you stare at uniform color field like red with no detail of > distinguishing feature, for example, after a few minutes you will stop > seeing red and your vision will just go black. > Right, what you are saying is the red quale changes to a black quale, right? Again, that is what I've been attempting to say when things 'fade' or 'just go black'. These are the conscious changes I'm talking about. If you know something, whether it is red or black, or fading or whatever, there must be something that is that changing conscious awareness. > You just continue to map everything I say into a world where this > changing > > conscious awareness isn't real or something. > > Your changing conscious awareness is real, it is still however a > mental construct, just as thoughts are real but nonetheless mental > constructs. Your constructed awareness is meant to model those aspects > of the world important to your genes and to a lesser extent you > yourself. The problem is not that your conscious awareness is not > real; the problem is that without compensatory technology, it is very > limited and rather inaccurate. > Exactly what I've been attempting to say. For what it's worth, I checked out your video and some of your more > recent content on your site, and I noticed that you didn't mention > glutamate or reference material qualia at all and it actually made > your argument much more credible. Good job. The animation and graphics > are pretty slick as well. > Thanks! Yay, at least I"m making some progress. Yes, the main ideas are what everyone agrees on: that we have qualia, and as you say qualia are "a mental construct" that is our conscious knowledge. This is the only doctrine contained in the general super "Representational Qualia Theory ." The only thing everyone disagrees about is the nature of qualia. Communicating the high level RQT ideas about what 'qualia blindness' is, and how there is not a "hard mind body problem", it's just a color problem is already very difficult to communicate. It requires some major surgery to people's naive epistemology of color. So we simplify everything as much as possible. (only talk about red and green - no other colors or more subtle qualia). Glutamate being redness is only in the small low level minority camp "Molecular Materialism ". This camp is the simplest and most importantly, easy to falsify. If someone experiences redness, with no glutamate, redness = glutamate prediction falsified. The ease of falsifiability is what is important. For example, I see no possible way to falsify most of the other theories, especially the leading consensus camp which Stathis supports: "Functionalism ". If they could provide any easily falsifiable example of what redness could be, I'd be happy to use that in place of glutamate, but they never provide anything even close to that. It's all just sloppy hand waving with the small required "a miracle happens here" step they always ignore. Of course, it is my conjecture that if they did provide something that could be redness, it couldn't be that for the same reason it can't be glutamate, proving the absurdity of their substitution argument. So, we don't use glutamate because it is likely true, we use it because it is the easiest to falsify and easiest to understand. The general idea is just that whatever redness is, it is objectively observable (giving us only an abstract description of such.) I often describe an overly simplified physical world with only red and only green, and only in that simple world is it glutamate that has redness and glycine that has greenness. If you can understand how experimentalists in such a simple world could fully describe the behavior of glutamate, reacting in a synapse, without knowing this was redness, then you can apply that same non qualia blind thinking to all more capable theories. You've got to understand qualia blindness, first, in the simplest possible world. Then you can start to observe the complex brain in a non qualia blind way (use more than one word for all things red) so we can discover what it is that does have a redness quality - finally giving us the required factual dictionary between the abstract objective and the qualitative subjective. Until we do this we will continue to have no idea what color anything is. In other words, you just start with glutamate and redness are abstract labels for the same thing. Once you falsify glutamate, then substitute glutamate for your next working hypothesis (starting with the easy to falsify one's first) until it can't be falsified. Then you will finally have the required dictionary definition for which abstract description of something in our brain is a description of what we can directly/subjectively experience as redness. Incidentally, I think you might have been too reductionist in your > search for the material correlates of color. Material redness is not a > molecule, material redness is the L-cone cell in your retina that > fires more strongly in response to red light than green light. M-cone > cells conversely fire more strongly in response to green light than > red. Um, yea. What you say below (as illustrated in this "Perception Inverted " section of the video) proves what you say above is mistaken, right? You can have redness, in a brain, in a vat, with no light, and no retina. so we're not talking about the retina. Redness is the final result of perception, far downstream from even the optic nerve, let alone anything in the retina. You just need to stimulate the optic nerve the same as the retina would and due to this input, the brain creates knowledge or a construct made out of something that has a redness quality we can directly/subjectively experience. > if you could somehow switch the wiring of the two types of one > cells between the retina and the visual cortex, you might be able to > achieve your inverted qualia or whatever you call it. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 23 18:22:08 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:22:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <20200222214927.Horde.hHkisxvEWLrQ1jq0fwPyzc9@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I should have said: "What you say below proves the above is not the constructs you are looking for." ;) On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 11:14 AM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stuart, > Thanks for jumping in with so much great thinking. I think you are really > understanding, mostly. > > I must really be failing at communication. Both you, John, and others > often appear to disagree, but then what you talk about as if it was a > different view than what I was saying, it is exactly the point I was trying > to make. > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:58 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Quoting Brent Allsop: >> >> > Our eyes, and everything else need to do lots of tricks (such as the 60 >> HZ >> > saccades your are describing) so that we can have accurate and >> > consistent knowledge. >> >> But we don't have accurate and consistent knowledge due to those >> tricks. We have a hastily constructed Umvelt of convenience that is >> biased, self-serving, and sometimes even in direct conflict with the >> actual underlying physical reality. Without specialized >> instrumentation, we can perceive maybe 1% of reality. Without our >> technology, we really are looking at shadows in Plato's cave. >> >> For example the ongoing continuity of the present moment that you >> sense is a construct of your brain. Everything that you see happening >> around you has already happened several microseconds in the past. Your >> sight and hearing are bounded from both below and above by the minimum >> and maximum frequencies that you can sense. And you are prone to >> zoning out on the occasional sexual fantasy. Half the cells in your >> body are a diverse ecosystem of microorganisms that you are for the >> most part blissfully unaware of until they wander into the wrong areas >> cause you to feel ill. >> > > Yes, all this is all exactly what I've been trying to say. > > >> >> > If our conscious knowledge of such, fades, because we are overriding the >> > tricks our eyes are attempting to do, this change or fading in our >> > awareness of what we are seeing is what we are talking about, which you >> > seem to be completely ignoring. >> >> I am not sure what your point is here. Qualia fade when you stop >> tickling the sensory apparatus that activates them. Or are you talking >> about attenuation or the Ganzfield effect? The Ganzfield effect is >> such that you stare at uniform color field like red with no detail of >> distinguishing feature, for example, after a few minutes you will stop >> seeing red and your vision will just go black. >> > > Right, what you are saying is the red quale changes to a black quale, > right? Again, that is what I've been attempting to say when things 'fade' > or 'just go black'. > These are the conscious changes I'm talking about. If you know something, > whether it is red or black, or fading or whatever, there must be something > that is that changing conscious awareness. > > > You just continue to map everything I say into a world where this >> changing >> > conscious awareness isn't real or something. >> >> Your changing conscious awareness is real, it is still however a >> mental construct, just as thoughts are real but nonetheless mental >> constructs. Your constructed awareness is meant to model those aspects >> of the world important to your genes and to a lesser extent you >> yourself. The problem is not that your conscious awareness is not >> real; the problem is that without compensatory technology, it is very >> limited and rather inaccurate. >> > > Exactly what I've been attempting to say. > > For what it's worth, I checked out your video and some of your more >> recent content on your site, and I noticed that you didn't mention >> glutamate or reference material qualia at all and it actually made >> your argument much more credible. Good job. The animation and graphics >> are pretty slick as well. >> > > Thanks! Yay, at least I"m making some progress. Yes, the main ideas are > what everyone agrees on: that we have qualia, and as you say qualia are "a > mental construct" that is our conscious knowledge. This is the only > doctrine contained in the general super "Representational Qualia Theory > ." The only > thing everyone disagrees about is the nature of qualia. Communicating the > high level RQT ideas about what 'qualia blindness' is, and how there is not > a "hard mind body problem", it's just a color problem is already very > difficult to communicate. It requires some major surgery to people's naive > epistemology of color. So we simplify everything as much as possible. > (only talk about red and green - no other colors or more subtle qualia). > Glutamate being redness is only in the small low level minority camp "Molecular > Materialism ". > This camp is the simplest and most importantly, easy to falsify. If > someone experiences redness, with no glutamate, redness = glutamate > prediction falsified. The ease of falsifiability is what is important. > For example, I see no possible way to falsify most of the other theories, > especially the leading consensus camp which Stathis supports: " > Functionalism > ". If > they could provide any easily falsifiable example of what redness could be, > I'd be happy to use that in place of glutamate, but they never provide > anything even close to that. It's all just sloppy hand waving with the > small required "a miracle happens here" step they always ignore. Of > course, it is my conjecture that if they did provide something that could > be redness, it couldn't be that for the same reason it can't be glutamate, > proving the absurdity of their substitution argument. > > So, we don't use glutamate because it is likely true, we use it because it > is the easiest to falsify and easiest to understand. The general idea is > just that whatever redness is, it is objectively observable (giving us only > an abstract description of such.) I often describe an overly simplified > physical world with only red and only green, and only in that simple world > is it glutamate that has redness and glycine that has greenness. If you > can understand how experimentalists in such a simple world could fully > describe the behavior of glutamate, reacting in a synapse, without knowing > this was redness, then you can apply that same non qualia blind thinking to > all more capable theories. You've got to understand qualia blindness, > first, in the simplest possible world. Then you can start to observe the > complex brain in a non qualia blind way (use more than one word for all > things red) so we can discover what it is that does have a redness quality > - finally giving us the required factual dictionary between the abstract > objective and the qualitative subjective. Until we do this we will > continue to have no idea what color anything is. In other words, you just > start with glutamate and redness are abstract labels for the same thing. > Once you falsify glutamate, then substitute glutamate for your next working > hypothesis (starting with the easy to falsify one's first) until it can't > be falsified. Then you will finally have the required dictionary > definition for which abstract description of something in our brain is a > description of what we can directly/subjectively experience as redness. > > Incidentally, I think you might have been too reductionist in your >> search for the material correlates of color. Material redness is not a >> molecule, material redness is the L-cone cell in your retina that >> fires more strongly in response to red light than green light. M-cone >> cells conversely fire more strongly in response to green light than >> red. > > > Um, yea. What you say below (as illustrated in this "Perception Inverted > " > section of the video) proves what you say above is mistaken, right? You > can have redness, in a brain, in a vat, with no light, and no retina. so > we're not talking about the retina. Redness is the final result of > perception, far downstream from even the optic nerve, let alone anything in > the retina. You just need to stimulate the optic nerve the same as the > retina would and due to this input, the brain creates knowledge or a > construct made out of something that has a redness quality we can > directly/subjectively experience. > > >> if you could somehow switch the wiring of the two types of one >> cells between the retina and the visual cortex, you might be able to >> achieve your inverted qualia or whatever you call it. >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 23 20:56:51 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 13:56:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:59 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Robots and computers manage multiple inputs without any specific > ?binding?. The ?binding? consists in the fact that the different inputs and > outputs intimately interact. > Wait, What??? The first step a computer does to know if a pixel is ?ripe enough? is to load an abstract representation of that one pixel?s color into a register of a CPU, Then load another value into another register (dictionary: ripe enough) then do a difference operation. This difference operation is performed by a huge set of *DISCRETE* logic gates. These kinds of *DISCRETE* operations on registers in a CPU is the limit of the amount of computational binding a computer can do. The abstract output of this large set of *DISCRETE* binding is loaded into a register. This gives you yet another abstract difference value, which is loaded into a register. This third value is the CPU?s abstract knowledge of whether it is positive (dictionary: ripe), or negative (dictionary: not ripe). And that JUST gives you the ripeness of one pixel. We, on the other hand are aware of not just that one pixel, we are aware of all of them as one computationally bound composite conscious experience. We are also aware of, if each of the pixels is red, it is ripe, so this ?the strawberry is ripe? info must also be computationally bound in with all the other pixels. (And if any part of the strawberry is green, we know that part isn?t ripe yet, all in one unified composite experience.) There is nothing enabling any of these *DISCRETE* abstract computer pixels to be bound to any of the other pixels, other than what is done with a few CPU registers. Heck, only one pixel at a time can ever be in the CPU at any one time. The closest you get is some additional iteration on all the pixels, loading them, one at a time, into a register, then collecting a sum, then doing a divide to get an average or something. But this single abstract number that represents the average of all the pixels is in no way providing any kind of "intimacy" between any of the pixels. In other words, since there is no machinery in any of this *DISCRETE* logic enabling any of these pixels to be aware of any of their pixel neighbors, it is all necessarily like our sub conscious. NOT conscious, due to lack of computational binding. You said: ?The ?binding? consists in the fact that the different inputs and outputs intimately interact.? How can any such *DISCREET* ?intimacy? be in any way one single composite computationally bound composite qualitative experience? Oh, yea, you just wave your hands, and ignore the necessary ?a miracle happens here? step. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 23 23:43:58 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 16:43:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi John, If you were able to prove you understand my model, by describing at least any part of it, the way I have described your model. I would say *touche *here. But, then, you can't, so.... On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 1:37 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:48 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> I guess this is evidence supporting Max Planck's adage "Science >> progresses one funeral at a time" ?* > > > Yeah, but which one of us is going to die first? > > 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 Mon Feb 24 02:12:18 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 13:12:18 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 07:58, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Stathis, > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:59 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Robots and computers manage multiple inputs without any specific >> ?binding?. The ?binding? consists in the fact that the different inputs and >> outputs intimately interact. >> > > Wait, What??? > > > The first step a computer does to know if a pixel is ?ripe enough? is to > load an abstract representation of that one pixel?s color into a register > of a CPU, Then load another value into another register (dictionary: ripe > enough) then do a difference operation. This difference operation is > performed by a huge set of *DISCRETE* logic gates. These kinds of > *DISCRETE* operations on registers in a CPU is the limit of the amount of > computational binding a computer can do. The abstract output of this > large set of *DISCRETE* binding is loaded into a register. This gives > you yet another abstract difference value, which is loaded into a register. > This third value is the CPU?s abstract knowledge of whether it is positive > (dictionary: ripe), or negative (dictionary: not ripe). And that JUST > gives you the ripeness of one pixel. > > > We, on the other hand are aware of not just that one pixel, we are aware > of all of them as one computationally bound composite conscious > experience. We are also aware of, if each of the pixels is red, it is > ripe, so this ?the strawberry is ripe? info must also be computationally > bound in with all the other pixels. (And if any part of the strawberry is > green, we know that part isn?t ripe yet, all in one unified composite > experience.) > > > There is nothing enabling any of these *DISCRETE* abstract computer > pixels to be bound to any of the other pixels, other than what is done with > a few CPU registers. Heck, only one pixel at a time can ever be in the CPU > at any one time. The closest you get is some additional iteration on all > the pixels, loading them, one at a time, into a register, then collecting a > sum, then doing a divide to get an average or something. But this single > abstract number that represents the average of all the pixels is in no > way providing any kind of "intimacy" between any of the pixels. > > > In other words, since there is no machinery in any of this *DISCRETE* logic > enabling any of these pixels to be aware of any of their pixel neighbors, > it is all necessarily like our sub conscious. NOT conscious, due to lack > of computational binding. > > > You said: ?The ?binding? consists in the fact that the different inputs > and outputs intimately interact.? > > > > How can any such *DISCREET* ?intimacy? be in any way one single composite > computationally bound composite qualitative experience? Oh, yea, you just > wave your hands, and ignore the necessary ?a miracle happens here? step. > I return to my standard line: if the machine or animal behaves as if all the different inputs are integrated, then that should be enough for all the different inputs to be integrated in its consciousness. There is no way an extra process to combine the inputs could evolve. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Feb 24 05:12:19 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:12:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] evolution and the supernatural Message-ID: John Clark wrote: > First of all Evolution can't make perfect brains or perfect anything, nor does it need to, it just needs for an animal to be better than the competition. Correct. But It's worth keeping in mind that not all psychological characterizations such as the ability to be infested with a supernatural belief are directly selected. If you want a widespread and rather harmful example, consider drug addiction. If you think about it there is no logical way for addiction to be a result of selection. Lying under a bush wasted on plant sap is not the best way for your genes to get into the next generation. (Addiction is a side effect of brain reward systems that evolved for other reasons.) I have written fairly extensively about the ability to be infested with religions being a side effect. I make the case that what was strongly selected is the psychological mechanisms that lead to wars. Part of that complex is the ability to believe the tribe you are getting ready to attack is made up of degraded demons. When there is a need for a war (resource limits) such memes spread well. Turning up the "gain" on xenophobic memes is part of the psychological complex that has been selected for war.) And there has been heavy selection for the psychological traits for war. Check out what Azar Gat and Steven A. LeBlanc have to say on the subject. Keith From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Feb 24 14:10:32 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:10:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] evolution and the supernatural In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:15 AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> First of all Evolution can't make perfect brains or perfect anything, nor >> does it need to, it just needs for an animal to be better than the >> competition. > > > * > Correct. But It's worth keeping in mind that not all psychological > characterizations such as the ability to be infested with a supernatural > belief are directly selected. * Supernatural means an event beyond scientific understanding, so when our hominid ansestors were roaming on the African savanna all their beliefs must have been supernatural beliefs because science did not exist then. The world is a complex place so a child back then would have to learn a lot of stuff fast to survive, and the best way to do that would be to hear what adults have learned from experience. A lot of the stuff, probably most of it, would be valuable and true (don't eat those berries they're poisonous), but because they didn't have the scientific method to weed out errors some of it would be wrong (sacrificing a goat will make it rain). > * > If you want a widespread and rather harmful example, consider drug > addiction. If you think about it there is no logical way for addiction to > be a result of selection. Lying under a bush wasted on plant sap is not > the best way for your genes to get into the next generation. * Using a condom is not the best way to get your genes into the next generation either. Both your brain and your genes want things and sometimes these things are different and sometimes the brain wins. And yes I know genes don't really "want" things, but they can act as if they do. *> When there is a need for a war (resource limits) such memes spread well. > Turning up the "gain" on xenophobic memes is part of the psychological > complex that has been selected for war.)* But there must be more to it than that because countries like China, India, America, Britain, Russia, Brazile, the Philippines and many others are more xenophobic and totalitarian now than they were fifteen years ago, and yet we've never been richer. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Feb 24 21:48:36 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 16:48:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Pope Francis: "Nobody Out-Molests The Catholic Church!" Message-ID: Pope Francis: "Nobody Out-Molests The Catholic Church!" John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Feb 24 21:57:15 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 13:57:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Pope Francis: "Nobody Out-Molests The Catholic Church!" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For those who don't want to click: it's a parody video from The Onion. On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:51 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Pope Francis: "Nobody Out-Molests The Catholic Church!" > > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Mon Feb 24 22:01:35 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:01:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Pope Francis: "Nobody Out-Molests The Catholic Church!" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As an Eagle Scout, I found that both depressing and hilarious! Thanks. On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:50 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Pope Francis: "Nobody Out-Molests The Catholic Church!" > > > 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 Feb 24 22:12:36 2020 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:12:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: References: <010500ed-09c3-5698-d275-7dfc2e7c9420@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, Hrmmm, but our brain does a huge amount of computational binding, for all pixels, all in parallel. The only way computers are able to almost keep up, while only barely computationally binding single registers, is by doing all this minimal binding of pixels, one at a time, sequentially, *VERY* fast. So, in addition to: why would evolution do things in a substrate independent way, if substrate independence needs lots of additional unnecessary dictionaries, there is also evolution couldn?t do it sequentially, the way computers do it, because it could never achieve the same speed. Our phenomenal consciousness, running directly on physical qualities, all done in parallel is the only way it could have evolved. That is certainly more likely than any kind of discrete logic computational binding evolving, especially in a substrate independent way. Saying: ?If all the different inputs are integrated, then that should be enough for all the different inputs to be integrated in its consciousness? doesn?t make you ashamed of how ?hand wavy? this type of stuff is, and you don?t see any need for some kind of ?miracle? to make the odd substrate independent (qualia are separated from reality) you are assuming can happen? Can you even describe what computational binding is, and what a composite qualitative experience is? Because the way you say things like this, it seems to prove you have no idea what a composite qualitative experience must be. On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 7:13 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 07:58, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi Stathis, >> >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:59 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Robots and computers manage multiple inputs without any specific >>> ?binding?. The ?binding? consists in the fact that the different inputs and >>> outputs intimately interact. >>> >> >> Wait, What??? >> >> >> The first step a computer does to know if a pixel is ?ripe enough? is to >> load an abstract representation of that one pixel?s color into a register >> of a CPU, Then load another value into another register (dictionary: ripe >> enough) then do a difference operation. This difference operation is >> performed by a huge set of *DISCRETE* logic gates. These kinds of >> *DISCRETE* operations on registers in a CPU is the limit of the amount >> of computational binding a computer can do. The abstract output of this >> large set of *DISCRETE* binding is loaded into a register. This gives >> you yet another abstract difference value, which is loaded into a register. >> This third value is the CPU?s abstract knowledge of whether it is positive >> (dictionary: ripe), or negative (dictionary: not ripe). And that JUST >> gives you the ripeness of one pixel. >> >> >> We, on the other hand are aware of not just that one pixel, we are aware >> of all of them as one computationally bound composite conscious >> experience. We are also aware of, if each of the pixels is red, it is >> ripe, so this ?the strawberry is ripe? info must also be computationally >> bound in with all the other pixels. (And if any part of the strawberry is >> green, we know that part isn?t ripe yet, all in one unified composite >> experience.) >> >> >> There is nothing enabling any of these *DISCRETE* abstract computer >> pixels to be bound to any of the other pixels, other than what is done with >> a few CPU registers. Heck, only one pixel at a time can ever be in the CPU >> at any one time. The closest you get is some additional iteration on all >> the pixels, loading them, one at a time, into a register, then collecting a >> sum, then doing a divide to get an average or something. But this single >> abstract number that represents the average of all the pixels is in no >> way providing any kind of "intimacy" between any of the pixels. >> >> >> In other words, since there is no machinery in any of this *DISCRETE* logic >> enabling any of these pixels to be aware of any of their pixel neighbors, >> it is all necessarily like our sub conscious. NOT conscious, due to lack >> of computational binding. >> >> >> You said: ?The ?binding? consists in the fact that the different inputs >> and outputs intimately interact.? >> >> >> >> How can any such *DISCREET* ?intimacy? be in any way one single >> composite computationally bound composite qualitative experience? Oh, yea, >> you just wave your hands, and ignore the necessary ?a miracle happens here? >> step. >> > > I return to my standard line: if the machine or animal behaves as if all > the different inputs are integrated, then that should be enough for all the > different inputs to be integrated in its consciousness. There is no way an > extra process to combine the inputs could evolve. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- > 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 spike at rainier66.com Mon Feb 24 22:37:33 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:37:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Pope Francis: "Nobody Out-Molests The Catholic Church!" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008401d5eb63$01e4f710$05aee530$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Pope Francis: "Nobody Out-Molests The Catholic Church!" As an Eagle Scout, I found that both depressing and hilarious! Thanks. On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:50 PM John Clark via extropy-chat > wrote: Pope Francis: "Nobody Out-Molests The Catholic Church!" John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat As a former scout and current scout leader, I found it hilarious, but I have a sensa humah that tends in that direction. All comedy is subversive, certainly all good comedy is subversive. It requires a victim. Had we any known incidents of molestation anywhere nearby in place or time, it would likely have been far more disturbing to me. The current young people are waaaay the hell safer than they were when I was there age. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Feb 25 08:44:27 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 09:44:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? Message-ID: Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In a new book, philosopher of religion Roy Jackson envisions a Muslim Transhumanist Association... https://turingchurch.net/muslim-and-supermuslim-toward-islamic-transhumanism-e2583dbdd759 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Tue Feb 25 21:17:12 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 13:17:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found Message-ID: <20200225131712.Horde.d6h5SLVFlIYbMLyp3zaD4d_@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Brent Allsop: > The only > thing everyone disagrees about is the nature of qualia. Communicating the > high level RQT ideas about what 'qualia blindness' is, and how there is not > a "hard mind body problem", it's just a color problem is already very > difficult to communicate. "Qualia blindness" sounds too perjorative to be useful as a term of art. You should stop using it especially since you tend to apply it to people who disagree with you and you have so much trouble explaining what it means. Perhaps "qualia denial" or "qualia denier" would be a better and more accurate term, since even Daniel Dennett experiences qualia, even though he doesn't believe them to be important. Reframing the "the hard mind-body problem" as the "color problem" does not help in the slightest because the "color problem" has remained unsolved for over 300 years and was first voiced by Isaac Newton in the 17th century: "The rays [of light], to speak properly, are not coloured. In them there is nothing else than a certain power to stir up a sensation of this or that colour . . . to determine by what modes or actions light produceth in our minds the phantasm of colour is not so easie." In fact, Chalmers explicitly reframed Newton's "color problem" as the hard problem so all you have done is undo Chalmers' contribution to the field. > It requires some major surgery to people's naive > epistemology of color. So we simplify everything as much as possible. > (only talk about red and green - no other colors or more subtle qualia). > Glutamate being redness is only in the small low level minority camp > "Molecular > Materialism ". If you incorporate counterfactual or untested assumptions into a thought experiment for the sake of simplification, you should lead with a disclaimer of some sort. > This camp is the simplest and most importantly, easy to falsify. If > someone experiences redness, with no glutamate, redness = glutamate > prediction falsified. The ease of falsifiability is what is important. > For example, I see no possible way to falsify most of the other theories, > especially the leading consensus camp which Stathis supports: "Functionalism > ". If they > could provide any easily falsifiable example of what redness could be, I'd > be happy to use that in place of glutamate, but they never provide anything > even close to that. All these camps seem like little more than philosophical hair-splitting to me. What distinguishes functionalism from RQT except for the assumed material basis for qualia? Matter is but one small part of physics. Space, time, and connectivity are also physical properties. If a functionalist says that a signalling pathway A leads to the redness quale and signalling pathway B leads to greenness quale, how is that any less physical or falsifiable than glutamate? Put a SQUID helmet on a monkey, hook him up to an fMRI machine, and shine red light in his eyes. Then note what spatial coordinate of his brain lights up. Next shine green light into its eyes and note what portion of his brain lights up. If the exact same pixels light up on the fMRI image in both instances, then signalling pathway functionalism is falsified. If different brain locations light up, then you will have pathway-based functional correlates of red and green qualia specific to that individual monkey. > It's all just sloppy hand waving with the small > required "a miracle happens here" step they always ignore. Of course, it > is my conjecture that if they did provide something that could be redness, > it couldn't be that for the same reason it can't be glutamate, proving the > absurdity of their substitution argument. If you are referring to the integration/binding issue here, then I don't see how attributing redness to a molecule somehow makes it any less miraculous because then one must then ask how glutamate is aware of its own redness quality and is able to communicate it to the conscious mind. > > Incidentally, I think you might have been too reductionist in your >> search for the material correlates of color. Material redness is not a >> molecule, material redness is the L-cone cell in your retina that >> fires more strongly in response to red light than green light. M-cone >> cells conversely fire more strongly in response to green light than >> red. > > > Um, yea. What you say below (as illustrated in this "Perception Inverted > " > section of the video) proves what you say above is mistaken, right? Not at all. Inverted perception in no way proves that qualia are not "phantasms of the mind" to use Newton's terminology. In fact, the rewiring I described between the retina and the visual cortex is specifically in reference to the signalling pathway model. > You > can have redness, in a brain, in a vat, with no light, and no retina. so > we're not talking about the retina. Redness is the final result of > perception, far downstream from even the optic nerve, let alone anything in > the retina. You just need to stimulate the optic nerve the same as the > retina would and due to this input, the brain creates knowledge or a > construct made out of something that has a redness quality we can > directly/subjectively experience. Of course you can activate the qualia circuitry of a brain in a vat. So what? The experience of activating neural circuit A is qualitatively different than activating neural circuit B. Just like taking the scenic route to the beach is a qualitatively different experience than taking the freeway to the supermarket. Pathway differences afforded all the alternate neural connections and weights contain sufficient information to distinguish between an astronomical number of distinct qualia. Far more than all 20 amino acids and every other kind of molecule present in the brain. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 26 13:40:08 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:40:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] We're not ready Message-ID: Only 1.9% of the people who got the 1918 flu died of it, but so many got sick it ended up killing 675,000 people in the USA alone and 35 million worldwide. Because it's so new the death rate for the Corvid 19 virus is more uncertain but it's estimated to be between 2% and 6%, and it shows a disturbingly long incubation period during which a person is infectious but displays no obvious symptoms of being ill; it can be diagnosed with DNA detection kits but those are in extremely short supply. Administering large amounts of Corvid-19 antibodies would almost certainly cut the death rate considerably but you'd need massive amounts of it and, like DNA detection kits, we no longer have the infrastructure to rapidly mass produce it. Obama created a pandemic czar to deal with just this sort of thing and to coordinate the activities of the various federal agencies, but in the spring of 2018 the pandemic czar position was eliminated, the entire chain of command was fired, and the disease fighting budgets of the Centers for Disease Control, the National Safety Council, the Department of Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services was cut by 15 billion dollars. The infrastructure can be rebuilt but that takes not just money but also time, and that is time we may not have. In 2017 Bill Gates told national security advisor H.R. McMaster that cutting the disease fighting budgets of federal agencies would "*significantly increase the probability of a large and lethal modern-day pandemic occurring in our lifetimes*". Maybe Corvid-19 will just peter out but I wouldn't count on it, it's looking increasingly likely that Mr. Gates was right. We're not ready. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Feb 26 13:56:08 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:56:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] We're not ready In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A few comments...Although I still don't trust numbers out of China, we are starting (unfortunately) to also have some from outside of it. All told (and treating Chinese #s as close to reality), current death rates look like around .8% in Hubei province China (Wuhan sits here), and around 1.2% outside of China. I believe SARS also had higher fatality rates outside of China. If the 1.2% is the max, we may have lucked out a bit there. Also, unsurprisingly, treatment of infected with recovered plasma looks to have been successful. It would be difficult to scale as well, but is another source for antibodies. On a more trade related note, how would you address the fact that so much of our supply chain had been moved to China (prior to the current administration which has succeeded in moving some of it out of China, although not pharmaceutical related unfortunately). Sanofi has just announced that they will be spinning off a company with the specific purpose of producing many of the pharmaceutical inputs that China is currently the only one producing which is promising news LONGER term. India has also realized the danger their industry is in depending on Chinese pharmaceutical inputs. Hopefully this is a wake up call to move that production back to the US and Europe as well even if it needs to be incentivized by the respective governments. On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:42 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Only 1.9% of the people who got the 1918 flu died of it, but so many got > sick it ended up killing 675,000 people in the USA alone and 35 million > worldwide. Because it's so new the death rate for the Corvid 19 virus is > more uncertain but it's estimated to be between 2% and 6%, and it shows a > disturbingly long incubation period during which a person is infectious but > displays no obvious symptoms of being ill; it can be diagnosed with DNA > detection kits but those are in extremely short supply. Administering large > amounts of Corvid-19 antibodies would almost certainly cut the death rate > considerably but you'd need massive amounts of it and, like DNA detection > kits, we no longer have the infrastructure to rapidly mass produce it. > > Obama created a pandemic czar to deal with just this sort of thing and to > coordinate the activities of the various federal agencies, but in the > spring of 2018 the pandemic czar position was eliminated, the entire chain > of command was fired, and the disease fighting budgets of the Centers for > Disease Control, the National Safety Council, the Department of Homeland > Security, and Health and Human Services was cut by 15 billion dollars. The > infrastructure can be rebuilt but that takes not just money but also time, > and that is time we may not have. In 2017 Bill Gates told national security > advisor H.R. McMaster that cutting the disease fighting budgets of federal > agencies would "*significantly increase the probability of a large and > lethal modern-day pandemic occurring in our lifetimes*". Maybe Corvid-19 > will just peter out but I wouldn't count on it, it's looking increasingly > likely that Mr. Gates was right. We're not ready. > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Feb 26 14:55:29 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:55:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] We're not ready In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000e01d5ecb4$c9a09370$5ce1ba50$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] We're not ready >?Only 1.9% of the people who got the 1918 flu died of it?John K Clark There have been persistent rumors that the coronavirus may have been created in a lab as a bio-weapon. Since plenty of us here are engineers, here ya go: https://dilbert.com/strip/2015-08-24 spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Wed Feb 26 18:05:31 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:05:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/02/2020 13:40, Giuilio wrote: > Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? > > In a new book, philosopher of religion Roy Jackson > > envisions a Muslim Transhumanist Association... > > https://turingchurch.net/muslim-and-supermuslim-toward-islamic-transhumanism-e2583dbdd759 "Jackson explains that the common black-and-white caricatures of fundamentalist theocratic Muslims on the one hand, and fundamentalist atheist transhumanists on the other hand, are not representative" Er, what? I know what a fundamentalist Muslim is ("theocratic" is redundant here), but what the hell is a 'fundamentalist atheist'?? Either all atheists are 'fundamentalist', or none are, depending on how you define the word 'fundamentalist'. In either case, the word serves no purpose. Atheism isn't something you can have 'mild' and 'extreme' versions of, which is what the above language implies. You either lack a belief in gods or you don't. Anything else is a variety of religious belief, which can be weak or strong (fundamentalist). Believing that there are no gods is not atheism, it's a belief (obviously). I know that various religious apologists misrepresent atheism as a negative belief, but they don't get to define what it means, and anyone with half a brain can see straight through propaganda like that. Imagine someone saying, in response to hearing that another person doesn't play chess, "yeah, well I don't play chess EVEN MORE!!". Apart from the obvious silliness, it wouldn't qualify them as a 'fundamentalist non-chess-player', would it? There are no negative numbers with belief, either your belief is >0 or it's 0. I'm no expert on Islam (I did try reading the manual once, but it was so repellent that I couldn't stomach it), but my understanding is that the word means 'submission' (I know that it's common to talk about the nuances of translation causing a lot of confusion between english and arabic, but I've never heard the word 'Islam' translated as anything else. Anyone who knows different, please speak up). Submission as in submission to divine will (as interpreted by the clergy, of course). I know a bit more about transhumanism, and one of its core tenets is self-determination. I have a hard time reconciling those two concepts, and suspect that any attempt to do that would necessarily change the meaning of either 'submission' or 'self-determination'. I can't see any kind of transhumanism ditching the concept of self-determination, but am not so sure if Islam can possibly ditch the concept of submission to divine will (and if so, it would be a bit like a vegetarian starting to eat meat, but still insist on being called a vegetarian). I'd be interested to hear of any solution to this conundrum. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Feb 26 19:24:19 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:24:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Using your analogy, a fundamentalist atheist is one who doesn?t play chess AND doesn?t tolerate that others do. As a chess player, I have no issue with those who don?t play, but I have many issues with those who try to stop me from playing. Live and let live. On 2020. Feb 26., Wed at 19:07, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 26/02/2020 13:40, Giuilio wrote: > > Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? > > In a new book, philosopher of religion Roy Jackson > > envisions a Muslim Transhumanist Association... > > > https://turingchurch.net/muslim-and-supermuslim-toward-islamic-transhumanism-e2583dbdd759 > > > > > "Jackson explains that the common black-and-white caricatures of > fundamentalist theocratic Muslims on the one hand, and fundamentalist > atheist transhumanists on the other hand, are not representative" > > Er, what? > > I know what a fundamentalist Muslim is ("theocratic" is redundant here), > but what the hell is a 'fundamentalist atheist'?? Either all atheists are > 'fundamentalist', or none are, depending on how you define the word > 'fundamentalist'. In either case, the word serves no purpose. > > Atheism isn't something you can have 'mild' and 'extreme' versions of, > which is what the above language implies. You either lack a belief in gods > or you don't. Anything else is a variety of religious belief, which can be > weak or strong (fundamentalist). > > Believing that there are no gods is not atheism, it's a belief > (obviously). I know that various religious apologists misrepresent atheism > as a negative belief, but they don't get to define what it means, and > anyone with half a brain can see straight through propaganda like that. > > Imagine someone saying, in response to hearing that another person doesn't > play chess, "yeah, well I don't play chess EVEN MORE!!". Apart from the > obvious silliness, it wouldn't qualify them as a 'fundamentalist > non-chess-player', would it? > > There are no negative numbers with belief, either your belief is >0 or > it's 0. > > I'm no expert on Islam (I did try reading the manual once, but it was so > repellent that I couldn't stomach it), but my understanding is that the > word means 'submission' (I know that it's common to talk about the nuances > of translation causing a lot of confusion between english and arabic, but > I've never heard the word 'Islam' translated as anything else. Anyone who > knows different, please speak up). Submission as in submission to divine > will (as interpreted by the clergy, of course). > > I know a bit more about transhumanism, and one of its core tenets is > self-determination. I have a hard time reconciling those two concepts, and > suspect that any attempt to do that would necessarily change the meaning of > either 'submission' or 'self-determination'. I can't see any kind of > transhumanism ditching the concept of self-determination, but am not so > sure if Islam can possibly ditch the concept of submission to divine will > (and if so, it would be a bit like a vegetarian starting to eat meat, but > still insist on being called a vegetarian). > > I'd be interested to hear of any solution to this conundrum. > > -- > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Feb 26 19:47:05 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:47:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F5719DA-DFC0-46B2-8BA6-D71959F633E4@gmail.com> The appropriate word would be ?intolerant? not ?fundamentalist? then. (This is similar to how ?radical? has crept to meaning ?militant? is common discourse.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Feb 26, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > Using your analogy, a fundamentalist atheist is one who doesn?t play chess AND doesn?t tolerate that others do. As a chess player, I have no issue with those who don?t play, but I have many issues with those who try to stop me from playing. Live and let live. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Feb 26 21:22:34 2020 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:22:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] evolution and the supernatural Message-ID: John Clark wrote: snip > Using a condom is not the best way to get your genes into the next generation either. No, but condoms have been around for such a short time that they have not been a serious factor in human selection. > Both your brain and your genes want things and sometimes these things are different and sometimes the brain wins. Brains are constructed by genes. In the long run, genes get their way by shaping what we want. snip > But there must be more to it than that because countries like China, India, America, Britain, Russia, Brazile, the Philippines and many others are more xenophobic and totalitarian now than they were fifteen years ago, and yet we've never been richer. You have to be very careful in mapping stone age genetic selection to modern behavior. As an example, consider capture-bonding. In the past, the psychological mechanisms behind capture-bonding were under intense selection. But the social scene has changed since the stone age and the psychological mechanisms are seldom activated. (Thankfully.) What trips off xenophobia and the related support for totalitarian (or just irrational) leaders is not the absolute wealth of a population, but the trend in wealth and the anticipation of bleak times. " Tribes did not mathematically model the various outcomes, but our genes have been selected to build brains that make such "genetic cost-benefit" calculations on the basis of average expected outcome without conscious awareness. (Capture-bonding does not involve conscious awareness either--see Hearst's account. [10] ) " Looming privation " In fact, our genes would have been selected to go to war with the neighbors not when we are weak from starvation, but when we anticipate hard times a-coming. Further, like most psychological responses, this one is almost certainly tripped by relative changes, here in income per capita, (originally game and berries), especially by sharp downturns after a long ramp up (Cialdini 1984, p 249, quoting J. C. Davies). " >From EP, memes and war. Keith From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 26 22:10:44 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:10:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] evolution and the supernatural In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:25 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Using a condom is not the best way to get your genes into the next generation >> either. > > > * > No, but condoms have been around for such a short time that they have > not been a serious factor in human selection.* > Exactly. Genes layed down the law but genes haven't had time to plug the loopholes in the law that the brain it had made had found. Genes never anticipated condoms and wouldn't have liked them if they had, but brains did like them. And brains won. * > Brains are constructed by genes. * Yes. > > *In the long run, genes get their way by shaping what we want.* > There is no reason to think that must be true because genes have no foresight, but brains do. Our genome only contains 750 meg of information so there is absolutely no way they could anticipate every possible future situation and give us canned responses on the best way to propagate our genes in every conceivable circumstance. So instead genes have information on how to build a brain that in effect says "wire up neurons in this way and then repeat 86 billion times, and after that have the brain do whatever it thinks best to get our genes into the next generation". But brains are far smarter than genes and are better lawyers, and so have managed to find loopholes in the orders the genes have given them. Hence the existence of condoms. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 07:57:04 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:57:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <4F5719DA-DFC0-46B2-8BA6-D71959F633E4@gmail.com> References: <4F5719DA-DFC0-46B2-8BA6-D71959F633E4@gmail.com> Message-ID: I see intolerance as both a temperamental trait and a consequence of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the certainty that one's group has all the answers, and a certain degree of hatred against those who disagree. Fundamentalism is found in religions (including the religion of atheism), but also in political and cultural movements, etc. On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:48 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: > > The appropriate word would be ?intolerant? not ?fundamentalist? then. (This is similar to how ?radical? has crept to meaning ?militant? is common discourse.) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > > > On Feb 26, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > Using your analogy, a fundamentalist atheist is one who doesn?t play chess AND doesn?t tolerate that others do. As a chess player, I have no issue with those who don?t play, but I have many issues with those who try to stop me from playing. Live and let live. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 10:32:04 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:32:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] We're not ready In-Reply-To: <000e01d5ecb4$c9a09370$5ce1ba50$@rainier66.com> References: <000e01d5ecb4$c9a09370$5ce1ba50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:57 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > There have been persistent rumors that the coronavirus may have been > created in a lab as a bio-weapon. > Without any evidence for this position, Occam's Razor suggests it's just another natural virus, originally in animals and transferred to humans via less than sanitary culinary practices. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Feb 27 14:07:37 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:07:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] We're not ready In-Reply-To: References: <000e01d5ecb4$c9a09370$5ce1ba50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002b01d5ed77$448f97d0$cdaec770$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] We're not ready On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:57 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: There have been persistent rumors that the coronavirus may have been created in a lab as a bio-weapon. >?Without any evidence for this position, Occam's Razor suggests it's just another natural virus, originally in animals and transferred to humans via less than sanitary culinary practices? Adrian Ja. At some point it isn?t clear that Occam?s Razor will indicate an evolved virus however. Biotechnology is moving over this planet like a wave. It doesn?t require a lot of expensive equipment. It is easy enough to foresee that high school students will be fooling with CRISPR technologies and creating who knows what. Something that has been on my mind for a long time: we have a lot of rhetoric about how humans are destroying the planet and so forth. We know that nukes can wipe out a city. If biotech gives any person the ability to infect millions, a bio-tech enabled crazy loner, convinced that humanity is a cancer on Gaia perhaps, sooner or later she will do it. Oy. When these numbers came out, it surprised me in a way. The mortality rates for COVID-19 don?t look all that different from previous emergent viruses: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 15:02:36 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:02:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] We're not ready In-Reply-To: <002b01d5ed77$448f97d0$cdaec770$@rainier66.com> References: <000e01d5ecb4$c9a09370$5ce1ba50$@rainier66.com> <002b01d5ed77$448f97d0$cdaec770$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:11 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> When these numbers came out, it surprised me in a way. The mortality > rates for COVID-19 don?t look all that different from previous emergent > viruses:* > > https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ The common garden variety flu only has a mortality rate of .1% and yet last year it killed 80,000 people in the USA alone, and CORVID-19 seems to be more infectious than the flu. So I have some concerns, and Mike Pence being put in charge of stopping the pandemic does not exactly fill me with confidence given his bungling of another pandemic, Aids, when he was governor of Indiana; and his insistence that smoking doesn't cause cancer does not change my belief that his understanding of medical issues may be somewhat limited. But maybe it will all be OK, recent Presidential Medal of Freedom winner Rush Limbaugh assures us that CORVID-19 is really just the common cold. And the President tweeted it's all just a plot by the liberal media to get us to panic over the Coronavirus so a Democrat will get elected. He misspelled Coronavirus. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Feb 27 15:16:02 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 07:16:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] We're not ready In-Reply-To: References: <000e01d5ecb4$c9a09370$5ce1ba50$@rainier66.com> <002b01d5ed77$448f97d0$cdaec770$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004301d5ed80$d38911b0$7a9b3510$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] We're not ready On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:11 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > When these numbers came out, it surprised me in a way. The mortality rates for COVID-19 don?t look all that different from previous emergent viruses: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ >?The common garden variety flu only has a mortality rate of .1% and yet last year it killed 80,000 people in the USA alone, and CORVID-19 seems to be more infectious than the flu? The common flu is not an emergent virus. >?So I have some concerns, and Mike Pence being put in charge? John K Clark Sure. The lesson here is that governments do not stop diseases. The medical community does. Viruses don?t care about our laws. We see what happens to science when it gets politicized. Note the state of astronomy today, and compare it to the scientific chaos which is climate science. Until someone figures out a political angle to astronomy, we enjoy great progress, learning new and cool stuff every day. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 15:48:17 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:48:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <4F5719DA-DFC0-46B2-8BA6-D71959F633E4@gmail.com> References: <4F5719DA-DFC0-46B2-8BA6-D71959F633E4@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:49 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *The appropriate word would be ?intolerant? not ?fundamentalist? then.* > Even that's not the right word, I think "hard core" would be better. I could tolerate somebody in that I don't want them physically harmed or prevented from doing what they want to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean I respect them, my personal opinion of them could still be one of contempt. Not necessarily but it could be. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 17:25:36 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:25:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Innovation vs Biotech Rejectionism: We Need Your Help to Win the Science Wars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looks good to me. If you are interested in CRISPR and other gene research this seems to be a good tool bill w *Innovation vs Biotechnology Rejectionism* *We Need Your Help to Win the Science Wars* The Genetic Literacy Project has just rolled out an interactive *Global Gene Editing Regulatory Tracker and Index* . These groundbreaking tools monitor which countries incentivize the use of CRISPR and New Breeding Techniques that could help develop medical treatments, address diseases at the embryonic level, curb pest-driven diseases like malaria and Zika, and dramatically increase farm yields and sustainability. As readers and supporters of the GLP, you helped bring this resource to life?and we need your continued support to advance our work. Click on the panel to explore: Our CRISPR tracker allows everyone, from reporters and regulators to scientists and activists, to review the evolving regulatory status of gene editing in medicine, agriculture and gene drive pest control, country-to-country. The accompanying ?innovation index" compares which countries' regulations are most flexible. We also make it clear that fewer regulations are not always better; for example, gene drives are controversial and pose unique ethical and scientific challenges. Our goal at the GLP is not advocacy but transparency: ?Science Not Ideology?. Outside reviews of our tracker are coming in. Among many: Atlantic Council Senior Fellow Jamie Metzl calls the project an ?unparalleled resource? for the World Health Organization advisory committee on human gene editing. The Swedish Gene Technology Advisory Board says these tools will be used across Europe. The Gates Foundation alerted its science network of this new breakthrough tool. And the National Institutes of Health is exploring a partnership with the GLP to enable the responsible use of gene drive technologies. *Please review the tracker and index. Send us an email with your thoughts. Is this helpful? If you love it (or don?t!), tell us. What can we do to make it more transparent and more useful?to you.* Now, the hard reality. This project has required a tremendous commitment of financial resources and human capital. We have a tiny full-time staff of three people plus a handful of dedicated part-timers. We?ve had to tighten our belt on projects to make the tracker a reality. To continue to monitor and expose those who are undermining biotech innovation and roll out additional resources, we need you to pitch in. We depend on relatively small contributions to survive, averaging about $19.44. But 96% of our 50,000+ readers each day do not give. In other words, we need your support. Donate $50, $100, $500 or whatever you can afford?even if it?s $2.50, the cost of a cup of coffee. Consider a scheduled donation every month. Just click on the appropriate button below. Donate $25 Donate $50 Donate $100 Donate $250 Donate $500 Other Amount Please?don't just move on from this email. We need your support to deliver one-of-a-kind resources and our daily analysis of the ethical and scientific questions surrounding biotechnology. If everyone reading our site gave $3/month, the GLP would thrive for years. We are worth a cup of coffee. Sustainably yours, *Jon Entine, Executive Director* For questions, please send your email to Jon Entine, Executive Director, at jonentine at geneticliteracyproject.org *Your support is tax deductible. The Genetic Literacy Project is a non-profit arm of the 501(c)(3) Science Literacy Project.* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Website] *Copyright ? 2020 Science Literacy Project, All rights reserved.* You are receiving this email because you subscribed on GeneticLiteracyProject.org. Thank you! *Our mailing address is:* Science Literacy Project c/o Ludwig Business Consultants 1120 Welsh Road, Suite 200 North Wales, PA 19454 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can *update your preferences * or *unsubscribe from this list *. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 17:43:38 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:43:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: <4F5719DA-DFC0-46B2-8BA6-D71959F633E4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Or, like Voltaire is believed to have said, "I hate what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:50 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:49 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > *The appropriate word would be ?intolerant? not ?fundamentalist? >> then.* >> > > Even that's not the right word, I think "hard core" would be better. I > could tolerate somebody in that I don't want them physically harmed or > prevented from doing what they want to do, but that doesn't necessarily > mean I respect them, my personal opinion of them could still be one of > contempt. Not necessarily but it could be. > > 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 ben at zaiboc.net Thu Feb 27 17:54:52 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:54:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/02/2020 15:49, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Fundamentalism is found in religions (including the religion of atheism), OK, now you're just trolling. When I fill in any form that asks, in the 'religion' box, I put "None", not "Atheist". (Well, actually I put "Mind your own business", but if I was inclined to answer the question, that's how I would answer it) -- Ben Zaiboc From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 18:04:20 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:04:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If atheism is a nonbelief, how can it be a religion? To me, a belief in something is accepting at least part of it on faith. As scientists we don't take anything on faith. So science also is not a religion. bill w On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:56 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 27/02/2020 15:49, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > Fundamentalism is found in religions (including the religion of atheism), > > OK, now you're just trolling. > > When I fill in any form that asks, in the 'religion' box, I put "None", > not "Atheist". > (Well, actually I put "Mind your own business", but if I was inclined to > answer the question, that's how I would answer it) > > -- > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 19:25:56 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:25:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would say that about theism as well. Theism per se is not religion; it?s just belief that there is/are a god/gods. It doesn?t even mean the person believes based on faith. (For the record, I?m an atheist. I just want to be clear about the concepts.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Feb 27, 2020, at 10:06 AM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > If atheism is a nonbelief, how can it be a religion? To me, a belief in something is accepting at least part of it on faith. As scientists we don't take anything on faith. So science also is not a religion. > > bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 19:30:11 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:30:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agreed. Specific versions of theism - belief in specific gods - can be a religion, but the mere concept that there are gods with no further definition - such as whether they are worthy of worship, let alone their names and personalities - is not. On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:27 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I would say that about theism as well. Theism per se is not religion; it?s > just belief that there is/are a god/gods. It doesn?t even mean the person > believes based on faith. (For the record, I?m an atheist. I just want to be > clear about the concepts.) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > > On Feb 27, 2020, at 10:06 AM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > ? > If atheism is a nonbelief, how can it be a religion? To me, a belief in > something is accepting at least part of it on faith. As scientists we > don't take anything on faith. So science also is not a religion. > > 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 atymes at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 21:03:04 2020 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:03:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] We're not ready In-Reply-To: <004301d5ed80$d38911b0$7a9b3510$@rainier66.com> References: <000e01d5ecb4$c9a09370$5ce1ba50$@rainier66.com> <002b01d5ed77$448f97d0$cdaec770$@rainier66.com> <004301d5ed80$d38911b0$7a9b3510$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:17 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > We see what happens to science when it gets politicized. Note the state > of astronomy today, and compare it to the scientific chaos which is climate > science. Until someone figures out a political angle to astronomy, we > enjoy great progress, learning new and cool stuff every day. > The political angle to climate science is a commercial angle: kickbacks from operators of coal mines and other things that would be scaled back and face less customer demand if climate science was more fully accepted. I predict similar for space anything. Consider if space solar power were available and near-economically competitive with electricity from coal. What an astroturfed howl there would be over the "inevitable" "accidents" if the microwaved energy downlink were to go off-target and fry cities instead of being captured and converted as deigned, even if that never actually happens (or at least, never outside of sabotage) and even if there would be no damage if it did. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 22:38:34 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:38:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Now see, I would say that if the concept of a god or gods is vague, then maybe it's not a religion. But what if the person prays or talks to the gods? Now we are bringing in religious elements. How is atheism like nondairy creamer? Answer: Both refer to what they are not, not what they are. Which is why I prefer 'naturalist', even with the confusion. bill w On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:37 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Agreed. Specific versions of theism - belief in specific gods - can be a > religion, but the mere concept that there are gods with no further > definition - such as whether they are worthy of worship, let alone their > names and personalities - is not. > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:27 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I would say that about theism as well. Theism per se is not religion; >> it?s just belief that there is/are a god/gods. It doesn?t even mean the >> person believes based on faith. (For the record, I?m an atheist. I just >> want to be clear about the concepts.) >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> Sample my Kindle books at: >> >> http://author.to/DanUst >> >> On Feb 27, 2020, at 10:06 AM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> ? >> If atheism is a nonbelief, how can it be a religion? To me, a belief in >> something is accepting at least part of it on faith. As scientists we >> don't take anything on faith. So science also is not a religion. >> >> bill w >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 22:51:50 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:51:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Corvid-19 Message-ID: China says the spread of Corvid-19 is slowing down, but it's not clear if their statistics can be trusted, even if they can be China has used brutal measures to contain it, like locking down 760 million people which is more than half the population and virtually blockading Wutan, a city larger than any in the USA; such measures are unlikely to be repeated in the west. Meanwhile South Korea, who's statistics don't have the same cloud of suspicion on them that those in China have, reports the virus is spreading faster than it is in China. Iran says 139 people have been infected including the deputy health minister and 19 have died, and those two just numbers don't make sense together. Iran also said 24 people were arrested for "virus rumour-mongering", and that may give you a clue as to the reliability of their statistics. On a unrelated matter (well... maybe not entirely unrelated) are there any constitutional scholars out there? What happens if a presidential candidate dies after being nominated but before the election, or dies after winning the election but before being sworn in? I ask because Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are all in their 70's, most of them their late 70's. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 22:57:44 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:57:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That depends on the context. Naturally, a distinction like atheist/theist covers such a broad range because it?s so much abstract (not necessarily vague). It?s not really meant to be more precise. Of course, many atheists are scientific realists or into philosophical naturalism. Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Feb 27, 2020, at 2:41 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > ? > Now see, I would say that if the concept of a god or gods is vague, then maybe it's not a religion. But what if the person prays or talks to the gods? Now we are bringing in religious elements. > > How is atheism like nondairy creamer? Answer: Both refer to what they are not, not what they are. Which is why I prefer 'naturalist', even with the confusion. > > bill w > >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:37 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: >> Agreed. Specific versions of theism - belief in specific gods - can be a religion, but the mere concept that there are gods with no further definition - such as whether they are worthy of worship, let alone their names and personalities - is not. >> >>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:27 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: >>> I would say that about theism as well. Theism per se is not religion; it?s just belief that there is/are a god/gods. It doesn?t even mean the person believes based on faith. (For the record, I?m an atheist. I just want to be clear about the concepts.) >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 23:09:41 2020 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:09:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Corvid-19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <258C7561-A782-48CD-8A5E-405F4A989C0B@gmail.com> Some people are under the impression that Asian people will die more commonly from COVID-19 than Westerners. They base this on a rumor about ACE2 which has been debunked. In China, perhaps the spread has slowed. However, when the restrictions are lifted, it will likely begin again as it did before, but in Beijing or Guangdong (Canton). Korea, Italy, and Japan will likely be better indicators. I find it interesting that Egypt has only experienced one case so far. Given overall conditions in the country, I am expecting far more. While it would be difficult to initially restrict personal liberty as they did in China, I believe when panic and rioting set in, Martial Law will be declared as needed, and quarantined and curfews and other restrictions will be enforced by MPs. Otherwise, probably the government could use old TB laws. SR Ballard > On Feb 27, 2020, at 4:51 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > China says the spread of Corvid-19 is slowing down, but it's not clear if their statistics can be trusted, even if they can be China has used brutal measures to contain it, like locking down 760 million people which is more than half the population and virtually blockading Wutan, a city larger than any in the USA; such measures are unlikely to be repeated in the west. Meanwhile South Korea, who's statistics don't have the same cloud of suspicion on them that those in China have, reports the virus is spreading faster than it is in China. Iran says 139 people have been infected including the deputy health minister and 19 have died, and those two just numbers don't make sense together. Iran also said 24 people were arrested for "virus rumour-mongering", and that may give you a clue as to the reliability of their statistics. > > On a unrelated matter (well... maybe not entirely unrelated) are there any constitutional scholars out there? What happens if a presidential candidate dies after being nominated but before the election, or dies after winning the election but before being sworn in? I ask because Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are all in their 70's, most of them their late 70's. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 23:12:56 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:12:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Corvid-19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's clear cut if they die after electoral votes are counted but before swear in. The VP elect becomes POTUS under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment. Prior to that point, it is not clear cut, meaning the Constitution is quiet on it. It all depends on if it's ruled that they are President Elect. If so, VP elect takes it. Otherwise it probably ends up in the courts. On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 5:53 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On a unrelated matter (well... maybe not entirely unrelated) are there any > constitutional scholars out there? What happens if a presidential candidate > dies after being nominated but before the election, or dies after winning > the election but before being sworn in? I ask because Bernie Sanders, > Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are all in > their 70's, most of them their late 70's. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 23:16:00 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:16:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Corvid-19 In-Reply-To: <258C7561-A782-48CD-8A5E-405F4A989C0B@gmail.com> References: <258C7561-A782-48CD-8A5E-405F4A989C0B@gmail.com> Message-ID: True martial law with suspension of habeas corpus would not go well in the US unlike other locales. It's more likely the National Guard would be deployed in problematic areas. On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 6:12 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Some people are under the impression that Asian people will die more > commonly from COVID-19 than Westerners. They base this on a rumor about > ACE2 which has been debunked. > > In China, perhaps the spread has slowed. However, when the restrictions > are lifted, it will likely begin again as it did before, but in Beijing or > Guangdong (Canton). Korea, Italy, and Japan will likely be better > indicators. > > I find it interesting that Egypt has only experienced one case so far. > Given overall conditions in the country, I am expecting far more. > > While it would be difficult to initially restrict personal liberty as they > did in China, I believe when panic and rioting set in, Martial Law will be > declared as needed, and quarantined and curfews and other restrictions will > be enforced by MPs. Otherwise, probably the government could use old TB > laws. > > SR Ballard > > On Feb 27, 2020, at 4:51 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > China says the spread of Corvid-19 is slowing down, but it's not clear if > their statistics can be trusted, even if they can be China has used brutal > measures to contain it, like locking down 760 million people which is more > than half the population and virtually blockading Wutan, a city larger than > any in the USA; such measures are unlikely to be repeated in the west. > Meanwhile South Korea, who's statistics don't have the same cloud of > suspicion on them that those in China have, reports the virus is spreading > faster than it is in China. Iran says 139 people have been infected > including the deputy health minister and 19 have died, and those two just > numbers don't make sense together. Iran also said 24 people were arrested > for "virus rumour-mongering", and that may give you a clue as to the > reliability of their statistics. > > On a unrelated matter (well... maybe not entirely unrelated) are there any > constitutional scholars out there? What happens if a presidential candidate > dies after being nominated but before the election, or dies after winning > the election but before being sworn in? I ask because Bernie Sanders, > Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are all in > their 70's, most of them their late 70's. > > 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 avant at sollegro.com Thu Feb 27 19:42:57 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:42:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Pain and anesthesia was Re: Possible seat of consciousness found Message-ID: <20200227114257.Horde.zUgaI1hlobcq1ZGbhrdgSoe@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Henrik Ohrstrom: > Seems like the discussion is back at : > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie > Again........ Indeed. Philosophical zombies seem to only exist in philosophy and not in reality. I think the reason is that in philosophy, something is either conscious or its not. In science, however, consciousness is a gradient with no sharp boundaries. Even a simple analog thermostat could be thought of as having a single "mote" of conscious awareness devoted entirely to monitoring the temperature of its environment. It seems fair to say that AlphaZero is aware of everything that transpires on its virtual game boards. However, the mechanism by which an integrated self or ego arises out of a large and disparate, but coherent set of such motes of awareness still eludes me. In any case, P-zombies are upon reflection a truly repugnant philosophical idea. The notion that a being that by every objective measure was intelligent and aware of its environment could be denied the dignity, rights, and consideration afforded to all conscious beings because of an arbitrary label that by definition is supposed to be assigned against evidence to the contrary is the premise of much dystopian and apocalyptic science fiction. > My personal take on this is that consciousness is variable and subject to > conditions surrounding the person/subject. > When I am stressed enough, tired enough or in other ways impaired (not > drunk since university) I do not think that I am properly conscious. > > At the same time I do know that I can exhibit a behaviour that my > surroundings interpretate as intelligent. I think everybody has days where they feel less conscious than others. It does lend evidence to the notion of a gradient of consciousness. > (How is that I know such things? > As an senior anesthetist, I do get to experience that level of stress more > often than I enjoy.) I had forgotten you were an expert on anesthesia. Your insights into anesthesia actually helped make the results of the Neuron paper by Redinbaugh et al a bit less strange to me. > Anyway if in an situation where your physical incarnation ( what is the > term for everything you that is not the conscious part ?) needs to act > fast and follow a more or less automated program, then your consciousness > is a hindrance and if it interferes with proceedings you loose time and > effectiveness. What you are describing here is popularly referred to as a flow state, immersion, or being "in the zone". I think it is a specialized state of focused consciousness rather than a lack of consciousness per se. You are focused on a task or your environment rather than on your ego self. As far as a term for everything but the slow deliberate executive function of ego consciousness, I am unaware of any term of art more descriptive than the subconscious brain and body? Perhaps substrate? > So when writing a lecture my consciousness is up front, when my RN has > fumbled an intubation, or in the trauma room, I most certainly am not > leading with conscious thought. > The rest of the day my conscious is dealing with logistics and some other > part of me is handling the hands on stuff. Have you never achieved a full immersion flow state while writing a lecture? How about when delivering one? I think I have in both writing and speaking as well as during driving or other manual tasks. [snip] > Can a subject with disputable consciousness feel the qualia of pain? > This is in the same category as tree fall forest sound stuff. If we block > the expression of pain in a sedated body (is there an consciousness? I > don't know) is there pain if there's no one to feel it? > Seems like there's not. When we quit sedation and allow whatever level of > consciousness to return, the patient do not express any signs of problems > related to the pain. This actually makes a lot of sense to me. If the pain signals can't be integrated into overall consciousness, then they cannot be remembered. So without integration, there is nobody home to feel and remember the pain. We become a bunch of separate sensory "thermostats" instead of a unified conscious self. > IE perform surgery on a patient who is treated with propofol ( hypnotic > agent with dubious pain effectiveness) block sympathetic response to pain > with ultrafast beta-blocker ( that is surgery without pain medication) and > both surgeon and patient are happy afterwards. > This always make me feel qualia-schmalia....... The monkeys in the Neuron paper were treated with propofol, yet when their thalamus was stimulated with an electrical current, they could reach for objects in their visual field and feel pain in response to toe-pinching. This suggests that the thalamus is responsible for the binding of nerve impulses into qualia that are perceived by conscious awareness. So the perception of qualia arise from disparate nervous signals in the same fashion (and perhaps using the same mechanism) that a perceived unified self arises from a billions of separate neurons all doing their own thing. That is amazing. Stuart LaForge From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 01:29:08 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:29:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] North Carolina girl wrestler dominates boys to become first ever female state champion Message-ID: https://abc11.com/sports/nc-wrestler-becomes-first-female-to-win-state-championship/5968831/ AFAIK, Heaven Fitch is a cisgendered person competing in this sport. Note how this doesn?t fit the conservative anti-trans or binary scripts. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 01:29:23 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:29:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Pain and anesthesia was Re: Possible seat of consciousness found In-Reply-To: <20200227114257.Horde.zUgaI1hlobcq1ZGbhrdgSoe@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20200227114257.Horde.zUgaI1hlobcq1ZGbhrdgSoe@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Stuart wrote: However, the mechanism by which an integrated self or ego arises out of a large and disparate, but coherent set of such motes of awareness still eludes me. Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban I just finished this book and was very interested in the data. He makes a pretty good case that there is no integrated self. bill w On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:15 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Quoting Henrik Ohrstrom: > > > > Seems like the discussion is back at : > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie > > Again........ > > Indeed. Philosophical zombies seem to only exist in philosophy and not > in reality. I think the reason is that in philosophy, something is > either conscious or its not. In science, however, consciousness is a > gradient with no sharp boundaries. Even a simple analog thermostat > could be thought of as having a single "mote" of conscious awareness > devoted entirely to monitoring the temperature of its environment. It > seems fair to say that AlphaZero is aware of everything that > transpires on its virtual game boards. > > However, the mechanism by which an integrated self or ego arises out > of a large and disparate, but coherent set of such motes of awareness > still eludes me. > > In any case, P-zombies are upon reflection a truly repugnant > philosophical idea. The notion that a being that by every objective > measure was intelligent and aware of its environment could be denied > the dignity, rights, and consideration afforded to all conscious > beings because of an arbitrary label that by definition is supposed to > be assigned against evidence to the contrary is the premise of much > dystopian and apocalyptic science fiction. > > > My personal take on this is that consciousness is variable and subject to > > conditions surrounding the person/subject. > > When I am stressed enough, tired enough or in other ways impaired (not > > drunk since university) I do not think that I am properly conscious. > > > > At the same time I do know that I can exhibit a behaviour that my > > surroundings interpretate as intelligent. > > I think everybody has days where they feel less conscious than others. > It does lend evidence to the notion of a gradient of consciousness. > > > (How is that I know such things? > > As an senior anesthetist, I do get to experience that level of stress > more > > often than I enjoy.) > > I had forgotten you were an expert on anesthesia. Your insights into > anesthesia actually helped make the results of the Neuron paper by > Redinbaugh et al a bit less strange to me. > > > Anyway if in an situation where your physical incarnation ( what is the > > term for everything you that is not the conscious part ?) needs to act > > fast and follow a more or less automated program, then your consciousness > > is a hindrance and if it interferes with proceedings you loose time and > > effectiveness. > > What you are describing here is popularly referred to as a flow state, > immersion, or being "in the zone". I think it is a specialized state > of focused consciousness rather than a lack of consciousness per se. > You are focused on a task or your environment rather than on your ego > self. > > As far as a term for everything but the slow deliberate executive > function of ego consciousness, I am unaware of any term of art more > descriptive than the subconscious brain and body? Perhaps substrate? > > > So when writing a lecture my consciousness is up front, when my RN has > > fumbled an intubation, or in the trauma room, I most certainly am not > > leading with conscious thought. > > The rest of the day my conscious is dealing with logistics and some other > > part of me is handling the hands on stuff. > > Have you never achieved a full immersion flow state while writing a > lecture? How about when delivering one? I think I have in both writing > and speaking as well as during driving or other manual tasks. > > [snip] > > Can a subject with disputable consciousness feel the qualia of pain? > > This is in the same category as tree fall forest sound stuff. If we block > > the expression of pain in a sedated body (is there an consciousness? I > > don't know) is there pain if there's no one to feel it? > > Seems like there's not. When we quit sedation and allow whatever level of > > consciousness to return, the patient do not express any signs of problems > > related to the pain. > > This actually makes a lot of sense to me. If the pain signals can't be > integrated into overall consciousness, then they cannot be remembered. > So without integration, there is nobody home to feel and remember the > pain. We become a bunch of separate sensory "thermostats" instead of a > unified conscious self. > > > IE perform surgery on a patient who is treated with propofol ( hypnotic > > agent with dubious pain effectiveness) block sympathetic response to pain > > with ultrafast beta-blocker ( that is surgery without pain medication) > and > > both surgeon and patient are happy afterwards. > > This always make me feel qualia-schmalia....... > > The monkeys in the Neuron paper were treated with propofol, yet when > their thalamus was stimulated with an electrical current, they could > reach for objects in their visual field and feel pain in response to > toe-pinching. This suggests that the thalamus is responsible for the > binding of nerve impulses into qualia that are perceived by conscious > awareness. So the perception of qualia arise from disparate nervous > signals in the same fashion (and perhaps using the same mechanism) > that a perceived unified self arises from a billions of separate > neurons all doing their own thing. That is amazing. > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 03:22:32 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:22:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Corvid-19 In-Reply-To: References: <258C7561-A782-48CD-8A5E-405F4A989C0B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 6:28 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> True martial law with suspension of habeas corpus would not go well in > the US unlike other locales.* I wonder how well "delaying" the November election due to the emergency would go down with the American people, historically even the Civil War wasn't considered a extreme enough emergency for that to happen, but in the current political atmosphere .... John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 28 03:43:09 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Corvid-19 In-Reply-To: References: <258C7561-A782-48CD-8A5E-405F4A989C0B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01d5ede9$329c61d0$97d52570$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat >?"delaying" the November election ? even the Civil War wasn't considered a extreme enough emergency for that to happen.... John K Clark The system was very well-designed. It has stood through a civil war, two world wars, several depressions and recessions, epidemics and skeptics. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 06:54:24 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 07:54:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No trolling intended Ben, sorry if my post came across that way. I consider some expressions of atheism as a religion, because they exhibit many defining features of organized religions: Certainty of having all the answers, us against them, intolerance of those who disagree, at times open hatred. These are the bad features of organized religions, so in a certain sense atheism (of the militant, intolerant sort) is worse than traditional religions, because it has the bad features of religion without the good ones. I often say that atheism is the only religion with a really boring mythology. Of course this applies to *some expressions* of atheism (of the militant, intolerant sort). I consider open-minded, live-and-let-live atheists as fellow seekers. G. On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 6:56 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote: > > On 27/02/2020 15:49, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > Fundamentalism is found in religions (including the religion of atheism), > > OK, now you're just trolling. > > When I fill in any form that asks, in the 'religion' box, I put "None", > not "Atheist". > (Well, actually I put "Mind your own business", but if I was inclined to > answer the question, that's how I would answer it) > > -- > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 07:34:04 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 23:34:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Corvid-19 In-Reply-To: <000a01d5ede9$329c61d0$97d52570$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d5ede9$329c61d0$97d52570$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <8CD50092-E9DE-4CDF-90EC-3A0D6DC51C6C@gmail.com> On Feb 27, 2020, at 7:50 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat > > >?"delaying" the November election ? even the Civil War wasn't considered a extreme enough emergency for that to happen.... John K Clark > > > The system was very well-designed. It has stood through a civil war, two world wars, several depressions and recessions, epidemics and skeptics. Um, surviving through the two world wears was very different for the US than for, say, participants in Europe or East Asia. So they're not really good tests of social or political stability. And the economic downturns the US has experienced, including the Great Depression, which was really bad from my reading (did anyone here love through as an adult or even a teen?), here don?t seem anywhere as severe as, say, the German hyperinflation in the early 1920s, where the currency system just plain collapsed. (Yeah, the Great Depressions had some analogies of that, but the currency system didn?t collapse.) Regarding the US Civil War, while it was horrendous, it was mainly fought in the South and wasn?t a civil war in the same sense that, say, the Roman (several), English, Russian, Chinese, or Cambodian civil wars were civil wars. Instead, it was an attempt by the South to break away (to continue its institution of chattel slavery) rather than an attempt to wrest control of the entire nation (as in the other civil wars listed. One word of caution too: a healthy young person might suffer all kinds of stresses and shocks or might just be lucky and then one day, later in their life, something that might have seemed minor years earlier lays them low. For instance, bar hopping at 21 seems to have little or no day after issues, but do you know many 41 or 51 year olds that keep up the same pace? My point here is the US today isn?t exactly the same society or polity as it was in 1865 or 1918 or the 1937 or 1945. Is it better to weather crises of those earlier magnitudes? I don?t know. I think other factors play into this, such as elite coherence and overall social coherence. That said, I don?t think current conditions will lead to an immediate breakdown of the national political system. I do think the US is kind of reaching the Marian stage of its republic ? via analogy with Rome. But like many such analogies, this one is loose and the US is very different from the late Roman Republic. (If it does follow the analogy more closely expect worse than Trump in coming years and for more internal police and military actions.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 07:53:48 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:53:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Extropy Magazine archive: Almost complete, missing only issue #2 Message-ID: The Extropy Magazine archive is almost complete! Only issue #2 is missing. Does anyone have issue #2? If you do, please scan it and upload it to the Github repository. Don't bother with OCR etc. if you don't have time, just make a quick raw scan and we'll think of what to do next. https://github.com/Extropians/Extropy From ben at zaiboc.net Fri Feb 28 09:37:51 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:37:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21314962-9513-ca8f-b95d-c84bbb423d17@zaiboc.net> On 28/02/2020 07:34, Giulio Prisco wrote: > No trolling intended Ben, sorry if my post came across that way. > > I consider some expressions of atheism as a religion, because they > exhibit many defining features of organized religions: Certainty of > having all the answers, us against them, intolerance of those who > disagree, at times open hatred. These are the bad features of > organized religions, so in a certain sense atheism (of the militant, > intolerant sort) is worse than traditional religions, because it has > the bad features of religion without the good ones. I often say that > atheism is the only religion with a really boring mythology. > > Of course this applies to*some expressions* of atheism (of the > militant, intolerant sort). I consider open-minded, live-and-let-live > atheists as fellow seekers. You're talking about two different things. As Richard Dawkins has said, atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. If someone asks me what team sports I participate in, I don't (usually) reply "not playing football". If I try to stop other people from playing football, that's not a consequence of my not playing football, it's a consequence of my being an arsehole. Not playing football doesn't require one to try to prevent football-playing in others. In fact, it doesn't require (or, in itself lead to) anything except the lack of personal football-playing. On the other hand, most religions do require their subjects to suppress other religions, in various ways, up to and including killing 'non-believers', in the more extreme (usually 'fundamentalist') versions. So if someone is an atheist, and a bigot, those are two different things. Atheism does not require one to be a bigot. Christianity, for example (in most of its forms), does. You may hold up the example of Jainism as an example of a non-intolerant religion. Good for Jainism. That does't make atheism a religion, though. Jainism is still a set of beliefs. Getting into the actual definition of the word 'religion' is a rabbit warren, with no real satisfactory conclusion. Some people have even concluded that the word is not really meaningful at all, but most people have something in mind when they use it. And all of the various somethings that they have in mind are not applicable to atheism, because they refer to the /presence/ of various factors, not the lack of them. This is the core concept that it seems many people have trouble understanding about atheism, and is maybe why it gets misrepresented so much. It's not a belief, not a religion, not a social movement, or a club or a political stance, or even a world-view. It's simply the lack of a belief in supernatural beings and phenomena. The fact that some people who lack such beliefs are also bigots is beside the point, and calling someone a 'fundamentalist atheist' is meaningless. It's like talking about a temperature below absolute zero (without any exotic physics, please). Similarly, calling someone a 'militant atheist' is like calling someone a violent non-golfer. They may be a violent person, but they cannot violently not play golf, it's simply not possible. And if they violently try to prevent other people from playing golf, well, they're just an arsehole. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 10:54:18 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 05:54:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Corvid-19 In-Reply-To: <8CD50092-E9DE-4CDF-90EC-3A0D6DC51C6C@gmail.com> References: <000a01d5ede9$329c61d0$97d52570$@rainier66.com> <8CD50092-E9DE-4CDF-90EC-3A0D6DC51C6C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 2:36 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I don?t think current conditions will lead to an immediate breakdown of > the national political system.* That depends on how extensive the infection is and that is a big unknown due to the irresponsibly slow response by the government in making DNA Corvid-19 testing kits. South Korea, a country with one seventh the population of the USA, has tested 66,652 of its people and found 1766 confirmed cases. The USA has 60 confirmed cases (not 15 as the President said in his press conference) but due to the severe shortage of test kits to this day only 445 Americans have ever been tested, the city of Hong Kong tests 1000 of its citizens every day. Only about a dozen state and local health departments in the USA have any testing kits at all and are so rare they must be carefully rationed, California with a population of 40 million only has 200 kits. Meanwhile South Korea manufactures thousands of kits a day because they took this pandemic seriously from day one. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 11:28:34 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 06:28:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? Message-ID: It may mean nothing but today the Pope canceled his regular schedule due to a "slight indisposition". Italy has the highest Corvid-19 rate in Europe and during Ash Wednesday mass the Pope was seen coughing and blowing his nose, he later shook hands with people and kissed a baby although for some reason when he net with a group of visiting Bishops they did not embrace him or kiss his ring as is customary. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 15:25:59 2020 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 10:25:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just a quick FYI: it's "COVID" (coronavirus disease) not corvid--no crows involved. On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:30 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > It may mean nothing but today the Pope canceled his regular schedule due > to a "slight indisposition". Italy has the highest Corvid-19 rate in Europe > and during Ash Wednesday mass the Pope was seen coughing and blowing his > nose, he later shook hands with people and kissed a baby although for some > reason when he net with a group of visiting Bishops they did not embrace > him or kiss his ring as is customary. > > 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 Fri Feb 28 16:12:29 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:29 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: Just a quick FYI: it's "COVID" (coronavirus disease) not corvid--no crows > involved. Yeah, but on Google you'll find it spelled both ways, however its name is mutating much faster than the virus itself is. First it was "Wuhan virus" then it was "novel coronavirus-2019" then it was Covid-19" and now we're told its newofficial name is "SARS-CoV-2", but that's not very catchy so I don't think its new name is going to stick. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 28 16:28:36 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:28:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:29 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > wrote: Just a quick FYI: it's "COVID" (coronavirus disease) not corvid--no crows involved. If the pope were to catch a virus and perish, one wonders about the effect on the believers. Surprising he couldn?t just pray that away or something. They really need to rethink this whole kiss the ring jazz. That is the definition of Bad Idea. Here we have largely replaced handshakes with fist bumps and even elbow bumps are often seen now. Seems like the could work out a deal that doesn?t involve lips or orifices of any kind. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 16:32:48 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:32:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The current Pope is not very popular with many Catholics, at least outside of Socialist LatAm circles. I don't think he'd be missed too much by a significant portion of US Catholics, many of whom question whether he is a legitimate Bishop of Rome...I assume they'd take it as confirmation of their position if he was smote down. On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:29 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *John Clark via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:29 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > Just a quick FYI: it's "COVID" (coronavirus disease) not corvid--no crows > involved. > > > > > > If the pope were to catch a virus and perish, one wonders about the effect > on the believers. Surprising he couldn?t just pray that away or something. > > > > They really need to rethink this whole kiss the ring jazz. That is the > definition of Bad Idea. Here we have largely replaced handshakes with fist > bumps and even elbow bumps are often seen now. Seems like the could work > out a deal that doesn?t involve lips or orifices of any kind. > > > > 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 Fri Feb 28 17:27:46 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:27:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Feb 28, 2020, at 8:38 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Just a quick FYI: it's "COVID" (coronavirus disease) not corvid--no crows involved. > > If the pope were to catch a virus and perish, one wonders about the effect on the believers. Surprising he couldn?t just pray that away or something. Given that all but the last two popes have died (and neither of them is likely to be immune from death) and that seems to have had little effect on their followers? faith, why do think that would change now? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 19:11:40 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:11:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:31 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > If the pope were to catch a virus and perish, one wonders about the > effect on the believers. Probably it would have no effect at all, they didn't come to their religious belief through logic so logic can't destroy them. Meanwhile the World Health Organization, which unlike all US government agencies doesn't need clearance from Mike Pence before they can say something on this subject, has just raised the global risk factor the new coronavirus poses from "high" to ?very high?. The head of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis said because of the virus interest rate cuts will probably be necessary; normally talk like that would cheer up the stock market but not this time, probably because its well known that rates are already so low there is little the Federal Reserve can do to effect the economy, they've already used up most of their ammunition. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 19:39:00 2020 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 20:39:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Serious research, no? Message-ID: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLny3B-ang The ethics committee of North Korea has been a great supporter of the research presented. ;) /Henrik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 20:48:06 2020 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 07:48:06 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 03:39, Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The current Pope is not very popular with many Catholics, at least outside > of Socialist LatAm circles. I don't think he'd be missed too much by a > significant portion of US Catholics, many of whom question whether he is a > legitimate Bishop of Rome...I assume they'd take it as confirmation of > their position if he was smote down. > My impression was that he is the most popular pope for years, with the main negative being the sexual abuse scandal scandal, a problem for the whole church rather than specifically the pope. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 28 21:16:26 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:16:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006101d5ee7c$56955400$03bffc00$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat >?rates are already so low there is little the Federal Reserve can do to effect the economy, they've already used up most of their ammunition?John K Clark The bad part is that the Federal Reserve has any ammunition of any kind. The constitution doesn?t say anything about a Federal Reserve, and we didn?t vote it into existence. I don?t see the wisdom in any fiat organization having or using any kind of ammunition to influence the economy. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 28 21:20:05 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:20:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] posting for jeff davis Message-ID: <006a01d5ee7c$d94d12c0$8be73840$@rainier66.com> From: Jeff Davis Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 11:54 AM To: Spike Jones Subject: Corona virus question >?Spike, could you post this to the list? Here ya go, me lad! Jeff? Where the heck have you been? We have missed the heck outta ya. spike ******************************* Corona virus question Is it reasonable that the blood plasma of survivors would contain high levels of antibodies to the virus? If so, can anyone speak to the possible use of these antibodies to treat the infection? Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles ****************************************** Thanks, Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 21:34:40 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:34:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: <006101d5ee7c$56955400$03bffc00$@rainier66.com> References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> <006101d5ee7c$56955400$03bffc00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:19 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *> The bad part is that the Federal Reserve has any ammunition of any > kind. * > If we were starting from scratch there might be better ways to go but we're very far from starting from scratch so we're stuck with it. Things are going to be chaotic enough without experimentally switching over to gold and making Australia the most powerful force in the world economy with South Africa being #2, or even worse switching to Bitcoin and have Satoshi Nakamoto become emperor of the world. It's just not practical to change at this late date. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 21:49:48 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:49:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] posting for jeff davis In-Reply-To: <006a01d5ee7c$d94d12c0$8be73840$@rainier66.com> References: <006a01d5ee7c$d94d12c0$8be73840$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: > *From:* Jeff Davis > > Corona virus question*Is it reasonable that the blood plasma of survivors > would contain high levels of antibodies to the virus? If so, can anyone > speak to the possible use of these antibodies to treat the infection?* > Virus antibody treatment is already being tried in Asia and although there is no official word yet on the results I'd be surprised if it didn't help, but to treat everybody that gets sick you'd need to get serious and use genetic engineering to brew up a huge amount of it, and right now the USA can't seem to even make the far smaller amount needed for virus diagnostic test kits, although South Korea certainly can. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 22:13:32 2020 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:13:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Four pieces of evidence from before the Big Bang Message-ID: These 4 Pieces Of Evidence Have Already Taken Us Beyond The Big Bang Ethan Siegel Feb 28 2020 Quote: Perhaps the most compelling part of any remarkable story is its origin: how it all began. We can take that question back as far as we want, asking what came before and gave rise to whatever we were asking about previously, until we find ourselves pondering the origin of the Universe itself. This is perhaps the greatest origin story of all, which occupied the minds of poets, philosophers, theologians and scientists for countless millennia. It was only in the 20th century that science began to make progress on that question, however, eventually resulting in the scientific theory of the Big Bang. Early on, the Universe was extremely hot and dense, and has expanded, cooled, and gravitated to become what it is today. But the Big Bang itself wasn?t the beginning, after all, and we have four independent pieces of scientific evidence that show us what came before it and set it up. -------------- BillK From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 28 23:21:25 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:21:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> <006101d5ee7c$56955400$03bffc00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00c101d5ee8d$cbfaac20$63f00460$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat ubject: Re: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:19 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: >> The bad part is that the Federal Reserve has any ammunition of any kind. >?If we were starting from scratch there might be better ways to go but we're very far from starting from scratch so we're stuck with it. ? It's just not practical to change at this late date. John K Clark We don?t need to restart anything. All we need is for market forces to keep interest rates in the basement so there is nowhere to cut to. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Feb 28 23:26:54 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:26:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14853517-06C4-4ACA-9966-6E91EBECF4D6@gmail.com> On Feb 28, 2020, at 1:37 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:19 PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >> > The bad part is that the Federal Reserve has any ammunition of any kind. >> > If we were starting from scratch there might be better ways to go but we're very far from starting from scratch so we're stuck with it. Things are going to be chaotic enough without experimentally switching over to gold and making Australia the most powerful force in the world economy with South Africa being #2, or even worse switching to Bitcoin and have Satoshi Nakamoto become emperor of the world. It's just not practical to change at this late date. The libertarian switch would be to not having government involved in money ? not in mandating gold, Bitcoin, or whatever. I?m not sure one will ever have the optimal time to dismantle the current system ? in other words, if there?ll ever be a time it?ll be painless. It?s kind of like abolishing slavery. It?s going to cause disruption, but that can?t be the go to argue against it. Also, discussing alternatives here should never be quashed with such concerns. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Feb 28 23:51:40 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:51:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: <14853517-06C4-4ACA-9966-6E91EBECF4D6@gmail.com> References: <14853517-06C4-4ACA-9966-6E91EBECF4D6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00ec01d5ee92$066d4d00$1347e700$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat >?The libertarian switch would be to not having government involved in money ? not in mandating gold, Bitcoin, or whatever. >?I?m not sure one will ever have the optimal time to dismantle the current system ? in other words, if there?ll ever be a time it?ll be painless. It?s kind of like abolishing slavery. It?s going to cause disruption, but that can?t be the go to argue against it. >?Also, discussing alternatives here should never be quashed with such concerns. >?Regards, Dan Dan I want to think we are seeing the end of Keynesian economic theory. I am more than ready to have Hayek taught in schools as the way. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 00:23:09 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:23:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: <00ec01d5ee92$066d4d00$1347e700$@rainier66.com> References: <14853517-06C4-4ACA-9966-6E91EBECF4D6@gmail.com> <00ec01d5ee92$066d4d00$1347e700$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Hayek or Keynes - are either of these theories predicated on the assumption of the rational investor? Kahneman and Tversky blew that sky high, right? bill w On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:53 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat > > > > >?The libertarian switch would be to not having government involved in > money ? not in mandating gold, Bitcoin, or whatever. > > > > >?I?m not sure one will ever have the optimal time to dismantle the > current system ? in other words, if there?ll ever be a time it?ll be > painless. It?s kind of like abolishing slavery. It?s going to cause > disruption, but that can?t be the go to argue against it. > > >?Also, discussing alternatives here should never be quashed with such > concerns. > > >?Regards, Dan > > > > > > Dan I want to think we are seeing the end of Keynesian economic theory. I > am more than ready to have Hayek taught in schools as the way. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 00:33:23 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:33:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Four pieces of evidence from before the Big Bang In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another silly question from me: universe origin theories are not scientific, right? No observations possible. I assume the universe as it is could have been produced several different ways, so there will never be any solution, any final answer. bill w On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:16 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > These 4 Pieces Of Evidence Have Already Taken Us Beyond The Big Bang > Ethan Siegel Feb 28 2020 > > < > https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/these-4-pieces-of-evidence-have-already-taken-us-beyond-the-big-bang-5d0005bad7ed > > > > Quote: > Perhaps the most compelling part of any remarkable story is its > origin: how it all began. We can take that question back as far as we > want, asking what came before and gave rise to whatever we were asking > about previously, until we find ourselves pondering the origin of the > Universe itself. This is perhaps the greatest origin story of all, > which occupied the minds of poets, philosophers, theologians and > scientists for countless millennia. > > It was only in the 20th century that science began to make progress on > that question, however, eventually resulting in the scientific theory > of the Big Bang. Early on, the Universe was extremely hot and dense, > and has expanded, cooled, and gravitated to become what it is today. > But the Big Bang itself wasn?t the beginning, after all, and we have > four independent pieces of scientific evidence that show us what came > before it and set it up. > -------------- > > 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 Sat Feb 29 00:49:56 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:49:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA091A6-C5F9-43B4-8D00-DEE1971289FD@gmail.com> On Feb 28, 2020, at 4:25 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Hayek or Keynes - are either of these theories predicated on the assumption of the rational investor? Kahneman and Tversky blew that sky high, right? Neither Keynesian or Hayekian economics pr?sum?s a rational investor. Keynes, in fact, argued that investors are often illogical and moved by ?animal spirits.? You?re perhaps thinking of neoclassical economics. (I?m leaving aside the wider field of Austrian the economics, the notion of rationality is merely used to mean having a purpose. Thus, someone might bay at the Moon because she or he believes this will ring back the text files they accidentally deleted and repeatedly do this despite it never working and someone like Mises would say the behavior is rational from the perspective that they?re doing it for a goal ? even if you and I can plainly see it?s foolish if funny to watch.;) Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 00:57:18 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:57:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: <4AA091A6-C5F9-43B4-8D00-DEE1971289FD@gmail.com> References: <4AA091A6-C5F9-43B4-8D00-DEE1971289FD@gmail.com> Message-ID: thanks dan bill w On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Feb 28, 2020, at 4:25 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hayek or Keynes - are either of these theories predicated on the > assumption of the rational investor? Kahneman and Tversky blew that sky > high, right? > > > Neither Keynesian or Hayekian economics pr?sum?s a rational investor. Keynes, > in fact, argued that investors are often illogical and moved by ?animal > spirits.? You?re perhaps thinking of neoclassical economics. > > (I?m leaving aside the wider field of Austrian the economics, the notion > of rationality is merely used to mean having a purpose. Thus, someone might > bay at the Moon because she or he believes this will ring back the text > files they accidentally deleted and repeatedly do this despite it never > working and someone like Mises would say the behavior is rational from the > perspective that they?re doing it for a goal ? even if you and I can > plainly see it?s foolish if funny to watch.;) > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 01:00:44 2020 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:00:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: <00ec01d5ee92$066d4d00$1347e700$@rainier66.com> References: <00ec01d5ee92$066d4d00$1347e700$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Feb 28, 2020, at 3:53 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat > > > >?The libertarian switch would be to not having government involved in money ? not in mandating gold, Bitcoin, or whatever. > > >?I?m not sure one will ever have the optimal time to dismantle the current system ? in other words, if there?ll ever be a time it?ll be painless. It?s kind of like abolishing slavery. It?s going to cause disruption, but that can?t be the go to argue against it. > > >?Also, discussing alternatives here should never be quashed with such concerns. > > >?Regards, Dan > > > Dan I want to think we are seeing the end of Keynesian economic theory. I am more than ready to have Hayek taught in schools as the way. Hayek is already taught in the schools. I wasn?t arguing from economic though. I was arguing purely from libertarianism: the state shouldn?t exist at all and certainly shouldn?t dictate which money and banking systems people use. (This isn?t a constitutional argument either. What?s correct here isn?t determined by what some dudes in 1789 decided in committee to write down and foist on the nation.) Given that Keynesianism and its variants have survived many recessions and stagflation, I don?t see now as being the end. This is just like you expecting the pope dying would call into doubt the faith by Catholics. The deaths of all the popes so far haven?t. (Heck, the failure of Christian prophecy on the whole ? no second coming yet ? hasn?t made much of a dent in belief, has it?) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Feb 29 01:05:20 2020 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:05:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: <14853517-06C4-4ACA-9966-6E91EBECF4D6@gmail.com> <00ec01d5ee92$066d4d00$1347e700$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <012f01d5ee9c$50ae80a0$f20b81e0$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? Hayek or Keynes - are either of these theories predicated on the assumption of the rational investor? Kahneman and Tversky blew that sky high, right? bill w Not at all, BillW. Irrational investors are not long-term investors: they lose their money. All long-term investors are rational investors. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Feb 28 19:12:56 2020 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:12:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Pain and anesthesia Message-ID: <20200228111256.Horde.wsB3crYEOjyR3a0i91xMEbe@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Bill Wallace: > Stuart wrote: However, the mechanism by which an integrated self or ego > arises out > of a large and disparate, but coherent set of such motes of awareness > still eludes me. > > Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind > > by Robert Kurzban > > I just finished this book and was very interested in the data. He makes a > pretty good case that there is no integrated self. I just ordered the book on Amazon and it will be delivered in a week or two. In the meantime would you care to summarize his argument, cite passages, or something? I suspect that Kurzban's case rests on trotting out some studies of pathological conditions such as various forms of brain damage and then arguing the semantics of what reality means. Much like the "qualia are not real" crowd of Dennett and company. One could just as easily argue that there is no forest, there is instead just a lot of trees that are really close to together. Of course, that simply proves the cliche of missing the forest for the trees. Philosophers like Guatama Buddha have been saying that the ego self is an illusion since before the christian era. Regardless of the fact that in certain pathological situations, the illusion breaks down, nobody can deny that the illusion itself exists and is quite persistent in normal healthy individuals. So perhaps I should rephrase my question as how does the illusion of an integrated self arise from a bunch disparate parts? Stuart LaForge From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 01:29:08 2020 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 01:29:08 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Four pieces of evidence from before the Big Bang In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 00:35, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Another silly question from me: universe origin theories are not scientific, right? No observations possible. I assume the universe as it is could have been produced several different ways, so there will never be any solution, any final answer. > > bill w > If you say, for example, that one of the Gods must have created the universe, then that is not scientific. :) But we can use our technology to look at the early universe and see what that implies must have happened to create the current state. (i.e. a period of inflation before the Big Bang). But to date that doesn't tell us everything. We wait on better instruments and more theory to extend our knowledge. That is scientific - seeking to learn more. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 04:24:09 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 23:24:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: <14853517-06C4-4ACA-9966-6E91EBECF4D6@gmail.com> References: <14853517-06C4-4ACA-9966-6E91EBECF4D6@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:32 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *I?m not sure one will ever have the optimal time to dismantle the > current system ? * > Well I'm sure the optimal time isn't during a worldwide pandemic, people are going to be stressed and panicked enough as it is without throwing that hairball into the mix, > > *in other words, if there?ll ever be a time it?ll be painless.* There will never be such a time because the AI Singularity will happen first rendering economic questions of that sort moot. > > *It?s kind of like abolishing slavery. It?s going to cause disruption,* > Yeah, like the sort of disruption the Chicxulub Event caused. > > *but that can?t be the go to argue against it.* > Oh I think it can be. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 09:29:57 2020 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:29:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <21314962-9513-ca8f-b95d-c84bbb423d17@zaiboc.net> References: <21314962-9513-ca8f-b95d-c84bbb423d17@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I am happy with the conclusion that there are assholes among both atheists and believers, but my point is that the ?arguments? of atheists against believers can be redirected at the atheists themselves, who often behave exactly like fundamentalist believers. On 2020. Feb 28., Fri at 10:39, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 28/02/2020 07:34, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > No trolling intended Ben, sorry if my post came across that way. > > I consider some expressions of atheism as a religion, because they > exhibit many defining features of organized religions: Certainty of > having all the answers, us against them, intolerance of those who > disagree, at times open hatred. These are the bad features of > organized religions, so in a certain sense atheism (of the militant, > intolerant sort) is worse than traditional religions, because it has > the bad features of religion without the good ones. I often say that > atheism is the only religion with a really boring mythology. > > Of course this applies to **some expressions** of atheism (of the > militant, intolerant sort). I consider open-minded, live-and-let-live > atheists as fellow seekers. > > > You're talking about two different things. > > As Richard Dawkins has said, atheism is a religion in the same way that > not collecting stamps is a hobby. > > If someone asks me what team sports I participate in, I don't (usually) > reply "not playing football". > > If I try to stop other people from playing football, that's not a > consequence of my not playing football, it's a consequence of my being an > arsehole. Not playing football doesn't require one to try to prevent > football-playing in others. In fact, it doesn't require (or, in itself lead > to) anything except the lack of personal football-playing. > > On the other hand, most religions do require their subjects to suppress > other religions, in various ways, up to and including killing > 'non-believers', in the more extreme (usually 'fundamentalist') versions. > > So if someone is an atheist, and a bigot, those are two different things. > Atheism does not require one to be a bigot. Christianity, for example (in > most of its forms), does. > > You may hold up the example of Jainism as an example of a non-intolerant > religion. Good for Jainism. That does't make atheism a religion, though. > Jainism is still a set of beliefs. > > Getting into the actual definition of the word 'religion' is a rabbit > warren, with no real satisfactory conclusion. Some people have even > concluded that the word is not really meaningful at all, but most people > have something in mind when they use it. And all of the various somethings > that they have in mind are not applicable to atheism, because they refer to > the *presence* of various factors, not the lack of them. > > This is the core concept that it seems many people have trouble > understanding about atheism, and is maybe why it gets misrepresented so > much. It's not a belief, not a religion, not a social movement, or a club > or a political stance, or even a world-view. It's simply the lack of a > belief in supernatural beings and phenomena. > > The fact that some people who lack such beliefs are also bigots is beside > the point, and calling someone a 'fundamentalist atheist' is meaningless. > It's like talking about a temperature below absolute zero (without any > exotic physics, please). Similarly, calling someone a 'militant atheist' is > like calling someone a violent non-golfer. They may be a violent person, > but they cannot violently not play golf, it's simply not possible. And if > they violently try to prevent other people from playing golf, well, they're > just an arsehole. > > -- > > 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 ben at zaiboc.net Sat Feb 29 15:04:17 2020 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 15:04:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Four pieces of evidence from before the Big Bang In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/02/2020 04:25, BillK wrote: > These 4 Pieces Of Evidence Have Already Taken Us Beyond The Big Bang > Ethan Siegel Feb 28 2020 > > Wait a minute, isn't this just re-defining the big bang as something that happened /after/ inflation? My understanding is that the big bang came first, then inflation. So the big bang is still just as much a mystery as ever. Or is my understanding wrong? And if so, what do you call the event that preceded inflation (labeled 'primordial fluctuations' in one of the diagrams on that site. Not a very catchy name!)? -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 16:27:34 2020 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 16:27:34 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Four pieces of evidence from before the Big Bang In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 15:07, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote: > > On 29/02/2020 04:25, BillK wrote: > >> These 4 Pieces Of Evidence Have Already Taken Us Beyond The Big Bang >> Ethan Siegel Feb 28 2020 >> >> > > Wait a minute, isn't this just re-defining the big bang as something that happened after inflation? > My understanding is that the big bang came first, then inflation. So the big bang is still just as much a mystery as ever. > > Or is my understanding wrong? > And if so, what do you call the event that preceded inflation (labeled 'primordial fluctuations' in one of the diagrams on that site. Not a very catchy name!)? > -- > Ben Zaiboc > The meaning of the Big Bang Theory has developed and changed over the years. Quote: ?Despite its name, the big bang theory is not really a theory of a bang at all. It is really only a theory of the aftermath of a bang.? -Alan Guth Originally the big bang theory was that because we are in an expanding, cooling universe we could extrapolate backwards to a point of infinite density, a singularity, that the universe exploded from. But evidence has shown that idea to be wrong. The inflation had to come first, creating a hot universe of matter and radiation (quark-gluon plasma). This in turn created what we see today. Detailed description here: BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 16:39:50 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:39:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Pain and anesthesia In-Reply-To: <20200228111256.Horde.wsB3crYEOjyR3a0i91xMEbe@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20200228111256.Horde.wsB3crYEOjyR3a0i91xMEbe@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Stuart, it would be a lot of work for me to summarize the whole book, as my memory of it is not good (or memory of anything else), so please just wait for the book. So perhaps I should rephrase my question as how does the illusion of an integrated self arise from a bunch disparate parts? Stuart LaForge I wrote him twice and he thanked me for kind words but did not reply to my questions, one of which was the one you raised above. Some module or self has to be the last to determine whether a behavior gets out or not. Still, interesting reading. He hasn't done much since he wrote the book, so maybe he saw the flaws in it which he did not want to discuss. The trolley problem was mentioned but not really included. I am deeply suspicious of those results. If confronted in the real world with that problem I think people would panic, like the guy in the old Texas disaster study, who looked rational, got instructions as to how to escape the building, turned around and jumped out the window. People can say what they would do but I suspect there is little correlation with what they actually would do. bill w On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:21 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Quoting Bill Wallace: > > > Stuart wrote: However, the mechanism by which an integrated self or ego > > arises out > > of a large and disparate, but coherent set of such motes of awareness > > still eludes me. > > > > Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind > > < > https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0691146748/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 > > > > by Robert Kurzban > > > > I just finished this book and was very interested in the data. He makes > a > > pretty good case that there is no integrated self. > > I just ordered the book on Amazon and it will be delivered in a week > or two. In the meantime would you care to summarize his argument, cite > passages, or something? > > I suspect that Kurzban's case rests on trotting out some studies of > pathological conditions such as various forms of brain damage and then > arguing the semantics of what reality means. Much like the "qualia are > not real" crowd of Dennett and company. One could just as easily argue > that there is no forest, there is instead just a lot of trees that are > really close to together. Of course, that simply proves the cliche of > missing the forest for the trees. > > Philosophers like Guatama Buddha have been saying that the ego self is > an illusion since before the christian era. Regardless of the fact > that in certain pathological situations, the illusion breaks down, > nobody can deny that the illusion itself exists and is quite > persistent in normal healthy individuals. > > So perhaps I should rephrase my question as how does the illusion of > an integrated self arise from a bunch disparate parts? > > Stuart LaForge > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 16:42:58 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:42:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01d5ee92$066d4d00$1347e700$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: (Heck, the failure of Christian prophecy on the whole ? no second coming yet ? hasn?t made much of a dent in belief, has it?) Regards, Dan See When Prophecy Fails - old book by social psychologists who joined a cult and saw the prediction of being saved by UFOs fail. Most did not lose faith. bill w On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:08 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Feb 28, 2020, at 3:53 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat > > > > >?The libertarian switch would be to not having government involved in > money ? not in mandating gold, Bitcoin, or whatever. > > > > >?I?m not sure one will ever have the optimal time to dismantle the > current system ? in other words, if there?ll ever be a time it?ll be > painless. It?s kind of like abolishing slavery. It?s going to cause > disruption, but that can?t be the go to argue against it. > > >?Also, discussing alternatives here should never be quashed with such > concerns. > > >?Regards, Dan > > > > > > Dan I want to think we are seeing the end of Keynesian economic theory. I > am more than ready to have Hayek taught in schools as the way. > > > Hayek is already taught in the schools. I wasn?t arguing from economic > though. I was arguing purely from libertarianism: the state shouldn?t exist > at all and certainly shouldn?t dictate which money and banking systems > people use. (This isn?t a constitutional argument either. What?s correct > here isn?t determined by what some dudes in 1789 decided in committee to > write down and foist on the nation.) > > Given that Keynesianism and its variants have survived many recessions and > stagflation, I don?t see now as being the end. This is just like you > expecting the pope dying would call into doubt the faith by Catholics. The > deaths of all the popes so far haven?t. (Heck, the failure of Christian > prophecy on the whole ? no second coming yet ? hasn?t made much of a dent > in belief, has it?) > > 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 Sat Feb 29 16:48:34 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:48:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Four pieces of evidence from before the Big Bang In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You did not answer my question: if there are several theories that can explain what the universe looks like now, how can you validate any of them? More, better measurement, you say? Suppose we finally validated some theory. So what? What's the gain? My problem with it sounds like a typical stupid plebe: who cares and why? Is there any usefullness to this research? Any practical value? Like finding oxygen on something 500 light years away? Where is the scientific gain here? Providing endless work for astronomers? bill w bill w On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:31 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 00:35, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Another silly question from me: universe origin theories are not > scientific, right? No observations possible. I assume the universe as it > is could have been produced several different ways, so there will never be > any solution, any final answer. > > > > bill w > > > > If you say, for example, that one of the Gods must have created the > universe, then that is not scientific. :) > > But we can use our technology to look at the early universe and see > what that implies must have happened to create the current state. > (i.e. a period of inflation before the Big Bang). But to date that > doesn't tell us everything. We wait on better instruments and more > theory to extend our knowledge. > That is scientific - seeking to learn more. > > > > 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 interzone at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 20:42:02 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 15:42:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: This is not the case among a very significant portion of US Catholics. The open borders, Marxist rhetoric doesn't have as big an audience with US Catholics. On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 3:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 03:39, Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> The current Pope is not very popular with many Catholics, at least >> outside of Socialist LatAm circles. I don't think he'd be missed too much >> by a significant portion of US Catholics, many of whom question whether he >> is a legitimate Bishop of Rome...I assume they'd take it as confirmation of >> their position if he was smote down. >> > > My impression was that he is the most popular pope for years, with the > main negative being the sexual abuse scandal scandal, a problem for the > whole church rather than specifically the pope. > >> -- > 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 interzone at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 20:51:06 2020 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 15:51:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The WHO was very slow on the trigger, arguably due to Chinese pressure. The US and Australia were the only two countries to cut Chinese travel early on, likely due to the WHO dragging their feet. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/asia/coronavirus-who-china-intl-hnk/index.html On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 2:13 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Meanwhile the World Health Organization, which unlike all US government > agencies doesn't need clearance from Mike Pence before they can say > something on this subject, has just raised the global risk factor the new > coronavirus poses from "high" to ?very high?. > The Fed (and other central banks) have other tools beyond interest rates. Talk of cuts is cheap. A coordinated surprise central bank intervention will certainly goose markets short term. It is of course causing a host of other problems and unexpected second order effects to have sustained low interest rates but that's another topic. The head of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis said because of the > virus interest rate cuts will probably be necessary; normally talk like > that would cheer up the stock market but not this time, probably because > its well known that rates are already so low there is little the Federal > Reserve can do to effect the economy, they've already used up most of > their ammunition. > > 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 gsantostasi at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 21:07:48 2020 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 13:07:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <21314962-9513-ca8f-b95d-c84bbb423d17@zaiboc.net> References: <21314962-9513-ca8f-b95d-c84bbb423d17@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: We should not do any super fanatic anything. This why I so dislike super christians or super muslims. Transhumanism should make us less fanatics, more universal, more accepting and embracing (not of death). The only fanaticism should be reserve to fighting aging and death. Giovanni Santostasi On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:39 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 28/02/2020 07:34, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > No trolling intended Ben, sorry if my post came across that way. > > I consider some expressions of atheism as a religion, because they > exhibit many defining features of organized religions: Certainty of > having all the answers, us against them, intolerance of those who > disagree, at times open hatred. These are the bad features of > organized religions, so in a certain sense atheism (of the militant, > intolerant sort) is worse than traditional religions, because it has > the bad features of religion without the good ones. I often say that > atheism is the only religion with a really boring mythology. > > Of course this applies to **some expressions** of atheism (of the > militant, intolerant sort). I consider open-minded, live-and-let-live > atheists as fellow seekers. > > > You're talking about two different things. > > As Richard Dawkins has said, atheism is a religion in the same way that > not collecting stamps is a hobby. > > If someone asks me what team sports I participate in, I don't (usually) > reply "not playing football". > > If I try to stop other people from playing football, that's not a > consequence of my not playing football, it's a consequence of my being an > arsehole. Not playing football doesn't require one to try to prevent > football-playing in others. In fact, it doesn't require (or, in itself lead > to) anything except the lack of personal football-playing. > > On the other hand, most religions do require their subjects to suppress > other religions, in various ways, up to and including killing > 'non-believers', in the more extreme (usually 'fundamentalist') versions. > > So if someone is an atheist, and a bigot, those are two different things. > Atheism does not require one to be a bigot. Christianity, for example (in > most of its forms), does. > > You may hold up the example of Jainism as an example of a non-intolerant > religion. Good for Jainism. That does't make atheism a religion, though. > Jainism is still a set of beliefs. > > Getting into the actual definition of the word 'religion' is a rabbit > warren, with no real satisfactory conclusion. Some people have even > concluded that the word is not really meaningful at all, but most people > have something in mind when they use it. And all of the various somethings > that they have in mind are not applicable to atheism, because they refer to > the *presence* of various factors, not the lack of them. > > This is the core concept that it seems many people have trouble > understanding about atheism, and is maybe why it gets misrepresented so > much. It's not a belief, not a religion, not a social movement, or a club > or a political stance, or even a world-view. It's simply the lack of a > belief in supernatural beings and phenomena. > > The fact that some people who lack such beliefs are also bigots is beside > the point, and calling someone a 'fundamentalist atheist' is meaningless. > It's like talking about a temperature below absolute zero (without any > exotic physics, please). Similarly, calling someone a 'militant atheist' is > like calling someone a violent non-golfer. They may be a violent person, > but they cannot violently not play golf, it's simply not possible. And if > they violently try to prevent other people from playing golf, well, they're > just an arsehole. > > -- > > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 21:26:05 2020 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 15:26:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: <21314962-9513-ca8f-b95d-c84bbb423d17@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: You are assuming that beyond a certain level, enthusiasm turns into fanaticism, which is always bad, right? Just how does that happen? A desire to blow things up? Obsessiveness? Narrowness of focus? Anger with those opposing? Delusions of grandeur? (saving the world, etc.) Note how these factors are also those that start wars I would add pollution and education to the list. bill w On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 3:10 PM Giovanni Santostasi via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > We should not do any super fanatic anything. > This why I so dislike super christians or super muslims. > Transhumanism should make us less fanatics, more universal, more accepting > and embracing (not of death). The only fanaticism should be reserve to > fighting aging and death. > Giovanni Santostasi > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:39 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On 28/02/2020 07:34, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> >> No trolling intended Ben, sorry if my post came across that way. >> >> I consider some expressions of atheism as a religion, because they >> exhibit many defining features of organized religions: Certainty of >> having all the answers, us against them, intolerance of those who >> disagree, at times open hatred. These are the bad features of >> organized religions, so in a certain sense atheism (of the militant, >> intolerant sort) is worse than traditional religions, because it has >> the bad features of religion without the good ones. I often say that >> atheism is the only religion with a really boring mythology. >> >> Of course this applies to **some expressions** of atheism (of the >> militant, intolerant sort). I consider open-minded, live-and-let-live >> atheists as fellow seekers. >> >> >> You're talking about two different things. >> >> As Richard Dawkins has said, atheism is a religion in the same way that >> not collecting stamps is a hobby. >> >> If someone asks me what team sports I participate in, I don't (usually) >> reply "not playing football". >> >> If I try to stop other people from playing football, that's not a >> consequence of my not playing football, it's a consequence of my being an >> arsehole. Not playing football doesn't require one to try to prevent >> football-playing in others. In fact, it doesn't require (or, in itself lead >> to) anything except the lack of personal football-playing. >> >> On the other hand, most religions do require their subjects to suppress >> other religions, in various ways, up to and including killing >> 'non-believers', in the more extreme (usually 'fundamentalist') versions. >> >> So if someone is an atheist, and a bigot, those are two different things. >> Atheism does not require one to be a bigot. Christianity, for example (in >> most of its forms), does. >> >> You may hold up the example of Jainism as an example of a non-intolerant >> religion. Good for Jainism. That does't make atheism a religion, though. >> Jainism is still a set of beliefs. >> >> Getting into the actual definition of the word 'religion' is a rabbit >> warren, with no real satisfactory conclusion. Some people have even >> concluded that the word is not really meaningful at all, but most people >> have something in mind when they use it. And all of the various somethings >> that they have in mind are not applicable to atheism, because they refer to >> the *presence* of various factors, not the lack of them. >> >> This is the core concept that it seems many people have trouble >> understanding about atheism, and is maybe why it gets misrepresented so >> much. It's not a belief, not a religion, not a social movement, or a club >> or a political stance, or even a world-view. It's simply the lack of a >> belief in supernatural beings and phenomena. >> >> The fact that some people who lack such beliefs are also bigots is beside >> the point, and calling someone a 'fundamentalist atheist' is meaningless. >> It's like talking about a temperature below absolute zero (without any >> exotic physics, please). Similarly, calling someone a 'militant atheist' is >> like calling someone a violent non-golfer. They may be a violent person, >> but they cannot violently not play golf, it's simply not possible. And if >> they violently try to prevent other people from playing golf, well, they're >> just an arsehole. >> >> -- >> >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 29 22:00:22 2020 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 17:00:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Does the Pope have Corvid-19? In-Reply-To: References: <00e001d5ee54$2081aad0$61850070$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 3:53 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> The Fed (and other central banks) have other tools beyond interest > rates. * But interest rates are its most powerful tool and its's nearly gone; in 1982 it was 19.5%, but today it's just 1.5% so not much room for a rate cut. Here is a chart of what the rate has been over the years and as you can see its already freakishly low. Federal interest rates > *A coordinated surprise central bank intervention will certainly goose > markets short term. * I don't think it would do much even short term because Fed interaction has already been factored into stock prices. The only thing that would surprise the market would be if the Fed did nothing, and that would not be a surprise of the good sort. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emerhorne at gmail.com Wed Feb 5 00:50:01 2020 From: emerhorne at gmail.com (Tristan Linck) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 00:50:01 -0000 Subject: [ExI] Motivated Reasoning In-Reply-To: <6HKA4TRhY9WD4n14xEWgYJh0a0I_D0nv2xr9mreiSBaDoy3gWPjqj_CrGBtcgXjmpdlQXQTWb5m5nF9rpcSwUHbXZY2ned6DQA5xZyyn7no=@protonmail.com> References: <6HKA4TRhY9WD4n14xEWgYJh0a0I_D0nv2xr9mreiSBaDoy3gWPjqj_CrGBtcgXjmpdlQXQTWb5m5nF9rpcSwUHbXZY2ned6DQA5xZyyn7no=@protonmail.com> Message-ID: On 2020-02-04 12:22, Gabe Waggoner via extropy-chat wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Let?s do an informal survey. Younger people here (under 40 crowd) do you > > know what that reference was? Older ones here too, do you remember that > > episode? Keith I already know you do, and of course plenty of us here > > remember it well. > > > > > You know my response, but just to formally confirm: I know the reference > > and have seen that episode. > > I, too, get the reference to pon farr. I'm 44, and my introduction to the show was in October 1984, when my dad sat me in front of the TV to watch "The Doomsday Machine." He said, "This is a show I used to watch when I was a kid. I liked it, but you'll probably think it's stupid after a few years." I still have the original VHS tape on which he recorded that episode, along with "The Changeling," "Wolf in the Fold," and "Mirror, Mirror." Good times. My classmates used to tease me and say, "Hey, Gabe, your ears are getting pointed." > > All these years later, and that show has dramatically influenced the person I've become. Star Trek and Stargate, as well as the writings of Arthur C. Clarke and many others (fiction and nonfiction), have all driven me to embrace transhumanism/Singularitarianism/digital ascension/cryonics, etc. > > I always figured some Trek folks were part of this list, but I'm happy to see it explicitly mentioned. > > -- > Gabe Waggoner, MS, ELS > Science Writer-Editor > 7318 Edmonston Rd. > College Park, MD 20740-3018 > lostmyelectron at protonmail.com > http://www.nasw.org/users/rgwaggoner/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat As one of the under 40 crowd, I'll add another data point of knowing the reference. In my case it started with my grandmother and "The Trouble with Tribbles" on VHS. She was more into TNG than the original series, but that was the episode that grabbed my attention as a small proto-nurd and led to all the rest! I'll say that most of my local acquaintances (more nurds, although fewer under 40 than there used to be) still do get into detailed discussions of the old Trek episodes!