<div dir="ltr"><div>Brent, <br></div><div>I think Giovanni has already said it better than I can.</div><div>But let me try to be as simple as possible in my takeaway from the video.<br></div><div>If we see red strawberries when there is <i>not </i>700 nm of light being reflected, and we also see red strawberries when there is 700 nm of light being reflected, depending on the apparent lighting context around those strawberries, then the perception of red in this case does not seem to be tied anything inherent in or about the strawberry. We "see" red when it is not really there. What is the quality of that object we are "seeing" that makes it red when it is not really red? It can't have red qualia if it's not really red. This is highly problematic to the simplistic qualia model you are trying to refine. I'm a fan of the qualia concept personally. I'm not quite ready to let it go. But color qualia specifically may have to go out the window if we have confidence that things that are not really red are red. Sort of like giving up on air, earth, water, fire as being the basic elements. Doesn't mean there are no basic elements, but it was not as simple as we thought. Giovanni was a bit stronger in suggesting this obliterates your model or something like that. <br></div><div>-Henry<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 7:44 PM Giovanni Santostasi via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><b>Think about what are physical objects, ultimately. Physics gives no answer. It tells us how things behave (i.e. how they function) but never what they are. The only thing then, that differentiates glutamate from glycine, is how they behave, and react or relate to Roger things, which are also defined only by how they behave. Physical objects are only definable by their functional descriptions and relations. This is why I think functionalism is so powerful. It's the foundation of everything we can describe.</b><br><div><br>I tried to describe this to Brent many times. But it doesn't go through. I mentioned even F=ma is just an operational definition that doesn't tell us what mass is but allows us to re-organize and order object with this property. I tried to explain that an electron doesn't exist for Physics (not Giovanni but the science itself) per se but that we know an electron interacting with a field. We just know of the interaction and in fact it is all what is needed to describe reality. Maybe all these are too abstract an example to see the relevance to the material "redness" Brent is looking for and even less how this is relevant to the Grounding Problem by Gordon that is just part of the same general fallacy. <br><br>So let me be more concrete in terms of the neuroscience of color. First of all, from all that we know about neuroscience color most certainly doesn't depend on the presence or concentration of a particular substance such as glutamate. Most brain phenomena are represented by firing patterns. I don't know if you know Brent but that memory of your first kiss to that pretty girl (sorry if I make assumptions about your sexuality but I wanted to find something we considered memorable) it is simply a particular firing in the neurons. If we want to go real physical these neurons are not all the same so some coding of the memory is actually in the physical form of the neurons for example what are called the spines. Maybe that is the closest thing we can point out to your "glutamate" that if I understand well is some physical candidate you are looking for. <br>The brain indeed changes materially when we learn and create new memories, new connections are formed. In ANN these are usually fixed as far as I know even if I think some sophisticated architecture mimick this phenomenon of creating and destroying connections (you can always "destroy" an ANN connection by making the weight equal to 0). So yes, increasing or decreasing connection is another level of complexity in the brain but in the end what counts are the connections. Even this business or adding and destroying connections can be mimicked in an ANN. <br><br>Let me continue though in showing all what counts are the connections. If you don't mind I will change slightly the topic and talk about another neural phenomenon where we know (up to a point because physiology is a mess) that the presence of certain material substances is important. The phenomenon I'm referring to is depression. In particular the idea that serotonin "modulates" (see here the general terms modulate) mood and we can intervene using some substance to change serotonin levels in the brain and therefore affect mood. <br>From some website:<br><p style="box-sizing:inherit;line-height:1.47368;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:24px;font-family:"Frutiger W01",Arial,sans-serif;background-color:rgb(240,244,245)"><font color="#0000ff">It's thought that SSRIs work by increasing serotonin levels in the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter (a messenger chemical that carries signals between nerve cells in the brain). It's thought to have a good influence on mood, emotion and sleep. After carrying a message, serotonin is usually reabsorbed by the nerve cells (known as "reuptake"). SSRIs work by blocking ("inhibiting") reuptake, meaning more serotonin is available to pass further messages between nearby nerve cells. It would be too simplistic to say that depression and related mental health conditions are caused by low serotonin levels, but a rise in serotonin levels can improve symptoms and make people more responsive to other types of treatment, such as CBT.</font></p>In this case one can argue that given several patients feel better when taking SSRI then it shows a material cause for depression, which is an even more complex neural phenomenon than qualia. This is the closest example I know to something to that Brent advocates as the source of brain stuff. <br>But let me point out that even in this case that is the strongest I know that could support Brent position the functionalist understanding of the brain still prevails. Few remarks to understand the phenomenon better:<br>1) It takes a long time after taking SSRI for the brain actually to respond. <br>2) The response is universal, some subjects respond very positively, others not so much, and others even become more depressed. <br>3) There are many substances that can take this role of SSRI and not just one in particular. <br>4) Many side effects. <br><br>As we mentioned many times the language of the brain is these neural train spikes that form a code. The brain sends this info into the axons to communicate with each other, they are like co-axial cables in a sense. Now because of some biological limitations or maybe cleverness of design, there are gaps between the individual axon that protrudes from a neuron and the dendrite (receiving cable) of another neuron that tries to connect with the axon of another neuron. At the signal-sending end, there is a synapse, which is a little bulb that contains small pockets of chemicals that are released when an electrical signal arrives through the axon. At the receiving ends of the gap, there are dendritic synapses and spines. The neurotransmitters are released by the axon of the neurons that sends the signal when they receive the electrical impulse, they diffuse in the biological fluids in the gap and then they interact with the dendritic synapse by a reverse mechanism where the presence of the chemicals triggers an electrical impulse that then travels along the dendrite. <br><br>As with everything in neuroscience, we are still figuring out all the details but here is a paper (related to the visual cortex so more relevant, notice the mention of Brent's favorite glutamate) that describes how a spine and dendritic synapse differ in processing the information received. Anyway, the bottom line is that because the electrical signal cannot jump the gap, the signal continues by being "carried" by the neurotransmitters<br><br><a href="https://brendabloodgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2018_Sancho_Bloodgood-1.pdf" target="_blank">https://brendabloodgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2018_Sancho_Bloodgood-1.pdf</a><br><br>The presence of these chemicals makes things more complicated for sure and it is not as simple as we claimed before that it is just spiky trains that matter. One of the main questions in my opinion here is did nature create these gaps on purpose (maybe the axons could merge and form a long cable but this was not ideal for some reason) because of some physical limitation or actually nature used this design because it gives some additional degrees of freedom to achieve the main goal of the brain that is processing information and regulating bodily functions and movement. <br>It is an interesting question and we don't have the answer. <br><br>But let's look at what exactly these chemicals do. They are carriers of information. They don't have any intrinsic quality of redness per se or sadness or happiness or anger or whatever other sensation or feeling the neurotransmitter "modulates". Modulate is just a vague general word to say they have some kind of role in the neural phenomenon. With SSRI for example we do not produce happiness by the presence of this substance (or indirectly by allowing more serotonin in the brain) but we try to affect material things like the presence of serotonin to obtain downstream the desired effect. <br><br>The neurotransmitters carry the information from the train spike by increasing or decreasing their concentration, they can diffuse in the intracellular fluids and affect other neurons. It is a more fuzzy and global way to transmit information than a 1 to 1 signal transmission. It is almost as if the electrical pulse in a phone call via cable was changed into a blasting sound in a speaker at regular intervals in the phone cable and then picked by a microphone that converts back the sound into an electrical pulse in another cable and so on. Or maybe the conversion is even crazier like a bunch of chemicals sprayed in the air that some detectors have to analyze and then convert into some form of electrical code and so on. It is a crazy way to communicate and it seems very inefficient. It is possible that this is a feature and not a bug in the system. <br>It is something I would like to understand better and not sure current neuroscience can answer this important question. At first sight, it seems more like a Golderb Machine that does the job but in a very very inefficient and redundant way. A lot of biology is like that. <br><br>But let's assume there is some hidden and mysterious benefit in using these chemicals to continue the transfer of information from one neuron to another (or multiple) all these chemicals do is really transfer the info. Why do I say so? Because whatever the chemicals do at the level of synapses in the end we still have a spike trains that is created in the dendrite and that is what is processed by the neuron in the end. <br>It is not just a theory we have many applications that use this understanding of what counts in the brain. I have mentioned the memory prosthesis by Dr. Berger which is just a digital representation of the neural connections, as far as I know, it doesn't have any neurotransmitters in it or anything that emulates their presence. Same with visual cortex prosthesis. Also, the indirect fact that ANN is able to process information and in fact, this entire business of LLM can manipulate and process high-level information (that is one of the most fundamental hallmarks of humanity, language) with only weights in a matrix that are functional representations of the strength of the connection between neurons. This strength doesn't need to be necessarily a single number but it can be also represented by a function, maybe this is equivalent to what a neurotransmitter does after all, different responses according to different levels of concentration of a neurotransmitter but again whatever the glutamate does its relevance is in the fact that contributes to the signal been transmitted. <br><br>You may ask but wait WHAT IS the signal about, it has to be about something right? Sure, the signal tells us something is happening somewhere (like in the case of sensory input), that a particular type of interaction is happening. This all. What applies to fundamental physics has to apply to what happens in the brain. We know the world by observing the interactions. Interactions between what? It doesn't matter and we cannot know because the only way to know what that thing maybe be is to interact with it. We define things by the result of the interaction itself. <br><br>Giovanni <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 1:45 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Jason,</div><div>Oh, this seems to be a big part of our misunderstanding.</div><div>You said: "Physics gives no answer." <br></div><div>It would have been true, and more accurate, to have said: Objective observation of physics through our abstract senses, alone, "gives no answers." (for the same reason you can't communicate to someone what redness is like with only abstract symbols like text)</div><div>You are ignoring the fact that we also have subjective access to physics (or maybe you think color qualities are non physical?). The prediction is that glutamate (or something) behaves the way it does, because of the subjective quality we can directly experience in consciousness. If experimental physical science that includes subjective access to the same demonstrates that it is glutamate = rednerss and glycine = greenness. Then things like this will be saying the same thing.</div><div><br></div><div>My redness/glutamate/behavior is the same as your glycine/greenness/behavior, both of which we call red.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:04 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 12:47 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Jason,</div><div>OK, let me see if I can summarize what is important in what you are saying.</div><div>We all agree that subjective qualities exist (Thank you Giovani, for explicitly expressing this in your statement I quoted) we are just making falsifiable predictions about the nature of those qualities.</div><div><br></div><div>But help me out with something regarding this functional nature of qualities. You also said: "consciousness is the verbs not the nouns". I would say the virb is "pick" as in pick the strawberry. The strawberry is the object or the noun. I would say the quality is the property of the noun, which tells us what to pick (the red one) and what not to pick (the green one). And whether we use a subjective redness property to represent the red one, or a subjective grenness property to represent, either way, we can pick the right one. But what does any of that function, have to do with determining what redness is like? Seems to me, the properties we represent our knowledge with, is substrate dependent. If you change it from glutamate to glycine, it is going to be physically different, and even though both will allow you to pick the correct strawberry (if you have the correct dictionary), they are still representing the knowledge with different physical properties. (or different subjective qualities, if you must)</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Think about what are physical objects, ultimately. Physics gives no answer. It tells us how things behave (i.e. how they function) but never what they are. The only thing then, that differentiates glutamate from glycine, is how they behave, and react or relate to Roger things, which are also defined only by how they behave. Physical objects are only definable by their functional descriptions and relations. This is why I think functionalism is so powerful. It's the foundation of everything we can describe.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 8:50 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 8:07 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Henry,</div><div>Welcome to the conversation, it is good to have other people weigh in on this, as required to better understand how everyone currently thinks about what we are.</div><div>It took me some time to digest what you are saying. I think I understand, so I want to say it back to you to see if I understand it.</div><div><br></div><div>First, let me see if I can summarize the primary disagreement in this entire conversation. It now appears there are some things both camps can now agree on, we just have differing values about what is important. I think Giovani captured this brilliantly with:</div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff">“</font><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><font color="#0000ff">This is again a demonstration of the validity
of the functionalist understanding of brain function. All I </font><font color="#000000">[functionalists]</font><font color="#0000ff">
care about is the association, not how it feels to have the redness experience
but how generalized it is.</font></span><font color="#0000ff">”</font></p></div><div><br></div><div>So, Henry, you indicated the <a href="https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness?chapter=perceiving+a+strawberry&format=360" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Perceiving a Strawberry</a> video was thought provoking. Perhaps it got you to realize there are qualities or properties of subjective knowledge, you are just indicating that external consistency in our ability to communicate about the nature of reality out there is more important than any property or type of code any intelligence may be using to represent that knowledge, in their brain.</div><div><br></div><div>In other words, it seems to me that all the functionalists value is that we can all say: "The Strawberry is Red" (as portrayed in this image) while some of us value the nature of the knowledge inside the brain, which enables us to all say: "The strawberry is red."</div><div><br></div><div><img src="cid:ii_lgxp9z680" alt="The_Strawberry_is_Red_064.jpg" width="480" height="310"><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Henry, Giovani, and everyone. Does that capture the differences between the substrate independent, and substrate dependent camps?</div><div>We all agree on the facts portrayed in this image, we are just valuing different parts of it, and some of us want to ignore other parts of it.</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Functionalism doesn't deny the existence of qualia. As far as I know only eliminative materialism goes thet far.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Functionalism is just one among many theories in philosophy of mind that attempts to explain what underlies consciousness (and qualia).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Functionalism says consciousness is the verbs not the nouns, that make a mind. A human mind is what the human brain does: it's set of actions and behaviors, not what it's constitutional elements happen to be. So long as the causal organization between the minds elements is preserved, it makes no difference what the elements are or are made of.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That's all functionalism says.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Functionalism makes no denials of the reality of consciousness or qualia, nor does it make any statements regarding their value.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 9:45 PM Henry Rivera via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I really liked that video about the red strawberries. It's thought-provoking. I'm curious to get Brent's response. Maybe color is the wrong simple example to use for communicating about qualia. It worked well enough until we realized color perception is a subjective contextual process that did not evolve to favor reflecting (consensus) reality. Perceived color constancy is more important, that is, has been more adaptive for us. How about them apples... or strawberries.<br></div><div>To quote my late friend and rapper Sean Byrne:
<span dir="auto"> "Nothing exists except for your perception, the pain of the past only serves as a lesson."</span></div><div><span dir="auto">-Henry<br></span>
</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 7:00 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Jason,</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 3:09 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>as in say the strawberry is red, but it would answer the question: "What is redness like for you." differently.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don't see why they would answer this question differently if everything got inverted, including all emotional associations. If you changed only the word, but left the emotional associations as they were, then you could perhaps get different descriptions.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm skipping a bunch of stuff that I think is less important, and focusing on what I think is most important, but if I skip over something important, don't let me brush over it.</div><div><br></div><div>Giovani, evidently you think even a person engineered to have red / green qualia inversion, you would consider them to be indistinguishable, and that the quality difference of the subjective knowledge wouldn't matter?</div><div><br></div><div>It sounds like Jason at least thinks the two would be qualitatively different, and this difference is important, if you are asking what his redness is like for each of them. Jason just has a problem with how we would know, or how he would report that. For the moment, can we just say we are God, for a bit. And we can know if the redness is now greenness, even though the person wouldn't know, since all of his memories and references have been remapped.</div><div>The prediction is the future, we will be able to read people's minds, and objectively observe whether it is Jason's redness, or Jason's greenness, via neural ponytails, or whatever.</div><div>The critically important part is we need to focus on only the important thing, the quality of the redness. Not what the person thinks that quality is called, whether he is lying or whatever. Let's only focus on the quality of the redness experiences. Would God say that quality has changed or not, regardless of what the person says.</div><div><br></div><div>So, again, if you engineered someone to be a qualia invert. God could honestly tell those two people that one's redness was like the other's grenness.</div><div>And even though they would function differently, when asked what is redness like for you, they would know, since God told them, that their redness was like the other's greenness, so despite them being otherwise identical, they were qualitatively different.</div><div><br></div><div>So, would you agree that the quality of their consciousness is dependent on what their redness is like, and if one redness quality is like the other's greenness, that would be important and objectively observable?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>