From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 1 14:07:56 2024 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:07:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The AI Therapist will see you now Message-ID: I am seeing more and more articles about people chatting to AI as a friend or mentor. Asking them for advice on careers or personal problems, or just chatting to them as friends. I can see a need for this in residential homes for the elderly. They may receive few visitors and chats could alleviate loneliness. But some (many?) people seem to prefer the privacy and always-available attention of AIs. Here are two interesting articles. BillK Finding Clinical Compassion in Large Language Models AI's unique ability to craft "empathetic" language may be a powerful tool. Posted September 29, 2024 by John Nosta Quote: The key takeaway here is that compassion, even in its artificial form, can serve as a useful tool in medicine. While AI doesn?t feel empathy, its ability to structure compassionate language could enhance patient-physician communication and potentially lead to improved patient engagement and health outcomes. Who would have thought? Compassion has found its way into the world of technology, and it just might transform patient care. In the end, it may not matter whether this compassion is human or artificial; what matters is the positive impact it can have on patients' lives. -------------------------- And here is an article about the Wysa AI therapist in action. I spent a month with an AI therapist ? this is what happened Nicholas Fearn Published Sep 29, 2024 Quotes: So was it worth it? I was very skeptical about whether a chatbot could act as an effective therapist. While I don?t think AI can ever replace human psychologists and counsellors, I?m surprised to admit that Wysa is actually a pretty handy tool for someone suffering from poor mental health. Either way, I had someone to speak to at some genuinely hard times, and I will continue using Wysa as an emotional support cushion. -------------------------- From ben at zaiboc.net Tue Oct 1 16:08:58 2024 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 17:08:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] In future, will everybody wear their own body cam? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/10/2024 15:08, swisscows wrote: > Is this a common problem in the US? This is an honest question. I've had > my run ins with mainly arabian robbers and assailants, but nothing serious > ever happened and I managed to defend myself._Despite_ probably having > experienced way more violence than the average sweden, I would not even > dream of walking around with a camera. It would not solve anything, and > given the level of intelligence of the people involved in this incident, > *as well as laws against filming in public*, I don't think it would work. Who has such laws? (in the democratic west, I mean, of course. This discussion obviously doesn't apply to authoritarian countries, where 'the law' is whatever the local despot decides it is). Filming in public is perfectly legal (as it should be) in the UK, the US, and Sweden, as far as I'm aware. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at disroot.org Thu Oct 3 21:02:16 2024 From: efc at disroot.org (efc at disroot.org) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 23:02:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] In future, will everybody wear their own body cam? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4204d2fd-94a1-3c5c-6918-81fb34cd321b@disroot.org> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote: > > On 01/10/2024 15:08, swisscows wrote: > > Is this a common problem in the US? This is an honest question. I've had > my run ins with mainly arabian robbers and assailants, but nothing serious > ever happened and I managed to defend myself. _Despite_ probably having > experienced way more violence than the average sweden, I would not even > dream of walking around with a camera. It would not solve anything, and > given the level of intelligence of the people involved in this incident, > as well as laws against filming in public, I don't think it would work. > > > Who has such laws? (in the democratic west, I mean, of course. This discussion obviously doesn't apply to authoritarian countries, > where 'the law' is whatever the local despot decides it is). > > Filming in public is perfectly legal (as it should be) in the UK, the US, and Sweden, as far as I'm aware. > > Ben > In sweden and the EU it depends on what you do with it. If you film and then store the film and never do anything with it or show it, it is most likely ok. If you film, in sweden, a object of national interest (airports, harbors, military bases etc.) you are commiting a crime and will be fined and/or sent to prison. This is a new law that came into effect on the 1/1 2024. If you film people so that they can be identified and make that film publicly available, you are breaking GDPR if you do not get their consent. Putting up CCTV cameras, again filming in public, is strictly regulated, and having your Tesla parked regularly on your street with an active camera could possibly break that rule. So when it comes to the US I have no illusion of privacy protection existing. UK I have no idea, but since London is full of CCTV cameras I would assume that any protection for the privacy of people has been eroded. But above is based on my knowledge of sweden and swedish law, as a swede. From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Oct 5 12:26:29 2024 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 07:26:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] what's the use? Message-ID: I come up empty when I try to figure out the evolutionary uses of our propensity for loving loud noises: unmuffled cars (NASCAR), carnival rides, fireworks, rock concerts, yelling. There was once a race - Indy perhaps - which included a car run by a turbine. It was far ahead - two laps to go, I think - when a $6 part failed. They never did it again. Fans said that the turbine made a hum - no big noise - and so the promoters decided that fans just would not put up with that. No excitement there. What's the use? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 5 13:05:40 2024 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 14:05:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] what's the use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 13:28, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > I come up empty when I try to figure out the evolutionary uses of our propensity for loving loud noises: unmuffled cars (NASCAR), carnival rides, fireworks, rock concerts, yelling. > > There was once a race - Indy perhaps - which included a car run by a turbine. It was far ahead - two laps to go, I think - when a $6 part failed. > They never did it again. Fans said that the turbine made a hum - no big noise - and so the promoters decided that fans just would not put up with that. No excitement there. > > What's the use? bill w > _______________________________________________ The auditory system evolved to protect us from danger. Loud noise (like animal snarling, or falling rocks), caused an instant 'flee or fight' reaction in our body. When you walk into a nightclub and are deafened by the noise, the same body reaction happens, then you instantly control it, but still feel the excitement and thrill. It is automatic, most people end up enjoying the experience. (After their ears get accustomed to the noise level, that is!). BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Oct 5 13:26:57 2024 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 08:26:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] what's the use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Enjoyment still unexplained. bill w On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 8:07?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 13:28, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > I come up empty when I try to figure out the evolutionary uses of our > propensity for loving loud noises: unmuffled cars (NASCAR), carnival > rides, fireworks, rock concerts, yelling. > > > > There was once a race - Indy perhaps - which included a car run by a > turbine. It was far ahead - two laps to go, I think - when a $6 part > failed. > > They never did it again. Fans said that the turbine made a hum - no big > noise - and so the promoters decided that fans just would not put up with > that. No excitement there. > > > > What's the use? bill w > > _______________________________________________ > > > The auditory system evolved to protect us from danger. Loud noise > (like animal snarling, or falling rocks), caused an instant 'flee or > fight' reaction in our body. When you walk into a nightclub and are > deafened by the noise, the same body reaction happens, then you > instantly control it, but still feel the excitement and thrill. > It is automatic, most people end up enjoying the experience. > (After their ears get accustomed to the noise level, that is!). > > 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 atymes at gmail.com Sat Oct 5 13:45:51 2024 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 09:45:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] what's the use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Evolutionary hiccup, where people become attracted to certain elements of danger. No productive purpose needed. Why do we like music? There may be some overlap with that reason. On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 9:28?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Enjoyment still unexplained. bill w > > On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 8:07?AM BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 13:28, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat >> wrote: >> > >> > I come up empty when I try to figure out the evolutionary uses of our >> propensity for loving loud noises: unmuffled cars (NASCAR), carnival >> rides, fireworks, rock concerts, yelling. >> > >> > There was once a race - Indy perhaps - which included a car run by a >> turbine. It was far ahead - two laps to go, I think - when a $6 part >> failed. >> > They never did it again. Fans said that the turbine made a hum - no >> big noise - and so the promoters decided that fans just would not put up >> with that. No excitement there. >> > >> > What's the use? bill w >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> The auditory system evolved to protect us from danger. Loud noise >> (like animal snarling, or falling rocks), caused an instant 'flee or >> fight' reaction in our body. When you walk into a nightclub and are >> deafened by the noise, the same body reaction happens, then you >> instantly control it, but still feel the excitement and thrill. >> It is automatic, most people end up enjoying the experience. >> (After their ears get accustomed to the noise level, that is!). >> >> BillK >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 5 13:50:14 2024 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 14:50:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] what's the use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 14:29, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Enjoyment still unexplained. bill w > _______________________________________________ It is the excitement and thrill caused by the chemicals flooded into the body by the reaction to the loud noise. And then relief that there is no danger after all, but feeling brave that we conquered our fear. Very enoyable! :) BillK From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Oct 5 17:50:07 2024 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 13:50:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] what's the use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's an example of consciousness pursing it's own goals (e.g. seeking novel experiences), and suppressing purely evolutionary goals. You can't explain bungee jumping in evolutionary terms, but you can when you recognize that all value is rooted in states of conscious experience. I think it is useful to recognize as Sperry does here, that even within the same system of a human body, there any many distinct systems of causality at play, operating simultaneously: "I am going to align myself in a counterstand, along with that approximately 0.1 per cent mentalist minority, in support of a hypothetical brain model in which consciousness and mental forces generally are given their due representation as important features in the chain of control. These appear as active operational forces and dynamic properties that interact with and upon the physiological machinery. Any model or description that leaves out conscious forces, according to this view, is bound to be pretty sadly incomplete and unsatisfactory. The conscious mind in this scheme, far from being put aside and dispensed with as an "inconsequential byproduct," "epiphenomenon," or "inner aspect," as is the customary treatment these days, gets located, instead, front and center, directly in the midst of the causal interplay of cerebral mechanisms. Mental forces in this particular scheme are put in the driver's seat, as it were. They give the orders and they push and haul around the physiology and physicochemical processes as much as or more than the latter control them. This is a scheme that puts mind back in its old post, over matter, in a sense-not under, outside, or beside it. It's a scheme that idealizes ideas and ideals over physico-chemical interactions, nerve impulse traffic-or DNA. It's a brain model in which conscious, mental, psychic forces are recognized to be the crowning achievement of some five hundred million years or more of evolution. [...] The basic reasoning is simple: First, we contend that conscious or mental phenomena are dynamic, emergent, pattern (or configurational) properties of the living brain in action -- a point accepted by many, including some of the more tough-minded brain researchers. Second, the argument goes a critical step further, and insists that these emergent pattern properties in the brain have causal control potency -- just as they do elsewhere in the universe. And there we have the answer to the age-old enigma of consciousness. To put it very simply, it becomes a question largely of who pushes whom around in the population of causal forces that occupy the cranium. There exists within the human cranium a whole world of diverse causal forces; what is more, there are forces within forces within forces, as in no other cubic half-foot of universe that we know. [...] Along with their internal atomic and subnuclear parts, the brain molecules are obliged to submit to a course of activity in time and space that is determined very largely by the overall dynamic and spatial properties of the whole brain cell as an entity. Even the brain cells, however, with their long fibers and impulse conducting elements, do not have very much to say either about when or in what time pattern, for example, they are going to fire their messages. The firing orders come from a higher command. [...] In short, if one climbs upward through the chain of command within the brain, one finds at the very top those overall organizational forces and dynamic properties of the large patterns of cerebral excitation that constitute the mental or psychic phenomena. [...] Near the apex of this compound command system in the brain we find ideas. In the brain model proposed here, the causal potency of an idea, or an ideal, becomes just as real as that of a molecule, a cell, or a nerve impulse. Ideas cause ideas and help evolve new ideas. They interact with each other and with other mental forces in the same brain, in neighboring brains, and in distant, foreign brains. And they also interact with real consequence upon the external surroundings to produce in toto an explosive advance in evolution on this globe far beyond anything known before, including the emergence of the living cell." -- Roger Sperry in "Mind, Brain, and Humanist Values" (1966) Jason On Sat, Oct 5, 2024, 9:51 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 14:29, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Enjoyment still unexplained. bill w > > _______________________________________________ > > > It is the excitement and thrill caused by the chemicals flooded into > the body by the reaction to the loud noise. > And then relief that there is no danger after all, but feeling brave > that we conquered our fear. > Very enoyable! :) > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 6 10:48:07 2024 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 11:48:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] NotebookLM AI research assistant Message-ID: NotebookLM from Google has been getting rave reviews. NotebookLM, which is powered by Google?s Gemini 1.5 model, allows people to upload content such as links, videos, PDFs, and text. They can then ask the system questions about the content, and it offers short summaries. The tool generates a podcast called Deep Dive, which features a male and a female voice discussing whatever you uploaded. BillK Currently free to use, as still in development. Quote: I write about AI for a living ? and NotebookLM is the most exciting tech to arrive since ChatGPT. By Nigel Powell published 3 October 2024 If you want to know what the future looks like, Notebook LM is a great signpost on how this new AI age will integrate with all of our lives, every day, all the time. ----------------------- From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 6 14:08:04 2024 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 15:08:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] what's the use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 18:52, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > It's an example of consciousness pursing it's own goals (e.g. seeking novel experiences), and suppressing purely evolutionary goals. You can't explain bungee jumping in evolutionary terms, but you can when you recognize that all value is rooted in states of conscious experience. > > I think it is useful to recognize as Sperry does here, that even within the same system of a human body, there any many distinct systems of causality at play, operating simultaneously: > > "I am going to align myself in a counterstand, along with that approximately 0.1 per cent mentalist minority, in support of a hypothetical brain model in which consciousness and mental forces generally are given their due representation as important features in the chain of control. These appear as active operational forces and dynamic properties that interact with and upon the physiological machinery. Any model or description that leaves out conscious forces, according to this view, is bound to be pretty sadly incomplete and unsatisfactory. The conscious mind in this scheme, far from being put aside and dispensed with as an "inconsequential byproduct," "epiphenomenon," or "inner aspect," as is the customary treatment these days, gets located, instead, front and center, directly in the midst of the causal interplay of cerebral mechanisms. > > > Jason > _______________________________________________ Well, I don't want to get into a discussion on the alternative theories of consciousness. :) More knowledgeable people than me are still arguing about that. But bungee jumping seems to be readily explained by inherited evolutionary traits. Bungee jumping causes the release of adrenaline and other stress hormones into our body, as for the "fight or flight" response. The euphoria experienced after a jump is the reward for being brave and relief at surviving a dangerous situation. There is also social status benefit in demonstrating courage and physical fitness to other members of the tribe. (Though this may be reduced by having to be pushed off the platform and screaming in terror all the way down). :) On consciousness, I tend to go along with the idea that consciousness is mostly a story-generating system, rather than a causal system. i.e. unconscious processes are doing most of the work and the reasons we give for our decisions are often created after the fact, rather than being the actual drivers of the decision. But as I said, this is still an area of much dispute. :) BillK From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Oct 6 14:53:55 2024 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:53:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] what's the use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 6, 2024, 10:09 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 18:52, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > It's an example of consciousness pursing it's own goals (e.g. seeking > novel experiences), and suppressing purely evolutionary goals. You can't > explain bungee jumping in evolutionary terms, but you can when you > recognize that all value is rooted in states of conscious experience. > > > > I think it is useful to recognize as Sperry does here, that even within > the same system of a human body, there any many distinct systems of > causality at play, operating simultaneously: > > > > "I am going to align myself in a counterstand, along with that > approximately 0.1 per cent mentalist minority, in support of a hypothetical > brain model in which consciousness and mental forces generally are given > their due representation as important features in the chain of control. > These appear as active operational forces and dynamic properties that > interact with and upon the physiological machinery. Any model or > description that leaves out conscious forces, according to this view, is > bound to be pretty sadly incomplete and unsatisfactory. The conscious mind > in this scheme, far from being put aside and dispensed with as an > "inconsequential byproduct," "epiphenomenon," or "inner aspect," as is the > customary treatment these days, gets located, instead, front and center, > directly in the midst of the causal interplay of cerebral mechanisms. > > > > > > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > > > Well, I don't want to get into a discussion on the alternative > theories of consciousness. :) > More knowledgeable people than me are still arguing about that. > I think you're right we can ignore the issue of consciousness, so long as we don't lose sight of the fact that there are many (sometimes competing or contradictory) forces at play: - Evolutionary forces (wanting to survive and reproduce) - Psychological forces (seeking pleasure) - Thought processes (this activity seems risky) - Chemical forces (hormones, adrenaline, dopamine) > But bungee jumping seems to be readily explained by inherited > evolutionary traits. > Bungee jumping causes the release of adrenaline and other stress > hormones into our body, as for the "fight or flight" response. The euphoria experienced after a jump is the reward for being brave > and relief at surviving a dangerous situation. > These reasons seems to fit your question of likiy loud noises, no? There're plenty of behaviors people do that are evolutionarily-speaking bad for them (opioids, slot machines, junk food, etc.). It's because they exert influence over our neural systems, which are far more complex than our genetic systems. Genes (at 750 MB) can't prepare us for every situation we might face in the environment, which is why we need neurology with an complexity of around (8,000 TB). The former can't specify the latter, and so there is room for environmental things that can corrupt our neurology at the expense of the genetic goals of survival and reproduction. Jason > There is also social status benefit in demonstrating courage and > physical fitness to other members of the tribe. > (Though this may be reduced by having to be pushed off the platform > and screaming in terror all the way down). :) > > On consciousness, I tend to go along with the idea that consciousness > is mostly a story-generating system, rather than a causal system. > i.e. unconscious processes are doing most of the work and the > reasons we give for our decisions are often created after the fact, > rather than being the actual drivers of the decision. > But as I said, this is still an area of much dispute. :) > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Oct 6 18:23:15 2024 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 13:23:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] what's the use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The science of emotion is in the midst of a revolution on par with the discovery of relativity in physics and natural selection in biology. Leading the charge is psychologist and neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett, whose research overturns the long-standing belief that emotions are automatic, universal, and hardwired in different brain regions. Instead, Barrett shows, we construct each instance of emotion through a unique interplay of brain, body, and culture. This is a blurb from Amazon for the bookI recently read: How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain Paperback ? Illustrated, March 13, 2018 Lisa Barett - psychologist/neuroscientist Basic idea is fairly old: emotions are nothing but arousal interpreted. Arousal on a roller-coaster gets interpreted by some as fear, by some as excitement, and by some as both. The fear giving the excitement a bit of a frisson. As for music - I have no idea, but nothing in this world can get me more emotional than music. It doesn't have to be classical. billw On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 9:55?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2024, 10:09 AM BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 18:52, Jason Resch via extropy-chat >> wrote: >> > >> > It's an example of consciousness pursing it's own goals (e.g. seeking >> novel experiences), and suppressing purely evolutionary goals. You can't >> explain bungee jumping in evolutionary terms, but you can when you >> recognize that all value is rooted in states of conscious experience. >> > >> > I think it is useful to recognize as Sperry does here, that even within >> the same system of a human body, there any many distinct systems of >> causality at play, operating simultaneously: >> > >> > "I am going to align myself in a counterstand, along with that >> approximately 0.1 per cent mentalist minority, in support of a hypothetical >> brain model in which consciousness and mental forces generally are given >> their due representation as important features in the chain of control. >> These appear as active operational forces and dynamic properties that >> interact with and upon the physiological machinery. Any model or >> description that leaves out conscious forces, according to this view, is >> bound to be pretty sadly incomplete and unsatisfactory. The conscious mind >> in this scheme, far from being put aside and dispensed with as an >> "inconsequential byproduct," "epiphenomenon," or "inner aspect," as is the >> customary treatment these days, gets located, instead, front and center, >> directly in the midst of the causal interplay of cerebral mechanisms. >> > >> >> > >> > Jason >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Well, I don't want to get into a discussion on the alternative >> theories of consciousness. :) >> More knowledgeable people than me are still arguing about that. >> > > I think you're right we can ignore the issue of consciousness, so long as > we don't lose sight of the fact that there are many (sometimes competing or > contradictory) forces at play: > > - Evolutionary forces (wanting to survive and reproduce) > - Psychological forces (seeking pleasure) > - Thought processes (this activity seems risky) > - Chemical forces (hormones, adrenaline, dopamine) > > > >> But bungee jumping seems to be readily explained by inherited >> evolutionary traits. >> Bungee jumping causes the release of adrenaline and other stress >> hormones into our body, as for the "fight or flight" response. > > The euphoria experienced after a jump is the reward for being brave >> and relief at surviving a dangerous situation. >> > > These reasons seems to fit your question of likiy loud noises, no? > > There're plenty of behaviors people do that are evolutionarily-speaking > bad for them (opioids, slot machines, junk food, etc.). > > It's because they exert influence over our neural systems, which are far > more complex than our genetic systems. Genes (at 750 MB) can't prepare us > for every situation we might face in the environment, which is why we need > neurology with an complexity of around (8,000 TB). The former can't specify > the latter, and so there is room for environmental things that can corrupt > our neurology at the expense of the genetic goals of survival and > reproduction. > > Jason > > >> There is also social status benefit in demonstrating courage and >> physical fitness to other members of the tribe. >> (Though this may be reduced by having to be pushed off the platform >> and screaming in terror all the way down). :) >> >> On consciousness, I tend to go along with the idea that consciousness >> is mostly a story-generating system, rather than a causal system. >> i.e. unconscious processes are doing most of the work and the >> reasons we give for our decisions are often created after the fact, >> rather than being the actual drivers of the decision. >> But as I said, this is still an area of much dispute. :) >> >> BillK >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Sun Oct 6 20:32:00 2024 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 21:32:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] In future, will everybody wear their own body cam? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f85d1f1-41e3-41b5-a371-0f9aa6de26ca@zaiboc.net> On 06/10/2024 19:23, efc at disroot.org wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote: > >> >> On 01/10/2024 15:08, swisscows wrote: >> >> Is this a common problem in the US? This is an honest question. I've >> had my run ins with mainly arabian robbers and assailants, but >> nothing serious ever happened and I managed to defend myself. >> _Despite_ probably having experienced way more violence than the >> average sweden, I would not even dream of walking around with a >> camera. It would not solve anything, and given the level of >> intelligence of the people involved in this incident, as well as laws >> against filming in public, I don't think it would work. >> >> >> Who has such laws? (in the democratic west, I mean, of course. This >> discussion obviously doesn't apply to authoritarian countries, >> where 'the law' is whatever the local despot decides it is). >> >> Filming in public is perfectly legal (as it should be) in the UK, the >> US, and Sweden, as far as I'm aware. >> >> Ben >> > > In sweden and the EU it depends on what you do with it. If you film > and then store the film and never do anything with it or show it, it > is most likely ok. If you film, in sweden, a object of national > interest (airports, harbors, military bases etc.) you are commiting a > crime and will be fined and/or sent to prison. This is a new law that > came into effect on the 1/1 2024. > > If you film people so that they can be identified and make that film > publicly available, you are breaking GDPR if you do not get their > consent. > > Putting up CCTV cameras, again filming in public, is strictly > regulated, and having your Tesla parked regularly on your street with > an active camera could possibly break that rule. > > So when it comes to the US I have no illusion of privacy protection > existing. UK I have no idea, but since London is full of CCTV cameras > I would assume that any protection for the privacy of people has been > eroded. > > But above is based on my knowledge of sweden and swedish law, as a swede. That's interesting. And it makes me wonder about the millions of doorbell cameras that automatically stream images of the street (and the people on it) to cloud servers scattered all over the world, including places like China and Russia. How do you 'strictly regulate' that?? Or are these cameras not allowed in Sweden? In the UK and US, I think the principle is the same as anything you post on the internet: Regardless of the theory (the law, industry regulations, codes of practice, terms of use, etc.), in reality you have no expectation of privacy. GDPR is meaningless, it's like a sticking plaster on a sharkbite. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: