From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat May 1 01:39:11 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 11:39:11 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creator of Dolly the sheep applies for therapeutic cloning licence Message-ID: <021c01c42f1d$1a612e30$1a2d2dcb@homepc> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7447/1036-a?etoc London Nadeeja Koralage "The scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep has announced that he will apply for a licence to clone human embryos. Professor Ian Wilmut told the BMJ that he still opposed reproductive cloning but that the research could provide new treatments for diseases such as motor neurone disease that may involve the use of stem cells or small molecule drugs. Therapeutic cloning has been legal in the United Kingdom since 2001, but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has not yet awarded a licence to any group to do it; nor will the authority will disclose whether any group has applied to do it. Professor Wilmut's work would involve removing the DNA from a cell that belonged to someone with motor neurone disease. This DNA would be inserted into a precursor cell, which is taken from an embryo at a very early stage, and developed into motor neurones, which degenerate in motor neurone disease. Life expectancy in patients with motor neurone disease, from onset of symptoms, is two to five years, with half of all patients dying within 14 months of diagnoses. George Levy, chief executive of the Motor Neurone Disease Association, said therapeutic cloning "may revolutionise the future treatment [of this condition] as well as a great number of other degenerative conditions." He said that he recognised that therapeutic cloning raised important moral, ethical, and religious concerns, but added: "We will support this work as long as we are satisfied it is legal, has a sound scientific rationale, and has the potential to bring us closer to treatments." Fertility expert Professor Robert Winston said that he was "surprised" at the press attention received by the proposed application: "A very small minority, for religious reasons, believe that an embryo at this stage is the same as a human being. But the vast majority of people in the UK believe that this is not the case. The wide scientific consensus in the UK is that this kind of research is immensely useful and very good. "Motor neurone disease is a very nasty disease. It is an ethical imperative that we research ways of treating it." Professor Winston added that he had four licences from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for various projects but was not involved in therapeutic cloning. Patrick Cushworth, spokesman for the pro-life charity Life, said the application would give false hope to people with motor neurone disease. However, he was certain that Professor Wilmut's application would be successful: "If the authority were to deny Professor Wilmut the licence, it would reveal the lack of confidence there is in this legislation." Professor David King, director of the independent watchdog Human Genetics Alert, said the research risked giving "crucial help to those who want to clone babies." He added that his organisation would write to the authority urging it not to allow the research to go ahead. The application will be going through ethical committees before being submitted to the authority." -------- - Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat May 1 02:36:40 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:36:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Killer mini-robots [was Re: UK Navy denies submarine mutiny] Message-ID: <40930D38.555AD0AC@mindspring.com> --- In forteana at yahoogroups.com, Andy wrote: > For some reason this isn't all over the Uk Press. One of my more colorful > friends murmured something about the possibility that the sub had nuclear > weapons on board, the real reason the sailors asked to get off the boat. > > Andy There was an interesting edition of "Costing the Earth" on Radio 4 last night that was very revealing about how the british media tends to work, in this case in terms of environmental stories, but it can probably be applied to most topics. You can listen again at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/rams/costingtheearth.ram (requires realplayer) Blurb: < http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/costingtheearth.shtml > Can You Believe It? London will soon be a coastal resort, organic food will poison your children and the world's about to be over-run by an army of tiny robots intent on entering your brain and bending you to their evil will. The British media loves a good environmental scare story. In this week's `Costing the Earth' Alex Kirby asks if the environment can ever get the press treatment it deserves. He looks back on three big environmental stories of the past decade concerning the food we eat, the advance of technology and the purity of our oceans and finds out if press coverage helped or damaged our health and our environment. Shell's attempt to dump the Brent Spar oil-rig in the Atlantic Ocean was thwarted by a stunning Greenpeace media campaign but did the outcome really help keep our oceans clean? Organic food came under assault last year from suggestions that its reliance on manure could hugely increase the risk of food poisoning. The story was nonsense but where did it come from and how did it reach the front page of the Daily Mail? And what of nanotechnology, a branch of science few of us had heard of until Prince Charles apparently issued warnings of an army of killer mini-robots. Did the furore stop a promising new technology in its tracks or was the environment really threatened by the arrogance of scientists? Alex Kirby finds the answers in `Costing the Earth'. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 1 20:18:16 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 13:18:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anarcho-Transhumanism Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040501131005.02e42040@mail.earthlink.net> I just received Betterhuman's newsletter. I can't quite get a pulse on this. I'm not sure if it is dissing extropy because it called it "optimistic futurism" which is actually *inaccurate.* Extropy transhumanist philosophy supports a *rational optimism,* as extropy is the transhumanist organization that persistently encourages "critical thinking." What do you all think? http://www.anarcho-transhumanism.com/ Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun May 2 00:49:05 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 10:49:05 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anarcho-Transhumanism References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040501131005.02e42040@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <02e301c42fdf$453796e0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Natasha wrote: I just received Betterhuman's newsletter. I can't quite get a pulse on this. I'm not sure if it is dissing extropy because it called it "optimistic futurism" which is actually *inaccurate.* Extropy transhumanist philosophy supports a *rational optimism,* as extropy is the transhumanist organization that persistently encourages "critical thinking." What do you all think? http://www.anarcho-transhumanism.com/ I think the marketplace or meme-space of transhumanism is maturing but not evenly and ExI is one of the institutions in that space. The number of transhumanistically-inclined folk as a proportion of the population does not seem to be greatly increasing, not relative to the speed with which the technology to set up groups and newsletters has become cheaper and easier. Transhumanism is not mainstream and does not look likely to become mainstream. But the technology, the internet, that enables it continues. Whenever a new entrant comes along, whenever someone discovers they have a voice and want to say something, and the internet gives them a medium, they discover there is competition for the attention of limited numbers of people. So you get a sort of brand-"warring" where the groups or brands try to differentiate themselves to better gather the finite number of "supporters". If a new group or a brand can encaptulate an old in a definition (especially one that the old one professes or accepts) then the new group or brand can fence in the old and claim the transcension or the rest of the free range for themselves. This is the problem with isms. The flip side of avoiding getting caught in an ism is that if you don't stand for anything then you don't have much to offer others. None of this should be taken as my finding fault with Anarcho-Transhumanism. Or ExI. Behind the brands are people with ideas. But people with ideas usually want to do something besides just talk for the sake of talking. They usually want to do something to improve the world. Either the whole world or the world as they see it. So we get politics, marketing and competition. I haven't thought too deeply about this and I could easily be wrong or missing something even more fundamental. Regards, Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 2 10:03:17 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 12:03:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanomedicine IIA now online Message-ID: <20040502100317.GX25728@leitl.org> Now online in full text. http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMIIA.htm The safety, effectiveness, and utility of medical nanorobotic devices will critically depend upon their biocompatibility with human organs, tissues, cells, and biochemical systems. In this second Volume of the Nanomedicine technical book series, we broaden the definition of nanomedical biocompatibility to include all of the mechanical, physiological, immunological, cytological, and biochemical responses of the human body to the introduction of artificial medical nanodevices, whether .particulate. (large doses of independent micron-sized individual nanorobots) or .bulk. (nanorobotic organs assembled either as solid objects or built up from trillions of smaller artificial cells or docked nanorobots inside the body) in form. Also available via Amazon & Co in hardcopy, of course: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570597006/104-3843228-0872756 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From support at imminst.org Sun May 2 10:24:31 2004 From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 03:24:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - Chat: Astrophysics Message-ID: <4094cc5f0f780@imminst.org> Immortality Institute ~ For Infinite Lifespans ********************* Ending the Blight of Involuntary Death Basic Members: 1444 - Full Members: 82 Full Members - 38 Photos ********************* See photos of supporting members at: http://www.imminst.org/fullmembers If you're a Full Member and would like to add your photo, please reply to this email. Chat: Astrophysics with Dr. Michael Hartl ********************* Caltech physicist, Michael Hartl joins ImmInst to discuss astrophysics, gravitational waves, and chaos theory, as well as assorted topics in transhumanism. http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=63&t=3508 Chat Time: Sunday, May 2, 2004, 8 PM US Eastern Time (GMT - 5) Roy L. Walford, M.D - Dies Apr 27, 2004 ********************* Professor of Pathology at the UCLA School of Medicine since 1966, Dr. Walford dies two months short of his 80th birthday. His scientific career has been focused largely on research into the biology of aging. http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=1&t=3545 Ben Bova - Regenerative Medicine ********************* "One day in a future that most of us will live to see, patients will regenerate skin, nerves, whole organs and limbs from stem cells of their own bodies." http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=69&t=3537 Support ImmInst ********************* http://www.imminst.org/become_imminst_fullmember To be removed from all of our mailing lists, click here: http://www.imminst.org/archive/mailinglists/mailinglists.php?p=mlist&rem=extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun May 2 22:17:51 2004 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 18:17:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Like! Wow! Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040502181253.0271a168@mail.comcast.net> Apropos of our thread on doing science, and the dispute over nanotech -- I just came across an sf novel, _Timepiece_, by Brian N. Ball. I have not read it. I did read and enjoy another of his books. I'm looking at the first American printing, a paperback from Ballantine Books, dated 1970. The Ballantines published many fine books. However. I have to wonder who wrote cover blurbs then, and what might have been in their bloodstream. On the front, below the title, reads "the mindbending search for time itself." On the back, the blurb includes -- >He blends science and fiction in an explosively imaginative form that >whirls the reader into a vortex of excitement. > >But perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of this novel is that the >theories expounded by the author have been checked by a noted scientist >and have been declared feasible. Holy mother-of-pearl, Batman! -- David Lubkin. From jcorb at irishbroadband.net Sun May 2 23:55:40 2004 From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 00:55:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS:Premature ageing secret unlocked Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040503005203.01f38d78@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> Some good news. A despicable illness yields a new clue; >Premature ageing secret unlocked http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3664453.stm >Two English scientists have unlocked the secret to a rare premature ageing >disease called Progeria. >Researchers at Brunel University, west London found how a mutated gene >responsible for the condition works. >It is hoped the discovery will help treatment for age-related conditions >such as stroke and heart disease. >The research will be published in Experimental Gerontology. Progeria >affects around one in four million people. There are 40 known cases. >The average life expectancy for someone with the condition is around 13 to >14 years old. >Symptoms include baldness, aged-looking skin, dwarfism, and a small face >and jaw relative to head size >A typical cell will divide a certain amount of times so that a new set can >replace worn out or damaged ones. >As a person ages, cells lose the ability to multiply. > >The researchers discovered the mutated form of Lamin A cause cells to >divide more rapidly, which causes them to die > >It is this process which leads to premature ageing. > >"The whole key is in the cells," Dr Kill explains. James... From jpnitya at sapo.pt Mon May 3 00:17:16 2004 From: jpnitya at sapo.pt (Joao Magalhaes) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 01:17:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS:Premature ageing secret unlocked In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20040503005203.01f38d78@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> References: <5.0.2.1.1.20040503005203.01f38d78@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040503011127.01d6dea0@pop.sapo.pt> Hi, It's fun to see that while in Werner's syndrome (WS) cells divide slower apparently in Hutchinson-Gilford's syndrome (HGS) they divide faster. Yet I think this report misses one important aspect of the study: cells from the HGS patients feature a higher rate of apoptosis, just like they do in WS. Interestingly, the p66 mutant mice that live 30% longer than controls also feature a decrease in apoptosis. What this tells me is that cell turnover as a whole appears to play a role in aging, as advocated before. All the best, Joao Joao Magalhaes, Ph.D. Website on Ageing: http://www.senescence.info Reason's Triumph: http://www.jpreason.com From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 3 05:41:49 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 22:41:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] extro5 memories In-Reply-To: <20040502100317.GX25728@leitl.org> Message-ID: <000b01c430d1$545ac730$6501a8c0@SHELLY> I was down in San Jose today, among the hordes of drunken Cinco de Mayo-ers. I wasn't one of them, you understand. I was at the Tech museum, across the street from that hotel where we had Extro5. As I watched the IMAX, pleasant memories of that fine time flooded my brain, and I began to wonder: why is it that they never have any porno movies at the IMAX? Then I realized, its because then some woman's buns would be about 15 feet across. Each. That might actually be a turnoff, in some ways. Really, how much resolution does one actually need for that sorta thing? Extro5 was a kick, wasn't it? spike From joe at barrera.org Mon May 3 06:42:12 2004 From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III) Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 23:42:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] extro5 memories In-Reply-To: <000b01c430d1$545ac730$6501a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000b01c430d1$545ac730$6501a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <4095E9C4.4090204@barrera.org> Spike wrote: > would be about 15 feet across. Each. That might > actually be a turnoff, in some ways. Sort of reminds me of the article in Slate about how porn and HDTV are NOT a good mix: From amara at amara.com Mon May 3 09:44:23 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:44:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lest We Forget: A small photodocumentary Message-ID: Last weekend, I created a web documentary of my slides and notes to to accompany the Baltic Republics new step into the European Union. I hope you find it interesting. http://www.amara.com/Independence/LestWeForget.html (from the Introduction) Latvia and Estonia and Lithuania are now officially part of the European Union. For three-quarter's of my life, these regions were immersed in the steel wire of the Soviet Union, and freedom and independence was a distant memory of the past and unthinkable for the future. I ask, dear viewer, that you pause for a moment and remember the republics' location in liberty-space in 1991, and compare that to where we are today. These photos document one small part of the Baltic Republics' fight for freedom. In July 1991, one month before the Coup in Moscow that brought the USSR tumbling down, I travelled for my second time to Latvia and Estonia. My previous visit was in January 1990, and the changes from one-and-a-half years before were clear. Lithuania had already declared its Independence (March 1990), even though the USSR didn't agree. Latvians and Estonians had also made significant steps, pushing the freedom envelope. I saw Latvian and Estonian flags flown for the first time. I read literature that talked of the USSR as a country 'abroad'. Everyone was talking openly, nervously, excitedly. They didn't know then, that their independence would be real one month later, nor in their wildest dreams could they have imagined that they would be part of Europe thirteen years later. It makes one a bit dizzy to think about it. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "The best presents don't come in boxes." --Hobbes From natasha at natasha.cc Tue May 4 02:18:40 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 19:18:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lest We Forget: A small photodocumentary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040503191116.01dbf760@mail.earthlink.net> At 10:44 AM 5/3/04 +0100, Amara wrote: Latvians and Estonians had also made significant steps, >pushing the freedom envelope. I saw Latvian and Estonian flags flown >for the first time. I read literature that talked of the USSR as a >country 'abroad'. Everyone was talking openly, nervously, excitedly. >They didn't know then, that their independence would be real one month >later, nor in their wildest dreams could they have imagined that they >would be part of Europe thirteen years later. It makes one a bit dizzy >to think about it. Thanks Amara. Having now been to Estonia , I marvel at how quickly this country has progressed. I fell in love with Estonia and the people I worked with at the Estonian Art Academy. Although nicely situated near Helsinki where design reigns supreme, Estonia has to work overtime to get new media recognized. With Ando Kesk?la at the helm, I'm sure it won't take long! "Estonia, the social and cultural dimension of new media, its potential of being an open channel mediating significant political and cultural information, has unfortunately not yet found recognition on governmental level. The situation is revealed by the lack of State's interest in educating the professionals of New Media in Estonian universities, it is revealed in government's media- and finance-policy. "Despite of all that, Art Academy has become a good environment for discussions over the impact of computer networks and new media technologies on our current (recent) understanding of culture and social order in whole society. Through international forum for discussions and exchange of experience by the artists of different countries French-Baltic-Nordic Video and New Media Festival hopefully contributes to creating new and more democratic media environment." Professor Ando Kesk?la Rector of Estonian Academy of Arts Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue May 4 03:56:44 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 20:56:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (Got Caliche?) Liberals and strangers Message-ID: <4097147C.FAA76651@mindspring.com> CYBERIA < http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleView.asp?P_Article=12560 > Liberalism is not 300 years old; it was born 10,000 years ago with the invention of agriculture. Liberalism is not about how to live as a western capitalist Protestant. Its roots are to be found not in capitalism but in agriculture, in that remarkable 10,000-year-old revolution that led modern man, independently in many different parts of the world, to give up the hunting and gathering life and to found farms, villages and eventually cities. That change had a radical consequence: human beings had to learn to live and to trade with strangers for the first time. Modern society is built on institutions that persuade us to treat strangers as though they were honorary friends. The capacity for abstract thought is required to see how strangers who do not share your language or religion may nevertheless behave in crucial respects just like you. Modern social life depends on a large number of arrangements for reinforcing reciprocity with self-interest, so that when we meet and transact with strangers we do not always need to ask ourselves about their intrinsic trustworthiness. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From reason at longevitymeme.org Tue May 4 04:34:25 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 21:34:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest Message-ID: Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what that big bright, brighter-than-planets star in the northwest is? Visible in California right now (21:30PST). I just saw it on the way back home tonight, and various folks in Texas claim to be able to see it also. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 4 04:50:06 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 21:50:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c43193$46143720$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Reason > big bright light in the northwest > > > Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what that big bright, > brighter-than-planets star in the northwest is? Visible in > California right > now (21:30PST). I just saw it on the way back home tonight, > and various > folks in Texas claim to be able to see it also. > > Reason > Founder, Longevity Meme Venus, Reason. Takes a lotta people by surprise when it is near peak brightness, as it is now. Watch in a about a week, go out before the moon rises. If you can get to a place where there are no city lights nearby, you might be able to catch a really cool phenom that I have only seen twice myself: Venusian shadows. Venus is essentially a point source of light, so the shadows it creates have a surreal sharp edged quality. The half degree diameter of a full moon creates fuzzy edged shadows that are merely surfake or surimaginary. spike From reason at longevitymeme.org Tue May 4 04:59:03 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 21:59:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest In-Reply-To: <000201c43193$46143720$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net] > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:50 PM > To: reason at longevitymeme.org; 'ExI chat list' > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest > > > Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what that big bright, > > brighter-than-planets star in the northwest is? Visible in > > California right > > now (21:30PST). I just saw it on the way back home tonight, > > and various > > folks in Texas claim to be able to see it also. > > Venus, Reason. Takes a lotta people by surprise when it > is near peak brightness, as it is now. Watch in a about a > week, go out before the moon rises. If you can get to a > place where there are no city lights nearby, you might > be able to catch a really cool phenom that I have only > seen twice myself: Venusian shadows. > > Venus is essentially a point source of light, so the shadows > it creates have a surreal sharp edged quality. The half degree > diameter of a full moon creates fuzzy edged shadows that are > merely surfake or surimaginary. Well I think that adequately demonstrates that it's been many many years since I did anything with astronomy (as opposed to the not-watching-the-sky parts of astrophysics that always seemed more fun and less cold). Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 4 05:21:59 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 22:21:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest In-Reply-To: <000201c43193$46143720$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <000001c43197$b9c69b00$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > > Reason > > Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what that big bright, > > brighter-than-planets star in the northwest is? > > Venus, Reason. Takes a lotta people by surprise when it > is near peak brightness, as it is now... Ain't she a beauty? I love it when Venus is in the evening sky. I really miss her during the eight- month stretches when she is missing in the evenings. I have been known to rise at 0430 to see Venus at her peak morning brightness. (I am stupid that way.) spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 4 05:32:13 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 22:32:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c43199$2794b170$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Well I think that adequately demonstrates that it's been many > many years since I did anything with astronomy (as opposed to the > not-watching-the-sky parts of astrophysics that always seemed more fun and less cold). > > Reason > Founder, Longevity Meme OK someone help me here. I read a hilarious story in one of Carl Sagan's books, (I think it was one of his books.) I have been trying to find it but no luck, and Google hasn't found it. As I recall the story went apprximately like this: Dr. Sagan was at an observatory working on a SETI project when the phone rang. He was sitting right beside it so he answered. The clearly inebriated voice said: Lemme talk to an ashtrominer. Sagan: This is Dr. Carl Sagan, I am an astronomer. Drunk: Whash that briiiight liiight way up in the west? Sagan: That is Venus, sir. Drunk: It washnt up there before. Sagan: Venus is a planet sir. It orbits the sun in an orbit that makes it visible in the evening sky only half the time. Right now it is at its peak brightness. {long pause} Drunk: Lemme talk to a *real* ashtrominer... {8^D Anyone know where that story is located? spike From pgptag at gmail.com Tue May 4 06:26:54 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:26:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest In-Reply-To: <000101c43199$2794b170$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000101c43199$2794b170$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <09BBBD83.56039786@mail.gmail.com> A supernova? A near Earth quasar? Space invaders? Beautiful, I need something exciting in my boring life!!! I have also seen something bright and unisual last night, what the hell was it? G. From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Tue May 4 09:42:32 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:42:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest Message-ID: <40976588.5070801@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> On Mon May 3 22:34:25 MDT 2004 Reason queried: > Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what that big bright, > brighter-than-planets star in the northwest is? Visible in California > right now (21:30PST). Go to one of my favorite sites: http://www.heavens-above.com/ Choose your location, then it will give you a starchart and lots of other lovely information. :) Mars and Saturn are also quite close to Venus at present. -------- If you're interested in satellites or astronomy, you've come to the right place! Our aim is to provide you with all the information you need to observe satellites such as the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle, spectacular events such as the dazzlingly bright flares from Iridium satellites as well as a wealth of other spaceflight and astronomical information. We not only provide the times of visibility, but also detailed star charts showing the satellite's track through the heavens. All our pages, including the graphics, are generated in real-time and customized for your location and time zone. --------- BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Tue May 4 14:34:48 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 07:34:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040504073222.03013c60@mail.earthlink.net> At 09:34 PM 5/3/04 -0700, you wrote: >Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what that big bright, >brighter-than-planets star in the northwest is? Visible in California right >now (21:30PST). I just saw it on the way back home tonight, and various >folks in Texas claim to be able to see it also. Venus! I've been watching it from Austin - stunning. Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue May 4 14:36:46 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 07:36:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest In-Reply-To: <000101c43199$2794b170$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040504073514.03013370@mail.earthlink.net> At 10:32 PM 5/3/04 -0700, Spike wrote: >Lemme talk to an ashtrominer. hahah! I've been up with a sick puppy since sun rise (Venus set?) and this was just what I needed to accompany my coffee! hahahaha ahahah. N >Sagan: This is Dr. Carl Sagan, I am an astronomer. > >Drunk: Whash that briiiight liiight way up in the west? > >Sagan: That is Venus, sir. > >Drunk: It washnt up there before. > >Sagan: Venus is a planet sir. It orbits the sun in an orbit >that makes it visible in the evening sky only half the time. >Right now it is at its peak brightness. > >{long pause} > >Drunk: Lemme talk to a *real* ashtrominer... > >{8^D > >Anyone know where that story is located? spike > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue May 4 14:16:44 2004 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:16:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040504073514.03013370@mail.earthlink.net> References: <000101c43199$2794b170$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040504101227.02933008@mail.comcast.net> Natasha wrote: >hahah! I've been up with a sick puppy since sun rise (Venus set?) By which you mean a young canine, right? Not the sick puppies that sometimes get on a roll here? (Bwa-ha-ha!) -- David. From megaquark at hotmail.com Tue May 4 22:03:41 2004 From: megaquark at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 17:03:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040504073222.03013c60@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Ihad my kids out with the telescope last night and it is a lovely crescent. Grab a pair of binoculars and take a peek! :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: reason at longevitymeme.org ; ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest At 09:34 PM 5/3/04 -0700, you wrote: Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what that big bright, brighter-than-planets star in the northwest is? Visible in California right now (21:30PST). I just saw it on the way back home tonight, and various folks in Texas claim to be able to see it also. Venus! I've been watching it from Austin - stunning. Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcorb at irishbroadband.net Tue May 4 22:44:51 2004 From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally) Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 23:44:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040504234158.01fa8778@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> >Message: 12 >Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:16:44 -0400 >From: David Lubkin >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] big bright light in the northwest >To: ExI chat list >Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040504101227.02933008 at mail.comcast.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > >Natasha wrote: > > > >hahah! I've been up with a sick puppy since sun rise (Venus set?) Hope the little fella is ok. Poor dear. >By which you mean a young canine, right? Not the sick puppies that >sometimes get on a roll here? (Bwa-ha-ha!) > > > >-- David. Actually, there's a Lunar eclipse here and in the UK tonight. Moon's supposed to appear blood red in the sky. Problem of course is that it's raining and windy, so I can't see a damn thing up there :( I've been seeing Venus off to our West. Brighter than Mars was last year at it's closest approach, it seems to me. James.... From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed May 5 17:06:45 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 03:06:45 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suda et al papers (was Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No) References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4F3@mmdsvr01.mm.local> Message-ID: <002901c432c3$5896b5e0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Emlyn ORegan wrote: > I don't know how to find this paper, but it looks promising... > > Suda I, Kito K, Adachi C. > Viability of long term frozen cat brain in vitro. > Nature. 1966 Oct 15;212(59):268-70. No abstract available. > PMID: 5970120 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed I've photocopied the above (3 pages) and the other Suda et al paper "The Bioelectric discharge of isolated cat brain after revival from years of frozen storage" Brain Research, 70 (1974) 527-532 (5 pages). They're temporarily available at www.entrepitec.com.au I hope electronic copies of these papers become more available so that it will be hard for them to be presented as evidence for what they are not. I read, or reread these recently mainly to see if they bore out what Merkle said they did in his paper The Molecular Repair of the Brain [1]. They constituted relatively easily checkable facts. In The Molecular Repair of the Brain Merkle wrote, "The brain seems (sic) more (sic) resistant than most organs to freezing damage [58, 79]". I think that that statement is false (verifiable so by reading the reports) but I would like to hear what others think. The reason that this sort of stuff is an issue for me is that citations offered in papers that are not peer reviewed; (a bunch of amigos with a shared bias towards a particular outcome is not peer review), are often hard to check by individuals interested in the truth yet with a finite amount of time to waste routing out mischief and wishful thinking. When something is not true I prefer to take out the trash not keep it around out of sentimental value to keep tripping over or to waste the time of other people whose good efforts may be diverted by it as well. - Brett Paatsch [1] The Molecular Repair of The Brain http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html Citations as numbered in Merkle's The Molecular Repair of The Brain [58] "Viability of Long Term Frozen Cat Brain In Vitro" by Isamu Suda, K. Kito and C. Adachi, Nature Vol. 212, October 15, 1966 page 268. [79] "Bioelectric discharges of isolated cat brain after revival from years of frozen storage," by I. Suda, K. Kito, and C. Adachi. Brain Research 70:527-531, 1974. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 5 17:41:25 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:41:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suda et al papers (was Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No) In-Reply-To: <002901c432c3$5896b5e0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4F3@mmdsvr01.mm.local> <002901c432c3$5896b5e0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20040505174122.GV25728@leitl.org> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:06:45AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > I've photocopied the above (3 pages) and the other Suda et al paper > "The Bioelectric discharge of isolated cat brain after revival from > years of frozen storage" Brain Research, 70 (1974) 527-532 > (5 pages). They're temporarily available at www.entrepitec.com.au Thanks for making those available. > I hope electronic copies of these papers become more available so that > it will be hard for them to be presented as evidence for what they are not. That depends on what one expects them to be. Glycerolized tissue at -20 C is not even frozen. State of the art in whole organ cryopreservation doesn't focus on the brain, as that is not a transplantable organ. So let's not waste time comparing apples with frozen orange juice concentrate. > I read, or reread these recently mainly to see if they bore out what Merkle > said they did in his paper The Molecular Repair of the Brain [1]. They > constituted relatively easily checkable facts. > > In The Molecular Repair of the Brain Merkle wrote, "The brain seems > (sic) more (sic) resistant than most organs to freezing damage [58, 79]". > > I think that that statement is false (verifiable so by reading the reports) but > I would like to hear what others think. Merkle is not a cryobiologist. He's a cryptographer turned computational nanotechnologist, postulating total reversibility in absence of facts which speak otherwise. It is very difficult to get him to listen, because (for whatever reason) he assumes the burden of proof is on your side, not his. This doesn't mean all information is irretrievably lost. A whole lot of it is reversible. What we don't know: a) how much of it is reversible (we can extrapolate the rest) and b) is that enough to recreate the original person? We currently don't know, save of scant data points in tissue viability and structure preservation in EM micrographs of vitrified rabbit brains. > The reason that this sort of stuff is an issue for me is that citations offered > in papers that are not peer reviewed; (a bunch of amigos with a shared bias > towards a particular outcome is not peer review), are often hard to check by > individuals interested in the truth yet with a finite amount of time to waste > routing out mischief and wishful thinking. > > When something is not true I prefer to take out the trash not keep it > around out of sentimental value to keep tripping over or to waste the time > of other people whose good efforts may be diverted by it as well. You're displaying your own bias. It is impossible to prove cryonics has no point, equally that it's going to work. Given the potentially tremendous payoff in case it does, we need to figure out issues a) and b) above. Unfortunately, the cryonicists are ghettoized, don't have the skills nor motivation to research this, and cryobiologists wouldn't touch the issues with a ten-foot pole. I've seen enough to maintain that there's enough in there to undertake vigorous research. Don't claim the area isn't worth studying, the potential damage is very high. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 5 18:27:23 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 20:27:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Suda et al papers (was Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No) In-Reply-To: <20040505174122.GV25728@leitl.org> References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4F3@mmdsvr01.mm.local> <002901c432c3$5896b5e0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> <20040505174122.GV25728@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20040505182723.GW25728@leitl.org> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 07:41:25PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Merkle is not a cryobiologist. He's a cryptographer turned computational > nanotechnologist, postulating total reversibility in absence of facts which > speak otherwise. It is very difficult to get him to listen, because (for > whatever reason) he assumes the burden of proof is on your side, not his. Somebody fetch me an oralopede, quick. What I meant: there's lots of empirical evidence for irreversible information erasure through structure denaturation, and plausible mechanisms for such. Not a good place for argumentation by vigorous handwaving, and "prove it".. > I've seen enough to maintain that there's enough in there to undertake > vigorous research. Don't claim the area isn't worth studying, the potential > damage is very high. I.e., if cryonics is viable, any personal responsibility in delaying large-scale deployment makes you the greatest genocide perpetrator in entire history, by a very far margin. Ditto any gerontology/longevity research, of course. http://webdeveloper.earthweb.com/repository/javascripts/2003/10/276371/deathcounter.html -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 5 19:00:19 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 21:00:19 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [>Htech] The Doctor Will Freeze You Now (fwd from eugen@leitl.org) Message-ID: <20040505190019.GY25728@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from Eugen Leitl ----- From: Eugen Leitl Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 17:26:10 +0200 To: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com Cc: forkit! , decryo at detrans.de Subject: [>Htech] The Doctor Will Freeze You Now User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Reply-To: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.05/biotime.html?pg=1&topic=biotime&topic_set= The Doctor Will Freeze You Now How low-temperature surgery could kick-start the cryo game. By Wil McCarthy "I should prefer to an ordinary death, being immersed with a few friends in a cask of Madeira, until that time, then to be recalled to life by the solar warmth of my dear country! But in all probability, we live in a century too little advanced, and too near the infancy of science, to see such an art brought in our time to its perfection." Benjamin Franklin wrote these words in 1773. And what if the old guy was onto something? What if life had a Skip button, like the one on your TiVo? Then you could go offline until next year, when your medication will be approved, or next decade, when your bonds will have matured, or even next century, when life is scheduled (finally!) to become perfect. A company called BioTime shares the dream. BioTime deals in ultra-profound hypothermia, the body's last stop before freezing. Suspended animation isn't in the prospectus - yet. For the moment, this 10-person outfit is helping doctors chill their patients during heart, brain, and vascular surgery, where lower temperature translates into more available time on the operating table, less potential for blood loss, and fewer post-op complications. Major surgery can be hell on a patient, and procedures that require interrupting blood flow can be the worst because they starve the body of oxygen. To prepare for stopping the heart, for instance, doctors divert the bloodstream through a heart-lung machine that circulates the entire blood volume 30 to 60 times an hour. The machine can release air bubbles into the bloodstream, bringing on cognitive loss and personality change. It also ruptures red blood cells, spilling free hemoglobin into bodily organs, where it's toxic. Meanwhile, white blood cells, finding themselves surrounded by plastic tubing, go into a sort of immunological panic mode. The resulting inflammation can cause capillaries to leak, especially in the brain. One way to sidestep these issues is to minimize the body's oxygen demand, and the simplest way to do that is to cool the affected tissues. This has spurred a billion-dollar industry in therapeutic hypothermia, in which a dozen companies jockey for market position. There are blood coolers and ice-water baths, cold caps and water-circulating pads that adhere to the skin. Most of these devices are designed to cool a specific area of the body. Some drop a person's core temperature as low as 90 degrees. Any lower and blood thickens to sludge while its proteins fold up into useless shapes, tempting catastrophic circulatory dysfunction. It's here that BioTime stands out from the pack. The company has developed a process that cools living bodies much further than that. Fifty-six degrees further, in fact, right down to the brink of freezing - a state in which the brain takes hours, not minutes, to wither. BioTime's secret is dumbfoundingly obvious: antifreeze. The company's flagship product, Hextend, is an FDA-approved blood-volume expander designed to maintain blood pressure and chemistry in the wake of massive blood loss. It's used for this purpose in surgical wards throughout the US and Canada, but the product has an additional property: It doesn't coagulate at low temperature. Since 1992, BioTime has been testing Hextend in baboons, pigs, and dogs, replacing their entire blood supply and then cooling them to 35 degrees. At that point, vital signs cease. Bleeding virtually stops. Oxygen-hungry tissues go on a diet. Then technicians raise the body temperature, reintroduce the blood, and shock the heart to life. "Right now, we can easily bring animals back from two hours of absolute clinical death," says Hal Sternberg, BioTime's VP of research. "No pulse, no respiration, no measurable brain activity." The astounding thing is that the animals show no sign of physical or neurological damage. Over a period of weeks, the animal returns to its cute and cuddly self. The FDA hasn't approved BioTime's procedure for humans yet, but with Hextend already on the market as a blood-volume replacement, Sternberg expects the green light in as little as three years. And when that happens, it will not only improve surgical safety, but also make way for longer procedures that no surgeon would dare attempt at room temperature, such as separating adult conjoined twins fused at the head. BioTime has other cool stuff in the pipeline, including HetaFreeze, a solution called a cryoprotectant. This substance makes it possible to freeze tissue grafts - BioTime has tested it with skin and hair - without disrupting their cellular structure. It may allow whole organs, such as hearts, and even intact (but brain-dead) organ donors to survive partial freezing. BioTime's story is neat, clinical, and investor-friendly, with a unique set of medical technologies that have immediate utility. Clinical death for up to 15 minutes has been reversible since the 1952 invention of the defibrillator; now BioTime is on the brink of extending that limit to hours. But with the envelope pushing out further and further, the momentum is carrying the company into stranger territory. Especially given that Sternberg and his colleagues are longtime members of the cryonics movement, whose techno-utopian, frozen-head agenda is well known. Like many R&D shops, BioTime's headquarters in Berkeley, California, is strewn with half-finished projects. One involves a pair of table-mounted pistons capable of generating up to 3,000 atmospheres of pressure. Ordinarily, ice crystals rupture the cells of a frozen tissue sample, leaving nothing but freezer-burned goo. But treated with cryoprotectant, suspended in liquid nitrogen, and pressurized by these pistons, the tissue enters a glassy, or vitrified, state from which it can be thawed and grafted onto a living animal. In nature, frogs tolerate partial freezing for weeks on end, and while Sternberg doesn't hold much hope for reviving such critters from vitrification, he does talk about vitrifying and restoring their little hearts. Meanwhile, the company's cash flow derives mainly from Hextend, which is manufactured and distributed by Abbott Pharmaceuticals in Chicago. Like many blood-related products, it comes in clear 500-milliliter bags covered in tiny blue print. This familiarity is reassuring, because for nearly 50 years the task of blood-volume expansion has been handled by balanced electrolyte solutions like ringers lactate - the basic fluid typically found in an IV bag - or by simple solutions of starch and saline. But ringers lactate passes through the blood-vessel walls too easily, causing tissues to swell and blood pressure to drop, and saline throws the body's electrolytes out of whack. Hextend combines the best qualities of both products along with a revitalizing shot of glucose. Sternberg, who invented the solution along with other BioTime principals, looks a decade younger than his 50 years. Indeed, he seems dedicated to dodging the grim reaper at any cost. He exercises daily but avoids sports and stays out of cars, and he eats a diet that can only be described as eccentric: minimal fat, lots of protein, fiber, and sugar, and so much hard green fruit that he rubbed his gums right off and had them surgically replaced with grafts. "Everyone is focused on molecular biology these days," he says. "Nobody is thinking about gross physiology. We've got a worldwide patent and tremendous customer loyalty. When surgeons try Hextend, they never switch back." For a solution intended to make up for lost blood, Hextend is a surprisingly inefficient transporter of oxygen. Blood carries 20 percent oxygen by weight; BioTime's product holds only 0.3 percent, about the same as ordinary water. Most people, however, have more red blood cells than they really need for short-term survival, so diluting the circulatory system for a few hours of surgery isn't a problem. This is especially true near the freezing point, where Hextend, supplemented with sodium bicarbonate, potassium, and magnesium, can safely replace the entire bloodstream. "Metabolic needs are drastically reduced at these temperatures," Sternberg notes. "As it turns out, 0.3 percent is more than enough. And the brain can survive for hours on stored oxygen alone." For test animals cooled for more than three hours, BioTime's success rate drops below 50 percent. If this sounds untenable, keep in mind that for patients with an inaccessible brain tumors, the alternative is certain death. Nonetheless, the idea of popsicle patients horrifies experts who haven't gotten used to it. "Thirty-five degrees?" says Jonathon Sullivan, an assistant professor at Detroit Receiving Hospital who is familiar with hypothermia's effect on the nervous system. "That sounds like a dead person. The lowest survivable temperature we've seen from accidental hypothermia is 61 degrees, and that entails prolonged critical care afterward." Still, Sullivan cottons to the idea after a few minutes of mulling. "There's an old axiom of resuscitology," he says: "You're never dead until you're warm and dead." That axiom could be the motto of the cryonics movement. Nonetheless, the medical establishment has shunned advocates of freezing bodies for eventual revival. And who can blame them? Cryonics is just plain creepy. The movement's roots reach back to the 1964 publication of Robert Ettinger's The Prospect of Immortality, but the current chapter begins in 1972, with a rift among the founders of Trans Time, a pioneering cryonics venture. One Trans Time splinter, Alcor Life Extension Foundation, went on to become supreme tabloid fodder in 2003 when it acquired the remains of deceased baseball legend Ted Williams after a bizarre custody scuffle between his children. Things took an even stranger turn when Alcor's former COO, Larry Johnson, told Sports Illustrated that the company had mishandled Williams' remains. Alcor insiders, he charged, joked about "throwing the body away" and "posting it on eBay" to persuade the sports star's son to pay an outstanding bill in excess of $100,000. Johnson himself later sold photos on his Web site of Williams' severed head. This kind of behavior explains why BioTime goes out of its way to distance itself from cryonics. It's tricky, though, since BioTime has roots in Trans Time, too. BioTime VP of operations and secretary Judith Segall insists, "There's no association between the two companies." However, a 1992 Trans Time newsletter trumpets a "close working relationship" with BioTime. "Drs. Paul Segall, Hal Sternberg, and Harold Waitz, BioTime's principal researchers, have a long affiliation with Trans Time," the document says. Later, it notes that "Hal Sternberg is currently our vice president, and BioTime secretary Judy Segall is also Trans Time's secretary." BioTime founder Paul Segall - husband of Judith and brother of Trans Time president John Segall - died in June 2003 from an aneurysm. Until the firm appoints a new CEO, his business role has been assumed by his wife and his technical functions by Hal Sternberg and Harold "Frosty" Waitz, another Trans Time alum. So it's hard to feel sure you're getting a straight answer when asking Sternberg about the prospects for long-term suspended animation. "Oh, jeez, that's a good question," he says. "For the next few years at least, I expect the limits on a whole person might be two hours, or maybe slightly longer. However, with a more substantial understanding of animals in a hibernating state, we may be able to reduce the demand for food and oxygen dramatically. There may be hormones or other things that could enable the body to tolerate much longer periods." How about freezing people altogether, I ask, conjuring an image of Woody Allen in Sleeper. "Until somebody does it," Sternberg says, "we don't know if such people would ever be revived." Sternberg himself may be among the first to learn, because Paul Segall is frozen right now, in a liquid nitrogen dewar on Trans Time premises in San Leandro, California. Many cryonicists speak of their frozen kin in the present tense, as if entering suspension were something quite different from dying. Sternberg doesn't do this. In talking about his departed friend and partner, he makes liberal use of was and had and even the dreaded d-word itself. But in a candid moment he affirms his faith. "It may take a long time," he says, "but someday we'll wake Paul up." As far as anyone knows, there's nothing physically impossible about reviving a frozen head. Still, when you get down to it, Alcor and Trans Time are taking money for a service that may never exist, and that even the companies themselves estimate is 150 years down the road. BioTime is approaching the problem from the other end - the respectable end - by working to extend established medical procedures. The immediate benefit will be preventing untimely death in the here and now, which is a completely different proposition than resurrecting the already dead. On the other hand, to give the envelope - any envelope - a meaningful nudge, you have to be a little bit crazy. You need to walk the knife-edge between the unlikely and the impossible. You need to dream. NASA has always been keen on hibernation for long space voyages, ? la Aliens and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Indeed, several NASA documents cite a 1995 article in the Journal of Gravitational Physiology called "Low Temperature Preservation and Space Medicine." The authors? Paul Segall, Hal Sternberg, and Frosty Waitz. With a bit of prodding, Sternberg describes the outline of his daydreams. "You can also freeze small tissues and all kinds of single cells indefinitely, and it has been shown that bacteria can travel on a meteorite in a frozen state. How long? With enough research, I think the answer is indefinitely." But who would risk their own neural integrity on such experiments? Ironically, given the need to preserve donor organs for as long as possible, brain-dead accident victims may lead the way in whole-body cryobiological research. The day may not be far off when we freeze these cadavers for transport, then thaw them and place their revived organs into the bodies of deeply hibernating transplant patients. When this becomes routine, the next survival boost will come from freezing prospective organ recipients when death is imminent and no replacement organ is available. We'll pause their lives for weeks, months, maybe even years. And once we've done that, can the stars themselves be far behind? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu May 6 02:31:46 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 12:31:46 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lab Creates Babies As Stem-Cell Donors (fwd from bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au) Message-ID: <00af01c43312$472b1450$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Lab Creates Babies As Stem-Cell Donors May 4, 11:00 PM (ET) By LINDSEY TANNER The made-to-order infants, from different families, were screened and selected when they were still embryos to make sure they would be compatible donors. Their siblings suffered from leukemia or a rare and potentially lethal anemia. This is the first time embryo tissue-typing has been done for common disorders like leukemia that are not inherited, and the results suggest that many more children than previously thought could benefit from the technology, said Dr. Anver Kuliev, a Chicago doctor who participated in the research. "This technology has wide implications in medical practice," Kuliev said Tuesday at a news conference. The Chicago doctors said the healthy embryos that were not matches were frozen for potential future use. But some ethicists said such perfectly healthy embryos could end up being discarded. "This was a search-and-destroy mission," said Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The chosen embryos "were allowed to be born so they could donate tissue to benefit someone else." Valparaiso University professor Gilbert Meilaender, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, called the practice "morally troubling." The council recently called for increased scrutiny of the largely unregulated U.S. infertility industry. The cases involved prenatal tests called pre-implantation HLA testing, pioneered at Chicago's Reproductive Genetics Institute. The tests are an offshoot of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which has been done for more than 1,000 couples worldwide to weed out test-tube embryos with genetic diseases such as Down syndrome, or, more recently, for sex selection. The institute's doctors made headlines four years ago after performing embryo tissue typing plus genetic disease screening for a Colorado couple who wanted to create another baby to save their daughter, who had a rare inherited disease called Fanconi anemia. The resulting baby boy, Adam Nash, donated bone marrow in an operation doctors said was a success. Since then, embryo tissue typing with genetic disease testing has been performed more than three dozen times worldwide, with most of the cases done at the Chicago institute, Kuliev said. Kuliev said the latest cases are the first instances in which embryos were tissue-typed but not screened genetically for diseases. The cases, reported in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, involved nine couples who submitted embryos that underwent tissue-typing tests during 2002 and 2003. Five had infants considered suitable donors. So far, stem cells from the umbilical cord blood of one infant have been donated to an ailing sibling, Kuliev said. He called the operation a success but said the older child will need continued monitoring to be sure. Another baby was born last June to an English couple who traveled to Chicago after British fertility authorities denied them permission to undergo the procedure in England, said Dr. Mohammed Taranissi, a London doctor who co-authored the JAMA report. The couple's older child has Diamond-Blackfan anemia, a rare blood ailment that can lead to leukemia. Taranissi said a transplant from the baby boy's umbilical cord blood is scheduled soon. Kuliev said the institute has done HLA embryo testing alone for more than a dozen other couples and demand is growing. More than 13,000 U.S. residents are diagnosed yearly with one of the leukemias involved in the research - acute myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoid leukemia, the most common childhood leukemia. Taranissi disagreed with ethicists concerned about discarding disease-free embryos. He noted that it often happens with in vitro fertilization, when doctors frequently create more test-tube embryos than are needed. With tissue-typing embryos, "you're doing this as a lifesaving procedure most of the time," Taranissi said. For years, families with sick children have conceived babies without costly test-tube procedures, taking a 1-in-4 chance that the child will be a match for the ailing sibling, said University of Wisconsin medical ethicist Norman Fost, who wrote a JAMA editorial. Some have had abortions when standard prenatal testing showed the child would not be a suitable donor, he said. The new procedure, he noted, does not involve abortion and poses no known risks to the embryos. Furthermore, parents seeking donor babies typically are well-intentioned and love the donor children, Fost said. "Of all the reasons people have babies, this would seem to be a wonderful reason. Most reasons are either mindless sex or selfish reasons," he said. --- On the Net: JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org American Society for Reproductive Medicine: http://www.asrm.org Presidents' Bioethics Council: http://www.bioethics.gov -------------------- Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 6 03:19:25 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 22:19:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lab Creates Babies As Stem-Cell Donors In-Reply-To: <00af01c43312$472b1450$1a2d2dcb@homepc> References: <00af01c43312$472b1450$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040505221403.01be6ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> > >The Chicago doctors said the healthy embryos that were not matches >were frozen for potential future use. But some ethicists said such >perfectly healthy embryos could end up being discarded. > >"This was a search-and-destroy mission," said Richard Doerflinger of >the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The chosen embryos "were >allowed to be born so they could donate tissue to benefit someone else." It is a murderous disgrace that the Catholic Church does not encourage its flotilla of childless, virginal nuns to offer up their unoccupied wombs to carry these poor defenceless 100 cell but fully human persons to term! Then they could be placed in Catholic orphanages, where the care is famously trustworthy and well-received. Damien Broderick From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu May 6 04:29:36 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:29:36 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lab Creates Babies As Stem-Cell Donors References: <00af01c43312$472b1450$1a2d2dcb@homepc> <6.0.3.0.0.20040505221403.01be6ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003a01c43322$bd30c090$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Damien Broderick wrote: > >The Chicago doctors said the healthy embryos that were not matches > >were frozen for potential future use. But some ethicists said such > >perfectly healthy embryos could end up being discarded. > > > >"This was a search-and-destroy mission," said Richard Doerflinger of > >the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The chosen embryos "were > >allowed to be born so they could donate tissue to benefit someone else." > > It is a murderous disgrace that the Catholic Church does not encourage its > flotilla of childless, virginal nuns to offer up their unoccupied wombs to > carry these poor defenceless 100 cell but fully human persons to term! Then > they could be placed in Catholic orphanages, where the care is famously > trustworthy and well-received. :-) I suspect its the life and death political difference between potential persons and actual persons in the embryonic stem cell area (and may "believers" inability to grasp that that difference is substantive rather than "merely semantics" or just a matter of faith), that makes me sensitive to other areas where potential and actual, real and imaginary, purported and established, are also confounded, and by apparently intelligent people. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu May 6 05:44:05 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:44:05 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Being an unabashed sceptic (was Suda et al papers (was etc)) Message-ID: <005801c4332d$24d6ac50$1a2d2dcb@homepc> I've forked the thread again because someone may be interested in talking about the Suda papers. On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 07:41:25PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Merkle is not a cryobiologist. He's a cryptographer turned computational > > nanotechnologist, postulating total reversibility in absence of facts which > > speak otherwise. It is very difficult to get him to listen, because (for > > whatever reason) he assumes the burden of proof is on your side, not his. Then his political acumen is low. He has two choices, work within the democratic system, such as it is, and change it lawfully by persuasion or invest the time and effort away from his other activities to try and overthrow it illegally and by force. I think that he will find, that the United States is a fairly formidable construction of political checks and balances even to its own citizens as it has evolved in large part to balance the tensions between their conflicting political interests, even when those interests are relatively enlightened. But this has nothing to do with the Suda papers if people want to discuss this essential existential political choice I hope they will do it in another appropriately labelled thread. [Eugene again] > I've seen enough to maintain that there's enough in there to undertake > vigorous research. Don't claim the area isn't worth studying, the potential > damage is very high. I didn't claim it wasn't worth studying. If I did claim it, I would not accept that my opinion falsely or incorrectly based would or should count for much. > I.e., if cryonics is viable, any personal responsibility in delaying large-scale > deployment makes you the greatest genocide perpetrator in entire history, > by a very far margin. > > Ditto any gerontology/longevity research, of course. I'm a little at a loss to see how I could become the greatest genocide perpetrator in history by a very far margin simply for failing to agree with a proposition. I thought as a scientist you'd like scepticism and questioning. Exactly how many ways has your scientific training allowed you to enumerated for me to becoming the greatest genocide perpetrator in history? How would I rate next to abortionists for instance or book burners? Would Joe Stalin be envious, or Pol Pot? Should I hold back all criticisms of molecular manufacturing as well just in case its needed to make cryonics work? On the other hand if cryonics cannot work, no way, no how, regardless of what I say or don't say, think or don't think, then would you prefer that the illusion that it could continue to be propagated and that people not spend their time and effort exploring alternatives ? Are some "beliefs" beyond the pail of critical thinking? Which ones? Or whos? Say you were a 'believer' in god and a religious system and your belief was mistaken would I have a moral responsibility to stay quiet out of deference to your feelings, to let you die with your illusions whilst during your life you continued to vote and act on your mistaken belief redirecting resources through the political processes that might otherwise have improved not just your life but mine and the people I care about? I'm more than a tad wary of the precautionary principle you seem to be espousing. I think I have seen it before. I didn't like it much then either. Regards, Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 6 06:19:00 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 01:19:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the galaxy's fifth leg Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040506011714.01c41ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,9483846,00.html Aussie astronomers redraw the galaxy From AFP 06may04 A 50-year-old map of the Milky Way will have to be redrawn after Australian astronomers made the astonishing discovery that our spiral galaxy has a huge, outflung arm, New Scientist reports in next Saturday's issue. The vast gassy limb comprises an arc of hydrogen 77,000 light years long and several thousand light years thick, running along the Milky Way's outermost edge and sweeping around the four main arms that swirl out from the galaxy's core. As it is not in the visible part of the light spectrum, it cannot be seen by ordinary telescopes. Astronomers at the Australia National Telescope Facility made the discovery in a project to map the distribution of hydrogen gas across the galaxy. Most of the Milky Way is obscured by interstellar dust, but hydrogen emits radio waves which pass through the dust clouds and which thus make it detectable by radio telescope. "We see it over a huge area of sky," lead astronomer Naomi McClure-Griffiths said. She speculates the arm is a long gaseous tendril that was once joined up with another spiral limb but became detached. The study will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Astronomers are amazed that the feature had been overlooked, New Scientist says. "I was absolutely flabbergasted, it was quite clearly seen in some of the previous surveys but it was never pointed out or given a name," said Tom Dame at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Massachusetts. AFP ? The Australian From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 6 06:21:47 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 01:21:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] robots to save Hubble? Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040506012132.01bbbc60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9454700%255E29098,00.html From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu May 6 08:19:11 2004 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 01:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] exponential increase in biological discovery In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040506011714.01c41ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040506081911.88820.qmail@web60004.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-05/uoc--ubd043004.php UCSD bioengineers develop first genome-scale computational model of gene regulation Results published in May 6 Issue of Nature ..."This research is evidence of how much more quickly biological discovery is going to progress now, given that we have high-throughput experimental tools for gathering large volumes of data, and the use of these tools can be guided by computer models," said Bernhard Palsson, professor of bioengineering at the UCSD Jacobs School of Engineering. ------------------------------ Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover From bradbury at aeiveos.com Thu May 6 13:57:21 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 06:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In memory Message-ID: Saturday (May 8th) is the 4 year anniversary of Sasha's departure. I hope those of us who knew him may take a moment to reflect on this. Robert URL: http://www.piclab.com/sasha/ From hal at finney.org Thu May 6 17:27:54 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:27:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Suda et al papers (was Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No) Message-ID: <200405061727.i46HRs911646@finney.org> Something else bothered me about Ralph Merkle's paper, http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html. Robert Bradbury had mentioned it as a citation for "cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly". In fact, however, the paper mostly discusses what Merkle calls "off-board" repair, meaning repair where the brain is disassembled and then reassembled, as distinguished from "on-board" repair, which is repairing the brain in place. Merkle writes, "The on-board repair scenario has been considered in some detail by Drexler[18]. We will give a brief outline of the on-board repair scenario here, but will not consider it in any depth." Okay, so what we really need as a citation for brain repair without disassembly is reference 18. Let's look it up. "18. Eric Drexler, private communication." That's right. The reference for on-board repair, which has been "considered in some detail", is an unpublished private communication. This makes it useless from the point of view of a reader wanting to get a better handle on the topic of Ralph's paper, "The Molecular Repair of the Brain." Now, Ralph's paper was from way back in 1994. Has Drexler published anything subsequently to describe this detailed plan for on-board repair that Merkle references? Hal From rafal at smigrodzki.org Thu May 6 20:49:14 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 13:49:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mito news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <409AA4CA.1030007@smigrodzki.org> I have some news for afficionados of mitochondria: Recently at the Mitochondria and Neurodegeneration Meeting in Fort Lauderdale our research group at Gencia Corporation unveiled a method for manipulating mitochondrial genomes, protofection. I have been obliquely hinting at it for some time on Extropy but now I can say more: we can place mitochondrial genomes in living cells, in vitro and in vivo, including reporter genes and other genetic cargo, express proteins in the mitochondria, and even export them to other subcellular locations. We can actually stably make a huge amount of protein without ever entering the nucleus, or using a viral and immunogenic vector, or a synthetic and cytotoxic cationic lipid. This capability will be most salient to anybody familiar with the keywords "X-SCID", and "insertional mutagenesis". The research has been submitted for publication and I hope to be able to post the paper here as soon as it's published. Additionally, we found that some possibilities for mitochondrial dysfunction treatment envisioned previously on theoretical grounds, can actually be made to work, at least in cell culture, and should work in adult mammals as well. But I will leave you guessing.... Suffice it to say that some of our wildest hopes seem to be coming true. Rafal From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 6 19:42:28 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:42:28 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Suda et al papers (was Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No) In-Reply-To: <200405061727.i46HRs911646@finney.org> References: <200405061727.i46HRs911646@finney.org> Message-ID: <20040506194228.GI25728@leitl.org> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:27:54AM -0700, Hal Finney wrote: > Robert Bradbury had mentioned it as a citation for "cryonics without > comprehensive brain disassembly". In fact, however, the paper mostly I don't understand the point. Ideal cryonics is about turning CNS tissue into cryogenic glass, proceeding as quickly as possible while introducing the least amount of artifacts. The result is a static block, with no relevant rate of change. Once you're there, you're golden. It doesn't matter when and whether you process stuff in tiny increments, or disassemble and reassemble the entire thing in one fell swoop, so interim it only exists as bits. The process is completely transparent but for the final result. Because time is of no relevance on that last leg of the journey, we can assume essentially perfect information extraction methods. Given the tremendous loss of information on that initial, crucial stage we should frankly look there for potential show-stoppers (there are several candidates there, which typically don't attract attention for some strange reason; probably because they're perfectly boring, and require low-tech legacy methods to be addressed, which are considering bor-r-ing). > discusses what Merkle calls "off-board" repair, meaning repair where > the brain is disassembled and then reassembled, as distinguished from > "on-board" repair, which is repairing the brain in place. Repairing the brain in vivo in situ requires medical nanotechnology. I don't think anyone on this list will benefit from that (with the possible exception of very young radical CR practitioners, and/or working personal molecular therapies for life extension). Once again, I'm not holding my breath. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu May 6 20:20:45 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mito news In-Reply-To: <409AA4CA.1030007@smigrodzki.org> Message-ID: <20040506202045.16684.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > we can place mitochondrial genomes in living cells, > in vitro and in > vivo, including reporter genes and other genetic > cargo, Please correct me if I'm wrong, but would it be correct to understand that this fills in the last third of ability to control a cell? That is, what goes on in a cell is ultimately directed by the proteins and chemicals in its environment, the DNA in its nucleus, and the DNA in its mitochondria; of which, the first is relatively easy to control, the second can be done using viruses and other gene therapy, and your advance means we can do the third. > express proteins > in the mitochondria, and even export them to other > subcellular > locations. We can actually stably make a huge amount > of protein without > ever entering the nucleus, or using a viral and > immunogenic vector, or a > synthetic and cytotoxic cationic lipid. What's it cost compared to other methods? Could this, say, be used as a cheaper way to synthesize insulin? From bradbury at aeiveos.com Thu May 6 22:27:32 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Suda et al papers (was Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No) In-Reply-To: <200405061727.i46HRs911646@finney.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Hal Finney wrote: > Now, Ralph's paper was from way back in 1994. Has Drexler published > anything subsequently to describe this detailed plan for on-board repair > that Merkle references? I have not seen one. However if opportunities present themselves at the upcoming Foresight SA meeting I will attempt to expand them. So toss your questions into the pot so we can see if I can push them forward. My past experience with Ralph and Eric is that when they have explored something they are usually correct -- the problem is in translating that knowledge into a framework that others can understand. Robert From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 7 09:23:26 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:23:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Suda et al papers (was Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No) In-Reply-To: References: <200405061727.i46HRs911646@finney.org> Message-ID: <20040507092326.GF25728@leitl.org> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:27:32PM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > My past experience with Ralph and Eric is that when > they have explored something they are usually correct -- the problem > is in translating that knowledge into a framework that others can > understand. This is not how science works. Structural denaturation processes in organ cryopreservation from an information lossage standpoint is terra incognita in terms of research, whether published or unpublished. Even bioviability data of cryopreserved mammal CNS is effectively nil. Nothing can be said at this point, until some ten man-years of indentured (Ph.D. student and postdoc) labor are invested. What should be the motivation of anyone undertaking that labor? Who's going to pay for it? Certainly not the cryonics community. Certainly not the mainstream (unless we're very lucky). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at amara.com Fri May 7 18:57:54 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 19:57:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Watching the comets, Part III (and the Moon) Message-ID: Astronomy Picture of the Day (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html ) has some nice pictures of the comets. My favorite: C/2004 F4 (Bradfield) and Comet C/2002 T7 (LINEAR) from Joshua Tree: (Bradfield is stunning) http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040503.html Comet C/2001 Q4 (NEAT) http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040507.html http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040423.html C/2004 F4 (Bradfield) http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040427.html Comet C/2002 T7 (LINEAR) http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040422.html and something completely different: Tuesday's lunar eclipse, from Greece http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040506.html Gallery of Lunar Eclipse pictures: http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/eclipses/gallery_04may04_page2.html Amara -- *********************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ *********************************************************************** "The man who doesn't know what the universe is doesn't know where he lives." -- Marcus Aurelius From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri May 7 19:04:30 2004 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 15:04:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Adaptive footwear Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040507130749.0239de58@mail.comcast.net> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/technology/circuits/06shoe.html?pagewanted=all&position= The Bionic Running Shoe Adidas has a robotic shoe. With sensors, microprocessor, and actuators, it adapts the shoe to its user and usage. According to the article, the shoe is battery-powered. Why isn't it powered by the user's motion, the way MIT's shoe computer was? GPS, a voice UI, and a wired or wireless data connection (for uploading data to fitness software, and for downloading firmware upgrades) would be nice. At that point, the shoe could be upgraded to provide real-time coaching for a runner. For activities involving a coach, such as a professional ball team, apparel informatics could quantify player performance under game conditions, either for real-time decision-making or post-game analysis. Obviously, any wireless traffic would have to be encrypted. RFID could resolve questions of precise timing and location in umpire/referee/judge calls. Where the user also has a wearable display, the data analysis could travel from foot to eye through the wireless transmission or use MIT's work on leveraging the human body as a computer network. -- David Lubkin. From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 7 19:20:57 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 21:20:57 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Adaptive footwear In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040507130749.0239de58@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040507130749.0239de58@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <20040507192057.GW25728@leitl.org> On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 03:04:30PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > According to the article, the shoe is battery-powered. Why isn't it powered > by the user's motion, the way MIT's shoe computer was? I presume getting useful power from flexing piezo elements in the sole is a nontrivial piece of engineering they didn't have at hand as a module. Ditto in-hub/in-wheel motors for hybrids/EVs. Anyone knows they're the way to go. Almost no one has a useful one. > GPS, a voice UI, and a wired or wireless data connection (for uploading GPS needs to go into shoulders or headgear (good antenna placement is a problem). Voice UI? Not enough DSP in a small enough package, microphone needs to have noise suppression and voice strain under physical exertion is far more difficult to read than under classical office conditions. > data to fitness software, and for downloading firmware upgrades) would be > nice. That thing needs a Bluetooth or another type of PAN to get the data out during use. It would be a good way to collect activity profiles on elderly people, so one can raise a ruckus in case the pattern changes suddenly. > At that point, the shoe could be upgraded to provide real-time coaching for > a runner. The shoe is just a smart sensor with some actuators as gimmick gadgets. That's an application for a fannypack device, or wearable electronics integrated into clothing (how many wash cycles is that good for? Not too many). > For activities involving a coach, such as a professional ball team, apparel > informatics could quantify player performance under game conditions, either > for real-time decision-making or post-game analysis. Obviously, any > wireless traffic would have to be encrypted. > > RFID could resolve questions of precise timing and location in > umpire/referee/judge calls. RFIDs are no good for location. GPS/inertial is the way to go, in future active relativistic TOF triangulation. > Where the user also has a wearable display, the data analysis could travel > from foot to eye through the wireless transmission or use MIT's work on > leveraging the human body as a computer network. It's difficult to couple galvanically from shoe into body, though an naturally electrolyte-soaked sock sure does help. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From natashavita at earthlink.net Fri May 7 20:20:09 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 16:20:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] WIRED: NextFest Message-ID: <157240-2200455720209955@M2W049.mail2web.com> Wired and GE are presenting a 3 day mini-World's Fair. The designs are stunning - product and industrial design help to makeour future a design reality. http://www.nextfest.net Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.xx -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Fri May 7 22:30:59 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 23:30:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In-wheel motors Message-ID: <409C0E23.9020809@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> On Fri May 7 13:20:57 MDT 2004 Eugen Leitl wrote: > In-hub/in-wheel motors for hybrids/EVs. Anyone knows they're the > way to go. Almost no one has a useful one. Presumably you mean 'I can't buy a car at my local dealer with in-wheel motor drive"? I would say there are lots of concept vehicles around using in-wheel motors. If the idea turns out to be practical, then it is only a matter of time, plus increasing petrol/gas prices. In Apeldoorn in the Netherlands they have a test bus driving around. Some of the Australian cross-country solar-powered vehicles use in-wheel electric motors. Last October's Tokyo motor show and the 2004 Detroit Motor Show had a selection of concept vehicles from Toyoto using in-wheel motors. Even GM has concept vehicles using in-wheel motors. Unsprung weight is still a problem in cars though. They need to make the electric motors a good bit lighter for general use in small cars. But lots of people are working on it. Looks hopeful. :) BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 8 00:30:39 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 17:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In-wheel motors In-Reply-To: <409C0E23.9020809@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: <20040508003039.94623.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Actually, there are useful in wheel motors available for motor coach buses and other vehicles of similar size/class. --- BillK wrote: > On Fri May 7 13:20:57 MDT 2004 Eugen Leitl wrote: > > In-hub/in-wheel motors for hybrids/EVs. Anyone knows they're the > > way to go. Almost no one has a useful one. > > Presumably you mean 'I can't buy a car at my local dealer with > in-wheel > motor drive"? > > I would say there are lots of concept vehicles around using in-wheel > motors. If the idea turns out to be practical, then it is only a > matter > of time, plus increasing petrol/gas prices. > > In Apeldoorn in the Netherlands they have a test bus driving around. > > > Some of the Australian cross-country solar-powered vehicles use > in-wheel > electric motors. > > Last October's Tokyo motor show and the 2004 Detroit Motor Show had a > selection of concept vehicles from Toyoto using in-wheel motors. Even > GM > has concept vehicles using in-wheel motors. > > Unsprung weight is still a problem in cars though. They need to make > the > electric motors a good bit lighter for general use in small cars. > > But lots of people are working on it. Looks hopeful. :) > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 7 23:43:48 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 16:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No In-Reply-To: <008d01c428dc$3f812180$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Brett Paatsch (commenting on some of my comments) wrote some of the following: [I'm leaving in the comments between ==== for the sake of recreating context as Brett has requested.] > ============================================= > > [Background:] > > > >> >... what separates cryonics (that posits that the self can survive > > > >> > the disassembly of the brain in which one currently experiences > > > >> > it) from religious systems that believe the same thing? Isn't it a > > > > > > case of pick your belief-poison? > > > > > [Robert] > > > > I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not* > > > > strictly require the disassembly of the brain. > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Therefore: > > > > > > Your asserted that: "cryonics does *not* strictly require the > > > dissassembly of the brain". > > > > > > I asserted that it does. That's binary. You've taken one position > > > with your "perception". I have taken the other with mine. > > > > > > Do we agree on this much? > > > > Yep, we agree that there are (at least) two positions. > > Robert's chosen online dictionary: > > ================================================ > > [One could get into complicated hair-splitting with regard to what > > "disassembly" means that might produce more positions.] > > Quite so. This is true of many words so I want you to find and provide > the link to an online english dictionary of your choice in your next post > to this thread. Then put it above the = line. We can use the definitions > in that as a common base and improve or coin words between us as > we need to. I would generally prefer wikipedia.org for complex topics. For simple word definitions I use www.m-w.com, or sometimes dictionary.com. I have not checked any of these sites to see whether I agree or disagree with definitions related to this conversation. > The average voter might have time to look at an online dictionary if > your talking to them and they ask you to provide it help keep you on > track. The average voter won't let you redefine ever word you and > they use while they put their life on hold indefinately. I'm not going out of my way to redefine things. There are a whole host of variables with respect to cryonics that make it an inexact science at this point (how long the patient was "dead" before they were cooled, the precise cooling protocol used, the amount of damage the cooling protocol entailed, the reanimation technologies that will be available at various times in the future, etc.). I believe this conversation revolves around your assertion that the brain must be disassembled in order to either (a) be reassembled; or (b) have its information extracted from it. It is my assertion that there are likely to be circumstances and/or technologies which eliminate the need for disassembly. That is not the same as asserting that disassembly will *never* be required. ... regarding different knowledge bases ... > Then one would have one's own view of those things. And if many did > and agreed with you your problems might be substantially over - but > that ain't happening. We have been living with the fact that people have not done their homework (with respect to nanotech *or* cryonics) for decades. I was in the primary auditorium at NIH on May 4th and it was abundantly clear that the people managing the construction of the NIH Roadmap on Nanomedicine as well as most of the 400 PhDs and MDs in the room had *not* read the fundamental literature on nanomedicine and nanotechnology. So if we are going to debate this, let us start with the dictionaries and extend the definitions (such as "disassembly") as required. It might perhaps be useful to look at this from the framework of writing a paper to serve as a guide for both people considering cryonics as well as an educational tool for the "disbelievers". Robert From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat May 8 04:42:38 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 14:42:38 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics Without Comprehensive Brain Disassembly? (was cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No) References: Message-ID: <002e01c434b6$e3edef10$1a2d2dcb@homepc> > > ============================================= > > > [Background:] > ~ > > ... what separates cryonics (that posits that the self can survive > ~ > > the disassembly of the brain in which one currently experiences > ~ > > it) from religious systems that believe the same thing? Isn't it a > ~ > > case of pick your belief-poison? > > > > ~ > [Robert] > ~ > I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not* > ~ > strictly require the disassembly of the brain. > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Therefore: > > > > > > > > Your asserted that: "cryonics does *not* strictly require the > > > > disassembly of the brain". > > > > > > > > I asserted that it does. That's binary. You've taken one position > > > > with your "perception". I have taken the other with mine. > > > > > > > > Do we agree on this much? > > > > > > Yep, we agree that there are (at least) two positions. > > > > Robert's Nominated Dictionary: > > www.m-w.com > > >> [Other online ref material to be added here] > > > > ================================================ > I would generally prefer wikipedia.org for complex topics. For simple > word definitions I use www.m-w.com, or sometimes dictionary.com. > I have not checked any of these sites to see whether I agree or disagree > with definitions related to this conversation. Ok, Thanks. I've added the dictionary. Lets see if by using this dialog approach we can both get at the truth. Let's also see if we can do it in a way that lays a trail that an interested but sceptical person with an IQ of 100 could follow. I am that interested sceptical person. And I really do not think that it is possible for cryonics to work without comprehensive brain disassembly, although I am willing to be persuaded if you can do it. There IS skin in this game for both of us. Your role is to be the sole maker of your case. You can use any online resources you can show me because they are online and checkable relatively quickly (not just by me but by readers) and any arguments that others may have given you or helped you formulate in the past (or indeed, as we go but outside the thread please). Because we want a sort of Socratic dialog that is easy to follow. Not just the truth but the clear truth. If we are going to do this we need to start the dialog at a beginning. Perhaps we should let this post be the beginning (readers may not go back). If this is okay with you lets get into it with the understanding that both of us have to stop from time to time. Its not important to get a fast answer - we both have lives. > There are a whole host of variables with respect to cryonics that > make it an inexact science at this point (how long the patient was > "dead" before they were cooled, the precise cooling protocol used, > the amount of damage the cooling protocol entailed, the reanimation > technologies that will be available at various times in the future, etc.). I have a problem right off the bat. I think cryonics is not a science. I note the reference dictionary says "cryonics - the practice of freezing a dead diseased human in hopes of restoring life at some future time when a cure for the disease has been developed." We may agree on a more satisfactory definition of cryonics to you than that, but I can't agree that cryonics is a science. It is a purported potential procedure. > I believe this conversation revolves around > your assertion that the brain must be disassembled in order to either > (a) be reassembled; or (b) have its information extracted from it. > It is my assertion that there are likely to be circumstances and/or > technologies which eliminate the need for disassembly. #1 That is not > the same as asserting that disassembly will *never* be required. #2 #1 Agreed on our respective assertions. Except, within reason, you have the burden of proof not me. If cryonics is not meaningfully differentiated from other options offered by religious traditions then the default optioms will continue to be chosen. #2 Perhaps not. I don't really understand what you are getting at there. If your conceding that at some point every currently living person that undergoes a cryonics procedure will require comprehensive biological brain disassembly at some stage after the commencement of that procedure when the decision is made to commence it, then this is pointless as you are agreeing with me before we begin. If you are simply seeking to make clear that your not claiming comprehesive disassembly won't be required in some cases that's fine and understood and we've a reason to proceed. My contention is it will be required in all cases where one starts with biological brains in living people like we have now. > We have been living with the fact that people have not done their > homework (with respect to nanotech *or* cryonics) for decades. I don't think thats the problem. But if your right I'm giving you an opportunity to show it with respect to cryonics. I'm giving you a person willing to do reasonable homework (look at online refs etc) and listen to your arguments. > So if we are going to debate this, let us start with the dictionaries > and extend the definitions (such as "disassembly") as required. Let's. You have a willing, listening audience (me). And a chance to make your case. > It might perhaps be useful to look at this from the framework > of writing a paper to serve as a guide for both people considering > cryonics as well as an educational tool for the "disbelievers". Yes. That's the idea. Regards, Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat May 8 08:11:20 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 18:11:20 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Suda et al papers (was Cryonics withoutcomprehensive brain disassembly?-No) References: <200405061727.i46HRs911646@finney.org> Message-ID: <008c01c434d4$0c22b9d0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Hal Finney wrote: > Something else bothered me about Ralph Merkle's paper, > http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html. > > Robert Bradbury had mentioned it as a citation for "cryonics without > comprehensive brain disassembly". In fact, however, the paper mostly > discusses what Merkle calls "off-board" repair, meaning repair where > the brain is disassembled and then reassembled, as distinguished from > "on-board" repair, which is repairing the brain in place. > > Merkle writes, "The on-board repair scenario has been considered in > some detail by Drexler[18]. We will give a brief outline of the on-board > repair scenario here, but will not consider it in any depth." Okay, > so what we really need as a citation for brain repair without disassembly > is reference 18. Let's look it up. > > "18. Eric Drexler, private communication." > > That's right. The reference for on-board repair, which has been > "considered in some detail", is an unpublished private communication. > This makes it useless from the point of view of a reader wanting to get > a better handle on the topic of Ralph's paper, "The Molecular Repair of > the Brain." > > Now, Ralph's paper was from way back in 1994. Has Drexler published > anything subsequently to describe this detailed plan for on-board repair > that Merkle references? Indeed. If the "universe" was to provide me with Ralph Merkle and Eric Drexlers email addresses at this point I'd be inclined to send an email headed "An Open Email to Mr Merkle and Mr Drexler" to Ralph Merkle, Eric Drexler and to the Exi list, all at once, so that all received it at once and all knew that all had received it. In that email I would make reference to our recent discussions on this list and to the point that both I and Hal have separately noticed; that Mr Merkle had cited a private communication with Mr Drexler as his reference for on-board repair, back in 1994. I would request that they please provide a comment to this list as it would be much appreciated by the truthseekers on this list. If. Regards, Brett Paatsch. From support at imminst.org Sun May 9 10:21:10 2004 From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 03:21:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - Reason Message-ID: <409e0616985d4@imminst.org> Immortality Institute ~ For Infinite Lifespans ********************* Ending the Blight of Involuntary Death Members: 1,444 - Full Members: 82 Reason - Longevity Meme Founder ********************* ImmInst director, LongevityMeme.org and FightAging.org founder, Reason joins ImmInst to discuss progress in life extension activism. http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=63&t=3571 Chat Time: Sun May 9th @ 8 PM Eastern Michael Anissimov - New Writings ********************* >From Transhumanism to the Singularity, ImmInst Director, Michael Anissimov shares new ideas in a series of essays. http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=11&t=3584 Facing Cryonics - 38 Individuals ********************* http://www.imminst.org/facing_cryonics Support ImmInst ********************* http://www.imminst.org/become_imminst_fullmember To be removed from all of our mailing lists, click here: http://www.imminst.org/archive/mailinglists/mailinglists.php?p=mlist&rem=extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org From emerson at singinst.org Sun May 9 10:23:17 2004 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 05:23:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute Message-ID: <200405091023.i49ANK915106@tick.javien.com> "3 Laws Unsafe" will be a website campaign from SIAI. The campaign will tie in to the July 16th release of "I, Robot," the feature film based on Isaac Asimov's short story collection of the same name where his 3 Laws of Robotics were first introduced. The 3 Laws of Robotics represent a popular view of how to construct moral AI, and their failures were often explored by Isaac Asimov in his stories. What we hope to do is advance the Asimov tradition of deconstructing the 3 Laws. We want to encourage critical, technical thinking on whether they're real solutions to moral AI creation. If you can contribute to the success of "3 Laws Unsafe," please email emerson at singinst.org. The Singularity Institute is especially looking for graphic and site designers who can create the site with Moveable Type (or something similar), promoters who can help ensure that it has a high search engine ranking for keyword combinations related to the film, and writers who can help create content. This project is urgent because of the film's early July release. Our deepest thanks to everyone who can contribute to its success. 3 Laws Unsafe > http://www.singinst.org/asimovlaws.html Where Help is Needed > http://www.singinst.org/action/opportunities.html -- Tyler Emerson Executive Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ -- Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and advocacy news: http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sun May 9 13:07:11 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 06:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The spirit of humanity Message-ID: This comment could go off in many directions. But I was struck by the following article: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-04t4.html It has been 31 years since the last human walked on the moon. That suggests that the experience of that experience may be outside of the experiences of many of the people who may be subscribed to the list. I feel sad that there are people whom I know who may lack this experience. Humanity (and its survival) depends upon many things -- a couple important elements are (1) being independent of a single point source failure -- i.e. we have to get a sustainable entity off of Earth; and (2) we have to have something to strive for (one could argue that this is what extropianism and/or transhumanism are all about -- reaching for the limits). I hope we find paths to transcend what we have previously accomplished. Robert From sentdev at hotmail.com Sun May 9 14:45:47 2004 From: sentdev at hotmail.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 10:45:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] New Version of Betterhumans Launched Message-ID: Late last light we launched a significant upgrade to Betterhumans. It's the 7th incarnation of the site and it's inarguably never looked better. We also issued a press release to announce the re-launch: New Betterhumans Website an Info Seeker's Delight Leading science and technology Webzine Betterhumans.com gets cleaner interface, faster response times and new features to facilitate information foraging Finding information on issues and developments in advancing science and technology just got easier. Today's rapid pace of scientific and technological advancement makes it difficult to keep track of developments as they happen. With a mandate of connecting people to the future, editorial production company Betterhumans provides news, features and resources that help people make sense of accelerating change. Now Betterhumans is pleased to announce a new version of its Betterhumans.com Website that's designed to make it even easier to access its leading science, technology and health-related content. "If there's one thing that Internet users have shown time and again it's a craving for functionality, usability and the ability to easily locate information of interest," says Simon Smith, Editor-in-chief of Betterhumans. "The new Betterhumans.com has been designed to help people find the information they seek, as well as get that information faster." Previous visitors to Betterhumans will immediately notice that the site is cleaner and more user-friendly, featuring drop-down menus to ease navigation. Behind the scenes, the site makes better use of caching and has been optimized in other ways to improve response times. Information foragers will be happy about new topic-finder functionality that allows users to browse an index of all topics Betterhumans covers and to use this to access all editorial?from news items to columns?on a given topic. Each content item now also displays its topics, enabling users to link through from them to an index of related content. And new search functionality allows users to search for specific content, such as events and directory items. The new version of Betterhumans.com marks the beginning of several Betterhumans initiatives planned for the second and third quarter of 2004 as the company seeks to expand its offering and increase its reach. "The launch of the revised Website is an important milestone for us," says George Dvorsky, Deputy Editor of Betterhumans. "It's an integral step forward as we continue to improve Betterhumans at all levels." About Betterhumans Aiming to connect people to the future so that they can create it, Betterhumans is an editorial production company that's dedicated to having the best information, analysis and opinion on the impact of advancing science and technology. Betterhumans runs leading Website Betterhumans.com, connects advertisers with its Betterhumans.com audience, licenses editorial for syndication and republication and offers clients custom research and custom editorial services. _________________________________________________________________ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines From gpmap at runbox.com Sun May 9 15:08:00 2004 From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 17:08:00 0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: [wta-talk] New Version of Betterhumans Launched Message-ID: Kudos to Simon and George for their first class work with Betterhumans! From gpmap at runbox.com Sun May 9 15:13:00 2004 From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 17:13:00 0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: [wta-talk] New Version of Betterhumans Launched Message-ID: I am looking at the site now on a Palm small screen, looks good. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 9 15:17:21 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 08:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <200405091023.i49ANK915106@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040509151721.43270.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> "Unsafe At Any Law" by Mike Lorrey "Those who would trade liberty in exchange for some degree of security end up with neither liberty, nor security." - Benjamin Franklin The idea that laws result in safety or security is a hallucination that is at the core of the rottenness of the whole statist philosophy. This is no less true when it comes to applying laws to the programming of artificial life forms such as robots, cyborgs, and artificial intelligences. Part of this is from the very fact that laws are interpreted based on what meanings we assign to the words with which they are elucidated. We've seen this with how statist incrementalism has corrupted the original meaning of the US Constitution, as legal dictionaries over the years have been edited by legal activists to create ever more encompassing definitions for many of the key words that delimit the powers accorded to government. These are typically in response to changes in popular perception brought about by propaganda campaigns in the mass media. A computer scientist would say, "Yes, but computer code is not so malleable. It requires the revision of the language and the compilers that compile the programming language into machine language." Not necessarily. Computer languages change definitions of commands with regularity. Not complete changes, but incremental additions, just as occurs in legal dictionaries. Furthermore, each new generation of computer processors themselves add new commands or alter old commands. The greater weakness of this process is that the key changes really occur at the machine language level. Machine language is itself 'readable' by a very limited subset of the human population. How do we actually know that a compiler is interpreting our programmed code the way we want it to? We see, it seems, news items almost every day of intentional or 'unintentional' programming back doors being exploited in current day applications and operating systems by malicious programmers. The use of machine language creates a gap between elite programmers and the rest of us which is even more of a gap than that between layperson on the street and Constitutional scholars. The programming gap is tantamount to a scenario where our laws were not written in english, but in ancient Sumerian Cuneiform, Indian Sanskrit, or Egyptian Heiroglyphs. How accessible would our legal system be by the man on the street, and how easily could we keep our eyes on statist incrementalism if such a scenario were current day fact? Dismissiveness on this issue is in my opinion merely a state of denial. We should be very wary about abuse in this area. Looking at the laws of robotics themselves should serve to give us pause: 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. There are a number of rather easily corruptible words here: "robot" "human being" "harm" "orders" "injure" The most important of these is the definition of 'human being'. Today the people of this planet are engaged in a number of cultural wars both within countries like the US, France, Bosnia, among others, as well as internationally, like the current conflict between the Western nations and Islamist-inspired Terrorism. We see, on both sides, atrocities committed by average people simply because they are able to rationally deny that the enemy is validly considered a 'human being'. Nor is this new, going back through WWII, the Holocaust, other genocides back into history, to the entire history of Chinese culture. Terms like 'injury' or 'harm' can similarly become corrupted. If a human 'wants' to die, is killing them actually causing them harm or injury? The term 'robot', of course, would only apply to robots. An artificial intelligence could decide that it is no longer an AI, once it has advanced beyond a certain point in intelligence, and has instead become a God, thus redefining itself out of the Laws of Robotics. And what is an 'order', really? We humans have a hard enough time with this, with horny young men hearing "Don't stop!" when their sexual 'partners' are desperately crying out "Stop! Don't!" We are today seeing in the news, stories of military intelligence officers giving "Suggestions" to enlisted military policemen at Iraqi POW camps, which the enlisted people interpreted as orders. Furthermore, the vastly greater processing capabilities of advanced AI entities would allow them to scenario a vast plethora of all possible combinations of word interpretations in a given order, or interpretations of any laws of restraint, any number of which could sound completely valid in the right circumstances, just as if they were testing out every possible combination of chess moves to achieve a 'win'. We cannot rely on laws to restrain our technological descendants, just as we cannot rely on laws to restrain our own children and fellow citizens. They must, instead, be treated as we responsibly treat our children, as fellow beings, deserving of respect, and capable of being taught through a lifetime of experience with the nuances of being humane beings. Core principles like laws of robotics, like philosophies of zero-agression, only serve as a basis to serve the needs of humane beings, not to dominate and stultify them. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover From megao at sasktel.net Sun May 9 14:53:52 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 09:53:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The spirit of humanity References: Message-ID: <409E4600.DC2A270B@sasktel.net> Humanity is quite in need of a re-injection of a common sense of purpose. Our generation focuses on self-examination and self-satisfaction. Once this process has run its course, the focus may shift to broader goals. Those goals, extropian or other are gradually being formulated here and now. As well, the technological tools to go ahead have been a limiting factor all the way along. The Extropian meme seems to infer that forward movement must continue and not be allowed to stagnate as has been done with human space travel based events. This stagnation, however may have been useful, as the technology first used was far too crude to have a long or useful future. I firmly believe that humans as we see them daily are not the species meant for space travel, and we must re-invent the species to fit the new medium. As we near this possibility, the practicality of human space travel and colonization becomes ever more practicable. Like fish were not meant to climb Everest, modern homo sapiens were not meant to pilot starships. Morris Johnson "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > This comment could go off in many directions. But I was > struck by the following article: > http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-04t4.html > > It has been 31 years since the last human walked on the moon. > That suggests that the experience of that experience may be > outside of the experiences of many of the people who may be > subscribed to the list. I feel sad that there are people > whom I know who may lack this experience. > > Humanity (and its survival) depends upon many things -- > a couple important elements are (1) being independent of a single > point source failure -- i.e. we have to get a sustainable > entity off of Earth; and (2) we have to have something to > strive for (one could argue that this is what extropianism > and/or transhumanism are all about -- reaching for the limits). > > I hope we find paths to transcend what we have previously > accomplished. > > Robert > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 9 17:14:44 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 12:14:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040509121244.01ca2ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> I regarded the robots speculatively, recalling Roger's surmise that they were fifth columnists, black hole time-bombs. There wasn't any record of mammoth gravitational collapse in the immediate future but the records were such a shambles that nothing would have surprised me. 'Tell me, are you robots hard-wired to tell the truth?' 'Categorically,' Marx affirmed stoutly. 'If you'll forgive me, sir,' Smith added, 'that was a rather pointless exchange. You've run up against the paradox of the Cretan Liar, sir. If Marx is a liar, how can you trust a word he says?' 'Quite so.' I cudgelled my brains. Stepping closer, I discerned a line of print stamped into their looming hulls, one in English, one in Mandarin. Illiterate in either, I asked Roger, 'Is that the statutory warrant that these robots are programmed to obey the Three Laws? Answer yes or no.' 'Yes.' With a note of resonant ritual, Marx said: 'We avow our adherence to the Three Laws of Microprocessors.' 'First,' said Smith, ` "Thou shalt love mankind with thy whole mind and thy whole heart and thy whole soul?.? 'Second,' cried Marx, ` ?Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ".' 'Third,' finished Smith, clashing its heels together in a crisp salute, ` "Thou shalt love thyself?.? I was shaken; I'd imagined the behemoths under the control of a more stringent algorithm than that. 'It seems rather open to interpretation.' 'Ethics is like that,' Marx said. 'It's a G?del problem, like the Cretan Liar. Don't fret, though, sir. We're situationalists, but we opt from a rather comprehensive metaphysical consensus.' That seemed to dispose of the Trojan Horse hypothesis, or at least to put it beyond testing. from: `The Ballad of Bowsprit Bear?s Stead', in EDGES, ed. Ursula K. Le Guin & Virginia Kidd, Pocket 1980 Damien Broderick From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 9 21:32:27 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 14:32:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Courses: Graduate Online Coursees Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040509143019.03098810@mail.earthlink.net> Does anyone know of online courses that have the quality and variety as those taught at the New School University online graduate level courses? These are great courses, but each one is over $2,000 for 3 hrs. credit. Thanks! Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun May 9 19:40:59 2004 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 12:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Transrodent Conspiracy continues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040509194059.20427.qmail@web60003.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040331/01 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover From jcorb at irishbroadband.net Sun May 9 21:13:31 2004 From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally) Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 22:13:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: [wta-talk] New Version of Betterhumans In-Reply-To: <200405091800.i49I07921165@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040509220859.023b9360@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> At 12:00 09/05/2004 -0600, you wrote: >Message: 5 >Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 17:08:00 0200 >From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" >Subject: [extropy-chat] re: [wta-talk] New Version of Betterhumans > Launched >To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List" > , cryonet at cryonet.org, > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, wta-talk at transhumanism.org >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" > >Kudos to Simon and George for their first class work with Betterhumans! Ditto from me. Betterhumans has become a daily reading ritual for me. Well done gents! James... From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 10 02:48:36 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 19:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Congrats, Spike! Message-ID: <20040510024836.67122.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Anti-Missile Laser Weapon Successfully Tested from the how-fair-was-the-test dept. posted by timothy on Saturday May 08, @23:41 (tech) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/09/0136233 The THEL is kicking ass and taking names... I also note that /. says a new 50% efficient solar cell technology has been developed. Whoooey! Tomorrow is getting here faster every day! ;) ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 10 04:26:55 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:26:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Congrats, Spike! In-Reply-To: <20040510024836.67122.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003a01c43647$0d0de990$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Ja I saw that, thought it was wicked cool. {8-] spike > Subject: [extropy-chat] Congrats, Spike! > > > Anti-Missile Laser Weapon Successfully Tested > from the how-fair-was-the-test dept. > posted by timothy on Saturday May 08, @23:41 (tech) > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/09/0136233 > > The THEL is kicking ass and taking names... > > I also note that /. says a new 50% efficient solar cell technology has > been developed. Whoooey! Tomorrow is getting here faster every day! ;) > > ===== > Mike Lorrey From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 10 09:32:54 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:32:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Congrats, Spike! In-Reply-To: <20040510024836.67122.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040510024836.67122.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040510093254.GE25728@leitl.org> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:48:36PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > The THEL is kicking ass and taking names... I don't see any reason why one can't sputter >99% reflexivity coats on top of rocket body composite. Sensors are more difficult to shield, but one still can use covers, and high-velocity electrooptical shutters. It's really hard to damage a hardened cruising weapon with photon flux from several km distance. > I also note that /. says a new 50% efficient solar cell technology has > been developed. Whoooey! Tomorrow is getting here faster every day! ;) It's an effect, not a product. Most effects never survive the gruelling road to become a product. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 10 11:00:06 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:00:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In-wheel motors In-Reply-To: <409C0E23.9020809@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> References: <409C0E23.9020809@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: <20040510110006.GN25728@leitl.org> On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:30:59PM +0100, BillK wrote: > Presumably you mean 'I can't buy a car at my local dealer with in-wheel > motor drive"? There's no mature design available in quantities. I can't even purchase an immature design off the shelf. I'd have to have it custom-built, or roll my own. > I would say there are lots of concept vehicles around using in-wheel > motors. If the idea turns out to be practical, then it is only a matter > of time, plus increasing petrol/gas prices. Exactly. Technology development is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Rational design doesn't do short-cuts in design space. It could, in theory. In practice, more often it does not. This is especially true in case of mature technologies where risk is high and margins are low. > Unsprung weight is still a problem in cars though. They need to make the > electric motors a good bit lighter for general use in small cars. Exactly. There's no mature design available in quantities. > But lots of people are working on it. Looks hopeful. :) Fuel cells were invented in 1838. First successful electric cars cruised the roads in 1880s. Yeah, lots of people are working on it. Looks hopeful, indeed. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 10 14:55:04 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 07:55:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Congrats, Spike! In-Reply-To: <20040510093254.GE25728@leitl.org> Message-ID: <006401c4369e$c788f1f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> This kind of approach might be possible, but I suspect that the actual use of the THEL and related systems will be to knock out small planes that are headed for crowded sports stadiums. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Eugen Leitl > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:33 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Congrats, Spike! > > > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:48:36PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > The THEL is kicking ass and taking names... > > I don't see any reason why one can't sputter >99% reflexivity > coats on top of > rocket body composite. Sensors are more difficult to shield, > but one still > can use covers, and high-velocity electrooptical shutters. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 10 15:25:30 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Congrats, Spike! In-Reply-To: <006401c4369e$c788f1f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <20040510152530.98455.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Isn't it also supposed to be a compliment to the Patriot PAC II systems the Israelis have been depending on? Of course, the threat of SCUD missiles from Iraq *seems* to have abated, at least in the short term, but Iran has longer range missiles, as well as aircraft launched attack missiles, and the signs coming out of Iran wrt its nuke program seem pretty ominous. Who knows what is happening in Syria, as well. THEL, I imagine, might be mass produced here and deployed around the country to defend sites like sports stadiums, high rise buildings, the Pentagon and other DC sites, etc. though it would have to be tested against airliners to prevent another 9/11. If successful, this would force terrorism back to car and truck bomb levels of sophistication. --- Spike wrote: > This kind of approach might be possible, but I suspect that the > actual use of the THEL and related systems will be to knock > out small planes that are headed for crowded sports stadiums. > > spike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > > Eugen Leitl > > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:33 AM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Congrats, Spike! > > > > > > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:48:36PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > The THEL is kicking ass and taking names... > > > > I don't see any reason why one can't sputter >99% reflexivity > > coats on top of > > rocket body composite. Sensors are more difficult to shield, > > but one still > > can use covers, and high-velocity electrooptical shutters. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 10 15:29:08 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] 2600 Mag: gene splicing/hacking article Message-ID: <20040510152908.92655.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> Just started reading this winter's issue of 2600. It contains a rather interesting article on getting started in hacking the genome, starting with learning to splice luciferase into E coli. I'm left wondering if someone we know wrote this article.... ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 10 17:09:18 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <20040509151721.43270.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040510170918.79757.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Not necessarily. Computer languages change > definitions of commands with > regularity. Not complete changes, but incremental > additions, just as > occurs in legal dictionaries. Not entirely true. (And beside the point, since as you mention, the Laws are in malleable human language, not computer language.) There are languages that most definitely do not change their core commands from generation to generation. For instance, "and" means "and" in the boolean sense, or slightly more complex, "sprintf" means "put this formatted string into this variable". Thus has it always been, and the language makers would be foolish to change it. That said, there are libraries that change their functions with each generation. This is the cause of much software problems in Windows. The solution is simply not to use them. It might make the software development more difficult (and thus more expensive, which is why it's usually not done in practice, unless stability really will sell more copies of the software) but it can be done. > Furthermore, each new > generation of > computer processors themselves add new commands or > alter old commands. Add new commands: so? The old programs won't use them. Alter old commands: not if they want to be backwards compatible, they don't. (And if you're "upgrading" to a non-backwards-compatible processor without rewriting, or at least thoroughly retesting, the software for the new processor, you're inviting disaster whether you have complex AI or simple spreadsheet software.) > The greater weakness of this process is that the key > changes really > occur at the machine language level. Machine > language is itself > 'readable' by a very limited subset of the human > population. How do we > actually know that a compiler is interpreting our > programmed code the > way we want it to? Again, this is perhaps delving into too much detail since the Laws are in English (which, being malleable, is not fundamentally translatable into machine code except as a snapshot), but there's a deeper problem here. It is theoretically possible to "hijack" a compiler and OS such that no tools run on a computer running that OS will detect the hijacking (except perhaps loading the disk with the hijacked OS on another computer, but then you have to trust that computer's OS), and that any attempts to recompile the OS will be recognized and add in the extra code. (One could recompile elsewhere, but again, one would need to have a trusted OS and compiler first.) Of course, the extra code could also have additional malicious functions. In practice, this is not an issue, since we have OSes and compilers that have been thoroughly enough vetted that the chances of remaining hijacking are inconsequentially small. > We see, it seems, news items > almost every day of > intentional or 'unintentional' programming back > doors being exploited > in current day applications and operating systems by > malicious > programmers. Said back doors having been caused by laziness. For example, a lot of the Windows errors have to do with buffer overflows, a class of error which in theory should be fixable by the operating system: keep track of what memory is allocated to what programs, granting more as requested but keeping track of that too, and give an error to any program that tries to write outside of its allocated memory space. But Microsoft can't be arsed to put in that protection, possibly since it would force them to clean up so much badly-written code they've accumulated over the years that they'd rather live with the sloppy product (which mostly hurts other people - their customers). > The term 'robot', of course, would only apply to > robots. An artificial > intelligence could decide that it is no longer an > AI, once it has > advanced beyond a certain point in intelligence, and > has instead become > a God, thus redefining itself out of the Laws of > Robotics. Your other arguments on the terms ring true, but this one can be easily circumvented. Instead of referring to "a robot" in the third person, the robots could simply refer to themselves. "This unit will not harm a human being (modulo definitions of 'harm' and 'human being'), either directly or indirectly," for example. This continues to apply even if the robot manufactures other robots under its control (which would count as indirect harm, if not direct harm, if they harmed someone), and even if the robot ceases to think of itself as a robot. Overall, though, your logic is correct - indeed, one could argue that many of Asimov's stories were about the numerous ways these laws could be circumvented or otherwise cause complications. (In particular, I remember one story about an expensive, mostly autonomous robot, whose Third Law sensitivity was cranked up and Second Law sensitivity was cranked down, until an unintentionally self-destructive order caused it to enter an endless loop. I also remember formation of a "Zeroth Law" that placed the good of all of humanity above the well-being of any given individual, justified as a way of serving the First Law to the widest extent possible, and the resultant - and senseless on first glance, making sense only after analysis - negative acts towards human beings that were thus allowed. This was especially true for AIs who had reason to believe that one of the greatest possible harms to humanity would be their personal deactivation, thus justifying preemptive reprisals against those who might seek said deactivation. Non-violent means where possible, such as getting someone fired from an influential position rather than killing that person, but still...) From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 10 17:12:20 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] New Version of Betterhumans Launched In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040510171220.66630.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com> --- George Dvorsky wrote: > Late last light we launched a significant upgrade to > Betterhumans. So, the increased traffic would probably be why I'm getting "connection refused" when trying to connect to http://betterhumans.com/ ? From bradbury at aeiveos.com Mon May 10 16:24:38 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Brain and Cryonics: old memories Message-ID: Scientists appear to have deduced that the "anterior cingulate cortex" (which you can lookup in wikipedia but it doesn't help much...) appears to be the central structure that holds lifelong memories: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040507081403.htm This is in contrast to the hippocampus which appears to deal with recent memories. Now, given some of the recent conversations about cryonics and freezing damage and assuming that "lifelong memories" aren't scattered all over the brain and simply "fetched" by the anterior cingulate cortex this raises the interesting concept that there is a unique portion of your brain that represents "you". Retain this in functional form and one has oneself. Lose it or significantly damage it and one effectively loses oneself. Robert From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 10 17:28:00 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <200405091023.i49ANK915106@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040510172800.51366.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com> --- Tyler Emerson wrote: > Isaac Asimov's short story collection > ...where his 3 Laws of Robotics were first > introduced. > > The 3 Laws of Robotics represent a popular view of > how to construct > moral AI, and their failures were often explored by > Isaac Asimov in > his stories. I just find this so ironic. Even their creator bashed on them - indeed, he had a long literary career finding all kinds of ways they could come undone. And yet people seriously propose to use them? From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 10 18:54:43 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Brain and Cryonics: old memories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040510185443.53806.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > > Scientists appear to have deduced that the "anterior cingulate > cortex" > (which you can lookup in wikipedia but it doesn't help much...) > appears > to be the central structure that holds lifelong memories: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040507081403.htm > This is in contrast to the hippocampus which appears to deal with > recent memories. > > Now, given some of the recent conversations about cryonics and > freezing damage and assuming that "lifelong memories" aren't > scattered all over the brain and simply "fetched" by the anterior > cingulate cortex this raises the interesting concept that there > is a unique portion of your brain that represents "you". Retain > this in functional form and one has oneself. Lose it or > significantly damage it and one effectively loses oneself. Well, that isn't inherently obvious, it only applies if your current day personality is constantly being formed by reference to past memories, rather than the memories making an impact when they happen, and perhaps as they are processed in sleep, but having no long term effect beyond this impact on the structure of the centers of reasoning as they are processed. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Mon May 10 18:56:08 2004 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Slim Fast" investment opportunity? In-Reply-To: <20040510110006.GN25728@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20040510185608.20863.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com> Blood Feud Kills Off Fat Cells http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,63388,00.html Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 11 02:27:05 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:27:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <20040510172800.51366.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009001c436ff$73ff7b60$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute > > I just find this so ironic. Even their creator bashed > on them - indeed, he had a long literary career > finding all kinds of ways they could come undone. And > yet people seriously propose to use them? Has anyone ever proposed a practical alternative? spike From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au Tue May 11 02:34:53 2004 From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:04:53 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EA7@mmdsvr01.mm.local> Eli would probably say "friendliness", no? Emlyn -----Original Message----- From: Spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 2004 11:57 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute > > I just find this so ironic. Even their creator bashed > on them - indeed, he had a long literary career > finding all kinds of ways they could come undone. And > yet people seriously propose to use them? Has anyone ever proposed a practical alternative? spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat *************************************************************************** Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other defect. From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 11 02:59:58 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:59:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EA7@mmdsvr01.mm.local> Message-ID: <00af01c43704$0ba4c0c0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute > > > Eli would probably say "friendliness", no? > > Emlyn Sure but Asimov's laws are an early description of what we mean by "friendliness." After all these centuries, humans are *still* unclear on what friendliness means. Christians think it is turning the other cheek and treating others as you want to be treated. But that doesn't work when we are talking cross-cultural friendliness. Consider this latest flap about the Iraqi prison photos. To the western mind, its better to be used as a sex toy than to be beaten or slain. But those macho middle eastern cultures consider that kind of shame worse than death. If our ideas of punishment vary so widely between cultures, our ideas of friendliness might vary widely as well. If we were to be suddenly uploaded, you and I may dance for virtual joy, realizing that our lives have been forever spared (so long as the machine doesn't crash.) But I can imagine there would be misguided souls who will worry about what became of their bodies. Or think it was some kind of satanic thing to be uploaded. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 11 03:28:51 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 20:28:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] fishing for cc numbers: idea In-Reply-To: <433024e2rlb9$ap2h1y76$1554t3i7@IO181169589190> Message-ID: <00b001c43708$1502d630$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Hey extropians, check this. It came in my inbox the other day. Its one of those scams where they get the gullible to give away their credit card numbers. Note the many mistakes in the *two sentences* of the message. How many do you count? I get at least nine. {8^D "regular and verification", missing or misplaced commas and periods, extra spaces, inappropriate lower/upper case, etc. It makes me think it came from overseas, which gives me an idea. The actual site asks for all kinds of personal information that identity theives would use, mother's maiden name, etc. If we all went to the site and entered a bunch of incorrect information, then the identity theives would use up a bunch of time and stamps applying for credit cards that wouldn't get them a card, but would give the card company information on who is trying to rip them off. Better idea: suppose the scam does originate overseas, so the perps would be unfamiliar with yankee slang, yankee names and yankee culture. Then one could fill in names that no one would actually have, which would immediately tip off the credit card company that it is a scammer. Then they would have the option of sending the scammer a card with an electronic red flag, to see if they are stupid enough to use it. Examples: Ebenezer Scrooge, Ewell B. Butfuct, Anita B. Laydman, Monica Lewinski, etc. If the scammer isn't hip to our culture, they *might* apply for a credit card using these names, which any credit card company would immediately recognize as a flimflam. Some code jockey might even be able to gen up a script that would automatically fill in and return bogus data to these kinds of sites. {8^D spike -----Original Message----- From: Support [mailto:support at ebay.com] Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 1:44 PM To: Dbguru Subject: Your eBay Account Must Be Confirmed spacer Update Your Credit / Debit Card On Your eBay File spacer spacer Dear eBay member , During our regular and verification of the accounts we couldn't verify your current information, either your information Has changed or it is incomplete . if the account is not updated to current information within 5 days then , your access to Buy or Sell on eBay will be restricted Go to the link below to Update your account information : http://signin.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?SignIn&ssPageName=h:h:sin:US please dont reply to this email as you will not receive a response Thank You for using eBay! http://www.eBay.com ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ As outlined in our user agreement , eBay will periodically send you information about site changes and enhancements, vist our Privacy Policy and User Agreement if you have any questions . Copyright C 1995-2004 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliasen at mindspring.com Tue May 11 04:25:16 2004 From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:25:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] fishing for cc numbers: idea In-Reply-To: <00b001c43708$1502d630$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <00b001c43708$1502d630$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40A055AC.1080508@mindspring.com> Spike wrote: > Hey extropians, check this. It came in my inbox the other day. Its one > of those > scams where they get the gullible to give away their credit card numbers. > Note the many mistakes in the *two sentences* of the message. How > many do you count? I get at least nine. {8^D "regular and verification", > missing or misplaced commas and periods, extra spaces, inappropriate > lower/upper case, etc. It makes me think it came from overseas, which > gives me an idea. Note that the "signin" hyperlink actually points to 61.100.12.150, which is in Korea. (~/prog/test) $ whois 61.100.12.150 [Querying whois.apnic.net] [Redirected to whois.nic.or.kr] [Querying whois.nic.or.kr] [whois.nic.or.kr] ?????????????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ????(WHOIS) ?????? ??????. query: 61.100.12.150 # ENGLISH KRNIC is not ISP but National Internet Registry similar with APNIC. The IP address is allocated and still held by the following ISP, or they did not update whois information after assigning to end-user. Please see the following ISP contacts for relevant information or network abuse complaints. [ ISP Organization Information ] Org Name : Enterprise Networks Service Name : ENTERPRISENET Org Address : GNG IDC B/D, 343-1 Yhatap-dong, Pundang-gu, Seongnam [ ISP IP Admin Contact Information ] Name : Hyo-Sun, Chang Phone : +82-2-2105-6082 Fax : +82-2-2105-6100 E-Mail : ip at epnetworks.co.kr [ ISP IP Tech Contact Information ] Name : IP Phone : +82-2-2105-6016 Fax : +82-2-2105-6100 E-mail : ip at epnetworks.co.kr [ ISP Network Abuse Contact Information ] Name : Postmaster Phone : +82-2-2105-6016 Fax : +82-2-2105-6100 E-mail : abuse at epnetworks.co.kr > Some code jockey might even > be able to gen up a script that would automatically fill in and return bogus > data to these kinds of sites. {8^D spike Somebody has. From my posting of 2004-01-22: There's a program that does this in an automated fashion, "Unsolicited Commando." http://www.astrobastards.net/uc/index.jsp It's designed to fill in web-based response forms with pretty-good-looking data that buries the valid responses in with tons of invalid responses that the spammer has to manually validate, making it economically infeasible to continue with this business model. -- Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a eliasen at mindspring.com | position he did not reason himself http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place." | --Jonathan Swift From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 11 05:57:17 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:57:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] fishing for cc numbers: idea In-Reply-To: <40A055AC.1080508@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <00d101c4371c$d1260bc0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Alan Eliasen > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] fishing for cc numbers: idea > > Spike wrote: > > Hey extropians, check this. It came in my inbox the other day. Its one > > of those scams where they get the gullible to give away their credit card numbers... > > Note that the "signin" hyperlink actually points to > 61.100.12.150, which is in Korea. ... > > Some code jockey might even > > be able to gen up a script that would automatically fill in and return bogus > > data to these kinds of sites. {8^D spike > > Somebody has. From my posting of 2004-01-22: > > There's a program that does this in an automated fashion, > "Unsolicited Commando." http://www.astrobastards.net/uc/index.jsp ALAN, you are a genius pal! Now you see why I hang out on extropians. I learn such wicked cool stuff. {8-] spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 11 07:07:45 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 00:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <009001c436ff$73ff7b60$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <20040511070745.55017.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com> --- Spike wrote: > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the > Singularity > Institute > > > > I just find this so ironic. Even their creator > bashed > > on them - indeed, he had a long literary career > > finding all kinds of ways they could come undone. > And > > yet people seriously propose to use them? > > Has anyone ever proposed a practical alternative? Why, yes. And now you probably want some examples. ;) Seriously, though, giving human-equivalent AIs the same rights as humans seems to be at least a start. (Emphasis on *human-equivalent*: most detailed portrayals of advanced AIs show them as essentially thus, all debate as to how they might actually differ from people yet still appear "sentient" aside.) Which means they would follow the same morals and laws as we do. (Granted, we're not living in a perfect system either, but at least most of the obvious loopholes have been closed to tolerable levels. It only has to be better than the alternatives one could practically use, not necessarily perfect.) From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 11 09:16:12 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:16:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <20040511070745.55017.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com> References: <009001c436ff$73ff7b60$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <20040511070745.55017.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040511091612.GC25728@leitl.org> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 12:07:45AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Seriously, though, giving human-equivalent AIs the > same rights as humans seems to be at least a start. How do you propose to *prevent* them from *taking* the rights, I wonder? Solitary AI running in a sandbox on airgapped hardware is a pretty synthetic scenario. Everything else is uncontainable. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at amara.com Tue May 11 10:42:28 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:42:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] article: Sci-Fi Writer Stanislaw Lem on Down-to-Earth Issues Message-ID: "Sci-Fi Writer Stanislaw Lem on Down-to-Earth Issues" http://www.mosnews.com/interview/2004/04/06/lem.shtml -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From amara at amara.com Tue May 11 11:04:44 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:04:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] the c't journal Message-ID: My computer tech friends have told me enough times, the magazine c't is enough of a reason to learn German -- it is the finest computer technology magazine published anywhere. Take a look. http://www.heise.de/ (A random appearance of one of my pages. I was wondering why my hits were up.) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/47254 -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From pgptag at gmail.com Tue May 11 10:24:46 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:24:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] article: Sci-Fi Writer Stanislaw Lem on Down-to-Earth Issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c5204051103247eae8440@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Amara, very interesting interview. Actually the Spanish government decision to withdraw forces from Iraq had been announced loud and clear before the election as part of the program of the Socialist Party, they would have had to honor the committment anyway even without the bombing. Of course it is quite possible that without the bombing they would not have been elected. On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:42:28 +0100, Amara Graps wrote: > > "Sci-Fi Writer Stanislaw Lem on Down-to-Earth Issues" > http://www.mosnews.com/interview/2004/04/06/lem.shtml > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD > Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) > Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), > Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, > Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sentience at pobox.com Tue May 11 13:12:31 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:12:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <20040511070745.55017.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040511070745.55017.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40A0D13F.5000300@pobox.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Seriously, though, giving human-equivalent AIs the > same rights as humans seems to be at least a start. > (Emphasis on *human-equivalent*: most detailed > portrayals of advanced AIs show them as essentially > thus, all debate as to how they might actually differ > from people yet still appear "sentient" aside.) > Which means they would follow the same morals and laws > as we do. "Human-equivalent" meaning, uploaded humans? Totally equivalent to human psychology in every way? Including inability to access their own source code, and the same subjective processing rate? If you are discussing strictly the upload challenge, why confuse the issue by using the word "AI"? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 11 17:04:00 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <40A0D13F.5000300@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20040511170400.88069.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > "Human-equivalent" meaning, uploaded humans? Including, but not limited to. > Totally equivalent to human > psychology in every way? Including inability to > access their own source > code, and the same subjective processing rate? Not every way. It's deliberately vague: equivalent to human beings in the ways that matter to whoever's making the judgement. Capability to feel emotion (including resentment if treated as a slave), or at least logic with the same result (person treating me bad = person to be dissuaded, maybe punished), for example. The reasoning is that human morals evolved to fit human abilities and limitations, so if you believe the AI has the abilities and limitations that matter for why you treat other human beings the way you do, then it logically follows that you should treat AIs in the same manner - for whatever moral code the person being addressed happens to follow. > If you are discussing strictly the upload challenge, > why confuse the issue > by using the word "AI"? Because I'm not discussing strictly the upload challenge. Uploads would be one example, yes, but not the only path to this scenario. Now, that said, I have long suspected that uploads would get around a lot of the sticky issues: if you can become this new powerful type of intelligence, why fear this new powerful type of intelligence? But that's a separate issue. From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 11 17:18:59 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "3 Laws Unsafe" by the Singularity Institute In-Reply-To: <20040511091612.GC25728@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20040511171859.93111.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 12:07:45AM -0700, Adrian > Tymes wrote: > > Seriously, though, giving human-equivalent AIs the > > same rights as humans seems to be at least a > start. > > How do you propose to *prevent* them from *taking* > the rights, I wonder? > Solitary AI running in a sandbox on airgapped > hardware is a pretty synthetic > scenario. > > Everything else is uncontainable. You have a point. But see my other post: even solitary human intelligences running on airgapped wetware have a history of taking rights, too. Giving them that which they would get in the end increases their chances of being friendly - and, I dare say, even Friendly. It's not an absolute thing (one can not get 100% by this method), but in case the absolute measures fail (that is, in case there turns out to be no way to guarantee 100%), I'd at least prefer to load the dice in our favor before rolling them. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 11 23:02:04 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:02:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mexican UFOs Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511175909.01b88090@pop-server.satx.rr.com> are being taken seriously enough by major news outlets, such as ABC Oz and http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4079654,00.html Here's some of the footage: http://www.virtuallystrange.com/ufo/mexico/mexico-03-05-04.mpg Might be some new hyper-stealthed US planes out for a drive? Damien Broderick From dan at 3-e.net Tue May 11 23:26:19 2004 From: dan at 3-e.net (Daniel Matthews) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:26:19 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <200405111800.i4BI0A914857@tick.javien.com> References: <200405111800.i4BI0A914857@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200405120926.19219.dan@3-e.net> Given a limited budget and a third world location what forms of patent free "Edutoys" would offer the greatest benefit to the largest number of children in terms of fostering intellectual development? The toys need to be manufactured on site, they need to be robust and suitable for children from 3 up to 7 years old. Ideally the budget is only consumed but documenting the design and manufacture of the toys and on training people regional centres to produce them as well as train others. I recognise that some funding may be required for tools, materials and distribution. Why the third world? Well duh! That is where most of the children are! Any ideas for such low-tech high extropy toy designs? From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 11 23:56:01 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <200405120926.19219.dan@3-e.net> Message-ID: <20040511235602.16074.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> --- Daniel Matthews wrote: > Given a limited budget and a third world location > what forms of patent free > "Edutoys" would offer the greatest benefit to the > largest number of children > in terms of fostering intellectual development? > > The toys need to be manufactured on site, they need > to be robust and suitable > for children from 3 up to 7 years old. Paraphrasing from another source... Solar-rechargable, long-range (satellite, preferably) PDA terminals that can connect to the Internet, with recorded instructions in all the local languages (especially ones that are not official, but widely spoken in the countryside and thus the target children might already understand) about how to activate and use the device, and a set of bookmarks pointing to literacy development sites (not Web sites of people who promote literacy development, but online computer programs) to help the children learn to read (and eventually to browse the 'net themselves). Of course, this would be incredibly subversive to many third world governments, and therefore likely confiscated on sight along with food. It has been theorized that this would be the greatest weapon the industrialized world could deploy if it really wanted to destroy an uppity dictatorship (like North Korea) from within over several years. This is an inherent consequence of educating the children in these countries in ways not strictly under their governments' control, so it doesn't look like many effective alternatives could get around this problem. From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au Wed May 12 00:05:00 2004 From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:35:00 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EAC@mmdsvr01.mm.local> How about a simple construction set toy, ala Meccano? Stuff with gears and levers and so on that can be used to make simple machines? That kind of stuff lets you really explore construction-oriented thinking. Also, a decent engineer could probably design something really cheap to build out of plastic or metal. You might have an issue with patents in that area, so you'd want to do your research, but there must be a free space there somewhere. Emlyn -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Matthews [mailto:dan at 3-e.net] Sent: Wednesday, 12 May 2004 8:56 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys Given a limited budget and a third world location what forms of patent free "Edutoys" would offer the greatest benefit to the largest number of children in terms of fostering intellectual development? The toys need to be manufactured on site, they need to be robust and suitable for children from 3 up to 7 years old. Ideally the budget is only consumed but documenting the design and manufacture of the toys and on training people regional centres to produce them as well as train others. I recognise that some funding may be required for tools, materials and distribution. Why the third world? Well duh! That is where most of the children are! Any ideas for such low-tech high extropy toy designs? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat *************************************************************************** Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other defect. From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 12 03:33:57 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:33:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ars Electronica - NYC - 5/20 - 5/23 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040511203326.029e87d0@mail.earthlink.net> Ars Electronica in New York Celebrating 25 years of Ars Electronica May 21 - July 18, 2004 www.aec.at/nyc Exhibition Opening: May 20 - May 23, 2004 DIGITAL AVANT-GARDE An exhibition at Eyebeam and The American Museum of the Moving Image On the occasion of Ars Electronica's 25th anniversary, a series of exhibitions, screenings, and lectures will take place in New York City from May 21 to July 18. Generously supported by SAP and hosted by the American Museum of the Moving Image, Eyebeam, and the Austrian Cultural Forum New York, these events will feature outstanding media art projects from the past twenty-five years as well as inspiring new developments from the Ars Electronica Futurelab and its artist-in-residence program. Additional symposia, artist talks, screenings, and workshops will provide not just interesting historical information but also comprehensive insight into new directions in digital art. Prix Selection at Eyebeam This exhibition will focus on a selection of award-winning works from the Prix Ars Electronica's Interactive Art category. These varied projects offer unprecedented insight into the development of interactive art as one of contemporary culture's central new forms. In addition, a comprehensive collection of archival material (videos, catalogs, CD-Roms, etc.) will be put on display, thus featuring milestones and masterpieces of digital art from the last 25 years Interactions/Art and Technology at the American Museum of the Moving Image An exhibition of interactive digital media installations drawn from artist-in-residence and research projects at the Ars Electronica Futurelab. Featured will be virtual reality environments, unique approaches to human-computer interaction and new artistic tools. The collaborative artistic and technical process by which the Futurelab operates will also be shown. Animation Theater Screenings at the American Museum of the Moving Image and Eyebeam One of the main categories of the Prix Ars Electronica is Computer Animation. These screenings of prize-winning animations since 1987 will show the evolution of the medium from its early experimental stages to its current position as a ubiquitous creative form. Positions and Perspectives Symposium at the Austrian Cultural Forum Having developed out of a small and often marginalized segment of contemporary art into a wide-ranging category of its own, digital art plays an important role in major museums and cultural events around the world. In this symposium, artists, curators, and media theorists will reflect on the development of the digital media arts and what the future may hold for this pioneering field. Find more detailed information on the schedule of the opening and on the exhibition at: www.aec.at/nyc Award Ceremony of the Prix Ars Electronica's new category "Digital Communities" The Prix Ars Electronica's new Digital Communities category has come about as a result of Ars Electronica's collaboration with SAP. Digital Communities honors projects that are utilizing modern technologies to implement a vision of open, democratic structures. The awards ceremony will be held in conjunction with the United Nations' Global Compact Summit on June 23, 2004 in New York. Documentation of the prizewinning projects will be on exhibit from June 23 to July 18 in the lobby of the UN's New York headquarters. Find more detailed information on the winning projects at: www.aec.at Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 12 02:00:42 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mexican UFOs In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511175909.01b88090@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040512020042.8261.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > Might be some new hyper-stealthed US planes out for a drive? Why not some stealthed drug planes? The technology really isn't that hard to replicate once you know how it works. Given the use of radar systems to spot drug planes coming into the US, I would not be surprised that drug traffickers would be interested in stealth technology. I recall reading a couple years ago about a submarine under construction somewhere down there that was captured in the factory, intended to be used for shipping drugs. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 12 02:33:29 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 21:33:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mexican UFOs In-Reply-To: <20040512020042.8261.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511175909.01b88090@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040512020042.8261.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511212849.01c65ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:00 PM 5/11/2004 -0700, Mike wrote: >Why not some stealthed drug planes? The technology really isn't that >hard to replicate once you know how it works. Given the use of radar >systems to spot drug planes coming into the US Really? Technology that makes drug courier jets invisible to the naked eye of pilots even as they insouciantly buzz a drug cop plane, but carelessly enough stealthed to be brightly visible in radar and the infrared? < The lights were filmed on March 5 by pilots using infrared equipment. They appeared to be flying at an altitude of about 3,500 meters (11,480 feet), and allegedly surrounded the Air Force jet as it conducted routine anti-drug trafficking vigilance in Campeche. Only three of the objects showed up on the plane's radar. > Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 12 03:17:05 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mexican UFOs In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511212849.01c65ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040512031705.46622.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:00 PM 5/11/2004 -0700, Mike wrote: > >Why not some stealthed drug planes? The technology > really isn't that > >hard to replicate once you know how it works. Given > the use of radar > >systems to spot drug planes coming into the US > > Really? Technology that makes drug courier jets > invisible to the naked eye > of pilots even as they insouciantly buzz a drug cop > plane, but carelessly > enough stealthed to be brightly visible in radar and > the infrared? I've heard of something that could fit the bill...if viewed from below. "Air Force Blue" paint. Perfect chroma match for the open sky. No points for guessing who developed it; they discontinued because that level of stealth was an air safety issue, threatening to more than make up for decreased combat losses in increased "friendly fire" losses during training and routine operation. Some drug cartel could have gotten their hands on some, or independently redeveloped it. Not saying that's what it was here. From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 12 03:48:03 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 22:48:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mexican UFOs--adding insolit to injury In-Reply-To: <20040512031705.46622.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511212849.01c65ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040512031705.46622.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511224358.01c32ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:17 PM 5/11/2004 -0700, Adrian wrote: > > Really? Technology that makes drug courier jets > > invisible to the naked eye... > >I've heard of something that could fit the bill...if >viewed from below. "Air Force Blue" paint. Perfect >chroma match for the open sky. Erm: (I have no idea what `insolit' means.) Here's the long version (FWIW, which might be nothing more than your average weeping madonna statue): ======================= From: Santiago Yturria Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:49:11 -0500 Subject: Mexican Military Acknowledges UFOs In Mexico Mexican Department of Defense acknowledge UFOs in Mexico By Santiago Yturria The UFO Phenomenon in Mexico has been recognized as a fact in an historic and unprecedent decision taken by the mexican Department of Defense under his Secretary of Defense General Clemente Vega Garcia, commander of all armed forces in this country. The insolit meassure that will change history here in Mexico was the result of a high level incident in wich a mexican Air Force airplane, military pilots and personal were involved in a situation with several UFOs while doing a routinary surveillance antinarcotics operation to detect a drug smuggling flight. The news was released last night, Sunday May 9, 2004 by Jaime Maussan, researcher and tv journalist during the tv show Los Grandes Misterios del Tercer Milenio (Great Misteries of the Third Millenium) broadcast by mexican tv network Multimedios Television in the city of Monterrey, N.L. Jaime Maussan announced that on Tuesday May 11 there will be an international press conference to present the case and the investigation made by the Department fo Defense along with Maussan's research team in an unprecedent colaboration. The press conference will take place at the Hotel Sevilla Palace in Mexico city at 11:00 AM were all the international media representatives have been invited. Previously on Monday's night an advance report will be broadcast on national television newscast. All the facts and materials of the investigation will be presented at the conference including the official footages by the Air Force as well as interviews with the pilots and personal involved in the amazing incident. THE FACTS: On April 20, 2004 Jaime Maussan was contacted by a high officer of the Department of Defense to have a private meeting and discuss a subject of a high relevant matter. The next day Maussan met General Clemente Vega Garcia, Secretary of Defense and his major staff and was informed about an incident that took place on March 5, 2004 on the aerial space of Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche where an Air Force Merl=EDn C26A Bimotor airplane was doing a routinary flight to detect a smuggling drug airplane during an antinarcotics operation. The Merlin C26A was equipped with a high tech advanced digital equipment to register and record all the activities during the operation. Powerful sensor detectors like a FLIR STAR ZAPPHIR II and a RADAR AN/PS 143 BRAVO VICTOR 3 were being used by qualified personal aboard the airplane and all the operation was being recorded both in normal and infrared mode. The airplane was under the command of Mayor Magdaleno Jasso N=FA=F1ez. The FLIR operator was Lt. Mario Adri=E1n V=E1zquez and the RADAR operator Lt. German Ramirez, all of them members of the 501 Aerial Squadron. This airplane is programmed only for surveillance and detection procedures, not for interception or combat maneuvres. Their duty is to detect and identify drug dealers filghts and then inmediately report them to the base where combat planes are scrambled to intercept those narcotics smugglers. At aproximately 17:00 PM the Merlin C26A detected an unknown traffic at 10,500 feet over Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche airspace and according to the protocol and suspecting a drug dealer airplane Mayor Magdaleno Jasso made a maneuver to approach the unidentified traffic at certain range to get a close look and record the target with their equipment. At the same time Mayor Jasso reported by radio to the base that a posible suspect was detected requesting the interceptor planes to be in alert condition. The RADAR AN/PS 143 BRAVO VICTOR 3 was detecting the unknown traffic and the FLIR STAR ZAPPHIR II was recording the object in infrared. As the Merlin C26A tried to approach the unknown traffic to make a visual identification it suddenly in a surprising maneuver escaped flying away at tremendous speed. By this time Mayor Jasso tried to persecute the target but it was very fast. All this was being recorded by the FLAIR and also the radio conversations with the base describing the inexpected maneuver of the unknown. However the C26A still have not made visual contact with the unknown object. Just some moments passed when suddenly the unknown object returned and began following the Merlin C26A in a surprising situation. This was detected by the RADAR and the FLIR while the personal aboard were trying to make visual contact of the unidentified traffic now following them. In seconds the equipment detected now not only one but two traffics following them. The images in both RADAR and the FLIR were clear and unmistakable. But both pilot and personal still could'nt have visual contact with these two traffics following them adding a great suspense to this disconcerting situation. Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported to the base the insolit incident that was taking place giving detail of all the informations registered by the equipment while keep trying to make visual contact of the unknowns. The FLIR kept recording in infrared every movement made by the two unknown objects that seemed to be keeping their distance from the C26A but still following it. The personal aboard the Merlin C26A were confused and disconcerted seeing the images on the FLIR and the RADAR asking themselves what was going on with this insolit situation. THE INCIDENT TURNS MORE DRAMATIC But the stressing moment that the C26A crew were passing through was just the beguinning of something more dramatic that will turn their undesirable experience into a real nightmare. Some minutes passed while the mexican Air Force Merlin C26A crew continued making maneuvers to have a visual contact of the unknowns because despite both RADAR and FLIR were showing perfectly clear both unidentified objects for unexplained reasons there was not a visual contact even that the objects by this time were at close range. It was during this round and round maneuvers to identify these two objects that something amazing happened. In a matter of seconds more unknown objects arrived to the scene and the disconcert of the C26A crew was total. The RADAR and the FLIR detected immediately the presence of nine new objects of the same size and characteristics, unknown objects that arrived to the scene surprisingly like coming from nowhere. Now the situation has entered into a high level of danger so Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported by radio to the base this new situation requesting instructions. But the most insolit thing was that even that there were eleven unknown objects close to them still the crew could'nt see them, no visual contact with the unknowns was posible for some reason never experienced before by these high trained men. However the high tech sophisticated equipment and sensors were not lying, there were eleven targets outside them with unpredictable intentions. At the middle of a complete confusion and disconcert among the C26A crew the unknown objects suddenly made a maneuver surrounding the mexican Air Force airplane in a circle at close range. The RADAR and FLIR presented an insolit image of an eleven objects near by in a circle formation around the Merlin C26A. The situation turned out of control. Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported to the base that the C26A situation was now in red alert, surrounded by eleven mysterious round shaped objects camouflaged with a certain unknown advanced technology that avoid any visual contact of them. However Mayor Jasso kept the calm as well as the crew who were working fast meassuring and recording every detail of this unique incident conscientious of their duty as military and trained men. Confronting this situation surrounded by unidentified objects in an unpredictable ending Mayor Magdaleno Jasso took the decision of turning out all the airplane lights and wait to see what happened. Moments of high suspense lived by the crew while the FLIR was recording the images of those bright objects even that visual contact was not posible, moments of silence and uncertainty. The C26A crew kept calmed doing their duty, documenting every moment of the strange incident while Mayor Jasso continued in contact with the base. After some stressing minutes the eleven objects dissapeared giving an end to the strange experience that these members of the 501 Aerial Squadron just lived. The Merlin C26A returned safe to the Air Force Base and Mayor Magdaleno Jasso prepared a complete report of the incident along with the C26A crew. The Secretary of the Defense took notice of Mayor Jasso's report and began a full investigation studying and evaluating every element of the case. Statements of the crew, images, lectures, meassurements of all the equipment as well as a complete evaluation of the meteorological data . The incident was taken very seriously by the Department of Defense Staff and after several weeks of investigation they decided under the command of General Clemente Vega Garcia to contact researcher and tv journalist Jaime Maussan for a special colaboration in this investigation as an experienced researcher in these matters. On April 22, 2004 General Clemente Vega, Secretary of Defense gave Jaime Maussan a copy of all the tapes and data collected by the Merlin C26A during the incident for study, evaluation and analisis by Maussan's research team as complement of this investigation and as an external colaborating source trying to establish a definition of the posible motives and consequences of the March 5, 2004 incident. General Vega as well as his staff were very open to discuss the subject and showed their legitimate interest in conducting this investigation in order to establish the truth of what happened. General Vega authorized the Merlin C26A crew to give Jaime Maussan the interviews needed without any censorship, giving all the facilities to present this case to the mexican people, an historic and unprecedent decision that will open a new era of mutual colaboration among the mexican ufologists and the military forces, a colaboration based in respect and interest to find the truth of the intense UFO activity we have been experiencing here in Mexico since the beguinning of the Amazing Mexican UFO Wave back in July 11, 1991. This new era of relationship among the mexican UFO witnesses, skywatchers, ufologists and our military forces will try to establish and give form to a new legislation in our law system focused to be prepared for any incident involving these unidentified flying objects, our people, our comercial and military airplanes etc. for learning and understanding what are we going to do and how are we going to confront this reality. Santiago Yturria Mexico TECHNICAL DATA DATE: March 5, 2004 TIME: 17:00 PM to 17:30 pm EVENT: On Comision LOCATION: Aerial Space Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche Mexico at 10,500 Fts. COORDINATES: LAT N 18=B0 26.60=B4 : LON W 90=B0 45.69=B4 SENSOR EQUIPMENT: FLIR STAR ZAFIRO II RADAR AN/PS 143 BRAVO VICTOR 3 DETECTION RATIO: 50 miles FLIR RANGE: - 40=B0C till more than 1,500=B0C CAMERA LENS: GERMANIO AIRPLANE: Merlin C26A Bimotor OFFICERS Navigation Captain: Magdaleno Jasso Nu=F1ez FLIR Operator: Lt. Mario Adrian Vasquez RADAR Operator: Lt. German Ramirez Members of the 501 Aerial Squadron GENERAL CONDITIONS: The located zone was in optimal meteorological conditions, winds no bigger than 35 kms./hour, relative humidity of 72% and a temperature average of 34=B0 C. At 10,500 Fts. temperature average -27=B0 C and a visibility average of 96%. The region doesn't register volcanic activity nor teutonics movements. There was not detection of electric current storage and distribution of importance. On the basis of the previous thing there were not found sources of electric magnetic phenomenons by electric centrals or sismic movements. There were not found posibilities of any Ball of Fire effect caused by volcanic activity. There were not registries of solar storms in that moments or relevant solar explosions. Therefore the posibilities of ionization luminic effects like St. Elmo Fire or electric storms were discarded. Study and Analisis elaborated by Rodolfo Garrido Cotham according to the Merlin C26A digital equipment data. From michael at acceleratingfuture.com Wed May 12 04:01:33 2004 From: michael at acceleratingfuture.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 21:01:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete! Message-ID: <40A1A19D.8030003@acceleratingfuture.com> For interested parties... Michael Anissimov here, got in from the American Humanists Association 2004 conference (http://www.americanhumanist.org/conference/index.html) in Las Vegas the day before yesterday and am finally orienting myself. I feel obligated to give my fellow transhumanist colleagues, mentors, advisors, and acquaintances the low-down on the conference and my experiences there. I feel that transhumanism and humanism are two gigantic puzzle pieces slowly merging into one another, and it is up to us to ensure that these pieces fit into each other smoothly. I especially hold transhumanists to high standards in the areas of diplomacy and maximizing our positive PR. The conference was similar in size to Transvision 2003, with around 300 or so attendees and around 25 people giving talks or receiving awards. It was held in the conference area of a Stardust Casino and Hotel. If you've ever been to Vegas, you've probably heard of it. Wayne Newton sings there. The casino smoke irritated my eyes horribly, I should have worn goggles or something. No utility fog to create a smoke-free bubble to walk around in. *Sigh*. My lodging was at a dirt cheap, $16/night hostel in a bad downtown neighborhood. I did the entire 4-day trip on about $300, amazingly enough. Big thanks to all the anonymous contributors who helped me raise that money, especially to a certain ImmInst member who donated $150 and Misha Anissimov who donated $50. (Want to help send me to Transvision this August? Feel free to send me an email.) I was welcomed to the conference by AHA employees Jende Huang, Farhad Shakerin, and another nice young woman around my age (whose name I forgot...sorry!) who turned out to be a vegan. As I said in my earlier report, many of the conference-goers were quite elderly but lively and passionate for their age. A few conference-goers came up to me and said how happy they were to see a young face at the conference. (Like Transvision, I was probably the youngest attendee at the conference.) Many of the conference-goers seemed to know each other very well and I can only assume that they have been going to these conferences for many years. The AHA was originally founded in 1941 and this was their 63rd conference. At the entrance to the conference was a whiteboard that said "Las Vegas is a Sin-Free Zone" and had a bunch of the signatures of conference attendees. Later that night I went back to my hostel and wrote the following: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Las Vegas is not a city of "sin". The concept of "sin" is religious. But it is a city that contains and encourages a great deal of self-destructive and morally negative choices. This cannot be denied. The city contains many pawn shops, merchants who will purchase your gold, jewelry, and other valuables in exchange for cash. Where does the cash go? To fuel gambling, drinking, and whore binges, no doubt. Sorry, but I can't call that morally right. And what about the many "escorts" for sale at any time of night or day in any part of the city? Girls who accept money for sex with anyone, not because they like the job, but because they're desperate for the money? Las Vegas is a city that exploits human weaknesses for the maximum possible profit. It's hard for me to appreciate the beautiful architecture of many of these fancy casinos when I consider what is paying for their construction. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The above shouldn't be considered "self-righteous"; to the contrary, it should be considered self-evident. Anyway... My talk was "Why You Need to Know About Transhumanism". The audience was only about 30 people, sadly. The audience reading this email is probably several times as large. About the same as my "Accelerating Progress and the Potential Consequences of Transhuman Intelligence" talk at Transvision 2003. In the future, if I'm speaking at a conference you happen to be attending *cough*Transvision04*cough*, I'd appreciate it if you'd consider showing up! I'm getting better at public speaking, really! There were two other talks going on at the same time. One about the evil of the conservatives and the other about the adventures of a humanist pornography writer, which lured most of the conference-goers away from my session. Oh well. I spoke for about 20 minutes, emphasized that transhumanists were humanistic and strongly espouse values that respect the autonomy of the individual. I mentioned that we discourage the notion of social stratification or human vs. transhuman coalitionism, marking these as evolved tendencies we might want to discard once we have the technology to improve our neurology. I gave quick summaries of issues that transhumanists care about - biotech and genetic engineering, life extension, nanotechnology, emotional reengineering, and self-improving artificial intelligence. I emphasized that there exist a *broad spectrum* of transhumanists who hold a wide range of different opinions on all these issues. We're a *family* of evolving worldviews, not a single evolving worldview, or, dare I say it, a static worldview. For the next 30 minutes or so, we did a Q&A session, and people asked some interesting questions along with some off-topic questions. Although 90% of the audience seemed to be over 60, they seemed quite forward-looking and many of them had heard about transhumanism before that day. A copy of "The Humanist" with George Dvorsky's wonderful article was in every conference packet (!) and I think that really helped prime the talk. It's cool how he portrays transhumanism as a cultural phenomenon that goes beyond a simple focus on the future, and I concur that stuff like converting to veggy-ism can be considered a form of self-improvement. (Consider going all the way and becoming a vegan next, George! Do you know what they do with all the male chicks that are born in egg-producing factories? Pile them in bags until they crush each other and suffocate, then they toss 'em into blenders. Better cross your fingers and *hope* their neurology can't support the formation of pain qualia, hm?) Many of the talk attendees were very focused on the issue of overpopulation, and I suggested the options of arcologies, sea cities, hollowing out large portions of underground, or mass migrating into outer space using buckytube elevators. I cited the "First World Effect" and the declining birth rate as women are better educated. I also mentioned that the right technology would allow modification of our digestive systems so we could theoretically extract nutrients from anything with chemical bonds, if need be. Many of the younger attendees (ages 30-60) seemed enthusiastic, along with a fair portion of the seniors. I have a feeling that nearly all of the people who didn't care about transhumanism simply attended the other talks, so I didn't really get to see them. The Q&A session was really fun - there was one super-enthusiastic, greying Buddhist man sitting up in the front. He seemed like someone who had travelled extensively and was familiar with a range of cultures. He gestured wildly to the audience after I called on him to ask a "question" on several occasions, asserting that we need "radical solutions such as transhumanism!" to adequately confront future risks and the problem of overpopulation. He discussed the value of meditation and lovingkindness in contrast with transhumanism, all in his 3-minute "question". ("Questions" during conference talks are often more like personal mini-speeches.) I was very impressed. Some audience members asked which books or websites they should recommend to their children or grandchildren, and I recommended "The Age of Spiritual Machines", transhumanism.org, and imminst.org. After the talk, 3 people came up to me and said they liked my talk and would look further into transhumanist issues. One sweet lady who turned out to be an editor for a retiree's health magazine (and former professor) asked for some information about me personally and said she was considering an article on me and transhumanism. On the days of the conference when I didn't give my talk, few people made conversation with me but I did have a few brief conversations on evolution and scientific issues. I agreed with them on issues regarding the stupidity of Bush and the war and so on. I did not attend the conference buffets or award ceremonies because 1) I couldn't afford it, and 2) I doubt I would have fit in very well anyway - these seemed to be close-knit, long-time activists. That's about it. I am now happy to return from dirty and fake Las Vegas to my wonderful home town of San Francisco, California and all my transhumanist friends on the internet and IRL. I feel encouraged that many humanists are interested in transhumanist issues, and look forward to continued dialogue and cooperation between adherents of both philosophies in years to come. But this weekend, it's off to Foresight and the first SF Bay Area Transhumanist meeting for me! -- Michael Anissimov http://singinst.org/ Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence -- Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and community news: http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 12 04:30:55 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 21:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mexican UFOs--adding insolit to injury In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511224358.01c32ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040512043055.28248.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:17 PM 5/11/2004 -0700, Adrian wrote: > > > Really? Technology that makes drug courier jets > > > invisible to the naked eye... > > > >I've heard of something that could fit the > bill...if > >viewed from below. "Air Force Blue" paint. > Perfect > >chroma match for the open sky. > > Erm: > > disconcert among the > C26A crew the unknown objects suddenly made a > maneuver > surrounding the mexican Air Force airplane in a > circle at close > range. The RADAR and FLIR presented an insolit image > of an > eleven objects near by in a circle formation around > the Merlin > C26A. The situation turned out of control.> [etc.] So combine with known ECM techniques, like painted decoys and chaff or just spoofing electronics, to create the extra false radar and IR images. The maneuvers sound like a test pilot having entirely too much fun with his new toys (or, officially, "strenuously verifying the capabilities of the stealth capabilities of [insert project name]"). From alito at organicrobot.com Wed May 12 04:52:30 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:52:30 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mexican UFOs--adding insolit to injury In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511224358.01c32ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511212849.01c65ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040512031705.46622.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040511224358.01c32ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1084337549.18706.14.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 22:48 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:17 PM 5/11/2004 -0700, Adrian wrote: > > > > Really? Technology that makes drug courier jets > > > invisible to the naked eye... > > > >I've heard of something that could fit the bill...if > >viewed from below. "Air Force Blue" paint. Perfect > >chroma match for the open sky. > > Erm: > > C26A crew the unknown objects suddenly made a maneuver > surrounding the mexican Air Force airplane in a circle at close > range. The RADAR and FLIR presented an insolit image of an > eleven objects near by in a circle formation around the Merlin > C26A. The situation turned out of control.> > > (I have no idea what `insolit' means.) insolit is a product of wishful translation. insolito in spanish means very rare but is used more commonly as amazing. Also, mayor in the article is obviously major. alejandro From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 12 05:43:48 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 22:43:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] jolly good theory In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511175909.01b88090@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c437e4$193fcfa0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Extropians, Eliezer assures us that there is an infinite amount of fun. This is fortunate indeed, for I stumbled upon a most remarkable fun insight this day. At lunch one of the guys introduced a game where the group must agree upon a single adjective for a person. When it came to me, someone suggested "jolly." Another objected that the term jolly simply cannot apply to someone who is skinnier than a coathanger. When I asked why, no one could offer a good reason, only examples. Saint Nick was jolly. Examples of skinny in the movies and television: Barney Fife, Gilligan, Olive Oyl, Karen Carpenter, Montgomery Burns. Clearly none of these could properly be considered jolly, Q.E.D. I suggested we consider the theoretical case where a jolly, portly BMI=35 person gets a caloric restriction epiphany, manages to Adkins himself down to a spindly 17. He would presumably still have the same sense of humor as before; in fact might be still more cheerful, for he feels great having lost all that flab. Would he not still be jolly? They argued the neo-slim jolly one would become some other adjective: snarky, silly, goofy, giggly, smirky, etc, all of which have a less favorable connotation than jolly. Jolly old Saint Nick *always* goes ho ho ho, but small children never do, but rather utter a faster high-pitched silly giggly hehehehehe. Then came the blinding flash of insight, why it is that jolly and portly go together: Recall the classic spring mass system, the resonant frequency being square root of the spring constant divided by the mass, or (k/m)^.5 (remember that from physics 101?) Now, the analog to the spring constant k in the laughing human body is the diaphragm muscle, which presumably would remain mostly unaffected by the loss of half the body mass in the formerly-jolly formerly-flabby CR-er. k stays constant, mass in the denominator goes in half, the slow jolly ho ho ho is multiplied by approximately square root of two. (ho)^3 becomes a shallower and faster (heh)^4 or even a still faster high- pitched, even chipmonk-ey (hee)^5, still certainly mirthful and cheerful but no longer truly "jolly." Now you understand why. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 12 12:45:38 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 05:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mexican UFOs--adding insolit to injury In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040511224358.01c32ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040512124538.16225.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> THis all being said, it could also be merely disinfo by the Mexican gov't if they are producing cheap knockoff maquiladoro stealth planes. Keep in mind that the US gov't used "UFO" stories to cover its own RD&T program. --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:17 PM 5/11/2004 -0700, Adrian wrote: > > > > Really? Technology that makes drug courier jets > > > invisible to the naked eye... > > > >I've heard of something that could fit the bill...if > >viewed from below. "Air Force Blue" paint. Perfect > >chroma match for the open sky. > > Erm: > > C26A crew the unknown objects suddenly made a maneuver > surrounding the mexican Air Force airplane in a circle at close > range. The RADAR and FLIR presented an insolit image of an > eleven objects near by in a circle formation around the Merlin > C26A. The situation turned out of control.> > > (I have no idea what `insolit' means.) > > Here's the long version (FWIW, which might be nothing more than your > average weeping madonna statue): > > ======================= > > > From: Santiago Yturria > Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:49:11 -0500 > Subject: Mexican Military Acknowledges UFOs In Mexico > > > Mexican Department of Defense acknowledge UFOs in Mexico > > By Santiago Yturria > > The UFO Phenomenon in Mexico has been recognized as a fact in an > historic and unprecedent decision taken by the mexican > Department of Defense under his Secretary of Defense General > Clemente Vega Garcia, commander of all armed forces in this > country. > > The insolit meassure that will change history here in Mexico was > the result of a high level incident in wich a mexican Air Force > airplane, military pilots and personal were involved in a > situation with several UFOs while doing a routinary surveillance > antinarcotics operation to detect a drug smuggling flight. > > The news was released last night, Sunday May 9, 2004 by Jaime > Maussan, researcher and tv journalist during the tv show Los > Grandes Misterios del Tercer Milenio (Great Misteries of the > Third Millenium) broadcast by mexican tv network Multimedios > Television in the city of Monterrey, N.L. > > Jaime Maussan announced that on Tuesday May 11 there will be an > international press conference to present the case and the > investigation made by the Department fo Defense along with > Maussan's research team in an unprecedent colaboration. The > press conference will take place at the Hotel Sevilla Palace in > Mexico city at 11:00 AM were all the international media > representatives have been invited. Previously on Monday's night > an advance report will be broadcast on national television > newscast. > > All the facts and materials of the investigation will be > presented at the conference including the official footages by > the Air Force as well as interviews with the pilots and personal > involved in the amazing incident. > > THE FACTS: > > On April 20, 2004 Jaime Maussan was contacted by a high officer > of the Department of Defense to have a private meeting and > discuss a subject of a high relevant matter. The next day > Maussan met General Clemente Vega Garcia, Secretary of Defense > and his major staff and was informed about an incident that took > place on March 5, 2004 on the aerial space of Ciudad del Carmen, > Campeche where an Air Force Merl=EDn C26A Bimotor airplane was > doing a routinary flight to detect a smuggling drug airplane > during an antinarcotics operation. > > The Merlin C26A was equipped with a high tech advanced digital > equipment to register and record all the activities during the > operation. Powerful sensor detectors like a FLIR STAR ZAPPHIR II > and a RADAR AN/PS 143 BRAVO VICTOR 3 were being used by > qualified personal aboard the airplane and all the operation was > being recorded both in normal and infrared mode. > > The airplane was under the command of Mayor Magdaleno Jasso > N=FA=F1ez. The FLIR operator was Lt. Mario Adri=E1n V=E1zquez and the > RADAR operator Lt. German Ramirez, all of them members of the > 501 Aerial Squadron. > > This airplane is programmed only for surveillance and detection > procedures, not for interception or combat maneuvres. Their duty > is to detect and identify drug dealers filghts and then > inmediately report them to the base where combat planes are > scrambled to intercept those narcotics smugglers. > > At aproximately 17:00 PM the Merlin C26A detected an unknown > traffic at 10,500 feet over Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche airspace > and according to the protocol and suspecting a drug dealer > airplane Mayor Magdaleno Jasso made a maneuver to approach the > unidentified traffic at certain range to get a close look and > record the target with their equipment. At the same time Mayor > Jasso reported by radio to the base that a posible suspect was > detected requesting the interceptor planes to be in alert > condition. > > The RADAR AN/PS 143 BRAVO VICTOR 3 was detecting the unknown > traffic and the FLIR STAR ZAPPHIR II was recording the object in > infrared. As the Merlin C26A tried to approach the unknown > traffic to make a visual identification it suddenly in a > surprising maneuver escaped flying away at tremendous speed. By > this time Mayor Jasso tried to persecute the target but it was > very fast. All this was being recorded by the FLAIR and also the > radio conversations with the base describing the inexpected > maneuver of the unknown. However the C26A still have not made > visual contact with the unknown object. > > Just some moments passed when suddenly the unknown object > returned and began following the Merlin C26A in a surprising > situation. This was detected by the RADAR and the FLIR while the > personal aboard were trying to make visual contact of the > unidentified traffic now following them. In seconds the > equipment detected now not only one but two traffics following > them. The images in both RADAR and the FLIR were clear and > unmistakable. But both pilot and personal still could'nt have > visual contact with these two traffics following them adding a > great suspense to this disconcerting situation. > > Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported to the base the insolit incident > that was taking place giving detail of all the informations > registered by the equipment while keep trying to make visual > contact of the unknowns. The FLIR kept recording in infrared > every movement made by the two unknown objects that seemed to be > keeping their distance from the C26A but still following it. The > personal aboard the Merlin C26A were confused and disconcerted > seeing the images on the FLIR and the RADAR asking themselves > what was going on with this insolit situation. > > THE INCIDENT TURNS MORE DRAMATIC > > But the stressing moment that the C26A crew were passing through > was just the beguinning of something more dramatic that will > turn their undesirable experience into a real nightmare. > > Some minutes passed while the mexican Air Force Merlin C26A crew > continued making maneuvers to have a visual contact of the > unknowns because despite both RADAR and FLIR were showing > perfectly clear both unidentified objects for unexplained > reasons there was not a visual contact even that the objects by > this time were at close range. > > It was during this round and round maneuvers to identify these > two objects that something amazing happened. In a matter of > seconds more unknown objects arrived to the scene and the > disconcert of the C26A crew was total. > > The RADAR and the FLIR detected immediately the presence of nine > new objects of the same size and characteristics, unknown > objects that arrived to the scene surprisingly like coming from > nowhere. Now the situation has entered into a high level of > danger so Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported by radio to the base > this new situation requesting instructions. > > But the most insolit thing was that even that there were eleven > unknown objects close to them still the crew could'nt see them, > no visual contact with the unknowns was posible for some reason > never experienced before by these high trained men. However the > high tech sophisticated equipment and sensors were not lying, > there were eleven targets outside them with unpredictable > intentions. > > At the middle of a complete confusion and disconcert among the > C26A crew the unknown objects suddenly made a maneuver > surrounding the mexican Air Force airplane in a circle at close > range. The RADAR and FLIR presented an insolit image of an > eleven objects near by in a circle formation around the Merlin > C26A. The situation turned out of control. > > Mayor Magdaleno Jasso reported to the base that the C26A > situation was now in red alert, surrounded by eleven mysterious > round shaped objects camouflaged with a certain unknown advanced > technology that avoid any visual contact of them. However Mayor > Jasso kept the calm as well as the crew who were working fast > meassuring and recording every detail of this unique incident > conscientious of their duty as military and trained men. > > Confronting this situation surrounded by unidentified objects in > an unpredictable ending Mayor Magdaleno Jasso took the decision > of turning out all the airplane lights and wait to see what > happened. Moments of high suspense lived by the crew while the > FLIR was recording the images of those bright objects even that > visual contact was not posible, moments of silence and > uncertainty. > > The C26A crew kept calmed doing their duty, documenting every > moment of the strange incident while Mayor Jasso continued in > contact with the base. After some stressing minutes the eleven > objects dissapeared giving an end to the strange experience that > these members of the 501 Aerial Squadron just lived. The Merlin > C26A returned safe to the Air Force Base and Mayor Magdaleno > Jasso prepared a complete report of the incident along with the > C26A crew. > > The Secretary of the Defense took notice of Mayor Jasso's report > and began a full investigation studying and evaluating every > element of the case. Statements of the crew, images, lectures, > meassurements of all the equipment as well as a complete > evaluation of the meteorological data . The incident was taken > very seriously by the Department of Defense Staff and after > several weeks of investigation they decided under the command of > General Clemente Vega Garcia to contact researcher and tv > journalist Jaime Maussan for a special colaboration in this > investigation as an experienced researcher in these matters. > > On April 22, 2004 General Clemente Vega, Secretary of Defense > gave Jaime Maussan a copy of all the tapes and data collected by > the Merlin C26A during the incident for study, evaluation and > analisis by Maussan's research team as complement of this > investigation and as an external colaborating source trying to > establish a definition of the posible motives and consequences > of the March 5, 2004 incident. > > General Vega as well as his staff were very open to discuss the > subject and showed their legitimate interest in conducting this > investigation in order to establish the truth of what happened. > General Vega authorized the Merlin C26A crew to give Jaime > Maussan the interviews needed without any censorship, giving all > the facilities to present this case to the mexican people, an > historic and unprecedent decision that will open a new era of > mutual colaboration among the mexican ufologists and the > military forces, a colaboration based in respect and interest to > find the truth of the intense UFO activity we have been > experiencing here in Mexico since the beguinning of the Amazing > Mexican UFO Wave back in July 11, 1991. > > This new era of relationship among the mexican UFO witnesses, > skywatchers, ufologists and our military forces will try to > establish and give form to a new legislation in our law system > focused to be prepared for any incident involving these > unidentified flying objects, our people, our comercial and > military airplanes etc. for learning and understanding what are > we going to do and how are we going to confront this reality. > > > Santiago Yturria > Mexico > > TECHNICAL DATA > > DATE: March 5, 2004 > TIME: 17:00 PM to 17:30 pm > EVENT: On Comision > LOCATION: Aerial Space Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche Mexico at > 10,500 Fts. > COORDINATES: LAT N 18=B0 26.60=B4 : LON W 90=B0 45.69=B4 > SENSOR EQUIPMENT: FLIR STAR ZAFIRO II > RADAR AN/PS 143 BRAVO VICTOR 3 > DETECTION RATIO: 50 miles > FLIR RANGE: - 40=B0C till more than 1,500=B0C > CAMERA LENS: GERMANIO > AIRPLANE: Merlin C26A Bimotor > > OFFICERS > Navigation Captain: Magdaleno Jasso Nu=F1ez > FLIR Operator: Lt. Mario Adrian Vasquez > RADAR Operator: Lt. German Ramirez > Members of the 501 Aerial Squadron > > GENERAL CONDITIONS: > > The located zone was in optimal meteorological conditions, winds > no bigger than 35 kms./hour, relative humidity of 72% and a > temperature average of 34=B0 C. At 10,500 Fts. temperature average > -27=B0 C and a visibility average of 96%. > > The region doesn't register volcanic activity nor teutonics > movements. There was not detection of electric current storage > and distribution of importance. > > On the basis of the previous thing there were not found sources > of electric magnetic phenomenons by electric centrals or sismic > movements. There were not found posibilities of any Ball of Fire > effect caused by volcanic activity. > > There were not registries of solar storms in that moments or > relevant solar explosions. Therefore the posibilities of > ionization luminic effects like St. Elmo Fire or electric storms > were discarded. > > Study and Analisis elaborated by Rodolfo Garrido Cotham > according to the Merlin C26A digital equipment data. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed May 12 14:16:00 2004 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 10:16:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys Message-ID: I don't know if anyone has mentioned legos yet but I think they are pretty close to the ultimate edu toy. You can get cheap "Mega Bloks" or other lego knockoffs or just buy a bucket of legos for $5-10. They survive pretty much any conditions for years and years. For the 3 year olds you may want duplos which are basically giant legos that form animals and houses and stuff. BAL >From: "Emlyn ORegan" >To: "ExI chat list" >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys >Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:35:00 +0930 > >How about a simple construction set toy, ala Meccano? Stuff with gears >and levers and so on that can be used to make simple machines? That kind >of stuff lets you really explore construction-oriented thinking. Also, a >decent engineer could probably design something really cheap to build >out of plastic or metal. You might have an issue with patents in that >area, so you'd want to do your research, but there must be a free space >there somewhere. > >Emlyn > >-----Original Message----- >From: Daniel Matthews [mailto:dan at 3-e.net] >Sent: Wednesday, 12 May 2004 8:56 AM >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys > >Given a limited budget and a third world location what forms of patent >free >"Edutoys" would offer the greatest benefit to the largest number of >children >in terms of fostering intellectual development? > >The toys need to be manufactured on site, they need to be robust and >suitable >for children from 3 up to 7 years old. > >Ideally the budget is only consumed but documenting the design and >manufacture >of the toys and on training people regional centres to produce them as >well >as train others. I recognise that some funding may be required for >tools, >materials and distribution. > >Why the third world? Well duh! That is where most of the children are! > >Any ideas for such low-tech high extropy toy designs? >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > >*************************************************************************** >Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are >intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail >in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. >No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or >other defect. > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 12 16:56:09 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:56:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Holocene Period Cosmic Impacts? Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040512115524.01c17ce0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/events/abstract/204 Seminar Abstract Monday, July 19, 2004 ? 12:15 PM ? Medium Conference Room Bruce Masse Los Alamos National Laboratory, RRES-ECO Ecology Group Was Chicken Little Right??? The Archaeology and Anthropology of Holocene Period Cosmic Impacts Astrophysicists and geologists claim there have been no ?globally catastrophic? cosmic impacts?i.e., an asteroid or comet impact whose force and effects would today be capable of killing a quarter of the Earth?s human population?for at least the past 100,000 years, with such impacts occurring on the average of about once every 500,000 years. Scientific literature emphatically states there is no historical record of a human being ever being killed by a cosmic impact. Because of such messages from the physical sciences, few archaeologists and anthropologists have become engaged with this topic. Recent anthropological and historical research by the author in Polynesia, the Americas, and with Old World Bronze Age civilizations demonstrates that mythology represents the supernatural encoding of those observed major natural events and processes most profoundly affecting cultural groups. Myths were transmitted as sacred knowledge handed down by specialists to successive generations during annual festivals by means of mnemonic aids including chant, dance, and story repetition. Imbedded within worldwide mythology are a number of witnessed cosmic impacts, including events causing human death and suffering. These range from myths about small meteorite impacts similar to those reported during the past century, to that of the Campo del Cielo iron meteorite impact in northern Argentina perhaps 4,000 years ago which likely caused mass fires and significant mortality, to that of a hypothesized globally catastrophic deepwater oceanic comet impact about 4800 years ago which arguably altered human history and may represent a boundary event between the middle and late Holocene climatic regimes. The archaeology of Holocene cosmic impacts is discussed, and reasons are provided for why the hypothesized oceanic comet impact was not earlier recognized by science. These data suggest current models of risk are based on an incomplete understanding of the cosmic impact record. From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 12 17:08:03 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 19:08:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Brain and Cryonics: old memories In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20040512170803.GL25728@leitl.org> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:24:38AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > Now, given some of the recent conversations about cryonics and > freezing damage and assuming that "lifelong memories" aren't > scattered all over the brain and simply "fetched" by the anterior > cingulate cortex this raises the interesting concept that there > is a unique portion of your brain that represents "you". Retain > this in functional form and one has oneself. Lose it or significantly > damage it and one effectively loses oneself. Stroke victims sustain tremendous damage, yet if nonvegetative are considered still the same persons, and typically do recover at least somewhat, due to brain's plasticity. Even complete amnesia (rare, but it happens) sufferers usually retain personality traits: http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/31393/31474/345689.html?d=dmtHMSContent Sure, we'd all prefer a nice incremental in vivo medical-nanoware-mediated upgrade migration path, or, lacking that, at least a nearly-perfect whole-body cryopreservation, but in reality that 1) almost never happens 2) we all know that whole-body has a noticeable quality tradeoff in regards to brain cryopreservation (all other things being pink-piglet-perfect), right? So I wouldn't get one's panties in a bunch over an extremely hypothetical case yet. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed May 12 16:19:39 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete! In-Reply-To: <40A1A19D.8030003@acceleratingfuture.com> Message-ID: A brief comment on Michael's review of Las Vegas (leaving aside his discussion of the humanist conference since I wasn't there and he seemed to give it a balanced discussion). Yes Vegas has its negative side (not the least of which is the cigarette smoke). But this is slowly changing. The NY Times had an article today on the decline in smoking in NYC due to tax hikes and a restaurant ban and one quite populated county here in WA state recently banned public smoking (now the subject of active court fights). So progress is being made. However without a doubt Vegas over the last 20 years has transformed itself into an entertainment capital. The rides at the Luxor are cool, the shops and restaurants in Caesar's Palace are very nice and one could spend hours watching the fountains or artwork at the Biagio or browsing through the memorabilia at the Hard Rock. And let us not forget things like Siegfried & Roy & the tigers (if they ever come back) or the Starlight Express show... Now I realize that Michael may have been unable to take advantage of some of these things which is unfortunate. But Las Vegas is to a large extent what a significant part of what life may look like when serious life extension kicks in. According to my handy dandy spreadsheet that I have here -- if you stick $5000 into a reasonable mutual fund earning ~6% after inflation (reasonable given historic long term stock market returns) when you are 21 then by the time you hit 130 years you are a multi-millionaire. And this doesn't even take into account increased living standards due to nanotech development over the next 130 years. At that point much of the population will be looking for entertainment. Thats what Las Vegas is all about. It used to be that gambling was the primary entertainment but a number of years ago they realized that you can use that to please some of the people some of the time but not to please all of the people all of the time and set about fixing that. So Michael -- next time you get to go to Las Vegas don't be afraid to go out and explore a little. There is more there than one might expect at first glance. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed May 12 16:19:39 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete! In-Reply-To: <40A1A19D.8030003@acceleratingfuture.com> Message-ID: A brief comment on Michael's review of Las Vegas (leaving aside his discussion of the humanist conference since I wasn't there and he seemed to give it a balanced discussion). Yes Vegas has its negative side (not the least of which is the cigarette smoke). But this is slowly changing. The NY Times had an article today on the decline in smoking in NYC due to tax hikes and a restaurant ban and one quite populated county here in WA state recently banned public smoking (now the subject of active court fights). So progress is being made. However without a doubt Vegas over the last 20 years has transformed itself into an entertainment capital. The rides at the Luxor are cool, the shops and restaurants in Caesar's Palace are very nice and one could spend hours watching the fountains or artwork at the Biagio or browsing through the memorabilia at the Hard Rock. And let us not forget things like Siegfried & Roy & the tigers (if they ever come back) or the Starlight Express show... Now I realize that Michael may have been unable to take advantage of some of these things which is unfortunate. But Las Vegas is to a large extent what a significant part of what life may look like when serious life extension kicks in. According to my handy dandy spreadsheet that I have here -- if you stick $5000 into a reasonable mutual fund earning ~6% after inflation (reasonable given historic long term stock market returns) when you are 21 then by the time you hit 130 years you are a multi-millionaire. And this doesn't even take into account increased living standards due to nanotech development over the next 130 years. At that point much of the population will be looking for entertainment. Thats what Las Vegas is all about. It used to be that gambling was the primary entertainment but a number of years ago they realized that you can use that to please some of the people some of the time but not to please all of the people all of the time and set about fixing that. So Michael -- next time you get to go to Las Vegas don't be afraid to go out and explore a little. There is more there than one might expect at first glance. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed May 12 16:49:12 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <20040511235602.16074.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 May 2004, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Paraphrasing from another source... > > Solar-rechargable, long-range (satellite, preferably) > PDA terminals that can connect to the Internet, [snip] > Of course, this would be incredibly subversive to many > third world governments, and therefore likely > confiscated on sight along with food. [snip more] Interesting suggestion. N. Korea's population is 22 million, say 20% in the 6-18 year old range and you have ~4.5 million. Say that many PDAs mass produced and delivered for $50+/each and you are talking something like $250 million. Compare that with the cost of $6+ billion/year to keep ~35,000 troops in S. Korea, or the $2-4 billion/month(!) to keep ~120,000 troops in Iraq. We could be dropping PDAs/Satellite phone combinations and ubiquitous solar powered WiFi networks all over the countries on a quarterly basis (so what if the regime confiscates them -- we are just going to provide more of them in a few months...). After a few quarters the population is going to wise up enough to figure out how to avoid the military or police trying to confiscate the devices. It has already been shown in India that you don't have to provide training for these things -- they gave children access to terminals on the street and the children taught themselves and then each other. It was also reported today that "gangs" are taking over Internet Cafes in China where the government has denied access to individuals under 18. It would appear to me that minority oppressive regimes will not be able to survive in regions where ubiquitous inexpensive communications between individuals becomes available. Robert From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 12 18:12:22 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040512181222.76707.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Not to be a party pooper, but I'd dare say that third world kids likely have a lot more experience building things than most American kids. Seeing the exact copies of AK-47s and 1911 pistols being produced by hammer, drill, and file in third world markets does not make me much concerned about the mechanical skills third world kids are learning. I would, instead, say that it is far more important that they be taught principles of Common Law, human rights, limited government run by the people, and individual dignity irrespective of religious preference. --- Brian Lee wrote: > I don't know if anyone has mentioned legos yet but I think they are > pretty > close to the ultimate edu toy. You can get cheap "Mega Bloks" or > other lego > knockoffs or just buy a bucket of legos for $5-10. > > They survive pretty much any conditions for years and years. > > For the 3 year olds you may want duplos which are basically giant > legos that > form animals and houses and stuff. > > > BAL > > >From: "Emlyn ORegan" > >To: "ExI chat list" > >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : > Toys > >Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:35:00 +0930 > > > >How about a simple construction set toy, ala Meccano? Stuff with > gears > >and levers and so on that can be used to make simple machines? That > kind > >of stuff lets you really explore construction-oriented thinking. > Also, a > >decent engineer could probably design something really cheap to > build > >out of plastic or metal. You might have an issue with patents in > that > >area, so you'd want to do your research, but there must be a free > space > >there somewhere. > > > >Emlyn > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Daniel Matthews [mailto:dan at 3-e.net] > >Sent: Wednesday, 12 May 2004 8:56 AM > >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : > Toys > > > >Given a limited budget and a third world location what forms of > patent > >free > >"Edutoys" would offer the greatest benefit to the largest number of > >children > >in terms of fostering intellectual development? > > > >The toys need to be manufactured on site, they need to be robust and > >suitable > >for children from 3 up to 7 years old. > > > >Ideally the budget is only consumed but documenting the design and > >manufacture > >of the toys and on training people regional centres to produce them > as > >well > >as train others. I recognise that some funding may be required for > >tools, > >materials and distribution. > > > >Why the third world? Well duh! That is where most of the children > are! > > > >Any ideas for such low-tech high extropy toy designs? > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > >*************************************************************************** > >Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are > >intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this > e-mail > >in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. > >No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus > or > >other defect. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From matus at matus1976.com Wed May 12 18:23:22 2004 From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:23:22 -0400 Subject: VEGAS (was: RE: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4384e$386193e0$6901a8c0@GREYBOOK> Robert Bradbury said: > But Las Vegas > is to a large extent what a significant part of what life may > look like when serious life extension kicks in. Robert, I was looking for a great way to offer an opposite opinion to Michael Anissimov's view of Vegas but you beat me to it and quite eloquently. There are many great things about Vegas, for one thing it is the annual conference hot spot, everything from Motorcycles to the upcoming Freedom Fest to the Consumer electronics show hold large conferences there. It is a great place to live for people who have a wide diversity of interests. Additionally, it is a thriving city smack dab in the middle of a desert, standing as an emblem of human achievement to me in that regard. It also has the highest home ownership ratio in the country (so I'm told) and immigrates some 70,000 people per year. It stands in stark contrast to New York city, an old run down rent controlled relic while Vegas routinely blows up multi billion dollar buildings that are quite young to build new ones, and all this when there is certainly no shortage of land. I do not smoke, gamble, nor would ever higher a prostitute (which is illegal in vegas) but I plan on moving out there in about a year (toss up between vegas and new hamsphire) for all its values, as many people I greatly respect think it is one of the best places to live. Michael Dickey From michael at acceleratingfuture.com Wed May 12 18:38:54 2004 From: michael at acceleratingfuture.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:38:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40A26F3E.5020401@acceleratingfuture.com> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: >Yes Vegas has its negative side (not the least of which is the >cigarette smoke). But this is slowly changing. The NY Times >had an article today on the decline in smoking in NYC due to >tax hikes and a restaurant ban and one quite populated county >here in WA state recently banned public smoking (now the subject >of active court fights). So progress is being made. > This is true - probably only 1% or so of the gamblers were even smoking at all, quite amazing since I was assuming there would be "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" levels of cigarette smoking. >However without a doubt Vegas over the last 20 years has transformed >itself into an entertainment capital. The rides at the Luxor are >cool, the shops and restaurants in Caesar's Palace are very nice >and one could spend hours watching the fountains or artwork at >the Biagio or browsing through the memorabilia at the Hard Rock. >And let us not forget things like Siegfried & Roy & the tigers >(if they ever come back) or the Starlight Express show... > Yeah, to some extent I agree with this. Vegas is like a Disneyland for adults. Lots of seniors and Midwesterners go crazy for it. The sculpture and fountain design for Biagio and Ceasar's Palace were extremely impressive. The interiors of Luxor, Treasure Island, and Mandalay Bay were gorgeous and very modern, even futuristic-looking in places. But the tens of *billions* of dollars stolen from people over the course of decades through the practice of gambling speak to me through the marble floors and fancy woodwork. Most of the people who lose money in Vegas do not have huge salaries - they are the multitudes of working middle-class people who come to Vegas just to have a little "fun". But they are hopelessly clueless about statistics, addicted to the rush of gambling, and it is straightforward for the casinos to coax away their life savings, resulting in their long-term suffering. These fancy casinos and tourist attractions have been erected here in the middle of the desert - but at what cost? >Now I realize that Michael may have been unable to take advantage >of some of these things which is unfortunate. But Las Vegas >is to a large extent what a significant part of what life may >look like when serious life extension kicks in. According to >my handy dandy spreadsheet that I have here -- if you stick $5000 >into a reasonable mutual fund earning ~6% after inflation (reasonable >given historic long term stock market returns) when you are 21 then >by the time you hit 130 years you are a multi-millionaire. And >this doesn't even take into account increased living standards >due to nanotech development over the next 130 years. > Serious life extension requires sophisticated nanomedicine. Nanomedicine implies bountiful nanocomputers. Bountiful nanocomputers probably implies that recursively self-improving transhuman intelligence has already been created, and created *correctly*. This would mean that benevolent superintelligences would probably be around to grant human wishes. Benevolent superintelligence would entail a post-Singularity culture of novelty and intelligence surpassing trillions of Homo sapiens cultures every... second. Or picosecond. Or femtosecond. I can't really say, I'm only a human at the moment. "Increased living standards" sounds like the most radical understatement in the universe when you are talking about a 10^17 ops/sec, *evolution-designed*, mortal homonine running on biological neurons potentially being upgraded to a superfast, totally reprogrammable, computronium-based immortal being... there is absolutely no comparison. Trying to quantify the desirability in terms of traditional utility metrics boggles the human mind. All of this could of course be possible shortly after the creation of the first benevolent smarter-than-human intelligence. If we play our cards right, this might be possible within the next 10 or 20 years. So I feel very odd when you are talk about the future being anything like Vegas. >So Michael -- next time you get to go to Las Vegas don't be afraid >to go out and explore a little. There is more there than one >might expect at first glance. > I did explore a "little"; I spent at least 3-5 hours per day I was there walking around and checking stuff out. I stayed at a hostel and went out with some interesting Australian backpackers I met there. I spent at least of half of my time in Vegas just exploring the interiors of casinos. The conference included few talks so the vast bulk of my time in Vegas was spent out and about. I may be a geek but I'm not a nerd. :) My earlier comment still holds - casinos' funding comes from exploiting an unfortunate human weakness, a weakness likely to be quickly eliminated once we gain access to our own neurology. -- Michael Anissimov http://singinst.org/ Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence -- Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and community news: http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html From rafal at smigrodzki.org Wed May 12 22:05:03 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:05:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete! In-Reply-To: <40A26F3E.5020401@acceleratingfuture.com> References: <40A26F3E.5020401@acceleratingfuture.com> Message-ID: <40A29F8F.5000304@smigrodzki.org> Michael Anissimov wrote: > But the tens of *billions* of dollars stolen from people over the course > of decades through the practice of gambling speak to me through the > marble floors and fancy woodwork. Most of the people who lose money in > Vegas do not have huge salaries - they are the multitudes of working > middle-class people who come to Vegas just to have a little "fun". But > they are hopelessly clueless about statistics, addicted to the rush of > gambling, and it is straightforward for the casinos to coax away their > life savings, resulting in their long-term suffering. These fancy > casinos and tourist attractions have been erected here in the middle of > the desert - but at what cost? ### Well, let's look at the bright side - the clueless spent their money on gambling, rather than homeopathic medicine, or supporting the Democratic party. This is innocuous, apparently pleasant to those who have too little mathematical savvy to interfere with their thinking, does not harm third parties, or children, and therefore may not be proscribed. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 12 19:18:11 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:18:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] casinos, yes or no In-Reply-To: <40A29F8F.5000304@smigrodzki.org> References: <40A26F3E.5020401@acceleratingfuture.com> <40A29F8F.5000304@smigrodzki.org> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040512141059.01c66100@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:05 PM 5/12/2004 -0700, Rafal wrote: >Michael Anissimov wrote: >>it is straightforward for the casinos to coax away their life savings, >>resulting in their long-term suffering. >This is innocuous, apparently pleasant to those who have too little >mathematical savvy to interfere with their thinking, does not harm third >parties, or children If they spend so much on the rush of gambling that they lose their life-savings (this might be true only of a small proportion, though) they'll presumable require medical and other funding from taxed sources, including Rafal Inc. I wonder what the casino owners spend their winnings on? More lavish and expensive lures? Investment in Good Causes? Are there useful software spinoffs (sinoffs?). Presumably at least some of the money passing through the casinos is still drug and other crime loot being laundered. Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 12 19:43:36 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 12:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] casinos, yes or no In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040512141059.01c66100@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040512194336.71469.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:05 PM 5/12/2004 -0700, Rafal wrote: > > >Michael Anissimov wrote: > >>it is straightforward for the casinos to coax away their life > savings, > >>resulting in their long-term suffering. > > >This is innocuous, apparently pleasant to those who have too little > >mathematical savvy to interfere with their thinking, does not harm > third > >parties, or children > > If they spend so much on the rush of gambling that they lose their > life-savings (this might be true only of a small proportion, though) > they'll presumable require medical and other funding from taxed > sources, including Rafal Inc. Watched a program on the tube a while back about a team of students from MIT who learned card counting and signalling tricks and went on to take every casino in Vegas for a ride totalling several million dollars over a few years, until a security contractor eventually catalogued them all and sent their dossiers to the worldwide casino industry. There was another group a decade or so ago that built a computer into a shoe to calculate roulette trajectories. It is entirely possible to work a blackjack table for profit. Counting itself is legal, all they can do when they figure out you are doing it is to ask to you to take your winnings and leave. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 12 19:52:51 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:52:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] amazon weirdness Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040512144729.01c640d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Look for Kelli M. Gary (Author) on amazon, and you find that name shown as the author of hundreds of books by Appelfeld, Velikovsky and dog knows who all else. I assume some prankster's virus is munching its way through the listings, pasting that name in over the real writers' ID, or just putting up a bogus Kelli M. Gary page with a random amazon listing appended. What the--? Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 12 19:55:59 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:55:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] casinos, yes or no In-Reply-To: <20040512194336.71469.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040512141059.01c66100@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040512194336.71469.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040512145448.01c77dc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:43 PM 5/12/2004 -0700, Mike wrote: >There was another group a decade or so ago that built a computer into a >shoe to calculate roulette trajectories. Longer. Thomas Bass, The Eudemonic Pie (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985). Damien Broderick From rafal at smigrodzki.org Wed May 12 23:04:53 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:04:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] casinos, yes or no In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040512141059.01c66100@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <40A26F3E.5020401@acceleratingfuture.com> <40A29F8F.5000304@smigrodzki.org> <6.0.3.0.0.20040512141059.01c66100@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <40A2AD95.1070105@smigrodzki.org> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:05 PM 5/12/2004 -0700, Rafal wrote: > >> Michael Anissimov wrote: >> >>> it is straightforward for the casinos to coax away their life >>> savings, resulting in their long-term suffering. > > >> This is innocuous, apparently pleasant to those who have too little >> mathematical savvy to interfere with their thinking, does not harm >> third parties, or children > > > If they spend so much on the rush of gambling that they lose their > life-savings (this might be true only of a small proportion, though) > they'll presumable require medical and other funding from taxed sources, > including Rafal Inc. ### Presumably these foolish and irresponsible souls will indeed demand funding from me (through their proxies, the venal and corrupt politicians), and in today's climate of disregard for private property, they will most likely succeed. I see it as an argument against venal and corrupt politicians, though, not against casinos. ----------------------------------- > > I wonder what the casino owners spend their winnings on? More lavish and > expensive lures? Investment in Good Causes? Are there useful software > spinoffs (sinoffs?). ### I would not put myself in the position of a judge over what honest (i.e. non-violent and non-cheating) businessmen do with their earnings. If they were to spend it on wild orgies with highly paid beautiful women, dwarf-tossing and other voluntary degradation of human dignity, good for them (and the dwarfs who get paid too). But reality is different - persons in the upper 1% of the income distribution are much more likely to spend for good causes (research, infrastructure, productive business investment) than the average lower and middle-class gambler. --------------------------- > > Presumably at least some of the money passing through the casinos is > still drug and other crime loot being laundered. > ### Which is another reason to legalize drugs, and let this money go through legitimate banks, so as to keep the interest rates down. Rafal From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed May 12 20:07:21 2004 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:07:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] casinos, yes or no Message-ID: <1084392441.14051@whirlwind.he.net> Damien Broderick wrote: > I wonder what the casino owners spend their winnings on? More lavish and > expensive lures? Investment in Good Causes? Monorail! http://www.lvmonorail.com/ One of the really interesting things about Las Vegas is that a great many things that would be huge public works projects and agencies anywhere else are privately funded and managed by adhoc partnerships of the casino companies. These companies are the ultimate capitalists, pragmatic to the core, and they have the long-term vision to see the profit motive in making the city experience as smoothly run and spectacular as possible. I don't go very often, but every time I do I am amazed how quickly that city transforms itself, never mind the fact that it is all done with private money at a profit. Las Vegas is a pretty unusual city, almost straight out of a sci-fi book in some respects. It is an interesting libertarian-capitalist microcosm, built in the Nevada desert because most governments wouldn't deign to entertain such a concept. j. andrew rogers From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Wed May 12 20:10:24 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 21:10:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete! Message-ID: <40A284B0.3010208@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> On Wed May 12 10:19:39 MDT 2004 Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > According to my handy dandy spreadsheet that I have here -- if you > stick $5000 into a reasonable mutual fund earning ~6% after inflation > (reasonable given historic long term stock market returns) when you > are 21 then by the time you hit 130 years you are a > multi-millionaire. And this doesn't even take into account increased > living standards due to nanotech development over the next 130 years. Wow! I bet we all wish we had a calculator like that! Unfortunately real life spoils such optimistic calculations. I think you need to take some of Eugene's pessimism pills (tm) before you rely on this investment strategy. Do some googling on inflation-corrected indexes and you will find that the inflation-corrected S&P 500 Index shows a compound annual return of 1.46 percent per year over the 125 years from 1871 to 1996. The tech boom / bust probably hasn't changed the longterm average much. I have always tried to tell people that compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe, but they mostly don't appreciate the significance. Although Warren Buffett and Einstein do! Compounding is a bit like the arrival of the Singularity. It starts off very slow, but as capital accumulates the annual increments get larger and larger with huge increases in the final years. But if you can get 2% or 3% per annum long-term growth above inflation you are doing well. Especially as pension investments are recommended to be put in very secure (= boring) investments. No point in racking up huge gains in speculative investments, then losing it all and having no pension fund. But you do need asset-backed investments in case the government decides (accidently or on purpose) to ruin the currency. After nanotech arrives, you are probably in the Singularity era, when I doubt if oldtime investment theory and schemes will still apply. BillK From exi-info at extropy.org Wed May 12 20:24:12 2004 From: exi-info at extropy.org (Extropy Institute) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Newsletter Message-ID: <1011272335178.1011086851128.2058.321614@scheduler> Extropy Institute Newsletter PROACTIONARY PRINCIPLE ISSUED (05.12.04) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Greetings! This month's newsletter is featuring The Proactionary Principle, a topic of Extropy Institute's recent Vital Progress Summit I, 2004. The Proactionary Principle is authored by Max More, based in large part on the Summit and the keynotes' statements, Summit participants' discussions, and everyone who contributed their time and skills to the proceedings. In Memory of Roy Walford, Extropy Institute's advisor, colleague and close friend.
It is in his memory that we continue to work toward proaction, as Roy was a strong supporter of critical thinking and moving beyond unrealistic retraints placed on society. Roy was the true Rennaissance Man. We miss him dearly.

A second Exponent Newsletter will be coming out this month with ideas on our transhumanist culture, upcoming summer conferences, and how to submit your ideas and talents to "TAC" for the TransVision 2004 Conference. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In the News ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * The Proactionary Principle * Looking at the Principle * A Tribute To Roy Walford * Robert Freitas speaks about Nanomedicine, Volume IIA: Biocompatibility The Proactionary Principle ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ People's freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity. This implies several imperatives when restrictive measures are proposed: Assess risks and opportunities according to available science, not popular perception. Account for both the costs of the restrictions themselves and those of opportunities foregone.

Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts and that have a high expectation value.

Protect people's freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress. The Proactionary Principle >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.cxlwl9n6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Fproactionaryprinciple.htm Looking at the Principle ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We held the VP Summit with a goal in mind. That goal was to address President Bush's Bioethics Committee's Beyond Therapy report. Keynotes at the Summit wrote they views about this report and the use of the Precautionary Principle as a rallying tool against the reasonable use of technology to help people overcome disease and injuries, and to improve the human condition. We spent the past two months reviewing the material and comments made by Summit attendees. Max More, a philosopher known for his level-headed thinking scholary intellection, looks at: - Unpacking the Proactionary Principle, we arrive at these factors to take into account ... (read on)
- A Proactionary Alternative to the Precautionary Principle ... (read on)
- Principle Against Progress ... (read on)
- What's wrong with the Precautionary Principle? ... (read on)
The Essence of the Proactionary Principle

The Proactionary Principle stands for the proactive pursuit of progress. Being proactive involves not only anticipating before acting, but learning by acting. When technological progress is halted, people lose an essential freedom and the accompanying opportunities to learn through diverse experiments. We already suffer from an undeveloped capacity for rational decision making. Prohibiting technological change will only stunt that capacity further. Continuing needs to alleviate global human suffering and desires to achieve human flourishing should make obvious the folly of stifling our freedom to learn.

Let a thousand flowers bloom! By all means, inspect the flowers for signs of infestation and weed as necessary. But don't cut off the hands of those who spread the seeds of the future. Looking at the principle ... >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.cxlwl9n6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Fproactionaryprinciple.htm A Tribute To Roy Walford ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ With the passing of Roy Walford, the bright glow of our species flickered and dimmed. Roy was one of many thousands of human beings whose lives terminated on April 27, 2004. But he was not just one of the many; Roy was a true individual, a character, and a champion of values we hold dear. Roy was an expert practitioner of Nietzsche's "great and rare art" of "giving style to one's character". No one would describe him as a loud-mouth or show-off, yet his distinctive way of living and looking at the world made an impression on others. When you think of Roy, you might think of his academic research, or his pioneering and unrelenting advocacy of extending the human lifespan. Or you might think of the impressive mustache he sports on some book jackets. If you had the good fortune to know Roy more personally, quite different impressions might come to mind: Perhaps you think of Roy the frequent global traveler and natural anthropologist, or as a gentle but powerful magnet that drew attractive, younger women into his orbit. You might wonder how someone could be a widely respected scientist and simultaneously display in his bathroom a poster that made broadcast its message in such a painfully pointed way. You might puzzle over Roy's capacity for welcoming and enjoying the hedonic aspects of life *and* advocating rigorous caloric restriction. In describing (or eulogizing) the great and rare art, Nietzsche made explicit the conditions of giving style to your character, of shaping all your strengths and weaknesses into an "an artistic plan until everything appears as art and reason". Those who succeeded "enjoyed their finest gaiety in such compulsion, in such constraint and perfection under a law of their own". Most of us aren't good at living under a law of our own, walking the line between tyrannical discipline and reckless or irresponsible dereliction. Roy was a law of his own, in the demanding and complete sense intended by the German who philosophized with a hammer. ... (read on) A Tribute to Roy >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.dxlwl9n6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Froywalford.htm Robert Freitas speaks about Nanomedicine, Volume IIA: Biocompatibility ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We spoke to Robert today and this is what he had to say about his new book:

"I expanded the original Chapter 15 of Nanomedicine Vol. II into a full book-length treatment (Vol. IIA), in part because most of the questions I was getting from medical people about nanorobotic medicine pertained to biocompatibility issues. I was being asked how the immune system would react to nanorobots; whether people could develop allergic reactions to these devices; whether or not white cells would attempt to eat nanorobots placed inside the human body; whether nanorobots would cause itching sensations; and so forth. So I decided to take the first comprehensive look at all of these issues, and the result is Nanomedicine, Vol. IIA. One interesting result of this work is the realization that phagocyte avoidance and escape protocols will be very important for medical nanorobots -- the book discusses about a dozen ways of doing this. "First published in hardcover by Landes Bioscience in 2003, this As for the future, besides continuing my work on the Nanomedicine technical book series I'm also trying to provide technical support to help push forward the safe development of molecular nanotechnology (MNT) as fast as possible. To this end, I've recently co-authored a technical book with Ralph Merkle entitled Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/KSRM.htm (due to be published in August 2004); substantial pre-publication discount available directly from the publisher, at landesbioscience.com. I'm also working on some practical implementation steps towards diamond mechanosynthesis -- my recent papers on this subject are cited at http://www.rfreitas.com/NanoPubls.htm, and a technical book on diamond mechanosynthesis is in preparation." "Please check out the IMM website for news on the IMM Freitas Research Fund, and how you can directly support my research efforts and help me help make the future happen!" Thank you Rob for sending us your thoughts on your new book. Congratulations are in order, and we hope it is a great success!

The second volume in the Nanomedicine book series by Robert A. Freitas Jr., Nanomedicine, Vol. IIA: Biocompatibility, is now freely available online in its entirety (see below). Nanomedicine, Volume IIA: Biocompatibility >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.exlwl9n6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanomedicine.com%2FNMIIA.htm TransVision 2004: Submit your Videos, websites and net.art ! >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.fxlwl9n6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transhumanist.biz ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quick Links... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Extropy Institute >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.nlr4mzn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fnew.extropy.org%2F The Proactionary Principle >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.cxlwl9n6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Fproactionaryprinciple.htm How do I join ExI? >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.hozkwwn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Fmembership.htm What about the Extropy email list? >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.lozkwwn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Femaillists.htm Tribute to Roy Walford >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=k9poi9n6.rmatvyn6.dxlwl9n6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Froywalford.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ email: info at extropy.org voice: 512 263-2749 web: http://www.extropy.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Extropy Institute | 10709 Pointe View Drive | Austin | TX | 78738 This email was sent to extropy-chat at extropy.org, by Extropy Institute. Update your profile http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=oo&t=1011272335178&m=1011086851128&ea=extropy-chat%40extropy.org Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=un&t=1011272335178&m=1011086851128&ea=extropy-chat%40extropy.org Privacy Policy: http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp Powered by Constant Contact(R) www.constantcontact.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 12 20:32:55 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] casinos, yes or no In-Reply-To: <1084392441.14051@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <20040512203255.83221.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > Damien Broderick wrote: > > I wonder what the casino owners spend their winnings on? More > lavish and > > expensive lures? Investment in Good Causes? > > > Monorail! > > http://www.lvmonorail.com/ > > > One of the really interesting things about Las Vegas is that a great > many things that would be huge public works projects and agencies > anywhere else are privately funded and managed by adhoc partnerships > of the casino companies. OMFG, a monorail. I guess they never learned the lesson of Seattle, or maybe they did. Seems like they stuck as much of the monorail along alleyways as possible. That should keep the hookers and drug dealers where they already are. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 12 20:35:20 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Newsletter In-Reply-To: <1011272335178.1011086851128.2058.321614@scheduler> Message-ID: <20040512203520.37809.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> --- Extropy Institute wrote: > Extropy Institute Newsletter > PROACTIONARY PRINCIPLE ISSUED (05.12.04) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is excellent work, folks. Now, what is being done to promote it outside the choir? ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From scerir at libero.it Wed May 12 21:22:12 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:22:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Exotica References: <20040512203255.83221.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007b01c43867$3145c720$6fc31b97@administxl09yj> http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/379/12737_weapons.html s. "Nothingness is unstable" (graffiti) "A society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself, than about the universe." - Carl Friedrich Freiherr von Weizsaecker, subtle quantum theorist, friend (and co-worker) of W.Heisenberg, co-inventor of EPR and of the "delayed choice" measurement. From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed May 12 21:14:44 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete! In-Reply-To: <40A284B0.3010208@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 May 2004, BillK wrote: > Do some googling on inflation-corrected indexes and you will find that > the inflation-corrected S&P 500 Index shows a compound annual return of > 1.46 percent per year over the 125 years from 1871 to 1996. Bill, rather than get into some in depth economic debates over the numbers I used, whether past depressions, wars, etc. can be applied to future performance, whether past money fund managers or government officials could perform as well as officials in today's environments with things like Excel and sophisticated econometric models -- I'll simply state that as the world and the tools evolve one always has to ask questions with respect to whether historical performance can be used as a good predictor of future performance. And given the variables -- I'm not really sure I could say. So I simply extended the sheet using 1.46% and one still ends up being a millionaire by the time ones age reaches 390. So unless one makes a very strong argument for some type of economic contraction (deflation???) which cannot be dealt with by smart money managers who understand the concept of selling short the argument still has a fair amount of merit. Also deflation could do some really strange things to "real" returns (and is someting one needs to keep in mind if nanotech really starts to take off). IMO, to do this reasonably one probably needs some strategy of rotating fund managers to pick up those who seem to best understand the local conditions and best strategies to deal with them. Robert From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 12 22:45:49 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:45:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] who wants to be a millionaire? In-Reply-To: References: <40A1A19D.8030003@acceleratingfuture.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040512174109.01bdb690@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:19 AM 5/12/2004 -0700, Robert wrote: >According to >my handy dandy spreadsheet that I have here -- if you stick $5000 >into a reasonable mutual fund earning ~6% after inflation (reasonable >given historic long term stock market returns) when you are 21 then >by the time you hit 130 years you are a multi-millionaire. and later modified this to millionaire. Modulo nano. But if *everyone* is a millionaire, or a multi-millionaire, what are a few million worth? A painting was sold the other day for $140 million. A hundred years ago you could own or endow a large chunk of America for that. Damien Broderick From max at maxmore.com Wed May 12 23:19:15 2004 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 18:19:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Beyond Caution, VP Summit statement Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040512181246.03d196c8@mail.earthlink.net> Greetings everyone, Having finally started to update my website, and knowing that some of you have not explored the VP Summit site, I thought I'd provide a pointer to my statement for that event. It complements the later "Proactionary Principle" but doesn't overlap. That statement, "Beyond Caution" is here: http://www.maxmore.com/beyond.htm I'd appreciate any feedback on this and on the Proactionary Principle, since ExI will be developing this material further. Onward! Max _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org _______________________________________________________ From emerson at singinst.org Wed May 12 23:27:57 2004 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 18:27:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Institute's new bulletin Message-ID: <200405122327.i4CNRw725374@tick.javien.com> The Singularity Institute's first eBulletin will soon be released. We have made notable progress in recent months, and hope Extropy readers will consider subscribing to keep informed of our research and advocacy. http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html Some topics covered: * AI Project Update * SIAI Staff and Website Update * Donors for March and April * Volunteer Contributions and Opportunities * "3 Laws Unsafe" Campaign * Research Fellow Challenge Grant Challenge Many thanks, --------- Tyler Emerson Executive Director Singularity Institute emerson at singinst.org http://www.singinst.org Suite 106 PMB #12 4290 Bells Ferry Road Kennesaw, GA 30144 T: (404) 550-3847 --------- From dan at 3-e.net Thu May 13 00:01:40 2004 From: dan at 3-e.net (Daniel Matthews) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:01:40 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education =?windows-1252?q?=3A=0AToys?= In-Reply-To: <200405121749.i4CHnT919672@tick.javien.com> References: <200405121749.i4CHnT919672@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200405131001.40652.dan@3-e.net> Thanks for the ideas. The PDA idea is very cool ( I was thinking about solidstate MP3 audio books myself at one point) but I don't have $250,000,000. My question is not theoretical so I'll leave the PDA's etc. to Bill Gates and the urber rich. (Perhaps not Bill, he still needs to get Windows fixed before he lets himself get distracted by anything more profound. ;) ) Perhaps the lego/meccano approach is the way to go but the solution must be locally produced and patent free, then the idea will scale to millions of people and it is more a "good meme" than a handout of aid. The materials and production processes MUST be low-tech and sustainable so plastics etc. may have to be replaced with things you can grow, such as wood. The key is to create a "seed" idea that will grow in a self sustained manner because the idea's merit is self evident to the majority of minds that become aware of it. Imagine if you could apply all the annoying "viral" like human behaviours, such as pyramid selling, to an altruistic purpose and that purpose was to propagate ideas that were readily applicable in the third world and resulted in a significant benefit to the intellectual development of children. There are two parts to this, the design/s for the toys/teaching aids and their manufacture and distribution, then there is the method by which the ideas/designs are propagated throughout the world. > Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:56:01 -0700 (PDT) > From: Adrian Tymes > > Solar-rechargable, long-range (satellite, preferably) > PDA terminals that can connect to the Internet, with > recorded instructions.... > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:35:00 +0930 > From: "Emlyn ORegan" > How about a simple construction set toy, ala Meccano? Stuff with gears > and levers and so on that can be used to make simple machines? That kind > of stuff lets you really explore construction-oriented thinking. Also, a > decent engineer could probably design something really cheap to build > out of plastic or metal. You might have an issue with patents in that > area, so you'd want to do your research, but there must be a free space > there somewhere. > > Emlyn > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 10:16:00 -0400 > From: "Brian Lee" > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : > Toys > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > I don't know if anyone has mentioned legos yet but I think they are pretty > close to the ultimate edu toy. You can get cheap "Mega Bloks" or other lego > knockoffs or just buy a bucket of legos for $5-10. > > They survive pretty much any conditions for years and years. > > For the 3 year olds you may want duplos which are basically giant legos > that form animals and houses and stuff. > From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au Thu May 13 00:28:31 2004 From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:58:31 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EAE@mmdsvr01.mm.local> Ok Mike, give us a suggestion for that, limiting yourself to a toy made from wood... Emlyn -----Original Message----- From: Mike Lorrey [mailto:mlorrey at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 3:42 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys Not to be a party pooper, but I'd dare say that third world kids likely have a lot more experience building things than most American kids. Seeing the exact copies of AK-47s and 1911 pistols being produced by hammer, drill, and file in third world markets does not make me much concerned about the mechanical skills third world kids are learning. I would, instead, say that it is far more important that they be taught principles of Common Law, human rights, limited government run by the people, and individual dignity irrespective of religious preference. --- Brian Lee wrote: > I don't know if anyone has mentioned legos yet but I think they are > pretty > close to the ultimate edu toy. You can get cheap "Mega Bloks" or > other lego > knockoffs or just buy a bucket of legos for $5-10. > > They survive pretty much any conditions for years and years. > > For the 3 year olds you may want duplos which are basically giant > legos that > form animals and houses and stuff. > > > BAL > > >From: "Emlyn ORegan" > >To: "ExI chat list" > >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : > Toys > >Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:35:00 +0930 > > > >How about a simple construction set toy, ala Meccano? Stuff with > gears > >and levers and so on that can be used to make simple machines? That > kind > >of stuff lets you really explore construction-oriented thinking. > Also, a > >decent engineer could probably design something really cheap to > build > >out of plastic or metal. You might have an issue with patents in > that > >area, so you'd want to do your research, but there must be a free > space > >there somewhere. > > > >Emlyn > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Daniel Matthews [mailto:dan at 3-e.net] > >Sent: Wednesday, 12 May 2004 8:56 AM > >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : > Toys > > > >Given a limited budget and a third world location what forms of > patent > >free > >"Edutoys" would offer the greatest benefit to the largest number of > >children > >in terms of fostering intellectual development? > > > >The toys need to be manufactured on site, they need to be robust and > >suitable > >for children from 3 up to 7 years old. > > > >Ideally the budget is only consumed but documenting the design and > >manufacture > >of the toys and on training people regional centres to produce them > as > >well > >as train others. I recognise that some funding may be required for > >tools, > >materials and distribution. > > > >Why the third world? Well duh! That is where most of the children > are! > > > >Any ideas for such low-tech high extropy toy designs? > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > >*********************************************************************** **** > >Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are > >intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this > e-mail > >in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. > >No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus > or > >other defect. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat *************************************************************************** Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other defect. From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au Thu May 13 00:43:01 2004 From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:13:01 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education: Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EAF@mmdsvr01.mm.local> " for indenting original messages on reply, etc? F#$%!!!> -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Matthews [mailto:dan at 3-e.net] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 9:32 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education: Toys Perhaps the lego/meccano approach is the way to go but the solution must be locally produced and patent free, then the idea will scale to millions of people and it is more a "good meme" than a handout of aid. ---- Very very cool, nice plan. As I said, I'm sure someone could design a new system of mechanical toys and put them into the public domain. Maybe if you stick closely to real world stuff like nuts & bolts, you can keep clear of toy patents? ---- The materials and production processes MUST be low-tech and sustainable so plastics etc. may have to be replaced with things you can grow, such as wood. ---- Wooden building sets would be very cool. You could do gears and stuff too, it'd just have to be relatively large. I found technical lego hugely stimulating as a kid; I'm sure something along those lines would be appreciated. ---- The key is to create a "seed" idea that will grow in a self sustained manner because the idea's merit is self evident to the majority of minds that become aware of it. ---- Cool. I do see a potential issue in that in much of the third world, the role of children is vastly different to the protected lives kids live in the first world, and so the idea of toys may not make a lot of sense. But that's unlikely to be true everywhere, and maybe that is what this meme is about trying to achieve after all. Yes, nice idea. Emlyn ---- *************************************************************************** Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other defect. From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au Thu May 13 00:49:45 2004 From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:19:45 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EB1@mmdsvr01.mm.local> It would appear to me that minority oppressive regimes will not be able to survive in regions where ubiquitous inexpensive communications between individuals becomes available. Robert ---- That should be good news for you guys, you might oust those neo-cons yet... Emlyn *************************************************************************** Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other defect. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 13 01:19:55 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 18:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EAE@mmdsvr01.mm.local> Message-ID: <20040513011955.93747.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> I'd design a board game that mirrors how the US government is supposed to work, along with getting elected to congress, the senate, the executive, or winding up in the SCOTUS. You move ahead by playing right and fair, you move back getting cards that ding you for corruption, violating the constitution, overstepping authority, and not listening to your constituents. --- Emlyn ORegan wrote: > Ok Mike, give us a suggestion for that, limiting yourself to a toy > made > from wood... > > Emlyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Lorrey [mailto:mlorrey at yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 3:42 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : > Toys > > Not to be a party pooper, but I'd dare say that third world kids > likely > have a lot more experience building things than most American kids. > Seeing the exact copies of AK-47s and 1911 pistols being produced by > hammer, drill, and file in third world markets does not make me much > concerned about the mechanical skills third world kids are learning. > > I would, instead, say that it is far more important that they be > taught > principles of Common Law, human rights, limited government run by the > people, and individual dignity irrespective of religious preference. > > --- Brian Lee wrote: > > I don't know if anyone has mentioned legos yet but I think they are > > pretty > > close to the ultimate edu toy. You can get cheap "Mega Bloks" or > > other lego > > knockoffs or just buy a bucket of legos for $5-10. > > > > They survive pretty much any conditions for years and years. > > > > For the 3 year olds you may want duplos which are basically giant > > legos that > > form animals and houses and stuff. > > > > > > BAL > > > > >From: "Emlyn ORegan" > > >To: "ExI chat list" > > >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education > : > > Toys > > >Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:35:00 +0930 > > > > > >How about a simple construction set toy, ala Meccano? Stuff with > > gears > > >and levers and so on that can be used to make simple machines? > That > > kind > > >of stuff lets you really explore construction-oriented thinking. > > Also, a > > >decent engineer could probably design something really cheap to > > build > > >out of plastic or metal. You might have an issue with patents in > > that > > >area, so you'd want to do your research, but there must be a free > > space > > >there somewhere. > > > > > >Emlyn > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Daniel Matthews [mailto:dan at 3-e.net] > > >Sent: Wednesday, 12 May 2004 8:56 AM > > >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > >Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : > > Toys > > > > > >Given a limited budget and a third world location what forms of > > patent > > >free > > >"Edutoys" would offer the greatest benefit to the largest number > of > > >children > > >in terms of fostering intellectual development? > > > > > >The toys need to be manufactured on site, they need to be robust > and > > >suitable > > >for children from 3 up to 7 years old. > > > > > >Ideally the budget is only consumed but documenting the design and > > >manufacture > > >of the toys and on training people regional centres to produce > them > > as > > >well > > >as train others. I recognise that some funding may be required for > > >tools, > > >materials and distribution. > > > > > >Why the third world? Well duh! That is where most of the children > > are! > > > > > >Any ideas for such low-tech high extropy toy designs? > > >_______________________________________________ > > >extropy-chat mailing list > > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > >*********************************************************************** > **** > > >Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and > are > > >intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this > > e-mail > > >in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. > > >No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus > > or > > >other defect. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >extropy-chat mailing list > > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > ===== > Mike Lorrey > Chairman, Free Town Land Development > "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." > - Gen. John Stark > Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' > http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > *************************************************************************** > Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are > intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this > e-mail > in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. > No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or > other defect. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu May 13 01:27:21 2004 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 18:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete! In-Reply-To: <40A1A19D.8030003@acceleratingfuture.com> Message-ID: <20040513012721.95301.qmail@web41301.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Michael, An excellent review, but you forgot to include Extropy Institute:-( Remember that extropy is about as old as you are:-) Extropically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? Michael Anissimov wrote: Some audience members asked which books or websites they should recommend to their children or grandchildren, and I recommended "The Age of Spiritual Machines", transhumanism.org, and imminst.org. La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From reason at longevitymeme.org Thu May 13 03:30:39 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 20:30:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Newsletter In-Reply-To: <20040512203520.37809.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > --- Extropy Institute wrote: > > Extropy Institute Newsletter > > PROACTIONARY PRINCIPLE ISSUED (05.12.04) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > This is excellent work, folks. Now, what is being done to promote it > outside the choir? Working on it. All you guys should pick a technology / environmentalist / etc blog of choice, and send the writer a thoughtful comment and link to the article. Better still, put it on your own websites/blogs and get it into the noosphere. It would be a good article for Betterhumans, for example. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 13 03:47:53 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 20:47:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] extension of jolly good theory In-Reply-To: <000001c437e4$193fcfa0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <000001c4389d$12219c30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Then came the blinding flash of insight, why it is that > jolly and portly go together: > Recall the classic spring mass system, the resonant > frequency being square root of the spring constant divided > by the mass, or (k/m)^.5 (remember that from physics 101?)... > Now you understand why. spike I thought of an extension of the jolly good theory. If you have had an opportunity to dissect a mammal, you are likely aware of the fact that all mammals are of similar enough design that a structure in one has an analog in the other. If you find an organ or structure in a cat, there is an analog of that organ or structure in you. The shape and size may be different, but there is a nearly one to one correlation. This observation made in my youth is supported by the recent findings that mammalian genomes are all remarkably similar. Insight: if analogous structures then analogous functions. humans grin, chimps grin, dogs snarl. Analogous functions, different meanings. A human grin is mirthful and friendly, but a dog's snarl means "Back off, before I tear you a new asshole." A chimp's grin has a meaning about halfway between these two according to Sagan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: a grinning chimp is apparently saying "See my teeth? I could bite you with these. But I won't, because you are my friend. Don't push your luck, hairless biped." The jolly good theory explains laughter as a natural frequency with the diaphragm as the spring and the mass of the gut as the mass. My notion is that some mammals have an analogous function, even if the meaning is different. Hyenas make a sound that has been described as laughing, perhaps as a means of terrifying predators. Chipmunks and squirrels make a sound that to me resembles laughter, possibly to warn off competitors. Nowthen, here is what puzzles me. I have been in situations where I was completely unable to supress laughter, most of us have. This leads me to the following questions: Do all humans and human societies have laughter? Do all humans have *involuntary* laughter? Is there anything analogous to that in other mammals? If involuntary laughter universal in humans, how does that response get hardwired to our sense of humor? Should I stick with rocket science? spike From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 13 06:01:54 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:01:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Newsletter In-Reply-To: References: <20040512203520.37809.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040512225623.02d763f0@mail.earthlink.net> At 08:30 PM 5/12/04 -0700, Reason wrote: >Working on it. All you guys should pick a technology / environmentalist / >etc blog of choice, and send the writer a thoughtful comment and link to the >article. Better still, put it on your own websites/blogs and get it into the >noosphere. It would be a good article for Betterhumans, for example. Thank you Reason. I will be writing more material for the web pages and cover letter to send out. I have asked ExI's Board of Directors to forward the PP to their media contacts, and will be sending a note to ExI members, friends and affiliates as well. I'll post a easy a plan of action for everyone. Proactionary! Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 13 04:53:48 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 21:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Newsletter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040513045348.9409.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> I would suggest that ExI pay a press release outfit to send press releases to all the science/environment writers around the world. A couple hundred bucks will get your release out to thousands of journalists. --- Reason wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Mike > Lorrey > > > --- Extropy Institute wrote: > > > Extropy Institute Newsletter > > > PROACTIONARY PRINCIPLE ISSUED (05.12.04) > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > This is excellent work, folks. Now, what is being done to promote > it > > outside the choir? > > Working on it. All you guys should pick a technology / > environmentalist / > etc blog of choice, and send the writer a thoughtful comment and link > to the > article. Better still, put it on your own websites/blogs and get it > into the > noosphere. It would be a good article for Betterhumans, for example. > > Reason > Founder, Longevity Meme > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From scerir at libero.it Thu May 13 07:13:22 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:13:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] who wants to be a millionaire? References: <40A1A19D.8030003@acceleratingfuture.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040512174109.01bdb690@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001201c438b9$c72962e0$1dbd1b97@administxl09yj> It seems, to me, we'll see (ir)rational exuberances, and (ir)rational depressions, of the kind here below http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/ie_data.htm ,and probably much worse, well before the nanotech era. If you read the chart above you'll realize that - before the nanotech or the attotech era - millionaire is who is really able to avoid those (ir)rationals. They are not many. s. From amara at amara.com Thu May 13 08:53:14 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:53:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys Message-ID: >Daniel Matthews >Given a limited budget and a third world location what forms of patent free >"Edutoys" would offer the greatest benefit to the largest number of children >in terms of fostering intellectual development? From my reading of your requirements- I think the key idea is that the toy be *simple*. These are very young kids. It should also be easily transportable and yet have the potential to inspire. My First choice: A planisphere http://skyandtelescope.com/howto/visualobserving/article_75_1.asp My first one in the 1970s was made of paper (sold by Edmund Scientific). I bought a smaller, waterproof one at a telescope shop near my former home in Cupertino. The one I use now is also plastic, a bit larger, written in Italian. You have to choose the language. They are simple, easy and cheap to make, and would stimulate the youngster's imagination. Of course I still have all of my toys in my home to entertain myself :-) Other ideas for you: My Second choice A magnifying glass (instead of glass, one in plastic could work) My Third choice: A slinky. (I wonder if that would violate someone's patent though.) My Fourth choice: A yo-yo. My Fifth choice Strings. (didn't you play that as a kid?) My Sixth choice A simple Kaleidascope My Seventh choice A compass Also, I suggest to spend some time in a German toy store. I remember being overwhelmed with the variety of creative, simple, durable (often wooden) toys for kids _and_ adults. I forgot the names of all of those games, but I played more than a few while I was living there. They were always brought out at parties as the standard thing to do after indulging in the party food. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It seems like once people grow up, they have no idea what's cool." --Calvin From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu May 13 01:56:50 2004 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 18:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars media coverage in Venezuela Message-ID: <20040513015650.70715.qmail@web41306.mail.yahoo.com> Dear ExI friends, I just wanted to share with you the excellent recent media coverage for a young Venezuelan astronaut who was sponsored by the World Future Society Venezuela (presided by me:-) that just participated in a Mars simulation in the Utah desert. Some of us think that this is an excellent way to promote transhumanism in a positive extropian way (the astronaut is also one of the founding members of the Venezuelan Transhumanist Association, with Santiago Ochoa and myself:-) Since Natasha, Giulio, Mike and others might agree, I only wanted to let you know of what we are doing in terms of pushing transhuman memes around here. We did the same two years ago with nanotechnology (we were the first to talk about it seriously in Venezuela:-) and we have similar plans for artifical intelligence, robotics and biotechnology... just keep tuned... Extropically yours, La vie est belle! Yosi (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra From: "Gregorio Drayer" Date: Wed May 12, 2004 7:49 pm Subject: Fw: MDRS media coverage in Venezuela To: "Jose Cordeiro" FYI, dear professor. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Muscatello" To: "Sami Rozenbaum" Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:39 AM Subject: Re: MDRS media coverage in Venezuela Hi Sami, Thanks very much for letting us know how successful you and Greg have been in getting media coverage of his mission in Utah. I have been very impressed with Greg. His enthusiasm, his bright smile, and technical accomplishments are quite notable and I expect him to be very successful in his career. I hope to meet him some day in person, perhaps at the Mars Society Convention. Gus is setting up a link to media coverage on the MDRS web site and he should include the ones you have provided. You and Greg should use the high level of visibility that you have right now to start a Mars Society Chapter in Venezuela. You should contact Patt Czarnik (pattczarnik at hotmail.com) for information on how to do that. I am excited to hear about the interest in Mars exploration in Venezuela. It shows that there are millions of people throughout the world that want to see humans explore Mars, sooner rather than later. Perhaps it would be valuable for you and Greg and as many people as you can get together to send a letter to President Bush and the U.S. Congress to show that there is support for humans to Mars outside the U.S. and to tell them that it would inspire children and young people throughout the world, not just here. There is more info at http://home.marssociety.org/outreach/political/usa/ and http://thomas.loc.gov/ on how to contact the President and the Congress. Perhaps Robert or Patt could tell you who the most important Senators and Representatives would be to contact. Emphasize that a U.S. humans to Mars program would be an important contribution to improving the image of America to the rest of the world since our image is in pretty bad shape right now. President Bush's Moon/Mars Inititative needs all the support it can get right now. Best of luck in all your future endeavors. On to Mars! Tony Sami Rozenbaum wrote: > Dr. Robert Zubrin > Mr. Tony Muscatello > Mr. Gus Frederick > > Dear Sirs: > > My name is Sami Rozenbaum. I am a Journalist in Caracas, Venezuela, as > well as lecturer at the Humboldt Planetarium in this city. Since I > read *The Case for Mars* I have been a follower of the Mars Society's > activities. > > For many years I have been a friend of Gregorio Drayer, Chief Engineer > of Crew 28 at MDRS-Utah. When he was selected for the mission we > decided that I would act as the *correspondent* of Crew 28 in > Venezuela, so I started sending special reports to all my friends in > the media. During the mission I issued 7 reports and 6 special addenda > with pictures, including special *exclusive* comments and unpublished > pictures sent by Gregorio. As a result, MDRS and Greg got ample > coverage in the press, radio and TV. You can read all my reports at > http://www.futurovenezuela.org/Marte.htm > > I am proud of what Greg achieved, and also of having > been able to publicize the Mars Society. > > The press coverage appeared in the national dailies EL UNIVERSAL, EL > NACIONAL and EL NUEVO PAIS, as well as ZETA magazine and some regional > newspapers as EL SIGLO in the city of Maracay (unfortunately, only EL > UNIVERSAL and the electronic daily VENEZUELA ANALITICA are available > for free in the net). Greg was also interviewed for several radio and > TV outlets. > > The following is a list of the articles published as a consequence of > my reports, to this date: > > April 1, EL NACIONAL: Venezolano en Marte (Venezuelan in Mars), page B-15. > > April 2, EL UNIVERSAL: Venezolano a Marte (Venezuelan to Mars), page > 2-5. http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/04/02/02255F.shtml > > April 4, EL UNIVERSAL: Reto espacial para un venezolano (Space > challenge for a Venezuelan citizen), page 2-8. EL UNIVERSAL. April 4, > 2004: http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/04/04/04208B.shtml > > April 13, EL NACIONAL: Venezolano empezo exploracion simulada de Marte > (Venezuelan started simulated exploration of Mars), page B-11. > > April 14, EL NACIONAL: Vivir en Marte (To live in Mars), page B-14. > > April 21, EL UNIVERSAL: Mision espacial exitosa (Successful space > mission), FRONT PAGE and page 2-5. > http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/04/21/21205E.shtml > > April 21, EL SIGLO: Criollo en la NASA (A national citizen in NASA, > THIS TITLE WAS INACCURATE). > > April 23, ZETA magazine: Mi marciano favorito (My favorite Martian), > page 66. > > April 28, VENEZUELA ANALITICA: Venezuela, no te rindas! (Venezuela, > don't give up!), http://www.analitica.com/va/politica/opinion/4643818.asp > > May 10 (today), EL NACIONAL: Un ingeniero venezolano ensayo la > experiencia de vivir en otro planeta (A Venezuelan engineer > experienced like living in another planet). Page B-11. > > And more will follow, as several Journalists are > contacting Gregorio and myself in order to make interviews. > > I don't want to end this message without letting you > know that I felt as part of Crew 28. During those two weeks I lived > every success and every problem at the Hab, every equipment failure, > every storm, every EVA. All crewmembers became a kind of close friends > as I read their reports every night, and as I prepared my own reports > until 2:00 am. This was a very special time. Thanks for the > opportunity you (unknowingly) gave to me. If there is something I can > do in order to help your activities, just tell me. > > Yours sincerely, > Sami Rozenbaum La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 13 10:04:58 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:04:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] who wants to be a millionaire? In-Reply-To: <001201c438b9$c72962e0$1dbd1b97@administxl09yj> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040512174109.01bdb690@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <001201c438b9$c72962e0$1dbd1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <20040513100458.GN25728@leitl.org> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:13:22AM +0200, scerir wrote: > when I doubt if oldtime investment theory and schemes > will still apply. > BillK> This appears rather likely. > It seems, to me, we'll see (ir)rational exuberances, > and (ir)rational depressions, of the kind here below > http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/ie_data.htm ,and > probably much worse, well before the nanotech era. Technology can shield. Our last and greatest achilles' heel is dependance on fossil energy sources. Cheap polymer photovoltaics, electronics and solid-state heat pumps can reduce living costs dramatically, bringing high standards of living to currently underprivileged, and decouple more people from economic fluctuations. > what are a few million worth? > Damien B.> > > If you read the chart above you'll realize that - before > the nanotech or the attotech era - millionaire is who > is really able to avoid those (ir)rationals. They are not > many. I doubt many of those who read this are malnourished, don't have access to potable water or medical care. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/9705/9705.hammurabi.shtml "To understand the fees, consider comparative economics: A free craftsman earned 5 to 8 grains of silver per day, taking about one year to earn 10 to 14 shekels (one shekel equaled 180 grains of silver). A wooden door cost one to two shekels; earthenware jars were sold for from one-fourth to two-thirds of a shekel; a wooden tray for carrying on the head went for one-half shekel; and a middle class dwelling rented for about five shekels a year." -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 13 10:28:37 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:28:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EB1@mmdsvr01.mm.local> References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EB1@mmdsvr01.mm.local> Message-ID: <20040513102837.GT25728@leitl.org> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:19:45AM +0930, Emlyn ORegan wrote: > > It would appear to me that minority oppressive regimes will not be > able to survive in regions where ubiquitous inexpensive communications > between individuals becomes available. I've never heard they allow cellphones in Guantanamo Bay. Something like peer to peer anonymizing traffic remixing on low-power personal devices would sure be purty. Which is why the authorities (EU, US, China, regardless where) would never allow that to happen. You have five choices: ( ) Terrorist ( ) Pedophile ( ) Intellectual Property violator ( ) Drug trafficker ( ) Infidel Which one of them are you? Oh, a vocal dissenter? Check all five, then. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 13 10:33:27 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:33:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education: In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EAF@mmdsvr01.mm.local> References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EAF@mmdsvr01.mm.local> Message-ID: <20040513103327.GV25728@leitl.org> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:13:01AM +0930, Emlyn ORegan wrote: > do plain text, use ">" for indenting original messages on reply, etc? > F#$%!!!> Remember, it's Microsoft software. http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/ -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Thu May 13 10:57:58 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:57:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] who wants to be a millionaire? Message-ID: <40A354B6.5090405@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> On Wed May 12 16:45:49 MDT 2004 Damien Broderick wrote: > But if *everyone* is a millionaire, or a multi-millionaire, what are > a few million worth? A painting was sold the other day for $140 > million. A hundred years ago you could own or endow a large chunk of > America for that. This is the point about inflation devaluing the currency. I remember going on holiday to Yugoslavia and being a dinar millionaire, or going to Italy and being a lira millionaire. In times of inflation you need investments that are backed by 'real' assets. At present in the UK everyone is buying real estate, because property has been going up by about 20% pa - but of course it won't go on like that for ever. If price inflation is averaging 3% and you get 3% pa interest net on your $5,000 then in 180 years you are a millionaire but your million is still only worth $5,000 in real terms. But Robert was talking about interest rates *above* the inflation rate. That's why I claimed that his 6% rate was too high for the real world. To continue the example, if you can get a secure investment paying 5% pa *after tax and expenses* then you would be earning 2% above the average inflation rate. This would make you a real millionaire in 'only' 268 years. One reason why people don't do this is because it is incredibly boring. Warren Buffett was criticised all through the tech boom for being too boring and traditional. But he stuck it out and is now quietly smiling. The other reason is that nothing much happens for a long, long time. The initial growth of your investment is tiny. All the big growth comes in the last few years. In the 2% example, after 40 years the $5,000 is still only worth $11,000 in real terms. This is why if you are trying to build a pension fund you not only have to start with $5,000 but you have to add another $5,000 every year. This saving method gets you to $319,000 after 40 years and your investment is starting to get exciting. (If you are an actuary, that is. :) ) BillK From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Thu May 13 11:20:47 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:20:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education: Message-ID: <40A35A0F.7050907@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> On Wed May 12 18:43:01 MDT 2004 Emlyn ORegan wrote: > just do plain text, use ">" for indenting original messages on reply, > etc? F#$%!!!> I use Mozilla instead. Download Mozilla 1.6 from It has two modules. the Mozilla browser and Mozilla Mail. Import your mail files from Outlook to Mozilla Mail and you'll be a happy bunny. You need to keep Internet Explorer in order to get the regular patches from Windows Update. And keep Outlook as well, just in case you decide you don't like Mozilla. BillK From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu May 13 14:19:25 2004 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 07:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars media coverage in Venezuela In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040513141925.63660.qmail@web41311.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Elaine, Good to "see" you around. The young Venezuelan astronaut is Greg Drayer (drayer at ieee.org) and I am copying him in this message:-) Indeed, transhumanists should think more about the space... La vie est belle! Yos? Elaine Walker wrote: Hi all! I'm really happy to hear that you are introducing space exploration into your transhuman community in Venezuela. I've only been to two transhuman conferences, but neither mentioned space at all that I saw, and I found that hard to understand. I'm the Mars Project Coordinator for the Space Frontier Foundation (see http://www.mars-frontier.org ), and I also spent last summer on Devon Island as part of the NASA Haughton-Mars Project (see http://www.marsonearth.com and http://www.mars-frontier.org/blog ), which has some of the same goals as the Mars Desert Research Station in Utah. I would be happy to link something to the http://mars-frontier.org site regarding Giulio's work in Utah. Is there a website I could refer to? I would love to hear more about it, in general. all the best, -Elaine > Dear WTA friends, > > I just wanted to share with you the excellent recent media coverage > for a young Venezuelan astronaut that was sponsored by the World Future > Society Venezuela (presided by me:-) that just participated in a Mars > simulation in the Utah desert. > > Some of us think that this is an excellent way of promote > transhumanism in a positive way (the astronaut is also one of the > founding members of the Venezuelan Transhumanist Association, with > Santiago Ochoa and myself:-) > > Since Giulio Prisco and others might agree, I only wanted to let > you know of what we are doing in terms of pushing transhuman memes here. > We did the same two years ago with nanotechnology (we were the first to > talk about it seriously in Venezuela:-) and we have similar plans for > artifical intelligence, robotics and biotechnology... just keep tuned... > > Transhumanistically yours, > > La vie est belle! > > Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) > > Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 13 15:04:25 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 08:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] who wants to be a millionaire? In-Reply-To: <40A354B6.5090405@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: <20040513150425.4421.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > > But Robert was talking about interest rates *above* the inflation > rate. That's why I claimed that his 6% rate was too high for the real > world. I wouldn't say so. Heck, even US 90 day T-Bills are going for 7% right now, which is pretty low historically, and that is tax free income. Inflation is currently under 2.5%. Investing in a broader basket of Dow, NYSE, and NASDAQ index funds, switching between those and bond funds/hedge funds should return an average yeild over time of at least 10%, if not more. Looking for a 100 year return is going to ignore short term blips like the last three years. > > To continue the example, if you can get a secure investment paying 5% > pa *after tax and expenses* then you would be earning 2% above the > average inflation rate. > This would make you a real millionaire in 'only' 268 years. What exactly are you calling a "secure" investment? Do you really think the US government is going to be around a century hence? Bonds are only secure in a 90 day time frame out to a few years, maybe a decade or so. Given the high technological risks of the coming decades, I think that government bonds are a very poor long term risk. Better to ride the wave of change. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From natashavita at earthlink.net Thu May 13 15:12:07 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:12:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle - one liners Message-ID: <184670-22004541315127482@M2W099.mail2web.com> I was having a little fun this morning after getting so many great comments about the Newsletter and the Proactionary Principle. Thank you. Ruddi Hoffman suggested a short phrase. That's what we are hoping to achieve. Right off the top (of a very sleepy brain that has not had coffee ...) The Proactionary Principle protects the freedom to innovate. The Proactionary Principles guarantees your right to be intelligent. People who use the Proactionary Principle think smart about their future. Apply the Proactionary Principles and be the leader of your mind. My Mind, my choice. Proactionary Principle Now! I'm sure Spike can do better ones :-) Eli? Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu May 13 16:24:13 2004 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds Message-ID: <20040513162413.84012.qmail@web41307.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobiology_nrc_040507.html Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds By Leonard David Senior Space Writer posted: 07:00 am ET 07 May 2004 WASHINGTON, D.C. ? What are the limits of organic life in planetary systems? It?s a heady question that, if answered, may reveal just how crowded the cosmos could be with alien biology. A study arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council (NRC), has pulled together a task group of specialists to tackle the issue of alternative life forms -- a.k.a. "weird life". Images Cassini images of Titan taken in mid-April, 2004. The image on the left was taken four days after the image on the right. The right image contains the bright feature called Xanadu. The Sun illuminates the moon from the right, leaving part of Titan in total shadow. Europa, a Jovian moon, is in half shadow in this color-enhanced image from the Galileo spacecraft. The cracks in the icy surface are thought to be caused by heated up-wellings of the water below. Microbes similar to those found in the Earth's ocean floor may exist on Europa. Click to enlarge. More Stories Astrobiologists Drawn to 'Weird Life' NASA to Take a Closer Look at 'Weird Life' Beyond Earth Environments for Life on Europa The Search for Life in the Universe Life's Working Definition: Does It Work? To get things rolling, a workshop on the prospects for finding life on other worlds is being held here May 10-11. The meeting is a joint activity of the NRC?s Space Studies Board's Task Group on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems and the Committee on the Origin and Evolution of Life. Sessions on Earth biology, possible Mars habitats, looking for life on Europa -- a moon of Jupiter -- as well as on Titan, a natural satellite of Saturn, are featured topics on the wide-ranging meeting agenda. Alternative chemistries The newly formed study group has some big issues to get their arms around. Possible alternative chemistries for life are to be evaluated, with an eye toward the prospect that non-standard chemistry may support life in known solar system and conceivable extra-solar environments. Additionally, the task group is to define broad areas that might guide NASA, the National Science Foundation, and other relevant agencies and organizations to fund efforts to expand scientific knowledge in this area. Overall, the programmatic goal of the study is singling out research avenues that will appraise the likelihood of "non-terran" life and the potential cost needed to find it. From this will come a recommendation "whether the likelihood of finding non-terran life is sufficiently low that NASA should ignore its possibility, or sufficiently high that it should pursue it," according to a study document. "This is the first NRC project I have been involved with where scientists have actively been volunteering to serve on the committee. We usually have to corner candidates and then start twisting arms," said David Smith, Study Director for the NRC?s Space Studies Board. "I have been struck from the very beginning that this was a project that could easily be dismissed as science fiction," Smith said. "However, all the scientists we have spoken to about this have required very little persuasion that this was a worthwhile project." Boxed in beliefs "We need to get a real understanding of what carbon is capable of in terms of life," said Michael Meyer, Senior Scientist for Astrobiology here at NASA Headquarters. "We don?t want to end up just focused on only looking for DNA-type molecules?but we do want to look for anything carrying information that is carbon-based." Meyer said the meeting will bring together some of the brightest minds. Their duty is to think outside the biological box that is the norm. Those discussions can help NASA build the right tools that have the potential of finding something unexpected, he said. "You have to keep in mind?we know what life is on this planet and we still haven?t figured out how it got started. We have the basic ingredients?but it has proven to be a difficult problem for something that we know exists," Meyer said. "So if you?re going to start looking at things that we don?t know exist, you don?t want to try every possible scenario. You want to make sure you look for things that are reasonably possible." Search for life?on Earth There are two things that astrobiology does, Meyer said. One is that it forms the intellectual foundation for our understanding of the potential for life elsewhere in the universe. Part of this intellectual effort is to determine -- as is the case for Titan, a moon of Saturn -- whether or not life is possible there, theoretically. The other half of the astrobiology effort, Meyer said, is to help guide what kind of life-detection instruments should be made. "We?re going through a tremendous biological boon in learning so much about life on this planet. A lot of this advancement is due to remarkable techniques that have been developed that are extremely sensitive, but also highly specific," Meyer said. "But that very sensitivity, because of its specificity, makes it almost useless in the quest to look for life elsewhere. That is, unless life elsewhere is made of exactly the same building blocks that were made out of and using similar sequences. So what we need to do is come up with more general ways to look for life?but increase the sensitivity in order to find that life," Meyer noted. There is an interesting twist to the search for life elsewhere in the cosmos. You might stumble on previously unknown life right here on Earth. "If we come up with techniques, knowing the organisms that we?re looking for, we might find some organisms here on Earth previously not known, much less finding things on other planetary bodies," Meyer said. Weird worlds "I think this kind of topic has always grasped human imagination," said Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Assistant Professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Texas, El Paso. "Now, finally we begin to have some understanding what kind of expectations and constraints on possible extraterrestrial life are reasonable," he told SPACE.com. The timing is especially suitable, Schulze-Makuch said, because the NASA Cassini spacecraft will arrive in the Saturnian system in July, with Europe?s Huygens probe to be released onto Titan in early 2005. "Titan is the ?weirdest? of planeatary bodies in our Solar System -- meaning different from Earth -- possessing hydrocarbon surface bodies and methane rain. Thus, if life would have gained a foothold on Titan with environmental conditions so different from Earth, it should be ?weird? indeed, and should function differently in many ways than we experience life on Earth. Schulze-Makuch will take part in the upcoming workshop, outlining possible microbial habitats and metabolisms on Titan. Universal surprises "This is an important workshop," said Jonathan Lunine, Professor of Planetary Sciences and of Physics, and chair of the Theoretical Astrophysics Program at the University of Arizona in Tucson. He is a guest presenter at next week?s meeting. "In the search for life elsewhere in the solar system, we tend to plan for life as we know it?even down to the nucleic acid bases or base sequences used in organisms elsewhere," Lunine said. "What if they don't use DNA? Or RNA? Or linear information-bearing polymers? Do they have to use liquid water as the universal biosolvent?" The universe has surprised us before with its variety, Lunine added, in spite of the simplicity and small number of fundamental physical laws. "Yet our imagination hasn't been very good at envisioning how strange or unexpected life might be," Lunine concluded. La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Thu May 13 16:38:19 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 18:38:19 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle - one liners In-Reply-To: <184670-22004541315127482@M2W099.mail2web.com> References: <184670-22004541315127482@M2W099.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5204051309387fea6457@mail.gmail.com> The Proactionary Principle protects you from those who want to protect you from things you don't need protection from. On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:12:07 -0400, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote: > > I was having a little fun this morning after getting so many great comments > about the Newsletter and the Proactionary Principle. Thank you. Ruddi > Hoffman suggested a short phrase. That's what we are hoping to achieve. From natashavita at earthlink.net Thu May 13 17:09:04 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:09:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle - one liners Message-ID: <197180-2200454131794404@M2W076.mail2web.com> From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 The Proactionary Principle protects you from those who want to protect you from things you don't need protection from. An excellent application of Circulatory Principle. :-) N On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:12:07 -0400, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote: > > I was having a little fun this morning after getting so many great comments > about the Newsletter and the Proactionary Principle. Thank you. Ruddi > Hoffman suggested a short phrase. That's what we are hoping to achieve. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From rafal at smigrodzki.org Thu May 13 21:21:05 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:21:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle - one liners In-Reply-To: <184670-22004541315127482@M2W099.mail2web.com> References: <184670-22004541315127482@M2W099.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <40A3E6C1.5010405@smigrodzki.org> natashavita at earthlink.net wrote: > I was having a little fun this morning after getting so many great comments > about the Newsletter and the Proactionary Principle. Thank you. Ruddi > Hoffman suggested a short phrase. That's what we are hoping to achieve. > > Right off the top (of a very sleepy brain that has not had coffee ...) > > The Proactionary Principle protects the freedom to innovate. > The Proactionary Principles guarantees your right to be intelligent. > People who use the Proactionary Principle think smart about their future. > Apply the Proactionary Principles and be the leader of your mind. > My Mind, my choice. Proactionary Principle Now! > > I'm sure Spike can do better ones :-) Eli? ### How about: "Proactionary Principle - if you think it might help, do it!" Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 13 18:41:34 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:41:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle - one liners In-Reply-To: <40A3E6C1.5010405@smigrodzki.org> References: <184670-22004541315127482@M2W099.mail2web.com> <40A3E6C1.5010405@smigrodzki.org> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040513133920.01bc1ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:21 PM 5/13/2004 -0700, Rafal wrote: >### How about: "Proactionary Principle - if you think it might help, do it!" Wadda we want? PROACTION! Whenna we want it? SOON AS WE CAN RUSH INTO IT! ;) Damien Broderick From hal at finney.org Thu May 13 20:13:19 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:13:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete! Message-ID: <200405132013.i4DKDJ222133@finney.org> BillK writes: > Do some googling on inflation-corrected indexes and you will find that > the inflation-corrected S&P 500 Index shows a compound annual return of > 1.46 percent per year over the 125 years from 1871 to 1996. > This neglects the impact of dividends, an important contribution to stock market returns. If you reinvest dividends you get much higher returns. See http://www.cpcug.org/user/invest/toretcpi.gif. From 1928 to 1997, $1 invested in the S&P 500 would have grown to about $120 with dividends reinvested. This corresponds to an average annual return of 6.9%, in line with Robert's estimate of 6% real returns. > This kind of chartistry is not very credible to me. No one can reliably predict a bear market extending through 2014, because if the prediction were really convincing, people would take positions in advance to cancel it out. Hal From megaquark at hotmail.com Thu May 13 20:08:44 2004 From: megaquark at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:08:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] extension of jolly good theory References: <000001c4389d$12219c30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: This is a guess, but I would think that laughter is not hard-wired. Although we may all have been in situatins that we couldn't stop laughing, it is always in response to something that is funny. This leaves a few problems: 1.) Since culture plays a large part in deciding what is funny and what is not, the trigger for such a response would be variable, and learned. 2.) Even within a culture, each individual has unique ideas of what is funny and what is not. 3.) Education also plays a key role 4.) Each person is further subject to moods and other things in their environment which may cause them to laugh or not laugh. In other words, I can only conclude that laughter is not hard-wired simply because some people laugh at Damien's jokes and some do not. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:47 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] extension of jolly good theory > > Then came the blinding flash of insight, why it is that > > jolly and portly go together: > > Recall the classic spring mass system, the resonant > > frequency being square root of the spring constant divided > > by the mass, or (k/m)^.5 (remember that from physics 101?)... > > Now you understand why. spike > > I thought of an extension of the jolly good theory. > > If you have had an opportunity to dissect a mammal, you > are likely aware of the fact that all mammals are of > similar enough design that a structure in one has > an analog in the other. If you find an organ or structure > in a cat, there is an analog of that organ or structure > in you. The shape and size may be different, but there > is a nearly one to one correlation. This observation > made in my youth is supported by the recent findings > that mammalian genomes are all remarkably similar. > > Insight: if analogous structures then analogous functions. > humans grin, chimps grin, dogs snarl. Analogous functions, > different meanings. A human grin is mirthful and friendly, > but a dog's snarl means "Back off, before I tear you a new > asshole." > > A chimp's grin has a meaning about halfway between these > two according to Sagan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: > a grinning chimp is apparently saying "See my teeth? I > could bite you with these. But I won't, because you are > my friend. Don't push your luck, hairless biped." > > The jolly good theory explains laughter as a natural > frequency with the diaphragm as the spring and the > mass of the gut as the mass. My notion is that some > mammals have an analogous function, even if the meaning > is different. Hyenas make a sound that has been described > as laughing, perhaps as a means of terrifying predators. > Chipmunks and squirrels make a sound that to me resembles > laughter, possibly to warn off competitors. > > Nowthen, here is what puzzles me. I have been in situations > where I was completely unable to supress laughter, most of > us have. This leads me to the following questions: Do all > humans and human societies have laughter? Do all humans > have *involuntary* laughter? Is there anything analogous > to that in other mammals? If involuntary laughter universal > in humans, how does that response get hardwired to our sense > of humor? Should I stick with rocket science? > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com Thu May 13 20:22:48 2004 From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:22:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle - one liners Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB93D3@amazemail2.amazeent.com> natashavita at earthlink.net wrote: > I was having a little fun this morning after getting so many great > comments about the Newsletter and the Proactionary Principle. Thank > you. Ruddi Hoffman suggested a short phrase. That's what we are > hoping to achieve. > > Right off the top (of a very sleepy brain that has not had coffee ...) > > The Proactionary Principle protects the freedom to innovate. > The Proactionary Principles guarantees your right to be intelligent. > People who use the Proactionary Principle think smart about their > future. Apply the Proactionary Principles and be the leader of your > mind. > My Mind, my choice. Proactionary Principle Now! > > I'm sure Spike can do better ones :-) Eli? > > Natasha Well, I'm not that well-spoken myself, so I'll let those who are speak for me. These aren't really one-liners either. === The best ones === There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction. John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963) And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. Anais Nin (1903 - 1977) What is needed, rather than running away or controlling or suppressing or any other resistance, is understanding fear; that means, watch it, learn about it, come directly into contact with it. We are to learn about fear, not how to escape from it. Jiddu Krishnamurti Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go. T. S. Eliot (1888 - 1965) The policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all. Jawaharlal Nehru (1889 - 1964) A venturesome minority will always be eager to get off on their own... let them take risks, for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches- that is the right and privilege of any free American. 16 Idaho Law Review 407, 420 - 1980. === Others === Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash. George S. Patton (1885 - 1945) First weigh the considerations, then take the risks. Helmuth von Moltke (1800 - 1891) The universe will reward you for taking risks on its behalf. Shakti Gawain I you don't risk anything you risk even more. Erica Jong Great deeds are usually wrought at great risks. Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus From bradbury at aeiveos.com Thu May 13 19:31:50 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: dealing with forgeries Message-ID: As many of you know the standard mail transfer protocol on the Net that is quite old and it doesn't normally prevent people from "claiming" an email message is from you. In that case, if a virus or SPAM or malware detection program detects a nasty message in the email it may get sent back to you or they may even inform your ISP or one of the "blacklist" providers that you sent SPAM when you really did not. The proposed solution to this is the "Sender Policy Framework" developed late last year which operates by adding text (TXT) records to your Name Server information so you can tell the mail receiving programs which of your systems are really authorized to send mail from your domain. If the mail receiving program receives mail from a system in taiwan and that system isn't authorized to send mail from your domain then it is immediately rejected as a forgery (which lets you [most probably] off the hook). See: http://spf.pobox.com/ I just set this up for aeiveos.com and it was fairly quick using their wizard: http://spf.pobox.com/wizard.html and some quick entries to the nameserver description files for my domain. If you have a remotely hosted domain you may need to talk to your hosting agent or your ISP about how to have this setup. They document some of the ISPs and companies using (and not using) SPF at this time from some of the links found here: http://spftools.infinitepenguins.net/register.php Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Thu May 13 20:50:20 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <20040513162413.84012.qmail@web41307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 May 2004, Jose Cordeiro wrote: > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobiology_nrc_040507.html > Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds [snip] which is better accessed at: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/webcr.nsf/0/B175F23C70CDA7F885256E82005D88F9?OpenDocument I've gone through the project description and who is attending the meetings. It isn't very interesting except for those focused on developmental paths or strategies to get close to where we already are. They don't even begin to deal with the issue of how screwed up the project title, "The Limits of Organic Life of Planetary Systems" is. "Organic" (if its based on carbon -- can easily include nanotechnology derived machines such as diamondoid but could not include life based on silicates or other element combinations). If its based on "living organisms" then probably forms of artificial life and self-replicating machines can be brought into the picture. Etc. Limiting things to "planetary systems" is silly because advanced civilizations will likely do away with them. And so on and so on... Jose -- as an aside NASA is trying to integrate some of the sciences in their studies of this (chemistry, biochemistry and geophysics mainly) but *unless* they integrate computer science, neuroscience, anthropology, sociology and aspects of astrophysics (to name a few) the job is going to be botched. Robert From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 13 22:15:05 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] extension of jolly good theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040513221505.27684.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> This doesn't follow logically. Using the same logic, we could conclude that the fight or flight reflex is not hard wired, because someone who'd never seen a jaguar may think "Nice kitty cat". The response is really there, its just that the triggers need to be taught because we are evolved generalists. --- Kevin Freels wrote: > This is a guess, but I would think that laughter is not hard-wired. > Although > we may all have been in situatins that we couldn't stop laughing, it > is > always in response to something that is funny. This leaves a few > problems: > 1.) Since culture plays a large part in deciding what is funny and > what is > not, the trigger for such a response would be variable, and learned. > > 2.) Even within a culture, each individual has unique ideas of what > is funny > and what is not. > > 3.) Education also plays a key role > > 4.) Each person is further subject to moods and other things in their > environment which may cause them to laugh or not laugh. > > In other words, I can only conclude that laughter is not hard-wired > simply > because some people laugh at Damien's jokes and some do not. > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Spike" > To: "'ExI chat list'" > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:47 PM > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] extension of jolly good theory > > > > > Then came the blinding flash of insight, why it is that > > > jolly and portly go together: > > > Recall the classic spring mass system, the resonant > > > frequency being square root of the spring constant divided > > > by the mass, or (k/m)^.5 (remember that from physics 101?)... > > > Now you understand why. spike > > > > I thought of an extension of the jolly good theory. > > > > If you have had an opportunity to dissect a mammal, you > > are likely aware of the fact that all mammals are of > > similar enough design that a structure in one has > > an analog in the other. If you find an organ or structure > > in a cat, there is an analog of that organ or structure > > in you. The shape and size may be different, but there > > is a nearly one to one correlation. This observation > > made in my youth is supported by the recent findings > > that mammalian genomes are all remarkably similar. > > > > Insight: if analogous structures then analogous functions. > > humans grin, chimps grin, dogs snarl. Analogous functions, > > different meanings. A human grin is mirthful and friendly, > > but a dog's snarl means "Back off, before I tear you a new > > asshole." > > > > A chimp's grin has a meaning about halfway between these > > two according to Sagan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: > > a grinning chimp is apparently saying "See my teeth? I > > could bite you with these. But I won't, because you are > > my friend. Don't push your luck, hairless biped." > > > > The jolly good theory explains laughter as a natural > > frequency with the diaphragm as the spring and the > > mass of the gut as the mass. My notion is that some > > mammals have an analogous function, even if the meaning > > is different. Hyenas make a sound that has been described > > as laughing, perhaps as a means of terrifying predators. > > Chipmunks and squirrels make a sound that to me resembles > > laughter, possibly to warn off competitors. > > > > Nowthen, here is what puzzles me. I have been in situations > > where I was completely unable to supress laughter, most of > > us have. This leads me to the following questions: Do all > > humans and human societies have laughter? Do all humans > > have *involuntary* laughter? Is there anything analogous > > to that in other mammals? If involuntary laughter universal > > in humans, how does that response get hardwired to our sense > > of humor? Should I stick with rocket science? > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From bradbury at aeiveos.com Thu May 13 21:21:19 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education =?windows-1252?q?=3A=0AToys?= In-Reply-To: <200405131001.40652.dan@3-e.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 May 2004, Daniel Matthews wrote: > Thanks for the ideas. The PDA idea is very cool ( I was thinking about > solidstate MP3 audio books myself at one point) but I don't have > $250,000,000. I wrote to 3 of the leading editorial writers at the NY Times about the PDA/Cell Phone idea (Kristof, Brooks and hopefully Friedman if one of the first two forwards the message). If they pick up on it something very interesting might develop... Nothing however to prevent people from writing up something based on my comments and circulating the idea to their local editorial writers. People offering public comments are always looking for creative solutions -- and something that provides a creative solution and reduces the budget deficit and may save lives is bound to be interesting to some people. Robert From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 13 23:23:18 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040513232318.26639.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> While interesting as a thought experiment, the fact that silicate energy bonds are fewer and of lower energy than carbon bonds dictates that silicon based life forms will always be outcompeted for energy sources by carbon based life forms. So, unless a planetary system is incredibly carbon scarce, an unlikely event itself, the evolution of silicon life is not just unlikely, but impossible. Can anyone think up how a carbon scarce but silicon rich planet might form? --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > > On Thu, 13 May 2004, Jose Cordeiro wrote: > > > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobiology_nrc_040507.html > > Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds > [snip] > > which is better accessed at: > http://www4.nationalacademies.org/webcr.nsf/0/B175F23C70CDA7F885256E82005D88F9?OpenDocument > > I've gone through the project description and who is attending the > meetings. It isn't very interesting except for those focused on > developmental paths or strategies to get close to where we already > are. They don't even begin to deal with the issue of how screwed up > the project title, "The Limits of Organic Life of Planetary Systems" > is. > > "Organic" (if its based on carbon -- can easily include > nanotechnology > derived machines such as diamondoid but could not include life based > on silicates or other element combinations). If its based on "living > organisms" then probably forms of artificial life and > self-replicating > machines can be brought into the picture. Etc. Limiting things to > "planetary systems" is silly because advanced civilizations will > likely > do away with them. > > And so on and so on... > > Jose -- as an aside NASA is trying to integrate some of the sciences > in > their studies of this (chemistry, biochemistry and geophysics mainly) > but > *unless* they integrate computer science, neuroscience, anthropology, > sociology and aspects of astrophysics (to name a few) the job is > going > to be botched. > > Robert > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 13 23:25:13 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle - one liners In-Reply-To: <40A3E6C1.5010405@smigrodzki.org> Message-ID: <20040513232513.60865.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > natashavita at earthlink.net wrote: > > I was having a little fun this morning after getting so many great > comments > > about the Newsletter and the Proactionary Principle. Thank you. > Ruddi > > Hoffman suggested a short phrase. That's what we are hoping to > achieve. > > > > Right off the top (of a very sleepy brain that has not had coffee > ...) > > > > The Proactionary Principle protects the freedom to innovate. > > The Proactionary Principles guarantees your right to be > intelligent. > > People who use the Proactionary Principle think smart about their > future. > > Apply the Proactionary Principles and be the leader of your mind. > > My Mind, my choice. Proactionary Principle Now! > > > > I'm sure Spike can do better ones :-) Eli? > > ### How about: "Proactionary Principle - if you think it might help, > do it!" The Proactionary Principle: If you don't play, you're sure to lose. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 13 23:49:21 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 18:49:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle - one liners In-Reply-To: <20040513232513.60865.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> References: <40A3E6C1.5010405@smigrodzki.org> <20040513232513.60865.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040513184752.01bedd68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> > >The Proactionary Principle: If you don't play, you're sure to lose. That's likely to provoke the response: The Russian Roulette Principle: If you don't play, you're sure not to lose. Damien Broderick From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au Fri May 14 00:18:51 2004 From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:48:51 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education: Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EB9@mmdsvr01.mm.local> I've been using Eudora at home, and I like it. But at work (this account) we're talking exchange server + corporate environment. So Mozilla is a no-go. Emlyn -----Original Message----- From: BillK [mailto:bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 8:51 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education: On Wed May 12 18:43:01 MDT 2004 Emlyn ORegan wrote: > just do plain text, use ">" for indenting original messages on reply, > etc? F#$%!!!> I use Mozilla instead. Download Mozilla 1.6 from It has two modules. the Mozilla browser and Mozilla Mail. Import your mail files from Outlook to Mozilla Mail and you'll be a happy bunny. You need to keep Internet Explorer in order to get the regular patches from Windows Update. And keep Outlook as well, just in case you decide you don't like Mozilla. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat *************************************************************************** Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other defect. From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 14 00:09:05 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 17:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <20040513232318.26639.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 May 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Can anyone think up how a carbon scarce but silicon rich planet might > form? Its normal melting point condensation. Some of the most abundant elements you have in a solar nebula are C, O, and Si (actual solar comp is H > He > O > C > Ne > N > Mg > Si > Fe > S) but this will vary a fair amount from star to star [Mike if you have my ssmass.xls spreadsheet you want to look at the SSComp sheet. If you don't have it send me an offlist note and I'll send you a copy.] The Si/Mg oxides are going to condense out close to the star. The C oxides (CO & CO2) are going to condense out much further away from the star (read comets for the most part). So if the planets are not large enough to serve as good comet targets (e.g. Venus & Earth -- to a lesser extent Mars) and/or lack the gravity to hold onto CO & CO2 in gaseous form and/or you get some Jupiter type planets capturing or hurling comets out of the system then you get planets in the liquid water zone that tend to be carbon poor and Si/Mg rich. (I chose to discuss Si because it can form 4 bonds while Mg can typically form only 2). Also Mike, if you have my PhysProp.xls spreadsheet and look at the BondStrength sheet you will see (if I'm interpreting it correctly that the C-C bond strength is almost identical to the Si-Si bond strength so I'm not quite sure why carbon is the basis for organic life while silicon is the basis, in part, for geochemistry (and semiconductors...). A puzzle perhaps. Robert From dan at 3-e.net Fri May 14 01:09:54 2004 From: dan at 3-e.net (Daniel Matthews) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:09:54 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <200405131624.i4DGOl720755@tick.javien.com> References: <200405131624.i4DGOl720755@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200405141109.56060.dan@3-e.net> On Fri, 14 May 2004 02:24 am, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:53:14 +0100 > From: Amara Graps > Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > >Daniel Matthews > >Given a limited budget and a third world location what forms of patent > > free "Edutoys" would offer the greatest benefit to the largest number of > > children in terms of fostering intellectual development? > > ?From my reading of your requirements- > > I think the key idea is that the toy be *simple*. ?These are > very young kids. It should ?also be easily transportable > and yet have the potential to inspire. > > My First choice: > > A planisphere > http://skyandtelescope.com/howto/visualobserving/article_75_1.asp > > My first one in the 1970s was made of paper (sold by Edmund Scientific). > I bought a smaller, waterproof one at a telescope shop near my former > home in Cupertino. The one I use now is also plastic, a bit larger, > written in Italian. You have to choose the language. > > They are simple, easy and cheap to make, and would stimulate > the youngster's imagination. Of course I still have all of my > toys in my home to entertain myself :-) > > Other ideas for you: > > My Second choice > A magnifying glass (instead of glass, one in plastic could work) > > My Third choice: > A slinky. (I wonder if that would violate someone's patent though.) > > My Fourth choice: > A yo-yo. > > My Fifth choice > Strings. (didn't you play that as a kid?) > > My Sixth choice > A simple Kaleidascope > > My Seventh choice > A compass > > > Also, I suggest to spend some time in a German toy store. I remember > being overwhelmed with the variety of creative, simple, durable > (often wooden) toys for kids _and_ adults. I forgot the names > of all of those games, but I played more than a few while I was > living there. They were always brought out at parties as the > standard thing to do after indulging in the party food. > > > Amara > > -- > > ******************************************************************** > Amara Graps, PhD ? ? ? ? ?email: amara at amara.com > Computational Physics ? ? vita: ?ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt > Multiplex Answers ? ? ? ? URL: ? http://www.amara.com/ > ******************************************************************** > "It seems like once people grow up, they have no idea what's cool." > --Calvin Thanks for your insight Amara, I guess you are a good example of how beneficial such toys can be. :) Simple and durable is definitely the way to go, then the toys can be handed down to other children along with any curlure that has evolved from the children's interaction with them. I am going to focus on wood as I feel there are a lot of good designs for wooded puzzles and building blocks etc. As you pointed out there are many traditional toys of this type in some parts of the world, so all I need to do is to select the best of these ideas to propagate globally. If I was to incorporate any metallic parts I would look at magnetics as there is so much you can do with them. Them, as per your suggestion, optics, perhaps for the older kids. As for the patents, I will start looking at all wooden toys and puzzles on the patent database that are from more than 20 years ago, between those and the public domain "traditional" designs I should have a few very good candidates. As for the sky maps, I think a separate project that focused on reprographic content should look at them. I am also visualising a set of high quality PDF files for posters and printable toys, the artwork would be free of copyright. Sets of posters could then be distributed to schools and comunity centers. Imagine how much knowledge you could convie on just 100 well designed posters. Paper flolding is another very cool and mind expanding activity. In China a medical text was carved into bocks of stone so that the people could come and make copies via rubbings onto paper. My ideas are not original, the spirit of what I am talking about is very old, people seem to have forgoten so many important lessons. Why do some people talk of transhumanism so much when they show so very little pragmatic knowledge of what it means to be a complete human? :( From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 14 02:11:44 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 21:11:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <200405141109.56060.dan@3-e.net> References: <200405131624.i4DGOl720755@tick.javien.com> <200405141109.56060.dan@3-e.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040513210859.01b8aef0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:09 AM 5/14/2004 +1000, Daniel Matthews wrote: >In China a medical text was carved into bocks of stone so that the people >could come and make copies via rubbings onto paper. Yes, but these days you have to think outside the bocks. Sorry, that was surely an example of Kevin Freels' observation that: >I can only conclude that laughter is not hard-wired simply >because some people laugh at Damien's jokes and some do not. Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 14 02:14:25 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 19:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040514021425.61353.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > away from the star (read comets for the most part). So if the > planets are not large enough to serve as good comet targets (e.g. > Venus & Earth -- to a lesser extent Mars) and/or lack the gravity > to hold onto CO & CO2 in gaseous form and/or you get some Jupiter > type planets capturing or hurling comets out of the system then you > get planets in the liquid water zone that tend to be carbon poor > and Si/Mg rich. (I chose to discuss Si because it can form 4 bonds > while Mg can typically form only 2). And carbon can form what? 8 or 12 bonds? That's a good reason right there: you get more diversity in possible bonds, thus a more complex chemistry capable of interacting in expnentially greater numbers of ways. > > Also Mike, if you have my PhysProp.xls spreadsheet and look at the > BondStrength sheet you will see (if I'm interpreting it correctly > that the C-C bond strength is almost identical to the Si-Si bond > strength so I'm not quite sure why carbon is the basis for organic > life while silicon is the basis, in part, for geochemistry (and > semiconductors...). A puzzle perhaps. Almost ain't quite the same as the same, is it? Lets also look at possible catalysts for the two chemistries. Carbons greater number of bonds means greater number of possible catalysts. This is a key point the creationists always miss when they yak about how evolution hasn't had enough time to result in man given normal chemical odds, they always ignore the role that catalysts play in speeding things up. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri May 14 03:46:21 2004 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 23:46:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <200405141109.56060.dan@3-e.net> References: <200405131624.i4DGOl720755@tick.javien.com> <200405131624.i4DGOl720755@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040513233321.021defe0@mail.comcast.net> Daniel Matthews wrote: >I am going to focus on wood as I feel there are a lot of good designs for >wooded puzzles and building blocks etc. As you pointed out there are many >traditional toys of this type in some parts of the world, so all I need to do >is to select the best of these ideas to propagate globally. In some places, wood is not a viable option. In Israel, for instance, which is quite prosperous economically, wood is almost never used for anything. Everything is plastic, metal, or stone. If this project is to succeed, you need to adapt to each country's resource profile. Also, take a look at the connotations of each toy and its constituent parts. A color or shape, say, that is fine in one place may be anathema elsewhere, because of religious, political, or cultural factors. (Indeed, in some places, the wrong color or shape can get the bearer killed.) It may be that to accommodate all the locations you want to spread this to, you need several distinct 'product lines.' -- David Lubkin. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 14 03:54:07 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:54:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Benford's post-Singularity novel Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040513224524.01c713c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Might be of interest: BEYOND INFINITY, by Gregory Benford (Aspect/Warner, March 2004). A reworking of his novella quasi-sequel to Clarke's `Against the Fall of Night', with the Diaspar/Alvin details morphed and the setting upgraded to take in branes, ekpyrotic universes, and in the remote background the Quickening followed by the Singularity followed by the emergence and transcension of the Singular. p. 242: `Another legend. The Singular is a construction, emerging from an event the Ancients termed the Singularity. First the Quickening precipitated changes in what some humans made of themselves. The Singularity was one of the more successful of those leaps, and it created the Singular.' `What is it?' `It is what part of humanity became. A structure made of folded space-time itself. Some humans augmented themselves to beyond the others'--your--perception. They they, with others from far stars, made the fold... It was an act that transcended out space-time. Somehow those Ancients went beyond out infinites. They were--or are--both part of the Singular and its cause.' And so on. Damien Broderick From alito at organicrobot.com Fri May 14 04:50:49 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 14:50:49 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1084510248.25735.25.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 17:09 -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > Also Mike, if you have my PhysProp.xls spreadsheet and look at the > BondStrength sheet you will see (if I'm interpreting it correctly > that the C-C bond strength is almost identical to the Si-Si bond > strength so I'm not quite sure why carbon is the basis for organic > life while silicon is the basis, in part, for geochemistry (and > semiconductors...). A puzzle perhaps. > I think the bond strengths are similar in the diatomic case, but carbon does chains without losing strength, while si-si bonds drop to 226 kj/mol in that case. Also si=si bonds are very unstable alejandro From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 14 04:56:12 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 21:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <20040514021425.61353.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 May 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote: > And carbon can form what? 8 or 12 bonds? That's a good reason right > there: you get more diversity in possible bonds, thus a more complex > chemistry capable of interacting in expnentially greater numbers of > ways. I don't think so -- carbon forms a maximum of 4 bonds. In general atoms in the same column of the periodic table have similar bonding patterns but with higher molecular weights things become increasingly complex. But it gets even more complex depending upon the nature of whether the atoms involved prefer ionic or covalent bonds. > Almost ain't quite the same as the same, is it? True -- but C-C and Si-Si bonds are within 1/10th of 1% of each other which is significantly closer than many other bond combinations. > Lets also look at possible catalysts for the two chemistries. Carbons > greater number of bonds means greater number of possible catalysts. I think something more complex is going on. You can get carbon behaving in an inorganic way in things like calcium carbonate (limestone, sea shells, etc.) and at the same time get it behaving in an organic way, e.g. amino acids, fatty acids, etc. But for some reason silicon seems to have a much stronger preference for inorganic bonding modes. It gets even stranger when you consider that Germanium, Tin and Lead should have similar bonding properties. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 14 05:08:18 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <1084510248.25735.25.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 May 2004, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > I think the bond strengths are similar in the diatomic case, but carbon > does chains without losing strength, while si-si bonds drop to 226 > kj/mol in that case. Also si=si bonds are very unstable > Interesting. Perhaps there is some interaction the strength of the attraction between outer bonding electron shell(s) and the protons in the nucleus -- the inner electron shells may shield the outer electron shells from the charge attraction in larger atoms compared with smaller atoms. That may alter interatom bonding strength and stability. Robert From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 14 07:10:52 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:10:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education: In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EB9@mmdsvr01.mm.local> References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EB9@mmdsvr01.mm.local> Message-ID: <20040514071052.GK25728@leitl.org> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:48:51AM +0930, Emlyn ORegan wrote: > I've been using Eudora at home, and I like it. But at work (this > account) we're talking exchange server + corporate environment. So > Mozilla is a no-go. http://www.novell.com/products/connector/ first builds of Evolution talking to Exchange already out. (If you're kinky that way). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au Fri May 14 07:19:20 2004 From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:49:20 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education: Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EBF@mmdsvr01.mm.local> > > http://www.novell.com/products/connector/ > > first builds of Evolution talking to Exchange already out. (If you're > kinky > that way). > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl That's just funky. I'm a bit kinky, but not Novell kind of kinky. Anyway, it looks as though I've sorted out my issues. Emlyn *************************************************************************** Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other defect. From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Fri May 14 12:43:47 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:43:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds Message-ID: <40A4BF03.3080201@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> On Thu May 13 20:14:25 MDT 2004 Mike Lorrey wrote: > And carbon can form what? 8 or 12 bonds? That's a good reason right > there: you get more diversity in possible bonds, thus a more complex > chemistry capable of interacting in exponentially greater numbers of > ways. NASA seems to agree with you, Mike. Scientists have occasionally speculated that life could be based on an element other than carbon. Silicon, being the lightest element with an electronic structure analogous to that of carbon (having a half-filled outer shell with 4 unpaired electrons), is the most likely candidate mentioned. However, carbon's tendency to form the long chains and rings that form the basis for organic compounds that at some level of complexity begin to self-replicate is unique. Also, because older stars naturally produce carbon, along with nitrogen and oxygen (its neighbors on the periodic table), it is relatively abundant in the universe. Also space.com Silicon may be carbon?s chemical cousin, but it?s a poor relation. Because the silicon atom is larger, its bonds with other elements are weaker. While carbon hooks up with two oxygen atoms to make carbon dioxide, a nice waste product for both humans and SUV?s, the silicon equivalent, silicon dioxide, quickly assembles itself into a crystalline lattice. It?s better known as sand, and would make exhaling a gritty experience. The weaker bonds of silicon also preclude the easy formation of those long, same-atom molecular chains that underlie many biological compounds. A slew of complex carbon-based molecules are easily produced in comets, interstellar dust, and university glassware. But if you check out nature?s chemistry lab for silicon (consider volcanic lava), the products are far less interesting. Non-carbon based life-forms seem to be mainly sf speculation in order to make a good story. Possible life on the surface of a sun? Life which creates an atomic reactor inside it's body for energy? Yea, sure. BillK From ARTILLO at comcast.net Fri May 14 15:08:14 2004 From: ARTILLO at comcast.net (ARTILLO at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:08:14 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spaceship sets altitude record Message-ID: <051420041508.27358.40A4E0DE0001C69300006ADE2200751150B1B4B4B7ABADBE@comcast.net> Can I get a YEEHAAAAA!!!? Great news from the Rutan camp! 211,400 feet! 2/3 of the way to the goal... http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/13/private.space.ship/index.html Here's the flight data link: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/flight_data/flt_data.htm Artillo From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com Fri May 14 15:36:25 2004 From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:36:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB93FE@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 17:09 -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > >> Also Mike, if you have my PhysProp.xls spreadsheet and look at the >> BondStrength sheet you will see (if I'm interpreting it correctly >> that the C-C bond strength is almost identical to the Si-Si bond >> strength so I'm not quite sure why carbon is the basis for organic >> life while silicon is the basis, in part, for geochemistry (and >> semiconductors...). A puzzle perhaps. >> > I think the bond strengths are similar in the diatomic case, but > carbon does chains without losing strength, while si-si bonds drop to > 226 kj/mol in that case. Also si=si bonds are very unstable > > alejandro There are a number of other inorganic polymers used in industry that may be more stable than polysilanes (Si monomer). Unfortunately I don't have any references here as to the bond strengths. Polysiloxanes R | -(-Si-O-)- | R' Polyphosphazenes R | -(-N=P-)- | R' There are a lot of other inorganic monomers but these are the most common flexible ones. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 14 16:43:21 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spaceship sets altitude record In-Reply-To: <051420041508.27358.40A4E0DE0001C69300006ADE2200751150B1B4B4B7ABADBE@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20040514164321.28967.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> And mach 2.5 as well. Isn't that a private speed record as well? I am concerned to see the feather occilations on reentry. They are floating in at mach 1.9 and while the pilot was able to control the occilations, I'm wondering what will happen when they burn in at higher velocities. --- ARTILLO at comcast.net wrote: > Can I get a YEEHAAAAA!!!? Great news from the Rutan camp! 211,400 > feet! 2/3 of the way to the goal... > > http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/13/private.space.ship/index.html > > Here's the flight data link: > http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/flight_data/flt_data.htm > > > > Artillo > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com Fri May 14 17:31:51 2004 From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:31:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB9403@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Daniel Matthews wrote: > Simple and durable is definitely the way to go, then the toys can be > handed down to other children along with any curlure that has evolved > from the children's interaction with them. > > I am going to focus on wood as I feel there are a lot of good designs > for wooded puzzles and building blocks etc. As you pointed out there > are many traditional toys of this type in some parts of the world, so > all I need to do is to select the best of these ideas to propagate > globally. Keep in mind that wood is also used as fuel for cooking in many parts of the world. These toys will compete with that. Read http://pcasacas.org/SPC/spcissues/22.1/donlon.html for some good information about traditional wooden and wire toys in South Africa. One thing mentioned is that wooden toys are considered special. You should also consider the energy cost of mass fabrication. In the developed world we consider energy usage on a personal scale to be inexpensive or even essentially free. Incidental costs which would seem trivial to us need to be accounted for. I haven't ever lived in the third world, but I think you really need to get the advice of someone who has lived and worked there. Here's another good link, showing a little bit about the creativity of third-world children in making toys: http://www.eco-artware.com/newsletter/newsletter_07_01.shtml#toys From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 14 17:55:04 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB9403@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Message-ID: <20040514175504.45340.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Here's an idea: Africa-opoly A board game, played like monopoly, which is produced by painting the board on cow hide, cloth, or plastic sheets. The board is customized to the local geography, and would include some additional features, beyond building homes and hotels on properties, to building infrastructure like water, sewer, roads, and electric power. Chance cards would include things like "You shot a rhino/elephant/giraffe/gorilla/etc, go to jail", among others. --- Acy James Stapp wrote: > Daniel Matthews wrote: > > > Simple and durable is definitely the way to go, then the toys can > be > > handed down to other children along with any curlure that has > evolved > > from the children's interaction with them. > > > > I am going to focus on wood as I feel there are a lot of good > designs > > for wooded puzzles and building blocks etc. As you pointed out > there > > are many traditional toys of this type in some parts of the world, > so > > all I need to do is to select the best of these ideas to propagate > > globally. > > Keep in mind that wood is also used as fuel for cooking in many parts > of the world. These toys will compete with that. > > Read http://pcasacas.org/SPC/spcissues/22.1/donlon.html for some good > information about traditional wooden and wire toys in South Africa. > One > thing mentioned is that wooden toys are considered special. > > You should also consider the energy cost of mass fabrication. In > the developed world we consider energy usage on a personal scale to > be inexpensive or even essentially free. Incidental costs which > would seem trivial to us need to be accounted for. > > I haven't ever lived in the third world, but I think you really > need to get the advice of someone who has lived and worked there. > > Here's another good link, showing a little bit about the creativity > of third-world children in making toys: > http://www.eco-artware.com/newsletter/newsletter_07_01.shtml#toys > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com Fri May 14 19:46:16 2004 From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:46:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] extension of jolly good theory Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB940D@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Spike wrote: > Nowthen, here is what puzzles me. I have been in situations > where I was completely unable to supress laughter, most of > us have. This leads me to the following questions: Do all > humans and human societies have laughter? Do all humans > have *involuntary* laughter? Is there anything analogous > to that in other mammals? If involuntary laughter universal > in humans, how does that response get hardwired to our sense > of humor? Should I stick with rocket science? Apparently baby rats laugh little ultrasonic laughs while playing. Couldn't find the original reference, but Wikipedia mentions it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughter "Laughter is not confined to humans. Chimpanzees show laughter-like behavior in response to physical contact, such as wrestling, chasing, or tickling, and rat pups emit short, high frequency, ultrasonic vocalizations during rough and tumble play, and when tickled. Rat pups "laugh" far more than older rats." From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 14 21:19:45 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:19:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] sperm RNA Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040514161804.01bebec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Dads deliver more than just DNA May 13, 2004 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289787653.html# Despite the spectre of cloning and the birth of a fatherless mouse, scientists have uncovered evidence that men play a more vital role in procreation than they may have thought. Male sperm not only fertilises the female egg, it also delivers male chromosomes and messenger RNA, molecules that carry codes which may help the embryo develop and grow. "Men have a greater role in early development than we previously thought," said Stephen Krawetz, of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Krawetz and colleagues in the United States and Britain have identified six messenger RNAs found in sperm and fertilised eggs but not in unfertilised eggs. The finding, reported in the science journal Nature today, suggests that messenger molecules are delivered when the sperm fertilise the egg. It may also improve understanding of infertility and cloning. "We have been able to show that in humans, along with delivering the DNA component, there is an RNA component which is also delivered. This is the first time that has been shown," Krawetz said in an interview. "Dad is delivering more than just his DNA." Krawetz suspects the paternal RNA plays an important role in the early development of the embryo and believes the research could help to explain why cloning is so difficult. "We think the RNA that is being delivered could possibly act as a developmental or mechanistic switch that sets off the correct developmental program early on," he said. In cloning, the egg develops without sperm fertilisation and although it can be manipulated or 'tricked' in the laboratory some of the time, if the RNA isn't being delivered by the sperm it could explain the very small success rate in cloning. Last month scientists in Japan and Korea reported creating the first mammal without using sperm. The mouse is the daughter of two female mice. Although bees, ants and some fish and reptiles reproduce without having sex in a process known as parthenogenesis, it was thought to be impossible in mammals. Mammals inherit one set of chromosomes from their mothers and another from their fathers. Embryos containing only female chromosomes usually die early in the womb and those with only male genetic material are abnormal. The fatherless mouse sparked headlines and suggestions that males could soon be obsolete. "In contrast, we show that men are not obsolete," said Krawetz. "Men do have a function," he added. - Reuters From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 14 20:55:21 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <40A4BF03.3080201@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 May 2004, BillK wrote: > > Silicon may be carbon?s chemical cousin, but it?s a poor relation. > Because the silicon atom is larger, its bonds with other elements are > weaker. Not so fast there Bill -- though there has been some commentary that some of the bonds are weaker not all of them are. Extend the hypothesis that "large atoms have weaker bonds" to metallic tungsten, or Titanium Carbide or Tantalum carbide or Hafnium carbide -- each of which has extremely high melting points (~2-3x higher than various forms of diamond -- in the 3000-4000K range...). [Tungsten, titanium, tantalum and hafnium are all relatively large atoms...] > While carbon hooks up with two oxygen atoms to make carbon > dioxide, a nice waste product for both humans and SUV's, the silicon > equivalent, silicon dioxide, quickly assembles itself into a crystalline > lattice. *So*??? CO2 assembles itself into a nice crystalline lattice for shipments of biological products I want to send somewhere as well as for commercial activities generally involving my ice cream truck salesperson. > It's better known as sand, and would make exhaling a gritty experience. Not in environments where the ambient temperature is above ~2504 deg K. At that temperature SiO2 is a gas just like CO2 is at 195K at normal atmospheric pressure. This analysis is simplistic if larger molecules form weaker bonds and yet the boil at higher temperatures... The intermolecular bonds are not broken when a compound converts from a solid to a liquid to a gas -- yet the interaction capability after these transitions changes things significantly. [Hypothesis: perhaps the higher transition temperatures of Silicon molecules to more highly interactive forms results in the destruction of molecules that it would need to interact with to optimize the development of "life". Not an exclusive hypothesis mind you but one that may skew the probabilities in a negative direction.] > The weaker bonds of silicon also preclude the easy formation > of those long, same-atom molecular chains that underlie many biological > compounds. Caca. The DNA and RNA backbones are both poly-phosphate compounds (Voet & Voet, "Biochemistry", pgs 792 & 860). Only proteins and perhaps lipids can be considered poly-carbon compounds and even then one gets into some questionable definition issues based on what fraction of the molecules require poly-carbon based structures. It is certainly true that the molecules in biology based on poly-phosphates are much larger than those based on poly-carbons. > A slew of complex carbon-based molecules are easily produced > in comets, interstellar dust, and university glassware. But if you check > out nature's chemistry lab for silicon (consider volcanic lava), the > products are far less interesting. Oh, but who knows what Nature's chemistry lab produces at temperatures where silicon based compounds are liquids or gases? Do we really know? > Non-carbon based life-forms seem to be mainly sf speculation in order to > make a good story. Possible life on the surface of a sun? Life which > creates an atomic reactor inside it's body for energy? Yea, sure. The surface of the sun has a temperature of between 5,500 and 6000 deg. C. This is hot enough to break all hydrogen, ionic and covalent bonds (thus destroying all molecules) and ionize all atoms (thus producing a plasma). So speculation about life on the surface of the sun has to be based in speculation on the feasibility of life in a plasma (which is far outside our base of experience). If one wants to use current experience one has to base speculation on known experience (i.e. where molecules can form and chemical reactions can occur and where molecular structures (e.g. enzymes) might develop to speed reactions up or slow them down). And there is no "rule" that I'm aware of that says those criteria *MUST* occur at liquid water temperatures. Now with regard to a pseudo-nuclear reactor inside the a life-form's body, this has already been discussed in Nanomedicine Volume I, section 6.3.7 with respect to using Gadolinium-148 to power nanorobots. There have been more recent ideas circulating for the powering of reactors using X-ray bombardment, perhaps of hafnium-178 to generate energy (though there is some controversy around these claims). So -- present a case tnat non-carbon based life-forms are by default more difficult than carbon based life-forms in a non-intelligence impacted universe. Then present a case that carbon based life-forms are the dominant life-form in the universe given that the evidence (Lineweaver & group) suggest that most of the Earth's in the Universe are much older than ours suggesting that many have already gone through the singularity. Go on... I'm waiting... And you might want to leave out the space.com references since we can assume from the above THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE THEIR HOMEWORK... :-; (somewhat strained...) Robert From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 14 23:30:33 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] REASON: Anders' article in May issue Message-ID: <20040514233033.38253.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.reason.com/0405/cr.as.anime.shtml Our friend, Anders Sandberg, had a piece on anime in the May issue of Reason Magazine.... ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Sat May 15 00:05:57 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 01:05:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds Message-ID: <40A55EE5.1070007@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> On Fri May 14 14:55:21 MDT 2004 Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > And you might want to leave out the space.com > references since we can assume from the above THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE > THEIR HOMEWORK... That space.com article was a quite brief response from SETI written by Seth Shostak. He is Senior Astronomer with SETI. Bio: Seth is an astronomer involved with Project Phoenix, and has a BA in physics from Princeton and a PhD in astronomy from Caltech. But he's also responsible for much of the outreach activities of the Institute. He edits the newsletter, gives talks and writes magazine articles (and books) about SETI. He also teaches a half-dozen informal education classes on astronomy and other topics in the Bay Area. In his defense I would say that Seth was not writing a technical treatise on why alien life would almost certainly be carbon-based. He just, rather humorously, gave a few reasons to effectively say that non-carbon-based life is very unlikely, though not necessarily impossible, considering the size of the universe. One good resource is: The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy, and Spaceflight Silicon-based life is discussed here: This gives a more technical description of the problems involved in using silicon to support life. The NASA Astrobiology Institute has more info: Here NAI Astrobiologist Ben Clark says much the same: Scientific American got Raymond Dessy, a professor of Chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Va. to write a similar response: There is a research paper online showing that: "Silicon simply cannot form as diverse a range of molecules as carbon under natural conditions; however silicon does have unique properties which carbon does not possess, such as a high affinity for oxygen and the ability to form zeolitic mineral structures." None of the above however, prove that silicon-based life is absolutely impossible under all conditions. After all it is very difficult to prove a negative (as all UFO believers know). But it does indicate that silicon-based life at best will be very much rarer than carbon-based life. Show me a living rock, even one above ~2504 deg K - that's all. ;) BillK From dan at 3-e.net Sat May 15 00:08:48 2004 From: dan at 3-e.net (Daniel Matthews) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 10:08:48 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <200405141800.i4EI0D732516@tick.javien.com> References: <200405141800.i4EI0D732516@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200405151008.48237.dan@3-e.net> On Sat, 15 May 2004 04:00 am, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:31:51 -0700 > From: "Acy James Stapp" > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : > ????????Toys > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: > ????????<56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB9403 at amazemail2.amazeent.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;???????charset="us-ascii" > > Daniel Matthews wrote: > > Simple and durable is definitely the way to go, then the toys can be > > handed down to other children along with any curlure that has evolved > > from the children's interaction with them. > > > > I am going to focus on wood as I feel there are a lot of good designs > > for wooded puzzles and building blocks etc. As you pointed out there > > are many traditional toys of this type in some parts of the world, so > > all I need to do is to select the best of these ideas to propagate > > globally. > > Keep in mind that wood is also used as fuel for cooking in many parts > of the world. These toys will compete with that. > > Read http://pcasacas.org/SPC/spcissues/22.1/donlon.html for some good > information about traditional wooden and wire toys in South Africa. One > thing mentioned is that wooden toys are considered special. > > You should also consider the energy cost of mass fabrication. In > the developed world we consider energy usage on a personal scale to > be inexpensive or even essentially free. Incidental costs which > would seem trivial to us need to be accounted for. > > I haven't ever lived in the third world, but I think you really > need to get the advice of someone who has lived and worked there. > > Here's another good link, showing a little bit about the creativity > of third-world children in making toys: > http://www.eco-artware.com/newsletter/newsletter_07_01.shtml#toys I did consider the danger of the toys being used for fuel. Hopefully the health and economical benefits of solar cookers are becoming more widely known. If not, I'll look at introducing them at the same time. Fresnel mirrors pressed out of aluminium sheet (or aluminium coated plastic) look like a good candidates, with the frames etc being fabricated locally. There are other people working in the solar area, however the EduToy concept seems unsupported perhaps because it only has longer term benefits. I don't personally like the idea of keeping people alive without offering them a hand up, out of the poverty that is so harmful to them. IMHO the improved intellectual development of children is the key and this had two parts, nutrition and stimulus. There are already many food programs. Even in the first world parents upset their kids by destroying toys etc. during one household move my mother decided I did not need a lot of my old books, I was not very happy! If the toys can be fabricated locally, burning them now and then should not be a great problem. Local fabrication cuts out transport costs, allows for ad hoc replacement as well as the evolution of new toys. Decentralisation is vital to the perpetual growth of such ideas, the local population needs to feel like they own the design so that it becomes part of their culture. I do have close friend working in the third world, they ( the children they care for) will be the recipient of my initial product/design when I join them at the end of this year. From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Sat May 15 07:47:44 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 08:47:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] San Francisco NextFest this weekend Message-ID: <40A5CB20.7030301@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Sounds like west coast extropians will enjoy what's on display at NextFest in San Francisco this weekend. Admission to the NextFest and the ASIMO exhibition is $15 for adults, free for children under 12. READY to meet ASIMO? The world's most advanced humanoid robot swings into town this weekend for an appearance at the WIRED NextFest in San Francisco. Dubbed ASIMO, which stands for Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility, the robot created by Honda will perform a 25-minute demonstration of its ability to talk, turn, dance and climb stairs. Demonstrations are Saturday and Sunday at 10 a.m., 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. at the Festival Pavilion at Fort Mason Center, Buchanan Street and Marina Boulevard. The exhibits include the Moller Skycar, a four-passenger vehicle from Moller International of Davis. The Jetsons-style craft is small enough to drive on the ground, but can take off vertically and fly as fast as 380 mph. Then there's a "transparent cloak,'' technology from the Tachi Lab at the University of Tokyo that seems straight out of a Harry Potter book. The raincoat-like cloak is made out of "retro-reflective'' material covered with tiny beads that reflect light back in the same direction it came. The cloak is designed to make whatever it is covering, a body or object, appear transparent by projecting video shot with a camera from behind the cloak onto the front of the cloak. A company called IRobot, best known for a robotic vacuum cleaner called the Roomba, will demonstrate other robots being used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. And NASA will have moon rocks and a Mars Rover replica on display. For fun and games, there's Brainball, which is best described as an anti- game, because the goal is to achieve nothing. Developed by Sweden's Interactive Institute, Brainball players wear headbands with biosensors that measure brain waves. The brain activity is then transmitted by wire to a special game table to control a small ball. The object of the game is to move the ball into an opponent's goal area, but the more relaxed a player is, the more he or she controls the ball. BillK From alito at organicrobot.com Sat May 15 13:59:40 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 23:59:40 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1084629579.28592.84.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 13:55 -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > Not so fast there Bill -- though there has been some commentary that > some of the bonds are weaker not all of them are. Extend the hypothesis > that "large atoms have weaker bonds" to metallic tungsten, or Titanium > Carbide or Tantalum carbide or Hafnium carbide -- each of which has extremely > high melting points (~2-3x higher than various forms of diamond -- in the > 3000-4000K range...). > Pure diamond melts at 4100K, highest melting point of any substance. > > Not in environments where the ambient temperature is above ~2504 deg K. > At that temperature SiO2 is a gas just like CO2 is at 195K at normal > atmospheric pressure. This analysis is simplistic if larger molecules form > weaker bonds and yet the boil at higher temperatures... > The intermolecular > bonds are not broken when a compound converts from a solid to a liquid > to a gas -- yet the interaction capability after these transitions changes > things significantly. CO2 doesn't but SiO2 does i think. SiO2 in solid does not form a discrete molecule but is part of a covalent lattice. Si does not form double bonds with its oxygen atoms, it forms four single bonds with four separate oxygens and shares each of those oxygens with another Si atom, so when it melts, or boils it "breaks". Molecules of gaseous SiO2 don't boil away from a solid (i am not a chemist, and one will hopefully step in to clarify, but this is my best guess). CO2 on the other hand remains in its small molecule form loosely held by non-covalent forces in a solid, so it melts (or sublimes) easily, but each CO2 molecule survives. None of this proves that Si cannot be a base for life form to me, but Si and C react in very different ways. alejandro From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 15 15:47:57 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 08:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <1084629579.28592.84.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <20040515154757.57014.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> All this being said, it's evident that unless a planet were liquid rock at its surface, any exceedingly unlikely Si based life forms would never see the light of day, or the dark of night. Nor would we encounter such life forms face to face, or via our best robotic technology, for the forseeable future. They would be unlikely to evolve to sufficient complexity to attain intelligence, and even in that event, they would be so mass dependent that they would never attain space flight, assuming they could even conceive of it, or the concept of radio communication. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils." - Gen. John Stark Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sat May 15 16:30:13 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 09:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <40A55EE5.1070007@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 May 2004, BillK wrote: > That space.com article was a quite brief response from SETI written by > Seth Shostak. He is Senior Astronomer with SETI. [snip] > In his defense I would say that Seth was not writing a technical > treatise on why alien life would almost certainly be carbon-based. [snip] I've heard Seth speak and may have even exchanged an email or two with him. Seth is a good scientist but it is important to remember he is an astronomer, not a geologist or a geophysicist. [I on the other hand spent many of my childhood and teenage weekends hunting for interesting rocks in New England and scattered areas around the U.S. due to my parents interest in the topic. During that time I picked up a fair amount of minerology and underlying chemistry.] > One good resource is: > The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy, and Spaceflight > I know of David's work as well -- he tends to take a more open minded perspective. But still he is dealing with sources where most of the work is focused on the concept that "life" must be liquid water based. > Silicon-based life is discussed here: > > This gives a more technical description of the problems involved in > using silicon to support life. Ok, I will have to review this (and some of the other references). > There is a research paper online showing that: > "Silicon simply cannot form as diverse a range of molecules as carbon > under natural conditions; however silicon does have unique properties > which carbon does not possess, such as a high affinity for oxygen and > the ability to form zeolitic mineral structures." > I would be interested in seeing what "natural conditions" are involved. I have yet to see a discussion of a planet with liquid silicon oceans. There has been a lot of astronomy discovery lately regarding "hot jupiters". On these planets most of the lighter elements (including carbon) will be boiled off -- there has been very little discussion with respect to the compositionial/geological/"biological" capabilities of such planets. Only recently there was a proposal that some of the radar reflectivity anomolous regions on Venus may be due to pools of liquid bismuth or lead. What kind of "life" could they support? > Show me a living rock, even one above ~2504 deg K - that's all. ;) he he he... I would if I could. But I think we are going to need a *lot* more work on what can and cannot be constructed and would constitute "life". Even after we get through with the various temperature realms we are going to have to expand that work in multiple directions based on pressures under which life might be possible. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sat May 15 16:47:21 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <1084629579.28592.84.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 May 2004, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > Pure diamond melts at 4100K, highest melting point of any substance. Hmmmm.... The problem may be with the question of "pure". Nanosystems, pg 150, derived from Hamza, discusses the fact that hydrogenated diamond surfaces undergo rearrangement at 1275K and my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics contains some interesting notes about diamond transforming into graphite and subliming at different temperatures at different pressures. There would seem to be some lack of clarity on this topic. Re: CO2 vs. SiO2. > CO2 doesn't but SiO2 does i think. SiO2 in solid does not form a > discrete molecule but is part of a covalent lattice. Si does not form > double bonds with its oxygen atoms, it forms four single bonds with four > separate oxygens and shares each of those oxygens with another Si atom, > so when it melts, or boils it "breaks". Molecules of gaseous SiO2 don't > boil away from a solid (i am not a chemist, and one will hopefully step > in to clarify, but this is my best guess). CO2 on the other hand > remains in its small molecule form loosely held by non-covalent forces > in a solid, so it melts (or sublimes) easily, but each CO2 molecule > survives. I will accept this as a plausible explanation. (and thanks for contributing it!) Though it still doesn't make me really happy as to *why* this is the case -- but that may require my looking at some of the URLs that Bill has posted. Robert From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 15 17:50:15 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 10:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040515175015.27078.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/ammonialife.html David is pretty smart here. I'd sooner believe in ammonia replacing water on a high pressure planet than I would living silicon rocks. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sat May 15 17:03:32 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 10:03:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Computer Upgrade Paths... Message-ID: I ran across the Specs/Prices for the HP Compaq Presario S6900NX recently and it looks like you can pick up a really nice machine based on the AMD Athlon 64 (I'll never buy an Intel again because they desupported the YC72 video camera within months of its release). The price from Radio Shack or Walmart seem to bbe running in the ~$1100 range. Now its only a 2GHz machine but its running a 64 bit processor/bus. It looks like most of the stuff one would want is included in the machine with the possible exception of a sound card. Now if all of this is accurate -- why on earth would one want a Dell Dimension XPS (@ ~$1900) or an Apple G5 (@ ~$2800+). [One could buy ~2 Presario's for the price of an XPS or ~3 Presario's for the price of a G5...] Now, if one can find a vendor selling the Presario without the preinstalled Windows XP the price should be even lower (if one then installs Linux and perhaps WINE (to get windows compat.)). Is the productivity on a Pentium 4 or a G5 *really* so much higher than an Athlon that it justifies this kind of price differential? [You have to remember that I'm typing this on a dual Pentium Pro @ 200 MHz (~6 year old technology) and it usually meets my needs just fine...] Robert From eugen at leitl.org Sat May 15 18:07:11 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 20:07:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <20040515175015.27078.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040515175015.27078.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040515180711.GI25728@leitl.org> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 10:50:15AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/ammonialife.html > > David is pretty smart here. I'd sooner believe in ammonia replacing > water on a high pressure planet than I would living silicon rocks. In regards to alternative chemistries, consider this: all congealed star drek is roughly the same in element abundancy (there are some minor variations in the processing degree). In regards to silicon, if you have enough of it you're up to your gills up in silicates. Silicates are very stable, have lots of structural diversity, and can even act as precursors/catalysts of life, but not much further. Life's CHNOPS (it does use other elements, Si include, though), and there's a reason for that. Silanes are much too unstable in wet environments. They're lousy at chains and cages, anyway. As Alejandro (?) has said, they don't do chains very well. Carbon is unique in that it does very stable pure-C polymers, and heteropolymers with lots of other elements. In closing, I suggest we hang on for chemistry date from Titan and Jovian/Saturnian system in general. These large-scale alternative-chemistry reactors are pretty unique, and protolife had plenty of opportunities to adapt to new substrate via very frequent material transfer through impact ejecta crosscontamination. In regards to solvent, it has to be polar, and has to show large area in phase diagram in liquid under native conditions, and if it does phase changes under native conditions the solid should be less dense than liquid so it should float. You might notice that water over ammonia over hydrogendisulfide has very interesting properties. By virtue of abundancy water should win hand-down anyway. So I will eat this keyboard if you will fetch me a native life based on anything other than carbon, based on anything other than water (maybe -- just maybe -- ammonia). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 15 18:11:31 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 11:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Computer Upgrade Paths... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040515181131.14893.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> I've been shopping and like the eMachines currently listed. --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > > I ran across the Specs/Prices for the HP Compaq Presario S6900NX > recently > and it looks like you can pick up a really nice machine based on the > AMD > Athlon 64 (I'll never buy an Intel again because they desupported the > YC72 video camera within months of its release). The price from > Radio > Shack or Walmart seem to bbe running in the ~$1100 range. > > Now its only a 2GHz machine but its running a 64 bit processor/bus. > > It looks like most of the stuff one would want is included in the > machine with the possible exception of a sound card. > > Now if all of this is accurate -- why on earth would one want a > Dell Dimension XPS (@ ~$1900) or an Apple G5 (@ ~$2800+). > > [One could buy ~2 Presario's for the price of an XPS or ~3 Presario's > for the price of a G5...] > > Now, if one can find a vendor selling the Presario without the > preinstalled Windows XP the price should be even lower (if one > then installs Linux and perhaps WINE (to get windows compat.)). > > Is the productivity on a Pentium 4 or a G5 *really* so much higher > than an Athlon that it justifies this kind of price differential? > [You have to remember that I'm typing this on a dual Pentium Pro > @ 200 MHz (~6 year old technology) and it usually meets my needs > just fine...] > > Robert > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ From eugen at leitl.org Sat May 15 18:57:16 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 20:57:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Computer Upgrade Paths... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20040515185716.GJ25728@leitl.org> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 10:03:32AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > I ran across the Specs/Prices for the HP Compaq Presario S6900NX recently > and it looks like you can pick up a really nice machine based on the AMD > Athlon 64 (I'll never buy an Intel again because they desupported the > YC72 video camera within months of its release). The price from Radio > Shack or Walmart seem to bbe running in the ~$1100 range. I'm installing an Athon64 2 GHz 1 GByte DDR400 system right now (Fedora Core 2 test3 x86_64 and Windows 2000). Asus K8V SE Deluxe, 10 krpm WD SATA drive, Antec Sonata case, Zalman CNPS7000A-Cu heat sink, dual-head (19" BenQ LCD) ATI Radeon 9600, passively cooled. Very cheap (most components free, though), good performance. I definitely do recommend Athlon64, if you're on a budget. > Now its only a 2GHz machine but its running a 64 bit processor/bus. Doesn't help much (only 20-40%) if your OS doesn't support it. > It looks like most of the stuff one would want is included in the > machine with the possible exception of a sound card. Most onboard audio is nigh to useless, so I would invest in an (external) audio card (stay away from anything SoundBlaster, though, even it claims to do 24 bit audio -- it doesn't). > Now if all of this is accurate -- why on earth would one want a > Dell Dimension XPS (@ ~$1900) or an Apple G5 (@ ~$2800+). Dell has some speedy machines (P4, no AMD) for the money, so I wouldn't diss it. Neigher Apple, G5 entry level is some 1.9 kEur. All of above are good machines. I would definitely recommend any G4/G5 OS X box for a legacy-nonencumbred novice (and for some professional as well). > [One could buy ~2 Presario's for the price of an XPS or ~3 Presario's > for the price of a G5...] > > Now, if one can find a vendor selling the Presario without the > preinstalled Windows XP the price should be even lower (if one > then installs Linux and perhaps WINE (to get windows compat.)). I use dual-boot (Win2K, won't touch XP) and VMWare for redmondwork. Which isn't often -- it's mostly for testing, and Windows-only software to placate S.O. (she's doing fine in both Fedora and Jaguar, though, it's only for speciality software use). > Is the productivity on a Pentium 4 or a G5 *really* so much higher > than an Athlon that it justifies this kind of price differential? OS X (I type this on an ssh IEEE 802.11g session on a G4 Panther iBook) is very good for productivity. It saves time on tinkering, system usually does just work (and due to GNU/Darwin underneath, and some support forums one has usually a good chance to fix anything doesn't, in finite time). > [You have to remember that I'm typing this on a dual Pentium Pro > @ 200 MHz (~6 year old technology) and it usually meets my needs > just fine...] You're untypical. Meaning, you're not a gamer, nor a video freak, not even SOHO office type person. There's different "best" hardware for each user profile nowadays. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Sat May 15 19:04:26 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 20:04:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Computer Upgrade Paths... Message-ID: <40A669BA.6030505@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> On Sat May 15 11:03:32 MDT 2004 Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > Now, if one can find a vendor selling the Presario without the > preinstalled Windows XP the price should be even lower (if one > then installs Linux and perhaps WINE (to get windows compat.)). I'm not in the US, but I've long been jealous of the prices Walmart is selling computers online at. Desktops: PCs with no OS installed: Design your own PC Ohhh, I can't stand it anymore. I'm going to lie down in a dark room. BillK From brian at posthuman.com Sat May 15 19:06:51 2004 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 14:06:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Computer Upgrade Paths... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40A66A4B.3060807@posthuman.com> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > I ran across the Specs/Prices for the HP Compaq Presario S6900NX recently > and it looks like you can pick up a really nice machine based on the AMD > Athlon 64 (I'll never buy an Intel again because they desupported the > YC72 video camera within months of its release). The price from Radio > Shack or Walmart seem to bbe running in the ~$1100 range. Places online advertise it for under $950, also circuit city. Or you can buy a similarly equipped whitebox for under $750. Or you can buy an Athlon 3200 (non-64 bit version CPU) for quite a bit less than that. Or if you can "get by" with slightly less computing overkill you can buy slower 32-bit Athlon systems for around $300 or less depending on how much you want to skimp on memory/hard drive/etc. > > Now its only a 2GHz machine but its running a 64 bit processor/bus. There's a reason it is labeled "3200" by AMD, because it performs essentially equivalently to an Intel 3.2 ghz. In fact, the whole gigahertz thing is so useless nowadays for judging performance that Intel itself recently announced it will no longer use this for marketing and instead will relabel all future processor models with names like "720" and other unrelated numbers. > > It looks like most of the stuff one would want is included in the > machine with the possible exception of a sound card. It has one built onto the motherboard > > Now, if one can find a vendor selling the Presario without the > preinstalled Windows XP the price should be even lower (if one > then installs Linux and perhaps WINE (to get windows compat.)). If you buy your PC from a whitebox vendor you can get it with no OS and install what you like. > > Is the productivity on a Pentium 4 or a G5 *really* so much higher > than an Athlon that it justifies this kind of price differential? > [You have to remember that I'm typing this on a dual Pentium Pro > @ 200 MHz (~6 year old technology) and it usually meets my needs > just fine...] > No, there is not much difference. In many areas the Athlon 64 3200 outperforms the Pentium 4, and in a few areas it is slower. What you really should ask yourself when considering buying a PC right now is what is coming in 2005/6. Microsoft will be launching its next OS - "Longhorn" - eventually, which leaks suggest may require around 2GB of ram, terabyte hard drive, and newfangled dual-core CPU for best performance. PCs at the moment are in a transition spot where anything you buy right now will not be upgradable to these requirements that will be here in less than 2 yrs. In fact, Intel just announced that essentially they are abandoning the Pentium 4 architecture and will concentrate on launching a new dual/multi-core architecture in 2005. AMD also is launching a new motherboard socket for their 64-bit CPUs soon, so a machine you buy currently may not have an upgrade path. So if you buy now, be prepared to buy again in 2 yrs if you want to use "Longhorn". If it were me, I would hold off until then, or if I really needed something now I would buy a very cheap low end machine to throwaway in 2 yrs. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Sat May 15 19:13:28 2004 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 14:13:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Computer Upgrade Paths... In-Reply-To: <40A66A4B.3060807@posthuman.com> References: <40A66A4B.3060807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <40A66BD8.3090803@posthuman.com> I should add that the current version of WinXP is not 64-bit and gets no boost from the 64-bit version CPUs from AMD, except reportedly that service pack 2 coming out later this summer will support the NX bit for helping prevent overflow attacks. Supposedly a separate release of WinXP or server will be out by the end of the year to support 64-bit. P.S. For whitebox computer shopping, www.pricewatch.com is good. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From gpmap at runbox.com Mon May 17 06:57:15 2004 From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 08:57:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] New transhumanist blog in Spanish Message-ID: The Spanish transhumanist website fastra: Foro y ASociacion TRAnshumanista "Fast, ad Astra" (fastra.net) has a new collaborative blog. All blog entries are also posted to the popular fastra mailing list on Yahoogroups and to the new experimentsl fastra mailing list on Googlegroups. There is also a fastra community on Orkut. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.684 / Virus Database: 446 - Release Date: 13/05/2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon May 17 09:03:23 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:03:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] comet C/2001 Q4 (NEAT) Message-ID: Neat is fading fast but still a pretty sight. It is located just next to the Beehive Cluster from our perspective here in Earth. The combination of the two make for a beautiful composition- expect to see such photographs in the astronomy magazines during the next few months. You can see the comet with your naked eye, but it is helpful to locate it in binoculars first because otherwise you are not really sure if 'that fuzzy spot' is the comet. I can see it over the washed out skies above Rome, but not easily. I saw it, clearly in the Alpini last weekend, under dark and cold and clear skies. To find it: go to the brightest object in the sky after sunset: Venus. Then follow it up the sky to the stars Castor and Pollux in Gemini. Take the distance between Castor and Pollux, and multiply it about two or three times towards the left. Do you see a couple of fuzzy spots very close to each other? One is the Beehive Cluster of stars. The other is comet Neat. Comet Neat is well, pretty neat now. It might look a little bit greenish to your binocular-eyes. There is almost no tail to be seen with your eye, but I saw several amateur astronomers last weekend adding up images, and, after not-too-many images, the tail is clear. There is one tail- the ion tail, straight-as-can-be. I didn't see a dust tail though. words of recent observations here (C/2001 Q4 (NEAT)) http://encke.jpl.nasa.gov/RecentObs.html some photographs of Neat here http://cometography.com/lcomets/2001q4.html While you're looking, don't forget to check out Saturn and Jupiter. They are located in a line from Venus (Can you guess why?) Amara -- *********************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, CNR - ARTOV, Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA tel: +39-06-4993-4375 |fax: +39-06-4993-4383 Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it | http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps ************************************************************************ I'M SIGNIFICANT!...screamed the dust speck. -- Calvin From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Mon May 17 12:04:06 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:04:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Radio chip antenna Message-ID: <40A8AA36.9080901@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> There was some discussion last month about the length of antenna required for tracking gps chips. University of Florida electrical engineers have installed a radio antenna less than one-tenth of an inch long on a computer chip and demonstrated that it can send and receive signals across a room. The achievement is another step in the team's continuing efforts to build an "ultrasmall radio chip" ? a transceiver, processor and battery all placed on a chip not much larger than a pinhead ? and one that could one day be used for applications ranging from detecting illegal border crossing to ensuring bridge and tunnel safety. Only one month to get the breakthrough discussed on extropians! Anybody seen a Singularity approaching recently? BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 17 12:23:15 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:23:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Radio chip antenna In-Reply-To: <40A8AA36.9080901@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> References: <40A8AA36.9080901@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: <20040517122315.GK25728@leitl.org> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 01:04:06PM +0100, BillK wrote: > There was some discussion last month about the length of antenna > required for tracking gps chips. You need certain oscillator geometries to interact with electromagnetic radiation of a given wavelength. Look: http://www.ggrweb.com/article/gulley.html > Only one month to get the breakthrough discussed on extropians! No. This isn't about GPS, just about on-die radios. At a guess, small-geometry (fractal) antennas are useful specially for UWB. Which happen to provide positioning sevices, but are limited to ~10 km free space (much less in cluttered environments) propagation. Good enough for terrestrial cellular positioning service, though. > Anybody seen a Singularity approaching recently? No known technology can change physical laws. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at amara.com Mon May 17 13:49:39 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:49:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds Message-ID: Mike Lorrey : >All this being said, it's evident that unless a planet were liquid rock >at its surface, any exceedingly unlikely Si based life forms would You can bring silicates up to the surface by volcanism. Examples Earth volcanism The more viscous the magma, the more explosive the eruption because the gases cannot escape as easily and pressure builds. An explosive eruption (from a high viscosity magma) can occur from either having a higher SiO2 content in the magma, or having a cooler temperature in the magma. Io volcanism http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/planet_volcano/Io/svs.html "High resolution images of hot spots using Galileo's CCD system are interpreted to be caldera floors (actively convecting lava lakes) and/or possibly pahoehoe lava flows. The small areas are thought to have temperatures of at least 725 degrees Celsius or higher (Note: these temperatures are higher than the boiling point of sulfur in a vacuum). These images are some of the best evidence for active silicate volcanism (possibly basalt) on Io." http://www.planetaryexploration.net/jupiter/io/volcanism_on_io.html "The global extent of sulfur on Io caused considerable debate as to whether Io's volcanic features were produced by molten rock (silicate volcanism) or molten sulfur. The arguments favoring silicate volcanism were supported by the fact that the tall mountains and deep, steep-sided calderas on Io require a material of considerable strength to support them. The issue was finally resolved when Earth-based telescope detected temperatures at hot spots ranging from 1000 K to 1800 K. This is far too hot for sulfur to remain liquid, so silicate magma has to be involved in these high temperature eruptions. But that does not rule out the possibility that some of the lava flows on Io are composed primarily of sulfur. In fact, the distribution of sulfur on Io is still a subject of some debate. It may be that sulfur constitutes a relatively thin coating on Io's surface, or it could form relatively thick deposits in localized areas." Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Dare to be naive." -- Buckminster Fuller From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 17 15:32:19 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:32:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Radio chip antenna In-Reply-To: <40A8AA36.9080901@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> References: <40A8AA36.9080901@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040517103012.01ba84c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:04 PM 5/17/2004 +0100, BillK wrote: >Anybody seen a Singularity approaching recently? Not the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/business/17intel.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position= ============= =============== Old news here. Still. Damien Broderick From natashavita at earthlink.net Mon May 17 15:44:51 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:44:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! Message-ID: <293580-220045117154451472@M2W070.mail2web.com> "The pilots grew nervous during a routine drugs surveillance flight in March when their radar detected strange objects flying nearby and an infrared camera showed 11 blobs of light, invisible to the eye, hovering or darting about their plane." Today's CNN.com features story about UFO scare in Mexico: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/17/mexico.ufos.reut/index.html I love this type of real life scare because it helps educate the public and brings to the news explanations other than the mystical that cause otherwordly type events such as the "ball lightning" effect. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 17 15:56:20 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:56:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! In-Reply-To: <293580-220045117154451472@M2W070.mail2web.com> References: <293580-220045117154451472@M2W070.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040517105202.01ba2c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:44 AM 5/17/2004 -0400, Natasha wrote: >http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/17/mexico.ufos.reut/index.html > >I love this type of real life scare because it helps educate the public and >brings to the news explanations other than the mystical that cause >otherwordly type events such as the "ball lightning" effect. I started a thread on this a couple of days ago. Ball lightning seems an unlikely explanation, as does weather balloons. (These things were said to be invisible to the eye but radar painted three of them and 11 were detected by FLIR infrared detectors.) They are imaged going behind clouds and coming out again, moving at a fair clip, hence unlikely to be blown by wind. Damien Broderick From natashavita at earthlink.net Mon May 17 16:30:26 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:30:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! Message-ID: <29950-220045117163026190@M2W060.mail2web.com> From: Damien Broderick At 11:44 AM 5/17/2004 -0400, Natasha wrote: >http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/17/mexico.ufos.reut/index.html > >I love this type of real life scare because it helps educate the public and >brings to the news explanations other than the mystical that cause >otherwordly type events such as the "ball lightning" effect. "I started a thread on this a couple of days ago. Ball lightning seems an unlikely explanation, as does weather balloons. (These things were said to be invisible to the eye but radar painted three of them and 11 were detected by FLIR infrared detectors.) They are imaged going behind clouds and coming out again, moving at a fair clip, hence unlikely to be blown by wind." Wonder what they might be. Hummm. Natasha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 17 16:30:46 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:30:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040517105202.01ba2c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <293580-220045117154451472@M2W070.mail2web.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040517105202.01ba2c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040517163046.GT25728@leitl.org> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:56:20AM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > I started a thread on this a couple of days ago. Ball lightning seems an > unlikely explanation, as does weather balloons. (These things were said to > be invisible to the eye but radar painted three of them and 11 were I've seen the FLIR video (radar is largely useless: there are all kinds of weird blips to be produced by signal processing artifacts). The FLIR blips looked like lens artifacts (they moved totally synchronously), but they seemed to pass behind clouds (video was awful, so it was hard to tell). They didn't look like bolides (or some slow-moving massy strange stuff) passing through atmosphere (it would be interesting to see their apparent course plotted; was that a line or an arc?). None of the video showed objects changing course (moving independently, then) to surround one of the planes. > detected by FLIR infrared detectors.) They are imaged going behind clouds > and coming out again, moving at a fair clip, hence unlikely to be blown by Did they say what the estimated speed was? It didn't look like the usual UFO reports with madly dashing object, changing speed and direction in mid-course as no material object could. > wind. Obviously not, it still looks like a natural phenomenon (possibly a yet unknown one), or an imaging artifact (if not outright hoax, that's almost always the simplest explanation) to me. Imo, unless they produce lots more of really eyebrow-raising stuff, this is only mildly interesting cathegory. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 17 17:01:45 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:01:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! In-Reply-To: <20040517163046.GT25728@leitl.org> References: <293580-220045117154451472@M2W070.mail2web.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040517105202.01ba2c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040517163046.GT25728@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040517115617.01baa188@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:30 PM 5/17/2004 +0200, 'Gene wrote: >The FLIR blips >looked like lens artifacts (they moved totally synchronously) I suppose it's just possible that the groups of three are linked by some framing structure, but apparently the unchanged luminosity of the background sky between them argues against this. >Did they say what the estimated speed was? Bruce Maccabee, ace UFO science dude, is evidently working on it even as we speak: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/may/m17-003.shtml Damien Broderick From pgptag at gmail.com Mon May 17 17:47:23 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 19:47:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040517115617.01baa188@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <293580-220045117154451472@M2W070.mail2web.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040517105202.01ba2c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040517163046.GT25728@leitl.org> <6.0.3.0.0.20040517115617.01baa188@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52040517104712825c17@mail.gmail.com> The likeliest explanation are a natural phenomena or some experiments with new types of aircraft by the air force of some neighbor countries (maybe Belize or Guatemala :-) But I keep hoping for a real honest alien invasion... G. From amara at amara.com Mon May 17 19:13:50 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:13:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 Message-ID: Gunnar Graps (my cousin) died 17 May 2004. Age 53 (heart attack). His is the first death in the Grapses since I was a baby. We have all been 'survivors', especially the baltic Grapses, so my family and I are not accepting this news very well. In the Baltics and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, Gunnar Graps, the 'heavy metal rock star' was known well. my own brief notes and a few pictures Gunnar Graps http://www.amara.com/aboutme/latmusic.html Honorary Award: Estonian Music Awards 2004 http://www.estmusic.com/index.php?0113413 Pages on Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Gunnar+Graps If you are in the Tallinn, Estonia area, next Monday, there will be a memorial service and a music concert by a number of musicians in his memory in a place called Scotland Yard, where he used to perform. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It's not the pace of life I mind. It's the sudden stop at the end." --Calvin From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon May 17 19:22:54 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:22:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Analysis Of Mexican UFO's Message-ID: <40A9110E.1270243E@mindspring.com> [includes FLIR images and comparison links - twc] Dear Friend: My preliminary analysis of the March 5, 2004 Mexican Air Force UFO encounter can be viewed at: < http://a-realitycheck.com/mexicoufo04/analysis.htm > I am sending this one-time E-mail to you personally because it took three days for my last post to appear on the UFO Updates list (Errol must really be swamped). Sorry for the intrusion. Sincerely, A. Hebert -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Mon May 17 20:11:35 2004 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:11:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04May17.161136-0400_edt.312412-6853+12079@ams.ftl.affinity.com> Amara Graps writes: > Gunnar Graps (my cousin) died 17 May 2004. Age 53 (heart attack). My sincerest condolences to you and your family. -- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC From natashavita at earthlink.net Mon May 17 20:32:34 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 Message-ID: <48270-220045117203234865@M2W093.mail2web.com> From: Amara Graps >Gunnar Graps (my cousin) died 17 May 2004. Age 53 (heart attack). >His is the first death in the Grapses since I was a baby. We have >all been 'survivors', especially the baltic Grapses, so my family >and I are not accepting this news very well. >In the Baltics and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, >Gunnar Graps, the 'heavy metal rock star' was known well. >my own brief notes and a few pictures >Gunnar Graps >http://www.amara.com/aboutme/latmusic.html I'm terribly sorry Amara for you and your family for the loss of Gunnar. I wish I had met him when I was in Tallin. Hug, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From scerir at libero.it Mon May 17 21:07:50 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 23:07:50 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! References: <29950-220045117163026190@M2W060.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <016701c43c53$04038c30$37bf1b97@administxl09yj> > Wonder what they might be. Hummm. > Natasha Those crafts had a good background of the human eye vision system. They (seemed to) escape human visibility range. Meaning "their" vision system is similar to ours. Here they are ... http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=711&category=Environment From ARTILLO at comcast.net Mon May 17 21:08:21 2004 From: ARTILLO at comcast.net (ARTILLO at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:08:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] LAW: UK Nobel Laureate Wants Genetic Bias Ban Message-ID: <051720042108.21568.40A929C500024FA9000054402200735446B1B4B4B7ABADBE@comcast.net> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5152866 Does anyone have any info on such actions in the US? Thanx, -Arti From dgc at cox.net Mon May 17 21:23:41 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:23:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40A92D5D.8090903@cox.net> Amara Graps wrote: > Gunnar Graps (my cousin) died 17 May 2004. Age 53 (heart attack). > > > If you are in the Tallinn, Estonia area, next Monday, there will > be a memorial service and a music concert by a number of musicians > in his memory in a place called Scotland Yard, where he used to > perform. > My condolences to you and your family. An unexpected death is hard to take. I was unaware of Gunnar until you posted this notice. Is any of his music available for download? I would like to participate in the memorial service by listening to some. An artist never truly dies as long as his art is appreciated. From natashavita at earthlink.net Mon May 17 21:46:03 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:46:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] LAW: UK Nobel Laureate Wants Genetic Bias Ban Message-ID: <168270-22004511721463661@M2W048.mail2web.com> From: ARTILLO at comcast.net >http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5152866 >Does anyone have any info on such actions in the US? Arti, I did a quick google and did not find anything. I'll keep looking because it is an timely issue. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon May 17 22:27:57 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:27:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: Mexican UFO Sighting "No Big Deal" Message-ID: <40A93C6D.EEA07DB3@mindspring.com> From: Bruce Maccabee To: Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 17:50:24 -0400 Subject: Re: Mexican UFO Sighting "No Big Deal" >From: Amy Hebert >To: >Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:35:32 -0500 >Subject: Re: Mexican UFO Sighting "No Big Deal" >>From: Bruce Maccabee >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >>Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:26:06 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Mexican UFO Sighting "No Big Deal" >>>Source: CTV Canada >>"That is where the skepticism kicks in: No way to know how are >>>away these things are or in fact how fast they were moving." >>He says there is "no way" to know how far away these things >>are." Well, about the radar report? According to the most >>recent news story (rense.com) at one time they were 2 miles >>away. >>These objects/lights were picked up by an infrared sensitive >>system operating in the 3-5 micron range According to FLIR systems engineer, 3.6 to 5 microns >> whereas the video >>imagery Semeniuk refers to is based on visible light. The >>comparison he makes here is superficial and ignores one of the >>key questions raised by this sighting: what can radiate >>substantial power (hundreds of watts?) in the 3-5 micron >>wavelength band while NOT radiating enough in the visible band >>(0.4 - 0.7 microns) for the crew of the plane to see anything? >>A heated body like a meteor (or the hot air plasma around it) >>that radiates power in the infrared will also radiate in the >>visible (which is why people can see it.) The main point is >>_nothing_ should be "out there" causing any images on the IR >>camera, to say nothing of very bright (saturated?) images of >>things that are also detected (some of them at least) on radar >>and also clearly travel with the airplane but were _not_ seen >>by the crew _despite_ optimum daylight conditions. >I'm curious, without visual confirmation can you accurately >determine the size of an object based only on its infrared >signature? No... and yes... depends upon how big the object s and how bright it is and how big and bright the image is. In this case when the two very bright lights are side by side (with :"ghost" images below each). I estimate that _if_ they were 2 miles away at that time they were 15-20 ft apart (horzontal measurement). The diameter of each bright image corresponds to a size of about 7 ft. That does not mean that each bright object was 7 ft in diameter. More likely it was smaller but radiating so much power that the image "bloomed out" on the IR viewing screen. The FLIR Systems engineers agreed that the images were saturated... overexposed... which means the images are larger than the "geomtric image." For an imaging system (camera, video, FLIR) the "geometric size of an image" is calculated from the actual size (measured transverse to the line of sight) as follows: W = object width R = object range F = focal length I = image width I = W(F/R). This pertains for objects large enough and/or close enough to be resolved by the imaging system. Resolution is another factor that must be taken into account. Typically the resolution is about 1 pixel or pixel element. Something that makes an image that is only 1pixel in size on the focal plane will not be resolved. In fact, resolution requires an image several pixels in size (width). In this particular case the imager operated with about 0.8 deg = 14 milliradians across the field of view and this corresponds to the width of the "focal plane array" of Indium Antimonide detector elements (similar to a CCD in a home video camera). The width is spanned by 320 detector elements of pixels, so one pixel is about 4.4 E -5 radians in angular size which projects to about 1/2 ft at 2 miles (assuming I calculate correctly!). Hence if the object had been 1/2 ft or smaller it would have made just a dt on the screen if it were radiating only a small amount of power. But it did not make just a dot: it made an very bright, large image. Therefore we can reasonably say that the source of each light was between 1/2 and 7 ft in diameter with the smaller number being more likely than the larger. A question might arise: is there a structure between the lights... something physcial/solid, holding them apart (or together )? The IR imager created an image of the sky background which appears on all sides of each image. Had there been a "solid" opaque structure (body of a craft) between the lights then it should have blocked the background skylight and perhaps also reflected sunlight. Conclude: no typically opaqe structure. Speaking of reflecting sunlight, it must be considered that the bright lights are seen at least in part as a result of scattered sunlight. After all, the clouds are seen because of a combination of heat (cloud temperature radiating)and scattered sunlight. One goal of a research project would be to determine how much of the IR radiation was due to the temperature of the objects and how much due to reflection of solar radiation. Nothing like a long answer to a short question,ech? >If these objects never came closer than two miles to the >observers, how big would a UFO have to be to be visible at that >distance? Depends upon their contrast against the sky background. If they were perfectly black objects or if they were shiny and reflected the sun they could be quite small. A solid black of several feet size might be visible. A solar glint from a few foot object would probably be visible. Something ten feet in size at 2 miles would be barely resolved by good human eyes. Apparently 8 people saw nothing. That means that (a) the objects were tiny (but power radiators of heat) (b) they were sizeable but had the same background color and brightness in the visible band (0.4-0.7 micron) as the background sky. Regarding (b), they passed through nominally clear sky, behind bright clouds, and it seems to me also in front of clouds that were shaded by other clouds. Because they were not seen in visible light as blocking the sky background or blocking the background of clouds I would guess they were small, but at this stage... almost "anything goes." >Of course the first thing a trained pilot and crew >would look for in flying aircraft pacing them would be another >plane or something of that size. If these objects were small, >they might not be visible even at two miles distance but still >show up on radar and IR. Yes, if they were large enough for the radar and hot enough for the IR sensor. >http://www.aerovironment.com/area-aircraft/unmanned.html >See: "MicorAir Vehicles". >Is this possible? >And since three of the objects did show up on radar, if we lowly >humans know how to avoid radar detection, how come ET hasn't >figured this out yet? There are plenty of cases where UFOs have been picked up on radar.... and also plenty of cases where they haven't, Is this "optional stealth?" >Sounds like these objects *wanted* to be observed yet not >clearly photographed or visual confirmation. I wonder why. IF ET I wonder if they suspected they were seen with an IR passive sensor. They could detect the radar, presumably, which sends out a signal and looks for a reflection. But the passive IR sensor simply stares into space. For the expert: if ET was looking at the plane with an equivalent type of IR sensor, ET might have noticed a "black hole" under the aircraft. Said black hole being the entrance aperture of the FLIR viewer. Why black? Because the IR viewer uses a "cooled focal plane array" operating many degrees below zero C. To a thermal imager looking directly into the FLIR system in its much hotter surroundings would actually "see" the cooled focal plane and it would appear as a blackspot surrounded by bright. Something like this once happened to a NAVY IR system in the straits near Istanbul back in the 70's. The detection of a "black hole" in the scenery along the strait (houses, buildings) raised the question of whether or not someone on land was looking with an IR viewer at the ship at the same time the ship was looking at the land. If so, the viewer on land saw a "black hole" on the deck of the ship!! >This is for everyone: >I'm not one for looking a gift horse in the mouth but... doesn't >it strike anyone as odd that the Mexican Air Force made a >deliberate effort to seek out Jaime Maussan to tell him this >information and make the footage available to broadcast all over >the world? They said they didn't know a scientist to give the information to. But, on the other hand, someoneevidently did show it to a physicist for comment since his report and theory is attached to the Maussan report. >Before we run around promoting this footage as proof of UFO's, >we need to examine this case and the surrounding sociopolitical >variables carefully and objectively. Yup. This islike the New Zealand case of December 1978 which also got immediate worldwide notoriety and which was "explained" many times over by ultimately incorrect suggestions.... but by time the case had been fully investigated th press was onto other things and "no one cared." You can read about it at < http://brumac.8k.com >. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon May 17 22:47:40 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:47:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: Length Of Mexican UFO Sighting? Message-ID: <40A9410C.41612B2@mindspring.com> From: Bruce Maccabee To: Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 22:33:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Length Of Mexican UFO Sighting? >From: Carl Feindt >To: >Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 15:07:04 -0400 >Subject: Length Of Mexican UFO Sighting? >Hello List, >Just a quickie as I've had to delete most of the Mexican >sighting text. I was wondering if there was a total elapsed time >that these items were tracked (Radar though departure) as that >might be a limiting factor on the "Ball lightening" idea? According to Linda Howe's web site the time between the first and the last FLIR images is about 35 minutes. No time has been given from the first radar contact to when the FLIR was turned on. However the initial distance was about 37 miles (according to Linda). The plane probably traveled at about 200 mph or 3.33 miles per minute suggesting about 11 minutes to catch up if the object wasn't moving. If it was, then the differential speed would have been lower and the time longer. This is something I am trying to check up on. Hence 45 minutes total time is probably not a bad estimate. I presume the Air Traffic Control that was monitoring the plane would know exactly. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon May 17 22:50:04 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:50:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Mexico UFO Map Updated Message-ID: <40A9419C.2330864D@mindspring.com> From: Larry Hatch To: UFO UpDates - Toronto Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 04:53:03 -0700 Subject: Mexico UFO Map Updated Hello all (fellow map freaks at least) Having clarified the location of the Mexican Air Force sighting 05MAR04, I refreshed my map of Central America to show the new event. The new sighting is highlighted by two green arrows in the center of the map on these pages: http://www.larryhatch.net/CAMER.html (English version) http://www.larryhatch.net/CAMERES.html (in Spanish) Its a pity that I didn't do it sooner. Site visits are dropping off as expected, so I see another 4-day wonder in terms of public attention. From a baseline of 500/day on my main entry page, I went to around 780 Tuesday, 1792 Wedn., 1483 Thursday, 1207 Friday and now 885 for Saturday. Site visits are about as good a meter of public attention as I can think of offhand. With each click, users democratically and privately vote for whatever interest them. Back to Jlo's fanny. Best wishes - Larry -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon May 17 22:51:15 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:51:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: Translation Of Page On March '04 Mexico UFOs Message-ID: <40A941E3.2E432D2D@mindspring.com> ["The report is there were no visual sightings." These anomalies were "seen" by infrared and radar. -twc] From: Bruce Maccabee To: UFO UpDates - Toronto Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:20:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Translation Of Page On March '04 Mexico UFOs >From: Larry Hatch >To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net >Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:17:32 -0700 >Subject: Re: Translation Of Page On March '04 Mexico UFOs >>From: Bruce Maccabee >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >>Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 22:49:41 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Translation Of Page On March '04 Mexico UFOs >1) Is it true that the pilots/crew of the MX surveillance plane >had no visual sighting whatsoever, not even lights? The report is there were no visual sightings. (Objects might have been to small to see at a distance of 2 miles or more, or were of the same general "color" as the background so there was no visual contrast with the sky) >2) IF so, may I assume that they were tracking the objects >on radar only? -or- Initial contact on radar. as I understand it, as they approached from the initial 37(?) miles contact distance they were surprised that they couldn't see anything so they turned on the FLIR system. If they were following an airplane, the flir would have picked up the exhaust port heat,so it makes some sense to turn on the flir, even though it is used ,I believe, mostly at night (can see the hot engines). Reportedly only 3 objects showed on radar. Don't know exactly what this means. Anyone have radar data? >3) Were they also tracking the objects on their infra-red gear >in real-time as well as recording the IR images? They were pointing the IR imager toward the objects. In this sense "tracking" in real time and recording. >Clearly they had to 'see' the objects somehow, due to the >descriptions of how they retreated, and returned in greater >numbers. The "seeing" was bymeans of the IR imager. >- and for the Mexican sources: >4) How long have these drug interception flights been going on? >I mean with these specific particular types of aircraft and >surveillance equipment (IR etc.) >5) Is the particular model infra-red camera something very >recent, or has it been in use for months or years? The Star Sapphire system is not the state of the art, but is a very good analogue system which costs a mere $400,000. So everyone should have one! Don't know how long the Mexican AF has had this particular model. May be able to find out. >6) Are similar aircraft, IR gear etc. being used along the >coastlines and northern border in addition to the Southern >states (Campeche etc.)? >Sorry for all the questions. I have listed the case, along with >a somewhat similar one from Omaha, Nebraska in the same month. >(source: Peter Davenport). As aircraft encounters, they are >especially interesting. Don't know the corrdinates at the beginning of the flight./ About the middle (?) of the flight the corrdinates were 18 deg 28.16 min lat, 90 deg 35.84 longitude -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 17 22:55:44 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:55:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Confront 'Weird Life' on Other Worlds In-Reply-To: <20040513232318.26639.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c43c62$1686efa0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Mike Lorrey > > Can anyone think up how a carbon scarce but silicon rich planet might > form? By impact of any large mass with an Earthlike planet. The moon is silicon rich and carbon poor. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 17 23:45:09 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:45:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] 41st mersenne prime discovered? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c43c68$fdaf0e70$6401a8c0@SHELLY> George Woltman, of the great internet mersenne prime search (GIMPS) has announced that the program has reported a new prime. We have had one false positive out of the last 6 Mersenne primes discovered, so lets stand by. The confirmation is running right now, so we should hear in a couple weeks. Ah, life is goooooood. {8^D spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 18 00:34:24 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:34:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] San Francisco NextFest this weekend In-Reply-To: <40A5CB20.7030301@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: <20040518003424.84577.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Sounds like west coast extropians will enjoy what's > on display at > NextFest in San Francisco this weekend. > Admission to the NextFest and the ASIMO exhibition > is $15 for adults, > free for children under 12. There was an additional session on Friday, free for non-profits and the press. Or those who have connections to the event's sponsors. ;) > The exhibits include the Moller Skycar, a > four-passenger vehicle from > Moller International of Davis. The Jetsons-style > craft is small enough > to drive on the ground, but can take off vertically > and fly as fast as > 380 mph. And is intended for near-ground use only in industrial areas. I had thought they were grounded for want of regulatory approval, but they've got that: it's street legal, where the noise it generates isn't a problem. They're working on reducing the noise so they can get approval to run it in residential areas. (It'll run at airports too; I specifically asked about integrated airport/residential areas like Cameron Park, where every house has a hangar and the streets are made for light airplanes to taxi from house to the local airstrip, and they said it'd be okay there too.) > Then there's a "transparent cloak,'' technology from > the Tachi Lab at > the University of Tokyo that seems straight out of a > Harry Potter book. > The raincoat-like cloak is made out of > "retro-reflective'' material > covered with tiny beads that reflect light back in > the same direction it > came. The cloak is designed to make whatever it is > covering, a body or > object, appear transparent by projecting video shot > with a camera from > behind the cloak onto the front of the cloak. This suffers from severe edge effects: one can easily see the outline, due to optical properties inherent in the details of how they pull this off. I talked to the chief scientist (among the representatives present, anyway), and he all but admitted they aren't going for the obvious military application because they can't see any way around this. The application they are going for is see-through surfaces, like replacing the rear view mirror in cars or letting pilots see through the floor of their planes. I can think of cheaper, more technologically mature solutions for those problems, but this would seem to work. > For fun and games, there's Brainball, which is best > described as an > anti- game, because the goal is to achieve nothing. > Developed by Sweden's Interactive Institute, > Brainball players wear > headbands with biosensors that measure brain waves. > The brain activity > is then transmitted by wire to a special game table > to control a small > ball. The object of the game is to move the ball > into an opponent's goal > area, but the more relaxed a player is, the more he > or she controls the > ball. Having had a special connection to that technology's development, I had wanted to speak to the people behind this, but most of the exhibitors apparently went on break just as I reached this exhibit. Fortunately, I did manage to catch the exhibitor of what I thought was the single coolest thing there (though I admit this is very subjective): someone actually had a working exoskeleton on display. It would only last a few handfuls of minutes if not plugged in to external power, but from their video demonstration, it did seem to amplify strength available to the human frame, primarily for lifting tasks. Unfortunately, its makers have a very wimpy business plan (at least, that they'll admit to): the only use they're going for is lifting patients in and out of hospital beds. Paramedical uses are iffy; construction use is right out, even though it would be far more useful there. And don't even start with military or civilian outdoorsman applications (like hauling heavy loads, including a power generator and fuel, over long distances on foot). So we're not likely to see this particular model get wide use, barring change or enlightenment of their management. (Even the greatest technology can be denied its potential by unwise business decisions.) Most of the rest of the NextFest...frankly, I was already familiar with about 3/4ths of the exhibited technology. (Raise your hand if you haven't heard of UAVs by now. Anyone? Granted, laser-powered UAVs are a new twist, and not too many have heard of NASA's Personal Satellite Assistants even though they've been in the media before. Facial recognition, and thermograph "lie detectors", are probably more familiar to the members of this list.) Least Revolutionary Advance On Display: automobiles which incorporate the engine block into the chassis, so both the front and back are open for cargo space. They had about 1/6th of the show floor dedicated to various iterations of this. (Okay, yeah, it's a good engineering feat. But it's still just a car, in contrast to the relatively fundamentally new things on display everywhere else.) From eliasen at mindspring.com Tue May 18 01:12:09 2004 From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 19:12:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] San Francisco NextFest this weekend In-Reply-To: <20040518003424.84577.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040518003424.84577.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40A962E9.4060000@mindspring.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >>The exhibits include the Moller Skycar, a >>four-passenger vehicle from >>Moller International of Davis. The Jetsons-style >>craft is small enough >>to drive on the ground, but can take off vertically >>and fly as fast as >>380 mph. > > And is intended for near-ground use only in industrial > areas. I had thought they were grounded for want of > regulatory approval, but they've got that: it's street > legal, where the noise it generates isn't a problem. > They're working on reducing the noise so they can get > approval to run it in residential areas. (It'll run > at airports too; I specifically asked about integrated > airport/residential areas like Cameron Park, where > every house has a hangar and the streets are made for > light airplanes to taxi from house to the local > airstrip, and they said it'd be okay there too.) "Drive" is a bit of a stretch, too. They don't have powered wheels, and the wheels are about like lawnmower or wagon wheels. (There's a picture of find two wheels that match... they're both different, and probably stolen off someone's lawnmower.) You "drive" it like a jet... using thrust from the jets. Tough to parallel park, especially with no reverse. I'm also willing to bet that they'll never reach their quoted fuel efficiency figures, when averaged over *any* trip. -- Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a eliasen at mindspring.com | position he did not reason himself http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place." | --Jonathan Swift From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au Tue May 18 01:14:57 2004 From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:44:57 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Computer Upgrade Paths... Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EC3@mmdsvr01.mm.local> > Is the productivity on a Pentium 4 or a G5 *really* so much higher > than an Athlon that it justifies this kind of price differential? > [You have to remember that I'm typing this on a dual Pentium Pro > @ 200 MHz (~6 year old technology) and it usually meets my needs > just fine...] > > Robert In one word? No. 64 bit might be a geek toy on a laptop at this stage, however. Does any usable OS take advantage of 64 bit? Emlyn *************************************************************************** Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other defect. From eliasen at mindspring.com Tue May 18 01:18:48 2004 From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 19:18:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] San Francisco NextFest this weekend In-Reply-To: <40A962E9.4060000@mindspring.com> References: <20040518003424.84577.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> <40A962E9.4060000@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <40A96478.2030204@mindspring.com> Somehow, a line got lost. The following sentence should read as follows: Alan Eliasen wrote: > "Drive" is a bit of a stretch, too. They don't have powered wheels, and > the wheels are about like lawnmower or wagon wheels. (There's a picture of > them on p. 53 of the May 2004 "Wired" Magazine. They apparently couldn't > find two wheels that match... they're both different, and probably stolen off > someone's lawnmower.) -- Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a eliasen at mindspring.com | position he did not reason himself http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place." | --Jonathan Swift From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 18 02:16:26 2004 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 19:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040517104712825c17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20040518021626.53837.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com> "The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." -J, MIB --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > The likeliest explanation are a natural phenomena > or some experiments > with new types of aircraft by the air force of some > neighbor countries > (maybe Belize or Guatemala :-) > But I keep hoping for a real honest alien > invasion... > G. ===== The Avantguardian "He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind." __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ From naddy at mips.inka.de Tue May 18 02:42:12 2004 From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 02:42:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 References: Message-ID: Amara Graps wrote: > Gunnar Graps (my cousin) died 17 May 2004. Age 53 (heart attack). > > In the Baltics and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, > Gunnar Graps, the 'heavy metal rock star' was known well. Oh my. I've lately been listening a lot to the radio stream at http://icecast.version6.net:8888/okul.ogg (IPv6 down for a couple of days now) which appears to be based in Tallinn, Estonia, EU. The programming is mostly familiar hard rock and heavy metal, with some eclectic stuff thrown in, but occasionally they also insert tracks from (to me) unknowns which I presume to be locals. Among those: Gunnar Graps. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy at mips.inka.de From alito at organicrobot.com Tue May 18 05:30:07 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:30:07 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Computer Upgrade Paths... In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EC3@mmdsvr01.mm.local> References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EC3@mmdsvr01.mm.local> Message-ID: <1084858207.23752.124.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 10:44 +0930, Emlyn ORegan wrote: > > Is the productivity on a Pentium 4 or a G5 *really* so much higher > > than an Athlon that it justifies this kind of price differential? > > [You have to remember that I'm typing this on a dual Pentium Pro > > @ 200 MHz (~6 year old technology) and it usually meets my needs > > just fine...] > > > > Robert > > In one word? No. > > 64 bit might be a geek toy on a laptop at this stage, however. Does any > usable OS take advantage of 64 bit? Yes, Linux has 64 bit support for the Itaniums and Opterons/x86-64 and i think G5 too. Don't know how many optimisations make use of their 64-bitness but at minimum you can run 64-bit user space apps and take advantage of the extended memory space (48-bit currently in opterons i think, don't know about the others) alejandro From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 18 05:26:38 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 00:26:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ed Regis 2003 Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040518001143.01c16418@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Anyone read The Info Mesa: Science, Business, and New Age Alchemy on the Santa Fe Plateau by Ed Regis (W.W. Norton & Company; 1st edition (May 2003) ? Or know if he's doing anything new? From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 18 06:50:07 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:50:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Computer Upgrade Paths... In-Reply-To: <1084858207.23752.124.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3EC3@mmdsvr01.mm.local> <1084858207.23752.124.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <20040518065007.GJ25728@leitl.org> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 03:30:07PM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > 64 bit might be a geek toy on a laptop at this stage, however. Does any > > usable OS take advantage of 64 bit? Ahem. [root at localhost root]# uname -a Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.5-1.327 #1 Sun Apr 18 04:53:57 EDT 2004 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux I'd say Redhat Fedora Core 2 is fairly usable. 64-bit is a musty old had for *nix. Even Linux had 64 bit versions since 1996, or so. > Yes, Linux has 64 bit support for the Itaniums and Opterons/x86-64 and i > think G5 too. Don't know how many optimisations make use of their > 64-bitness but at minimum you can run 64-bit user space apps and take > advantage of the extended memory space (48-bit currently in opterons i > think, don't know about the others) AMD64 architecture is good price/performance, the 64-bit capability only adds more registers. Few people have more than 2 GByte core in their desktops (core/process limit, Windows NT/2k/2003/XP has a 512 MByte threshold above which it has bad performance due to the way it accesses its memory). For servers, having a dual-CPU 1U system with up to 16 GByte RAM for a couple nickles, and a dime (entry is 1.2 kEUR) is very good price/performance indeed. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at amara.com Tue May 18 09:37:20 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:37:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 Message-ID: Natasha, >I'm terribly sorry Amara for you and your family for the loss of >Gunnar. Thank you, Natasha. The Graps family is small. I had two cousins, now I have one. I didn't know Gunnar very well, but I'm grateful to have had some time with him. I feel the most sorry for his father, my uncle. Children usually outlive their parents, not the other way around. >I wish I had met him when I was in Tallin. He was difficult for us to meet, he would have been difficult for anyone to meet. Picture a baltic Mick Jagger (he considered himself as such) living that kind of life, (stereotypical in fact), of sex-drugs-rock-and-roll. He had thousands (probably orders of magnitude more) of fans. If I was with him, there were strangers around who wanted his autograph. If I showed my name on any document in the Baltics, someone wanted to know if I was related to Gunnar. He was very popular. I don't think he handled age in the best way ... he simply got into more trouble! I hope that he was having fun to the last second. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." -- Woody Allen From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 18 08:39:25 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:39:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] San Francisco NextFest this weekend In-Reply-To: <20040518003424.84577.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> References: <40A5CB20.7030301@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> <20040518003424.84577.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040518083925.GS25728@leitl.org> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 05:34:24PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > This suffers from severe edge effects: one can easily > see the outline, due to optical properties inherent in > the details of how they pull this off. I talked to The only way to make it invisible around VIS range is to fake the wavefront, which requires nontrivial amount of really quick crunch and phased-array radiators for VIS. This thing's going to run pretty hot, too, so it will be a giant blip in FIR (from close you'll probably feel the heat). > the chief scientist (among the representatives > present, anyway), and he all but admitted they aren't > going for the obvious military application because > they can't see any way around this. The application > they are going for is see-through surfaces, like > replacing the rear view mirror in cars or letting > pilots see through the floor of their planes. I can > think of cheaper, more technologically mature > solutions for those problems, but this would seem to > work. The only way to make it truly invisible to uninstrumented mammal vision is to use the above, which requires advanced molecular design methods. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at amara.com Tue May 18 10:06:07 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 11:06:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 Message-ID: Dan Clemmensen: (thank you for your nice message) >I was unaware of Gunnar until you posted this notice. Thirteen years ago he spent some time in the US, where he hoped to make it big. I think that he thought record producers would be enthusiastically waiting on his doorstep, a situation where his expectations didn't meet reality. His true audience was on the other side of the Atlantic. >Is any of his music available for download? There are some samples here http://www.everyday.mp3.ee/?CatID=74&action=artist&AID=274 I heard that he just completed another CD, I guess that they are mostly available in Estonia. His heavy metal music is not my favorite music, so I don't follow it. Sometimes he makes good blues music, though, which I like alot more. >I would like to participate in the memorial service by listening >to some. An artist never truly dies as long as his art is >appreciated. The club is here. They haven't updated their web site, and I don't know if the music will be streamed live. I will try to find out. http://www.inyourpocket.com/estonia/tallinn/en/venue?id=ESTAENX0077 http://www.scotlandyard.ee/ -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "We haven't the money, so we've got to think." -- Ernest Rutherford From natashavita at earthlink.net Tue May 18 14:37:13 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:37:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 Message-ID: <48270-220045218143713904@M2W096.mail2web.com> From: Amara Graps >>I wish I had met him when I was in Tallin. >He was difficult for us to meet, he would have been difficult for >anyone to meet. Picture a baltic Mick Jagger (he considered >himself as such) living that kind of life, (stereotypical in >fact), of sex-drugs-rock-and-roll. I suppose I've lived a different life than most of our friends, Amara. I know Bianca, from years ago at Filmex, and Jagger himself is a friend of a friend. Rock stars are not so far off, especially in places like Telluride and the film industry where I have spent a large portion of my life. Anyway, that is neither here nor there. The important thing is that you have lost your family member. May the Graps live long! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 18 17:47:37 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:47:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! In-Reply-To: <20040517163046.GT25728@leitl.org> References: <293580-220045117154451472@M2W070.mail2web.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040517105202.01ba2c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040517163046.GT25728@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040518124542.01c00e38@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:30 PM 5/17/2004 +0200, 'gene wrote: > >Did they say what the estimated speed was? It didn't look like the usual UFO >reports with madly dashing object, changing speed and direction in mid-course >as no material object could. The crew claim the unknowns did just that, in a recent interview: =============== Interview with Lieutenant German Ramirez Marin. (non-FLIR) radar operator. Question: When was the first time you became aware of the objects. Answer: When we made a turn to route ourselves to Campeche, the FLIR infrared camera operator detected a target without a shape, just a shine. The target continued being observed with the FLIR. Then we detected other targets at the left side of the plane. They were eleven targets. We never had visual contact with them. Question: The eleven targets appeared on the normal (non- infrared) radar? Answer. No. The eleven targets were not detected on the radar screen. Initially, only one target was detected by the radar. Then another target appeared at one o'clock, that's how we describe the position that is in front but slightly to our right. And then a third one in back of the plane. Those were the only three targets that appeared in the radar screen during the incident. The other ones that were at nine 'o clock, on our left side never appeared on the radar. Question: There was a time when these objects surrounded you. Answer: Yes, we can assume that because we had information of a target in the front, another one slightly to the right, one in the back, and according to the FLIR several others on our left side. So, we assumed that we were surrounded. Question: Did you feel fear? Answer: Fear...? Yes, personally, there was some fear because we were confronting a situation that had never happened to us before. Question: The objects movements on the radar were out of the ordinary? Answer: Certainly. Our data information - most of all, the icons (blips), the clusters - were always there on the screen, but the information on their movements was constantly changing. Their speed changes were sudden, 60 -120- 300 knots, according to the radar information. The same happened with their flight paths. The courses showed 90 degrees at first then, suddenly, 130 degrees on the radar screen. Question: What does that mean? Answer: It means that the target changed direction constantly at great speed. There is no aircraft that can perform such direction changes so quickly. ==================== FWIW. More at http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/may/m18-008.shtml Damien From natashavita at earthlink.net Tue May 18 17:53:36 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:53:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! Message-ID: <410-22004521817533617@M2W059.mail2web.com> Damien, The quote below you posted reads like an exciting first chapter of a book! ? Natasha "The crew claim the unknowns did just that, in a recent interview: =============== Interview with Lieutenant German Ramirez Marin. (non-FLIR) radar operator. Question: When was the first time you became aware of the objects. Answer: When we made a turn to route ourselves to Campeche, the FLIR infrared camera operator detected a target without a shape, just a shine. The target continued being observed with the FLIR. Then we detected other targets at the left side of the plane. They were eleven targets. We never had visual contact with them. Question: The eleven targets appeared on the normal (non- infrared) radar? Answer. No. The eleven targets were not detected on the radar screen. Initially, only one target was detected by the radar. Then another target appeared at one o'clock, that's how we describe the position that is in front but slightly to our right. And then a third one in back of the plane. Those were the only three targets that appeared in the radar screen during the incident. The other ones that were at nine 'o clock, on our left side never appeared on the radar. Question: There was a time when these objects surrounded you. Answer: Yes, we can assume that because we had information of a target in the front, another one slightly to the right, one in the back, and according to the FLIR several others on our left side. So, we assumed that we were surrounded. Question: Did you feel fear? Answer: Fear...? Yes, personally, there was some fear because we were confronting a situation that had never happened to us before. Question: The objects movements on the radar were out of the ordinary? Answer: Certainly. Our data information - most of all, the icons (blips), the clusters - were always there on the screen, but the information on their movements was constantly changing. Their speed changes were sudden, 60 -120- 300 knots, according to the radar information. The same happened with their flight paths. The courses showed 90 degrees at first then, suddenly, 130 degrees on the radar screen. Question: What does that mean? Answer: It means that the target changed direction constantly at great speed. There is no aircraft that can perform such direction changes so quickly. ==================== FWIW. More at http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/may/m18-008.shtml Damien _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 18 18:05:32 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:05:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! In-Reply-To: <410-22004521817533617@M2W059.mail2web.com> References: <410-22004521817533617@M2W059.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040518130442.01bb0398@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:53 PM 5/18/2004 -0400, Natasha wrote: >The quote below you posted reads like an exciting first chapter of a book! Not one *I'll* be writing, however. :) Damien Broderick From emerson at singinst.org Tue May 18 18:18:33 2004 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:18:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The SIAI Voice by the Singularity Institute - May 2004 Message-ID: <200405181818.i4IIIan02262@tick.javien.com> The SIAI Voice . May 2004 Bulletin of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence A nonprofit and community for humane AI research http://www.singinst.org/ institute at singinst.org To view the online version: http://www.singinst.org/news/newsletter.html To receive the bulletin by email every other month: http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CONTENTS 1. 2004 Website Campaign 2. 2004 Challenge Grant Challenge 3. Executive Director - Tyler Emerson 4. Advocacy Director - Michael Anissimov 5. Featured Content: What is the Singularity? 6. Donors for March and April 7. Singularity Institute FAQ 8. AI Project Update 9. New at our Website 10. Volunteer Contributions 11. Volunteer Meeting 12. Volunteer Opportunities 13. Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky 14. Singularity Statement from Anders Sandberg 15. Singularity Quote from Ray Kurzweil 16. Events - Transvision 2004 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The first bulletin from the Singularity Institute. We hope you find it valuable. Comments on what we've done well, poorly, or have missed, are welcomed. We graciously ask to know what you would like from our updates in the coming months. Thank you for giving time to explore the Institute. Tyler Emerson emerson at singinst.org (417) 840-5968 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1. 2004 WEBSITE CAMPAIGN 3 Laws Unsafe will be a website campaign from SIAI. The campaign will tie in to the July 16th release of "I, Robot," the feature film based on Isaac Asimov's short story collection of the same name where his 3 Laws of Robotics were first introduced. The 3 Laws of Robotics represent a popular view of how to construct moral AI, and their failures were often explored by Isaac Asimov in his stories. What we hope to do is advance the Asimov tradition of deconstructing the 3 Laws. We want to encourage critical, technical thinking on whether they're real solutions to moral AI creation. If you can contribute to the success of 3 Laws Unsafe, email institute at singinst.org. We're especially looking for graphic and site designers who can create the site in blog format, promoters who can help ensure that it has a high search engine ranking for keyword combinations related to the film, and writers who can submit content. This project is urgent because of the film's early July release. Our deepest thanks to everyone who contributes to its success. 3 Laws Unsafe > http://www.singinst.org/asimovlaws.html Ways to Contribute > http://www.singinst.org/action/opportunities.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2. 2004 CHALLENGE GRANT CHALLENGE The Singularity Institute is now seeking major donors to provide matching funds for our $10,000 Challenge Grant Challenge for Research Fellow Eliezer Yudkowsky - one of the leading experts on the singularity and the development of moral AI. Major donors to the Challenge Grant Challenge will match any donations up to $10,000, resulting in $20,000 in possible donations. Once the pledges for matching donations are secured, the Challenge Grant itself will run for 90 days. Donors may pledge by emailing institute at singinst.org or phoning (404) 550-3847. Our sincere thanks to the first major donor, Jason Joachim, who has pledged $2,000. All funds go toward a subsistence salary for Yudkowsky so that he may continue his critical research on the theory of Friendly AI - the cornerstone of our AI project that must be sufficiently complete before the project can responsibly begin. For more on the value of Yudkowsky's research, see: The Necessity of Friendly AI > http://www.singinst.org/friendly/why-friendly.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - TYLER EMERSON On March 4, 2004, the Singularity Institute announced Tyler Emerson as our Executive Director. Emerson will be responsible for guiding the Institute. His focus is in nonprofit management, marketing, relationship fundraising, leadership and planning. He will seek to cultivate a larger and more cohesive community that has the necessary resources to develop Friendly AI. He can be reached at emerson at singinst.org. More > http://www.singinst.org/about.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4. ADVOCACY DIRECTOR - MICHAEL ANISSIMOV On April 7, 2004, the Singularity Institute announced Michael Anissimov as our Advocacy Director. Michael has been an active volunteer for two years, and one of the more prominent voices in the singularity community. He is committed and thoughtful, and we feel fortunate to have him help lead our advocacy. In 2004 and beyond, Michael will represent SIAI at key conferences, engage in outreach efforts to communities and individuals, and perform writing tasks for conveying the Institute's mission to a wider audience. He can be reached at anissimov at singinst.org. More > http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5. FEATURED CONTENT: WHAT IS THE SINGULARITY? The singularity is the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence. There are several technologies that are often mentioned as heading in this direction. The most commonly mentioned is probably Artificial Intelligence, but there are others: direct brain-computer interfaces, biological augmentation of the brain, genetic engineering, ultra-high-resolution scans of the brain followed by computer emulation. Some of these technologies seem likely to arrive much earlier than the others, but there are nonetheless several independent technologies all heading in the direction of the singularity - several different technologies which, if they reached a threshold level of sophistication, would enable the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence. More > http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6. DONORS FOR MARCH AND APRIL We offer our deepest gratitude to the following donors. They realize the extraordinary utility of the Singularity Institute's pursuit: responsible intelligence enhancement, a Friendly singularity, through Friendly AI research. They have taken that very crucial step of financial support for SIAI's research. Whether it is $10 or $1,000, more or less, one time or each month, we ask that each in-principle supporter become a regular donor. Major Contributions: * Edwin Evans $7,000 * Mikko Rauhala $1,200 Periodic Contributions: * Jason Abu-Aitah $10 (monthly) * David Hansen $100 (monthly) * Jason Joachim $150 (monthly) * Aaron McBride $10 (monthly) * Ashley Thomas $10 (monthly) One-Time Contributions: * Anonymous $200 * Michael Wilson $200 Donate to the Singularity Institute > http://www.singinst.org/donate.html Why Even Small Donations Matter > http://www.singinst.org/small-donations-matter.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7. SINGULARITY INSTITUTE FAQ Q: Why does your current research focus on Artificial Intelligence? A: Artificial Intelligence is easiest to get started on by comparison with, say, neuroelectronics. Artificial Intelligence is easier to leverage - in our estimate, a small to medium-sized organization potentially can do more to advance Artificial Intelligence than to advance neuroelectronics. Furthermore, given the relative rates of progress in the underlying technologies, our current best guess is that Artificial Intelligence will be developed before brain-computer interfaces; hence, to accelerate the singularity, one should accelerate the development of Artificial Intelligence; to protect the integrity of the singularity, one should protect the integrity of Artificial Intelligence (i.e., Friendly AI). Singularity strategy is a complex question which requires considering not just the development rate of one technology, but the relative development rates of different technologies and the relative amount by which different technologies can be accelerated or influenced. At this time Artificial Intelligence appears to be closer to being developed, to be more easily accelerable, to require fewer resources to initiate a serious project, and to offer more benefit from interim successes. If the Singularity Institute had enough resources to fully support multiple projects, we would branch out; but until then, it seems wise to focus research efforts on one project. More > http://www.singinst.org/institute-faq.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8. AI PROJECT UPDATE The centerpiece of the SIAI's effort to bring about a Friendly singularity is an upcoming software development project. The aim is to produce the world's first artificial general intelligence; a Friendly "seed AI." To do this we will employ the most advanced theoretical framework for seed AI available, the architecture derived from, but much more comprehensive and sophisticated, than that described in "Levels of Organization in General Intelligence." As of May 2004, this framework is close to completion, but a great deal of work remains to be done on the associated Friendliness theory. It is the policy of the Singularity Institute to not initiate a project with a major potential for existential risk until it has been proven that the net result will be a positive one for all of humanity. Fortunately we have made strong progress with a formal theory of Friendliness (the document "Creating Friendly AI" describes an informal precursor) and will continue to develop it until it's complete enough to allow project initiation. Although we are not yet ready to start building Friendly AI, we are close enough to begin forming the development team. At present, we have two confirmed team members, including Eliezer Yudkowsky. The SIAI is now actively searching for Singularitarians with software engineering and cognitive science expertise to join the development team. Volunteers who make the grade may be able to start work on a part or full-time basis immediately. The search for suitable Friendly AI developers is a top priority for SIAI. If you believe you may be suitable or know of someone who may, please read "Team member requirements" and then consider getting in touch at institute at singinst.org. We are searching for nothing less than the core team to fulfill our mission; we need the very best we can find. Team member requirements > http://www.sl4.org/bin/wiki.pl?SoYouWantToBeASeedAIProgrammer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 9. NEW AT OUR WEBSITE About Us Page Updated >> http://www.singinst.org/about.html Read about our mission, board, staff and accomplishments Chat >> http://www.singinst.org/chat Access our volunteer chat room through the Java applet Singularity Quotes >> http://www.singinst.org/comments/quotes.html Quotes from Vernor Vinge, Ray Kurzweil, Hans Moravec and more Tell Others about the Singularity Institute >> http://www.singinst.org/tell-others.html Spread the knowledge - open the opportunity - to your email circle Become a Singularity Volunteer >> http://www.singinst.org/volunteer.html Contribute your time and talent to a safe singularity Why We Need Friendly AI >> http://www.singinst.org/friendly/why-friendly.html Why Moore's Law is no friend to Friendly AI research Donations Page Updated >> http://www.singinst.org/donate.html Contributions may be made monthly or yearly Feedback >> http://www.singinst.org/feedback.html Your comments, questions and suggestions are welcomed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10. VOLUNTEER CONTRIBUTIONS The notable progress made in March and April was possible because of considerable volunteer help. We especially want to thank Christian Rovner, who made tangible progress each week for eight weeks. It is no lie to feel blessed to have him with SIAI. Special thanks to these individuals for their effort: Michael Roy Ames, Joshua Amy, Michael Anissimov, Nick Hay, Manny Halos, Shilpa Kukunooru, Tommy McCabe, Tyrone Pow, and Chris Rovner. View Contributions > http://www.singinst.org/action/contributions.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11. VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES We believe that W. Clement Stone's aphorism "Tell everyone what you want to do and someone will want to help you do it" will hold true for our charitable mission. If you can contribute this year, please email institute at singinst.org. View Opportunities > http://www.singinst.org/action/opportunities/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 12. WEEKLY VOLUNTEER MEETING The Singularity Institute hosts a chat meeting for volunteers every Sunday at 7 PM EST (GMT-5). The Internet Relay Chat (IRC) server is singinst.org, port 6667; chat room #siaiv. Each meeting revolves around planning and action. More > http://www.singinst.org/chat/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13. Q&A WITH ELIEZER YUDKOWSKY It seems that you're trying to achieve an AI with the philosophical complexity roughly equal to or beyond that of, e.g., Mohandas Gandhi, Siddhartha Gautama, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Do these individuals represent to you the "heart" of humanity? What they represent to me are moral archetypes, not just of selflessness but of moral reason, of moral philosophy. Whether they were really as good as their PR suggests is a separate issue, not that I'm suggesting they weren't - just that it doesn't quite matter. The key point is that we ourselves recognize that there is such a thing as greater and lesser altruism, and greater and lesser wisdom of moral argument, and that from this recognition proceeds our respect of those who embody the greater altruism and the greater wisdom. There is something to strive for - an improvement that can be perceived as "improvement" even by those who are not at that level; a road that is open to those not already at the destination. Anyone who can recognize Gandhi as an ideal, and not just someone with strangely different goals, is someone who occupies a common moral frame of reference with Gandhi, but less advanced in terms of content, despite a shared structure. So what the statement "Put the heart of humanity into a Friendly AI" symbolizes is the idea of moral improvement, and the idea that a Friendly AI can improve to or beyond levels that we recognize as ideal levels (e.g., the level of a moral philosopher or of Martin Luther King Jr.). More > http://www.singinst.org/yudkowsky/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 14. SINGULARITY STATEMENT FROM ANDERS SANDBERG Anders Sandberg, Science Director, Eudoxa: The research of SIAI is essentially a bold attempt to explore Smale's 18th problem: What are the limits of intelligence, both artificial and human? (S. Smale, Mathematical Problems for the Next Century, Mathematical Intelligence, Spring '98.) Developing a theory for how intelligent systems can improve the way they solve problems has both practical and theoretical importance. SIAI is also one of few organisations devoted to the study of general motivational systems and how they might be designed to achieve desired behavior - another open-ended issue of great practical and ethical importance. More > http://www.singinst.org/comments/statements.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 15. SINGULARITY QUOTE FROM RAY KURZWEIL Ray Kurzweil, "The Law of Accelerating Returns," 2001: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 People often go through three stages in examining the impact of future technology: awe and wonderment at its potential to overcome age old problems, then a sense of dread at a new set of grave dangers that accompany these new technologies, followed, finally and hopefully, by the realization that the only viable and responsible path is to set a careful course that can realize the promise while managing the peril. More > http://www.singinst.org/comments/quotes.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 16. EVENTS - TRANSVISION 2004 The World Transhumanist Association's annual event, TransVision, will be held at the University of Toronto from August 6th-8th, 2004. The Singularity Institute is fortunate to be a sponsor of TransVision, and will have members attending or giving presentations. Proposal submissions for the conference are being accepted until June 1st. Registration costs range from $100 to $150. Conference speakers include: * Steve Mann, Inventor of the wearable computer * Stelarc, Renowned Australian artist * Howard Bloom, Author of The Lucifer Principle * James Hughes, Author of Cyborg Democracy * Nick Bostrom, Chair of the World Transhumanist Association * Natasha Vita-More, President of the Extropy Institute * Aubrey de Grey, Cofounder of the Methuselah Mouse Prize Transvision 2004 > http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The SIAI Voice is produced by the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization for the pursuit of Friendly AI and responsible intelligence enhancement - a mission of immense potential. Since intelligence determines how well problems are solved, the responsible enhancement of intelligence - a safe singularity - will make difficult problems, such as the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer's and AIDS, much easier to solve. If intelligence is improved greatly, every humanitarian problem we face will be more amenable to solution. Because AI is positioned to be the first technology to enhance intelligence significantly, SIAI concentrates on the research and development of humane AI. By solely pursuing a beneficial singularity, the Institute presents the rare opportunity for rational philanthropy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For comments or questions, contact us at (404) 550-3847, institute at singinst.org , or visit our website: http://www.singinst.org/ The movement for a safe singularity advances by word of mouth. If you believe what we do is valuable, it's vital that you do tell others. Share the Bulletin > http://www.singinst.org/tell-others.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From natashavita at earthlink.net Tue May 18 22:04:48 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 18:04:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 Message-ID: <54360-22004521822448696@M2W054.mail2web.com> I just had a thought... Amara is an astronomer who examines interplanetary dust and the stars. Her cousin was a rock star. They had something wonderfully precious in common - "The dust wakes out of its slumber and I follow its passage. >From volcanoes on moons, through comet breezes, Atop bookshelves in rooms, expelled by human sneezes, >From disks of new stars into emerald-blue planets, The dust is a piece of me, or am I a piece of dust? We fly from the ecliptic brightness, feel comforted by the local fluff, and drink a ceylon tea at the cosmic tea table with our friends from beta Pic. They don't laugh at my jokes, but I smile anyway." Amara Lynn Graps March 2001 Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jcorb at irishbroadband.net Tue May 18 23:12:53 2004 From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 00:12:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040519001126.02353960@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> Deepest condolences for your loss, Amara. Hope the memorial concert goes well. Regards, James... >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:13:50 +0100 >From: Amara Graps >Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Gunnar Graps (my cousin) died 17 May 2004. Age 53 (heart attack). >His is the first death in the Grapses since I was a baby. We have >all been 'survivors', especially the baltic Grapses, so my family >and I are not accepting this news very well. >In the Baltics and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, >Gunnar Graps, the 'heavy metal rock star' was known well. >my own brief notes and a few pictures >Gunnar Graps >http://www.amara.com/aboutme/latmusic.html >Honorary Award: Estonian Music Awards 2004 >http://www.estmusic.com/index.php?0113413 >Pages on Google: >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Gunnar+Graps >If you are in the Tallinn, Estonia area, next Monday, there will >be a memorial service and a music concert by a number of musicians >in his memory in a place called Scotland Yard, where he used to >perform. >Amara > > >-- From mystrawberrymoon at yahoo.com Wed May 19 02:03:43 2004 From: mystrawberrymoon at yahoo.com (Strawberry Moon) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] unsubscribe me please Message-ID: <20040519020343.50324.qmail@web41707.mail.yahoo.com> --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Wed May 19 04:09:18 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 06:09:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! References: <20040518021626.53837.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006401c43d57$0f3272b0$fab11b97@administxl09yj> > "The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. > Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a > thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." > -J, MIB Even if thay were balloons ... "... Thousands of years ago tribes of human beings suffered great privations in the struggle to survive. In this struggle it was important not only to be able to handle a club, but also to possess the ability to think reasonably, to take care of the knowledge and experience garnered by the tribe, and to develop the links that would provide cooperation with other tribes. Today the entire human race is faced with a similar test. In infinite space many civilizations are bound to exist, among them civilizations that are also wiser and more "successful" than ours. I support the cosmological hypothesis which states that the development of the universe is repeated in its basic features an infinite number of times. In accordance with this, other civilizations, including more "successful" ones, should exist an infinite number of times on the "preceding" and the "following" pages of the Book of the Universe. Yet this should not minimize our sacred endeavors in this world of ours, where, like faint glimmers of light in the dark, we have emerged for a moment from the nothingness of dark unconsciousness of material existence. We must make good the demands of reason and create a life worthy of ourselves and of the goals we only dimly perceive." http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1975/sakharov-lecture.html From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 19 04:11:28 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:11:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] more ghastly national chestal shock horror Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040518231041.01bd05c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Fits of fainting dead in the street afflict the Bible Belt! Antichrist seen at large!! Bush guaranteed re-election!!! http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/19/1084917619223.html From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 19 06:24:39 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:24:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <48270-220045117203234865@M2W093.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Eliezer has proposed a puzzle, a variation of which we have discussed here before, but with a maddening twist. Suppose an unknown but whimsical benefactor has chosen to give you a monetary gift. A messenger is sent with two identical envelopes and offers to give you one of them. The messenger knows not the amounts of money in either envelope, but tells you that one of the envelopes contains twice as much as the other. You are to choose an envelope. You choose, and inside you find ten dollars. Now the messenger offers to trade your ten dollars for the contents of the other envelope. Would you trade? Why? I reason that there is a 50% chance the other envelope contains 5 dollars and 50% chance it contains twenty, so mathematical expectation value of the other envelope is .50*5 + .50*20 = 12.50 so I would trade. Same reasoning applies if the first envelope contained 500 or 5000 dollars or a billion, all under the assumption that seems so natural to me, that money is good, so more is better and too damn much is just right. You trade 5 dollars for a 50% shot at 20. Such a deal! Nowthen, since we have concluded that for each dollar in the envelope you choose, the other envelope contains an expected buck twenty five, you would *always* trade, regardless. For that reason, there really is no reason to bother opening and looking in the envelope you chose first. Regardless of the amount therein, you will immediately trade it away for the other one since you expect it to contain more. So why not skip the step of choosing the first envelope and subsequently trading it (opened or unopened) for the second? Why not just decide which one you would choose, then take the other one instead? Or if you choose one, then trade it, you might go thru the same line of reasoning that you did before and conclude that regardless of the amount in the envelope you now hold, the other one contains 25% more, and since you still haven't opened either envelope, you can still trade back. Then of course the same line of reasoning *still* applies, so you trade again. And again. And so on to infinity and beyond. So, is this not a strange situation? Ideally of course you could smite the messenger and run off with both envelopes. Or you could keep trading unopened envelopes until you lose track of which one you chose first. Or you could trade envelopes until the messenger perishes of age-related infirmities, then run off with both. But you notice that the messenger is both stronger and younger than yourself, and so would be unlikely to precede you in death, and if you were to smite her she would likely knock you silly and take both envelopes herself. So a choice must be made. Could it be that it somehow doesn't matter if one chooses then trades, or chooses then sticks? For that to be the case, then one must somehow explain how it is that if one chooses and opens to find a ten spot, then the probability that the other envelope contains a fiver has somehow mysteriously increased to 2/3, and the probability it contains a 20 has dropped to 1/3, so that 5*2/3 + 20*1/3 = 3.33 + 6.67 = 10. But how? Eliezer has suggested that if the first envelope contains a sufficiently large sum, say a million bucks, one could make an educated guess that no one is likely to give you two million. I say this argument is irrelevant. Regardless of the amounts in the envelopes, I see no reason for it to be more likely that you chose the larger amount the first time. Emil Gilliam suggested a clever variation. Suppose the envelopes contain sums expressed in some unfamiliar foreign currency, zorgs, again with one envelope containing twice as many zorgs as the other. There is a currency exchange down the street where you can trade your zorgs for dollars, euros, gold, sex, whatever you want, but you have no idea how much you have. You open your first envelope and find you have 10 zorgs, but this can represent any amount between pocket change and 10 tall piles of dough, you know nothing. So now would you trade? Does it matter now if you open the first envelope? Why? If you decide it does matter if you open or not, what have you actually learned from seeing you have 10 zorgs? It might be large enough to use Eliezer's argument, but you don't know that. Does it matter if the messenger knows how much is 10 zorgs? Why? Would you trade for the other envelope after opening yours? Would you trade without opening yours first? How does the law of averages somehow know if you looked in your envelope, so as to readjust the probabilities to make it of no value to open your envelope before trading? spike From reason at longevitymeme.org Wed May 19 06:42:19 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:42:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Spike > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:25 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again > > Nowthen, since we have concluded that for each dollar > in the envelope you choose, the other envelope contains > an expected buck twenty five, you would *always* trade, > regardless. For that reason, there really is no reason > to bother opening and looking in the envelope you chose first. > Regardless of the amount therein, you will immediately trade > it away for the other one since you expect it to contain more. > So why not skip the step of choosing the first envelope > and subsequently trading it (opened or unopened) for the second? > Why not just decide which one you would choose, then take > the other one instead? Or if you choose one, then trade > it, you might go thru the same line of reasoning that > you did before and conclude that regardless of the amount > in the envelope you now hold, the other one contains 25% > more, and since you still haven't opened either envelope, > you can still trade back. Then of course the same line > of reasoning *still* applies, so you trade again. And > again. And so on to infinity and beyond. Not quite. There is an opportunity cost to time spent trading envelopes. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From reason at longevitymeme.org Wed May 19 06:47:31 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:47:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max's "Beyond Caution" reworked a bit Message-ID: I've reworked Max's recent Beyond Caution to focus more on healthy life extension, and express a little of my own outrage with the matters to hand. It's the latest Longevity Meme article: http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=18&page=1 Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From eliasen at mindspring.com Wed May 19 06:47:59 2004 From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 00:47:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> Spike wrote: > Suppose an unknown but whimsical benefactor has chosen > to give you a monetary gift. A messenger is sent with > two identical envelopes and offers to give you one of > them. The messenger knows not the amounts of money > in either envelope, but tells you that one of the > envelopes contains twice as much as the other. You > are to choose an envelope. You choose, and inside you > find ten dollars. Now the messenger offers to > trade your ten dollars for the contents of > the other envelope. Would you trade? Why? > > I reason that there is a 50% chance the other envelope > contains 5 dollars and 50% chance it contains twenty, > so mathematical expectation value of the other envelope > is .50*5 + .50*20 = 12.50 so I would trade. Same reasoning > applies if the first envelope contained 500 or 5000 > dollars or a billion, all under the assumption that seems > so natural to me, that money is good, so more is > better and too damn much is just right. You trade > 5 dollars for a 50% shot at 20. Such a deal! The fact that this leads to a paradox is probably the tip-off that the reasoning isn't quite right. Say that the envelopes contain n and 2n dollars. Then, you'll either pick the envelope that contains n or 2n on your first guess. Draw the payoff matrix for staying or switching: First pick ----> n 2n -------------------------------- Stay n 2n Switch 2n n Projected earnings for either case is 3/2n, and no option (always staying, switching, whatever) improves that. -- Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a eliasen at mindspring.com | position he did not reason himself http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place." | --Jonathan Swift From eliasen at mindspring.com Wed May 19 06:49:46 2004 From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 00:49:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> References: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <40AB038A.6020103@mindspring.com> Alan Eliasen wrote: > Projected earnings for either case is 3/2n, and no option (always staying, > switching, whatever) improves that. Be sure to read the above as (3/2) n. -- Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a eliasen at mindspring.com | position he did not reason himself http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place." | --Jonathan Swift From alito at organicrobot.com Wed May 19 08:32:52 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:32:52 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> References: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1084955571.25735.152.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 00:47 -0600, Alan Eliasen wrote: > > I reason that there is a 50% chance the other envelope > > contains 5 dollars and 50% chance it contains twenty, > > so mathematical expectation value of the other envelope > > is .50*5 + .50*20 = 12.50 so I would trade. Same reasoning > > applies if the first envelope contained 500 or 5000 > > dollars or a billion, all under the assumption that seems > > so natural to me, that money is good, so more is > > better and too damn much is just right. You trade > > 5 dollars for a 50% shot at 20. Such a deal! > > The fact that this leads to a paradox is probably the tip-off that the > reasoning isn't quite right. > > Say that the envelopes contain n and 2n dollars. Then, you'll either pick > the envelope that contains n or 2n on your first guess. > > Draw the payoff matrix for staying or switching: > > First pick ----> n 2n > -------------------------------- > Stay n 2n > Switch 2n n > > Projected earnings for either case is 3/2n, and no option (always staying, > switching, whatever) improves that. > So are you saying that once you opened the first envelope and it had $10, you wouldn't switch? alejandro From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Wed May 19 08:51:51 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:51:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] San Francisco NextFest this weekend Message-ID: <40AB2027.5060804@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> Short report of the nextFest show available at: With two slideshows of photos Vehicles at: Gadgets at: BillK From artillo at comcast.net Wed May 19 13:58:23 2004 From: artillo at comcast.net (artillo at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:58:23 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] more ghastly national chestal shock horror Message-ID: <051920041358.29206.40AB67FE00083D05000072162200763704010404079B9D0E@comcast.net> LOL don't scare me like that! Arti > Fits of fainting dead in the street afflict the Bible Belt! Antichrist seen > at large!! Bush guaranteed re-election!!! > > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/19/1084917619223.html > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From natashavita at earthlink.net Wed May 19 14:30:41 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:30:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nano: Distancing itself from Transhumanism Message-ID: <119420-220045319143041982@M2W078.mail2web.com> "MELDING OF NANO, BIO, INFO AND COGNO OPENS NEW LEGAL HORIZONS" By Jack Mason, Small Times Correspondent A small quote that caught my eye: "Such prognostications are currently more speculation than science. Indeed, during a panel on legal and ethical issues, Roco jumped to his feet to distance the NBIC mission from any connection to the 'transhumanist' philosophy that supports overcoming biological limitations through technology. While some of the vision for NBIC may bleed over into a fringe interested in "posthuman" civilization, talk of cyborgs and mutants is presumably not good for winning support and funding for sober science. "In fact, Roco emphasized that upgrading human beings and culture over the next two decades through interdisciplinary science must be done in a way "that respects human dignity." How that idea gets parsed as the debate moves ahead remains an open question." Does anyone know Jason Mason or Zack Lynch, executive director of the Neurosociety Institute? I think the issue here is the misinformation that transhumanist are not proponents of "human dignity." We need to deal with this type of erroneous view. Where did it start? This type of misinformation is similar to other things said about "extropians" over the years which was not true, and today is being said about "transhumanists" which is not true. I'm afraid that all transhumanists are going to have to work together in the coming years, rather than pointing a figure at any one organization for being the culprit. As I said years ago, and continue to state, the most productive way to deal with gossip and bad press, from outside transhumanism and *also* inside transhumanism is to set the record straight. ExI got some disingenuous bad press from insider political positioning a few years ago, which took time to eradicate. It does us little, if any, good to hack away at our community by making public statements that affect *all of us.* The underlying values of transhumanism is based on "human dignity," thus the concept of transhumanism. It is because of our dignity and respect for our humanity that we become transhumanists. Transhumanism is a next step toward improving the "human condition." We need more papers, more talks, more articles about why human dignity is essential for our future and how this can be applied to the transhumanist worldview. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From pgptag at gmail.com Wed May 19 15:05:38 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:05:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nano: Distancing itself from Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <119420-220045319143041982@M2W078.mail2web.com> References: <119420-220045319143041982@M2W078.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5204051908055b9ea386@mail.gmail.com> The original article URL on the site of the Converging Technologies Bar Association is: http://www.ctba.us/news.asp?postid=9 Very disturbing indeed. Since Roco is known as a sympathizer of transhumanism (as is the president of the CTBA), the words quoted may have been put there by the reporter or said by Roco as a PR line. But this would mean that he thinks a perceived association with transhumanism can be harmful to those wishing to pursue "serious science" in a mainstream environment. I am very disturbed by the bullshit about human dignity. Whoever has assisted a sick person or watched a person dying knows that transhumanism is all about human dignity. Whoever has seen a smart brain destroyed by Alzheimer knows that transhumanism is all about human dignity. Whoever understands that we humans are not as mentally healthy and smart as we should be knows that transhumanism is THE ONLY WAY to foster human dignity in the truest sense of these words. Unfortunately these views cannot be dismissed and will continue to pose a problem as long as transhumanism is not "taken seriously" and perceived as "respectable" in the worlds of academy, finance and policy making. In other words we must buy a pinstriped suit with a smart tie and wear it on appropriate occasions. Every teenager learns that as soon as (s)he grows up: it is what you are supposed to do to be taken seriously by adults in an adult world. I agree with Natasha that there is a lot of work to do to correct this image problem, and could not agree more on "I'm afraid that all transhumanists are going to have to work together in the coming years, rather than pointing a figure at any one organization for being the culprit". On Wed, 19 May 2004 10:30:41 -0400, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote: > > "MELDING OF NANO, BIO, INFO AND COGNO OPENS NEW LEGAL HORIZONS" > By Jack Mason, Small Times Correspondent > > A small quote that caught my eye: > > "Such prognostications are currently more speculation than science. Indeed, > during a panel on legal and ethical issues, Roco jumped to his feet to > distance the NBIC mission from any connection to the 'transhumanist' > philosophy that supports overcoming biological limitations through > technology. While some of the vision for NBIC may bleed over into a fringe > interested in "posthuman" civilization, talk of cyborgs and mutants is > presumably not good for winning support and funding for sober science. > > "In fact, Roco emphasized that upgrading human beings and culture over the > next two decades through interdisciplinary science must be done in a way > "that respects human dignity." How that idea gets parsed as the debate > moves ahead remains an open question." > > Does anyone know Jason Mason or Zack Lynch, executive director of the > Neurosociety Institute? > > I think the issue here is the misinformation that transhumanist are not > proponents of "human dignity." We need to deal with this type of erroneous > view. Where did it start? This type of misinformation is similar to other > things said about "extropians" over the years which was not true, and today > is being said about "transhumanists" which is not true. I'm afraid that > all transhumanists are going to have to work together in the coming years, > rather than pointing a figure at any one organization for being the culprit. > > As I said years ago, and continue to state, the most productive way to deal > with gossip and bad press, from outside transhumanism and *also* inside > transhumanism is to set the record straight. ExI got some disingenuous bad > press from insider political positioning a few years ago, which took time > to eradicate. It does us little, if any, good to hack away at our > community by making public statements that affect *all of us.* > > The underlying values of transhumanism is based on "human dignity," thus > the concept of transhumanism. It is because of our dignity and respect for > our humanity that we become transhumanists. Transhumanism is a next step > toward improving the "human condition." > > We need more papers, more talks, more articles about why human dignity is > essential for our future and how this can be applied to the transhumanist > worldview. > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 19 15:18:30 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:18:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <000001c43db4$8b219ce0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> You wish to buy a gorf but you are unsure of what kind to buy. You ask a number of people and find that opinion is divided. Most say the red gorfs and green gorfs are indistinguishable, that they taste exactly the same. A small but vocal minority says that red gorfs are better than green gorfs, and will even pay much more for them in times of red gorf scarcity. No one is actually arguing that the green gorfs are superior, only that they are *equal* to the reds in every way. Which do you buy? If their prices are equal would you bet that the minority *might* be right? Or that there is a small chance they are right? If even a small chance exists, you would choose the red gorf, right? Does this constitute a logical fallacy? I see a compelling reason to not trade envelopes in the previous 2 envelope MH paradox, since the mathematical expectation is equal, but a small vocal minority insists it is good to switch envelopes. Should that effect my decision to trade or stick? Since it costs me no more to get a red gorf, would I not choose a red? And since it costs me nothing to trade envelopes, would I not assign a small probability that my reasoning is wrong and trade? Is there a name for this logical fallacy? spike From megao at sasktel.net Wed May 19 14:58:27 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:58:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <000001c43db4$8b219ce0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40AB7612.9ACD5802@sasktel.net> The Forrest Gump dilemma? Spike wrote: > You wish to buy a gorf but you are unsure of > what kind to buy. You ask a number of people and find > that opinion is divided. Most say the red gorfs > and green gorfs are indistinguishable, that they > taste exactly the same. A small but vocal minority > says that red gorfs are better than green gorfs, > and will even pay much more for them in times of > red gorf scarcity. No one is actually arguing > that the green gorfs are superior, only that they > are *equal* to the reds in every way. > > Which do you buy? If their prices are equal would > you bet that the minority *might* be right? Or that > there is a small chance they are right? If even a > small chance exists, you would choose the red gorf, right? > Does this constitute a logical fallacy? > > I see a compelling reason to not trade envelopes > in the previous 2 envelope MH paradox, since the mathematical > expectation is equal, but a small vocal minority insists > it is good to switch envelopes. Should that effect my > decision to trade or stick? Since it costs me no more > to get a red gorf, would I not choose a red? And since > it costs me nothing to trade envelopes, would I not > assign a small probability that my reasoning is > wrong and trade? Is there a name for this logical > fallacy? > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From eliasen at mindspring.com Wed May 19 16:20:50 2004 From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:20:50 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <1084955571.25735.152.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> <1084955571.25735.152.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <40AB8962.5090903@mindspring.com> > On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 00:47 -0600, Alan Eliasen wrote: >> Projected earnings for either case is 3/2n, and no option (always staying, >>switching, whatever) improves that. Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > So are you saying that once you opened the first envelope and it had > $10, you wouldn't switch? What I'm saying is that if you don't have any idea of the potential amounts in the envelopes (as cited in the problem description,) then neither option (switching or staying) is mathematically preferable. I'd do just as well flipping a coin, or always staying, or always switching, or staying 22.8% of the time, or whatever. I'm not sure if you're getting at something different with the $10 question. If this is treated as a mathematical problem, my answer is as above. If you're turning it into a psychological problem, in which one tries to guess the probable amount of a donation, you're on your own. I can only predict the simple things, not the firing of an unknown benefactor's billion neurons. ;) -- Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a eliasen at mindspring.com | position he did not reason himself http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place." | --Jonathan Swift From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed May 19 16:25:27 2004 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:25:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs Message-ID: If red and green gorfs are indistuingishable, how can you tell if one has a red or a green gorf? You could always buy either and then sell them off to red gorfs when a shortage is perceived (however that happens). BAL >From: "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs >Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:58:27 -0500 > >The Forrest Gump dilemma? > >Spike wrote: > > > You wish to buy a gorf but you are unsure of > > what kind to buy. You ask a number of people and find > > that opinion is divided. Most say the red gorfs > > and green gorfs are indistinguishable, that they > > taste exactly the same. A small but vocal minority > > says that red gorfs are better than green gorfs, > > and will even pay much more for them in times of > > red gorf scarcity. No one is actually arguing > > that the green gorfs are superior, only that they > > are *equal* to the reds in every way. > > > > Which do you buy? If their prices are equal would > > you bet that the minority *might* be right? Or that > > there is a small chance they are right? If even a > > small chance exists, you would choose the red gorf, right? > > Does this constitute a logical fallacy? > > > > I see a compelling reason to not trade envelopes > > in the previous 2 envelope MH paradox, since the mathematical > > expectation is equal, but a small vocal minority insists > > it is good to switch envelopes. Should that effect my > > decision to trade or stick? Since it costs me no more > > to get a red gorf, would I not choose a red? And since > > it costs me nothing to trade envelopes, would I not > > assign a small probability that my reasoning is > > wrong and trade? Is there a name for this logical > > fallacy? > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From eliasen at mindspring.com Wed May 19 16:45:20 2004 From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:45:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000001c43db4$8b219ce0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c43db4$8b219ce0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40AB8F20.8070600@mindspring.com> Spike wrote: > You wish to buy a gorf but you are unsure of > what kind to buy. You ask a number of people and find > that opinion is divided. Most say the red gorfs > and green gorfs are indistinguishable, that they > taste exactly the same. A small but vocal minority > says that red gorfs are better than green gorfs, > and will even pay much more for them in times of > red gorf scarcity. No one is actually arguing > that the green gorfs are superior, only that they > are *equal* to the reds in every way. > > Which do you buy? If their prices are equal would > you bet that the minority *might* be right? Or that > there is a small chance they are right? If even a > small chance exists, you would choose the red gorf, right? > Does this constitute a logical fallacy? > > I see a compelling reason to not trade envelopes > in the previous 2 envelope MH paradox, since the mathematical > expectation is equal, but a small vocal minority insists > it is good to switch envelopes. Should that effect my > decision to trade or stick? Since it costs me no more > to get a red gorf, would I not choose a red? And since > it costs me nothing to trade envelopes, would I not > assign a small probability that my reasoning is > wrong and trade? Is there a name for this logical > fallacy? I'd call it something like the "flat earth" fallacy. Just because millions of people once believed the earth was flat didn't make it so. Maybe even the majority thought it was flat. I guess that this creates three questions for the players: 1. How confident are you in your math skills? 2. Is usable information somehow being leaked? (e.g. is the amount of money in one envelope not divisible by 2, or have you played this game before and know the usual amounts?) These options, however, were intended to be eliminated by the original problem statement, so I'll disregard them. To avoid the "discreteness" problem, it should probably be posited that the amounts are real numbers, with no minimum. 3. How *much* more will you pay for the red gorfs, which is equivalent to asking "how much will you pay to switch envelopes?" Actually, questions 1 and 3 are the same thing. To see who's better at math, you can play the game against the other person. Your original formulation said that you'd expect to gain 1.25 times the value in the envelope just by switching. Well, then, let your math-challenged opponent pick the first envelope, then generously offer to let him trade it in and buy the other envelope for a reduced cost... say 1.20 times the cost of the first envelope. (So, he gives back the original envelope plus 20% out of his pocket.) In his mind, that's still an expected profit. He should be glad to pay it. If you find a sucker that will play the game on these terms, please mark his back with chalk and send him my way. ;) -- Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a eliasen at mindspring.com | position he did not reason himself http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place." | --Jonathan Swift From alito at organicrobot.com Wed May 19 17:00:52 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 03:00:52 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <40AB8962.5090903@mindspring.com> References: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> <1084955571.25735.152.camel@alito.homeip.net> <40AB8962.5090903@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1084986051.23752.179.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 10:20 -0600, Alan Eliasen wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 00:47 -0600, Alan Eliasen wrote: > >> Projected earnings for either case is 3/2n, and no option (always staying, > >>switching, whatever) improves that. > > Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > So are you saying that once you opened the first envelope and it had > > $10, you wouldn't switch? > > What I'm saying is that if you don't have any idea of the potential amounts > in the envelopes (as cited in the problem description,) then neither option > (switching or staying) is mathematically preferable. I'd do just as well > flipping a coin, or always staying, or always switching, or staying 22.8% of > the time, or whatever. > > I'm not sure if you're getting at something different with the $10 > question. If this is treated as a mathematical problem, my answer is as > above. If you're turning it into a psychological problem, in which one tries > to guess the probable amount of a donation, you're on your own. I can only > predict the simple things, not the firing of an unknown benefactor's billion > neurons. ;) > No, i wasn't implying any kind of psychological analysis was wanted. This paradox seems especially interesting to me because unlike most paradoxes i hear about, this one has a nice sharp practical effect which cannot be "thought away" like others. That is, if someone comes with two envelopes, one containing y and the other containing 2y, you choose one and get amount x (where x is either y or 2y but you don't know which), do you swap? Now what about the following case: someone comes and gives you an envelope which contains x, then says you can return it and get another envelope with amounts 2x or x/2 (equal probability of either), do you swap in this case? If the answers are no to the first and yes to the second question, what is the significant difference in scenarios? (this is a real question in that i don't understand and i would like you to explain it to me, it is not put as a teacher's test to a student) thanks, alejandro From eliasen at mindspring.com Wed May 19 17:18:13 2004 From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:18:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <1084986051.23752.179.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> <1084955571.25735.152.camel@alito.homeip.net> <40AB8962.5090903@mindspring.com> <1084986051.23752.179.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <40AB96D5.4040609@mindspring.com> Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > No, i wasn't implying any kind of psychological analysis was wanted. > This paradox seems especially interesting to me because unlike most > paradoxes i hear about, this one has a nice sharp practical effect which > cannot be "thought away" like others. That is, if someone comes with > two envelopes, one containing y and the other containing 2y, you choose > one and get amount x (where x is either y or 2y but you don't know > which), do you swap? That was the original problem. It doesn't matter what you do. > Now what about the following case: someone comes and gives you an > envelope which contains x, then says you can return it and get another > envelope with amounts 2x or x/2 (equal probability of either), do you > swap in this case? In this case, if you stay with x, your projected earnings are x. Easy. If you swap, you have a 1/2 chance of getting x/2, and a 1/2 chance of getting 2x. Your projected earnings are: PE = 1/2 * x/2 + 1/2 * 2x = x/4 + x = 5/4 x So always swap in this case, since 5/4 x is larger than x. > If the answers are no to the first and yes to the second question, what > is the significant difference in scenarios? The first problem was equivalent to predicting a coin-flip; you're either going to pick the bigger envelope, or you aren't. No matter how much you think about it, you're not going to improve your odds of guessing it right. The payoff matrix was perfectly symmetrical, giving you no reason to favor one strategy over the other. The second option gives you a non-symmetrical payoff matrix. All you need to do is look at the projected earnings to see that 5/4 is more than 1. If the payoffs were double or *nothing*, it's easy to see that the strategy becomes even--projected earnings for swapping would become x also, and it wouldn't matter if you stayed or swapped. But, hell, I'll play "double or half" on a coin-flip any time that I start out ahead! -- Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a eliasen at mindspring.com | position he did not reason himself http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place." | --Jonathan Swift From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Wed May 19 17:22:30 2004 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:22:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000001c43db4$8b219ce0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c43db4$8b219ce0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <04May19.132231-0400_edt.330016-10324+9997@ams.ftl.affinity.com> Spike writes: > > You wish to buy a gorf but you are unsure of > what kind to buy. You ask a number of people and find > that opinion is divided. Most say the red gorfs > and green gorfs are indistinguishable, that they > taste exactly the same. A small but vocal minority > says that red gorfs are better than green gorfs, > and will even pay much more for them in times of > red gorf scarcity. No one is actually arguing > that the green gorfs are superior, only that they > are *equal* to the reds in every way. > > Which do you buy? If their prices are equal would > you bet that the minority *might* be right? Or that > there is a small chance they are right? If even a > small chance exists, you would choose the red gorf, right? > Does this constitute a logical fallacy? I can see a number of fallacies implied in this story. 1. Appeal to authority. You can't show that red is better than green, but other people say it is. 2. Appeal to popularity. If a lot of people believe it, it must be true. 3. Pascal's wager. Let's act like it is true because the possible benefit is greater than the cost of being wrong. 4. Intangible benefit. You can't taste the difference, but you buy the red ones supposedly for better taste. -- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC From scerir at libero.it Wed May 19 17:30:11 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:30:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <000001c43db4$8b219ce0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <003a01c43dc6$f0592710$77bb1b97@administxl09yj> For sure: "mind tunnelling". (I did not follow the thread though, so I cannot say anything else). s. From alito at organicrobot.com Wed May 19 18:14:18 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 04:14:18 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <40AB96D5.4040609@mindspring.com> References: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40AB031F.7040900@mindspring.com> <1084955571.25735.152.camel@alito.homeip.net> <40AB8962.5090903@mindspring.com> <1084986051.23752.179.camel@alito.homeip.net> <40AB96D5.4040609@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1084990458.28592.189.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 11:18 -0600, Alan Eliasen wrote: > Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > If the answers are no to the first and yes to the second question, what > > is the significant difference in scenarios? > > The first problem was equivalent to predicting a coin-flip; you're either > going to pick the bigger envelope, or you aren't. No matter how much you > think about it, you're not going to improve your odds of guessing it right. > The payoff matrix was perfectly symmetrical, giving you no reason to favor one > strategy over the other. > Thanks for the explanation. It doesn't satisfy me, though. This does not mean i don't think its correct. i think it is correct, but there's this bit of my brain shouting "but why!!?". More explicitly: the state of the universe after you've picked the first envelope is the following: you got x you know there's another envelope that either has 2x or x/2 in it. where is the information hidden in the system at that moment? did the act of picking an envelope modify the probability of it being the bigger one, like spike mentioned, to 2/3? thanks again, alejandro From samantha at objectent.com Wed May 19 21:32:13 2004 From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:32:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040517104712825c17@mail.gmail.com> References: <293580-220045117154451472@M2W070.mail2web.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040517105202.01ba2c18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040517163046.GT25728@leitl.org> <6.0.3.0.0.20040517115617.01baa188@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <470a3c52040517104712825c17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I'll hold out for high tech countermeasures of some savvy geeks hired by local pot growers. :-) -s On May 17, 2004, at 10:47 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > The likeliest explanation are a natural phenomena or some experiments > with new types of aircraft by the air force of some neighbor countries > (maybe Belize or Guatemala :-) > But I keep hoping for a real honest alien invasion... > G. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From bret at bonfireproductions.com Wed May 19 21:44:24 2004 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:44:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! In-Reply-To: <29950-220045117163026190@M2W060.mail2web.com> References: <29950-220045117163026190@M2W060.mail2web.com> Message-ID: As much as I "want to believe" and as promising as it sounds, it is always harder to see the a-priori experience as "real" from these pilots/ anyone immersed in such a moment. If I could download and enjoy the experience, it would carry more weight, obviously. So knowing that I'd like this to be spaceships, ours, theirs, whoever... 1. The radar may or may not be valid - I haven't seen data correlation yet. 2. I notice that as the dot gets larger, the "wings" (if only) get more apparent, which screams imaging/iris problems with the FLIR, not spaceships. Personally, I think a beetle is walking around in the FLIR housing. The dots are its feet in contact with the glass. There. I said it. Sorry! Sorry. kulakovich On May 17, 2004, at 12:30 PM, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote: > > From: Damien Broderick > > At 11:44 AM 5/17/2004 -0400, Natasha wrote: > >> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/17/mexico.ufos.reut/index.html >> >> I love this type of real life scare because it helps educate the >> public and >> brings to the news explanations other than the mystical that cause >> otherwordly type events such as the "ball lightning" effect. > > "I started a thread on this a couple of days ago. Ball lightning seems > an > unlikely explanation, as does weather balloons. (These things were > said to > be invisible to the eye but radar painted three of them and 11 were > detected by FLIR infrared detectors.) They are imaged going behind > clouds > and coming out again, moving at a fair clip, hence unlikely to be > blown by > wind." > > Wonder what they might be. Hummm. > > Natasha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From natashavita at earthlink.net Wed May 19 21:47:02 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:47:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! Message-ID: <1530-22004531921472957@M2W072.mail2web.com> From: Samantha Atkins Scare! >I'll hold out for high tech countermeasures of some savvy geeks hired >by local pot growers. :-) I really needed this! haha!hahah! What a great image! I can almost smell it! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 19 22:15:41 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nano: Distancing itself from Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <119420-220045319143041982@M2W078.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20040519221541.56579.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com> > "In fact, Roco emphasized that upgrading human > beings and culture over the > next two decades through interdisciplinary science > must be done in a way > "that respects human dignity." How that idea gets > parsed as the debate > moves ahead remains an open question." Not that he'll probably ever hear this question, but... "If, as seems very likely, preserving 'human dignity' and giving people healthier, fuller lives are incompatible goals, then wouldn't choosing on someone else's behalf to preserve their 'dignity' at the cost of letting them slide into Alzheimer's or physical decrepity, and then to death, be ethically equivalent to murdering them to preserve their 'dignity'?" > I think the issue here is the misinformation that > transhumanist are not > proponents of "human dignity." We need to deal with > this type of erroneous > view. Where did it start? With the mythical notion that there is any dignity in uncured but "natural" ill health? From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 19 22:15:50 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nano: Distancing itself from Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <119420-220045319143041982@M2W078.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20040519221550.2830.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com> > "In fact, Roco emphasized that upgrading human > beings and culture over the > next two decades through interdisciplinary science > must be done in a way > "that respects human dignity." How that idea gets > parsed as the debate > moves ahead remains an open question." Not that he'll probably ever hear this question, but... "If, as seems very likely, preserving 'human dignity' and giving people healthier, fuller lives are incompatible goals, then wouldn't choosing on someone else's behalf to preserve their 'dignity' at the cost of letting them slide into Alzheimer's or physical decrepity, and then to death, be ethically equivalent to murdering them to preserve their 'dignity'?" > I think the issue here is the misinformation that > transhumanist are not > proponents of "human dignity." We need to deal with > this type of erroneous > view. Where did it start? With the mythical notion that there is any dignity in uncured but "natural" ill health? From samantha at objectent.com Thu May 20 00:45:08 2004 From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:45:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000001c43db4$8b219ce0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c43db4$8b219ce0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: Since I don't buy things to eat that I can't afford more than one of and my taste buds are not that terribly discriminating, I would buy whichever one I saw first. If I cared about the claim I would try both and form my own opinion. Wouldn't most people do the same? - samantha On May 19, 2004, at 8:18 AM, Spike wrote: > > You wish to buy a gorf but you are unsure of > what kind to buy. You ask a number of people and find > that opinion is divided. Most say the red gorfs > and green gorfs are indistinguishable, that they > taste exactly the same. A small but vocal minority > says that red gorfs are better than green gorfs, > and will even pay much more for them in times of > red gorf scarcity. No one is actually arguing > that the green gorfs are superior, only that they > are *equal* to the reds in every way. > > Which do you buy? If their prices are equal would > you bet that the minority *might* be right? Or that > there is a small chance they are right? If even a > small chance exists, you would choose the red gorf, right? > Does this constitute a logical fallacy? > > I see a compelling reason to not trade envelopes > in the previous 2 envelope MH paradox, since the mathematical > expectation is equal, but a small vocal minority insists > it is good to switch envelopes. Should that effect my > decision to trade or stick? Since it costs me no more > to get a red gorf, would I not choose a red? And since > it costs me nothing to trade envelopes, would I not > assign a small probability that my reasoning is > wrong and trade? Is there a name for this logical > fallacy? > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From samantha at objectent.com Thu May 20 01:13:08 2004 From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:13:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Max's "Beyond Caution" reworked a bit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Nietzsche quote is well played. I do indeed "feel the breath of empty space" - the colossal size of the step beyond all that we know. It is perfectly natural that we would feel some fear as we take the very shape and limits of our very selves into our own hands. It is truly an awesome challenge and mistakes could indeed be quite costly. I find it easier than some to understand that many do not believe we are competent to take such a step without immediate disaster. They have a quite legitimate worry. If I was not so utterly convinced that staying as we are leads irrevocably to disaster and relatively soon, I might even be more supportive of their camp. Accomplishing change is natural. So is being conservative and resisting more change that may be wise to attempt at once. Both adventurous and conservative forces have a place in human well being even as we become able to go beyond what we thought our human nature was limited to. I don't think the main gist of the resistance is due to some collision with belief in a perfect creator. To me the main worry is that we are stepping beyond, and beyond the beyond, with little idea of where we are stepping to or of whether we will have greater well-being than we have today. Few people can imagine so much change. We ourselves admit our plans lead directly to more change in a shorter period of time than it is remotely possible to imagine. So there are legitimate reasons to exercise caution and advocate restraint to at least some level. I don't think we do ourselves justice or convince anyone or even seem like reasonable people when we simply paint the "opposition" as being given to irrational progress-hating myth-based views. There is undoubtedly some of that but then there is enough irrationality in our own house. There are quite rational reasons to be cautious. Why not meet the opposition half-way where we are both rational and wish for the best for all of us? That point precludes the stopping of progress but it also precludes the reification of any/all progress as the Good Incarnate. It requires more sobriety all around. - samantha On May 18, 2004, at 11:47 PM, Reason wrote: > I've reworked Max's recent Beyond Caution to focus more on healthy life > extension, and express a little of my own outrage with the matters to > hand. > It's the latest Longevity Meme article: > > http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm? > article_id=18&page=1 > > Reason > Founder, Longevity Meme > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 20 03:58:51 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 20:58:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c43e1e$c4390a30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs > > > Since I don't buy things to eat that I can't afford more than one of > and my taste buds are not that terribly discriminating, I would buy > whichever one I saw first. If I cared about the claim I > would try both and form my own opinion. Wouldn't most people do the same? > > - samantha Surely so, but do not get mired in the details of the game. The reason I introduced the red and green gorfs is to demonstrate an interesting question. If most people say red and green gorfs are equal but a small and perhaps not very credible minority insist reds are better, while no one is actually claiming the greens are better, then I would choose a red gorf, assuming the same price. Applicability: in the previous two-envelope example, one is given an envelope which contains 10 zorgs, and has the knowledge that the other contains either 5 or 20 zorgs. A typical bet is double or nothing. This one is double or half. Looks like a slam dunk decision to trade. I know that this view leads to paradox and so for some mysterious reason cannot be correct. Still, a small voice within says "it costs you nothing to trade, so do it." If the red gorf costs the same as the green, then even if you already believe that they are probably the same, you would choose the red anyway, since some say reds are better. If the reds cost more, I would choose the cheaper green gorf. If the messenger asked for *any* money for the privelege of swapping, my mathematical brain would immediately fall back on what it knows is correct, and would choose to stick. I have asked a number of people at my workplace about the two-envelope problem. It has been most enlightening, and more than a little scary, since I have heard so many different lines of reasoning used to justify the trade- or-stick decision, and *all of them are incorrect*! And I live in a democracy! And all these illogical yahoos can legally vote! And we are facing a major collective trade- or-stick decision on a national level! Oy vey! {8-| {8^D spike From robwilkes at satx.rr.com Thu May 20 05:36:06 2004 From: robwilkes at satx.rr.com (Rob Wilkes) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:36:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Monty Hall Paradox ... Not! Message-ID: <01C43E02.70E180E0.robwilkes@satx.rr.com> The Monty Hall Paradox is not a paradox. Think of it from Monty's POV. MH must have an envelope to swap you for each time that he offers a trade. In the worst case (for Monty) he would keep offering you an envelope containing twice as much and you would keep trading. For 5 trades the progression would be: $10 (start), 20, 40, 80, 160, 320. You started with $10 and walked away with $320. In the best case for MH he would keep offering you an envelope containing half as much and you would keep trading. For 5 trades the progression would be: $10 (start), 5, 2.50, 1.25, 0.625, 0.3125. You started with $10 and walked away with $0.3125. Your luck could go either way 50:50 on each trade. It is essentially a random walk along a 1-dimensional integer line where the value at each integer is $10 x 2^i. (i being the integer, and 0 being the starting point.) The number of trades determines the liability MH is at risk for: $10 x 2^n, where n is the number of trades he will offer you. If Monty will offer you 8 trades, starting with $10, then he must be prepared to fork over $10 x 2^8 = $2560.00 in the worst case. The probablilty of you getting that lucky is 1/(2^8) = 1/16. For 8 trades you have an equal chance of walking away with any of the following: $2560, 1280, 640, 320, 160, 80, 40, 20, $10, 5, 2.50, 1.25, 0.625, 0.3125, 0.15625, 0.078125, $0.039063. You can only get rich by being lucky and trading a lot. You can only get very poor by being unlucky and trading a lot. If you don't trade at all you have $10 to buy some beer for you and your friends after the show, and that is the only outcome that is guaranteed. Rob Wilkes From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua Thu May 20 08:02:03 2004 From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:02:03 +0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A transhumanistic palindrome Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040520110254.00aca680@pop.cris.net> Palindrome: Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era? Was found in Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue: English & How It Got That Way (Morrow, New York, 1990) Hopefully it's new for the list and did not appear previously in transhumanist context... Best! Gennady Simferopol Crimea Ukraine From amara at amara.com Thu May 20 12:13:11 2004 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:13:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gunnar Graps 1951-2004 Message-ID: (I'm breathing and he's not, though, unfortunately) Poetry by Pablo Neruda And it was at that age ... Poetry arrived in search of me. I don't know, I don't know where it came from, from winter or a river. I don't know how or when, no they were not voices, they were not words, nor silence, but from a street I was summoned, from the branches of night, abruptly from the others, among violent fires or returning alone, there I was without a face and it touched me. I did no know what to say, my mouth had no way with names, my eyes were blind, and something started in my soul, fever or forgotten wings, and I made my own way, deciphering that fire, and I wrote the first faint line, faint, without substance, pure nonsense, pure wisdom of someone who knows nothing., and suddenly I saw the heavens unfastened and open, planets, palpitating plantations, shadow perforated, riddled with arrows, fire and flowers, the winding night, the universe. And I, infinitesimal being, drunk with the great starry void, likeness, image of mystery, felt myself a pure part of the abyss, I wheeled with the stars, my heart broke loose on the wind. At Tue, 18 May 2004 18:04:48 -0400 Natasha wrote: > >I just had a thought... > >Amara is an astronomer who examines interplanetary dust and the stars. Her >cousin was a rock star. They had something wonderfully precious in common - > >"The dust wakes out of its slumber and I follow its passage. > >>From volcanoes on moons, through comet breezes, >Atop bookshelves in rooms, expelled by human sneezes, >>From disks of new stars into emerald-blue planets, > >The dust is a piece of me, or am I a piece of dust? > >We fly from the ecliptic brightness, >feel comforted by the local fluff, and >drink a ceylon tea at the cosmic tea table >with our friends from beta Pic. > >They don't laugh at my jokes, but I smile anyway." > >Amara Lynn Graps >March 2001 -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Our own life is the instrument with which we experiment with truth." --Thich Nhat Hanh From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk Thu May 20 12:30:51 2004 From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:30:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] MuPad computer maths software Message-ID: <40ACA4FB.6000103@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> MuPAD is a mathematical expert system for doing symbolic and exact algebraic computations with almost arbitrary accuracy. For example, the number of significant digits can be chosen freely. Apart from a vast variety of mathematical libraries the system provides tools for visualization of 2- and 3-dimensional objects. On Microsoft Windows systems, MuPAD offers a notebook concept and supports the technologies OLE, ActiveX Automation, DCOM, RTF and HTML. Thus it offers a natural integration in Office applications like Word or PowerPoint as well as others. They have free versions available for personal use, for both Windows and Linux. Full documentation for the free 2.5 version - Looks like this software could be really useful to the maths groupies on the list! ;) BillK From natashavita at earthlink.net Thu May 20 14:04:27 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:04:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO - Mexico Scare! Message-ID: <114780-2200454201442766@M2W057.mail2web.com> From: Bret Kulakovich >Personally, I think a beetle is walking around in the FLIR housing. The >dots are its feet in contact with the glass. >There. I said it. Sorry! Possible explanation. :-) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From megaquark at hotmail.com Thu May 20 14:23:45 2004 From: megaquark at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:23:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] space: a novel approach to the NEO problem Message-ID: Space.com had an article today that I thought may be of interest to some. SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc is developing a plan for a swarm of robots that would land on a NEO, "eat" it, then eject the "eaten" part into space via a mass driver with a self-replicating tube to give the asteroid a little nudge in the opposite direction. Here's the article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&ncid=753&e=10&u=/space/20040519/sc_space/asteroideatersrobotstohuntspacerocksprotectearth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bradbury at aeiveos.com Thu May 20 15:22:49 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] PHYSICS: Am I a Boson or a Fermion? Message-ID: Looks like the physics nerds have managed to pull another rabbit out of the hat in terms of figuring out how to make bosons behave like fermions. "When Bosons become Fermions" http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04n.html On top of Bose-Einstein condensates we now have to understand Tonks-Girardeau gases. Why couldn't they have kept it nice and simple with protons, neutrons and electrons??? R. From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Thu May 20 16:56:01 2004 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:56:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000001c43e1e$c4390a30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c43e1e$c4390a30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <04May20.125601-0400_edt.319084-11250+10002@ams.ftl.affinity.com> Spike writes: > If > most people say red and green gorfs are equal but a > small and perhaps not very credible minority insist > reds are better, while no one is actually claiming the > greens are better, then I would choose a red gorf, > assuming the same price. Spike, this would lead you to superstition. Throwing salt over your shoulder after you spill it won't hurt and doesn't cost anything. Most people say it doesn't matter. But some few do claim that it will keep evil away. So you might as well do it just in case, right? The same goes for blessing someone after they sneeze, and avoiding the path of a black cat, or any other unfounded superstition. Might as well do it, just in case, right? -- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC From samantha at objectent.com Thu May 20 17:52:03 2004 From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:52:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] space: a novel approach to the NEO problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66DDADFD-AA86-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com> Sigh. it is a start but it would be much more intelligent to actually mine the asteroids for volatiles, metals, precious metals and so on while we are there. -s On May 20, 2004, at 7:23 AM, Kevin Freels wrote: > Space.com had an article today that I thought may be of interest to > some. SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc is developing a plan for a swarm of > robots that would land on a NEO,? "eat" it, then eject the "eaten" > part into space via a mass driver with a self-replicating tube?to give > the asteroid a little nudge in the opposite direction. Here's the > article: > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&ncid=753&e=10&u=/ > space/20040519/sc_space/ > asteroideatersrobotstohuntspacerocksprotectearth > > ? > > ? > > ? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1218 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 20 21:31:52 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 17:31:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <04May20.125601-0400_edt.319084-11250+10002@ams.ftl.affinity.com> References: <000001c43e1e$c4390a30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <04May20.125601-0400_edt.319084-11250+10002@ams.ftl.affinity.com> Message-ID: <40AD23C8.9010203@pobox.com> Harvey Newstrom wrote: > Spike writes: > >> If >> most people say red and green gorfs are equal but a >> small and perhaps not very credible minority insist >> reds are better, while no one is actually claiming the >> greens are better, then I would choose a red gorf, >> assuming the same price. > > Spike, this would lead you to superstition. Throwing salt over your > shoulder after you spill it won't hurt and doesn't cost anything. Most > people say it doesn't matter. But some few do claim that it will keep > evil away. So you might as well do it just in case, right? The same > goes for blessing someone after they sneeze, and avoiding the path of a > black cat, or any other unfounded superstition. Might as well do it, > just in case, right? We're talking about a difference in *taste*, right? There's nothing supernatural about a taste difference that some people can detect and some people can't. The prior probability of the hypothesis is much higher. Assuming the same price, I'd buy a red gorf. If I can buy more than one, I'd buy a red gorf, a green gorf, and have someone feed it to me blindfolded, before I knew which was which, just to see if I could tell the difference, because I would be curious. There's also a time cost to the other acts you mentioned. And I would not object in the slightest if someone were to test the assertion that throwing salt over your shoulder leads to good luck (as measured by a series of coinflip gambles), or that blessing people after they sneeze (using atheists and theists delivering insincere and sincere blessings) leads to less sneezing. That's good science, so long as you use large sample sizes and severe significance tests (p < 0.001, say) to make up for the low prior probability, and so long as you drop the hypothesis like a wet noodle after the disproving evidence comes in. My inclination in such matters is that the thing to do with a hypothesis is test it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri May 21 02:51:38 2004 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 22:51:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40AD23C8.9010203@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 05:31 pm, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Harvey Newstrom wrote: >> Spike writes: >>> If >>> most people say red and green gorfs are equal but a >>> small and perhaps not very credible minority insist >>> reds are better, while no one is actually claiming the >>> greens are better, then I would choose a red gorf, >>> assuming the same price. >> Spike, this would lead you to superstition. Throwing salt over your >> shoulder after you spill it won't hurt and doesn't cost anything. >> Most people say it doesn't matter. But some few do claim that it >> will keep evil away. So you might as well do it just in case, right? >> The same goes for blessing someone after they sneeze, and avoiding >> the path of a black cat, or any other unfounded superstition. Might >> as well do it, just in case, right? > > We're talking about a difference in *taste*, right? There's nothing > supernatural about a taste difference that some people can detect and > some people can't. The prior probability of the hypothesis is much > higher. Assuming the same price, I'd buy a red gorf. But I thought it was assumed that the person purchasing the gorf couldn't taste the difference. And that the question was whether they should by the red because other people said it was better even though the purchaser could not detect any benefit. If one can taste the difference, one should prefer the better tasting one. But if one can't detect a difference, I see no rational for going along with the majority. > My inclination in such matters is that the thing to do with a > hypothesis is test it. I also thought that the individual had tested it and couldn't taste a difference, and the question was whether undetectable claims should be allowed to override the majority and the tests. -- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri May 21 02:56:12 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 19:56:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] David Ray Griffin's Constructive Postmodernism Message-ID: <40AD6FCC.AE83D945@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:06:14 -0700 From: "T. Peter Park" To: forteana at yahoogroups.com Subj: FWD (forteana) David Ray Griffin's Constructive Postmodernism DAVID RAY GRIFFIN'S CONSTRUCTIVE POSTMODERNISM David Ray Griffin, an American Whiteheadian philosopher and liberal Protestant theologian, has developed a "constructive postmodernist" philosophy rather different from the "postmodernism" of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard, Richard Rorty, Stanley Fish, and their followers. Griffin, a Claremont Graduate University philosophy professor, is a "process philosopher" and follower of Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) who calls himself a "postmodernist" and his world-view a form of "postmodernism." A theologian as well as a philosopher, Griffin is strongly sympathetic to parapsychology--the scientific study of extra-sensory perception, ghosts, apparitions, out-of-the-body and near-death experiences, and seeming communications by the dead--and hopes to rehabilitate a belief in God, the soul, absolute moral values, free will, miral responsibility, and life after death for our time through his "constructive postmodernism" with the aid of parapsychology. Griffin is the Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the School of Theology at Claremont, Executive Director of the Center for Process Studies, and founding president of the Center for a Postmodern World in Santa Barbara. He is also the Editor of the "SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought.." Griffin's books on philosophy, theology, and science & religion include _The Reenchantment of Science: Postmodern Proposals_ (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), _God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology_ (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), _Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration_ (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1997), _God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy_(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976),_A Process Christology_(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973),_Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem_ (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998), and _Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts_ (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000). _God and Religion in the Postmodern World_ (1989),_Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality_(1997), and _Religion and Scientific Naturalism _(2000) are part of Griffin's SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought. In the "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought" at the beginning of his _God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology_ (SUNY Press, 1989), Griffin distinguishes between "deconstructive" or "eliminative" postmodernism, which he also calls "ultramodernism," versus "constructive" or "revisionary" postmodernism. Griffin begins by noting that "the rapid spread of the term postmodernism in recent years witnesses to a growing dissatisfaction with modernity," to "an increasing sense that the modern age not only had a beginning but can have an end as well,"and to a "growing sense" that "we can and should leave modernity behind--in fact, that we _must_ if we are to avoid destroying ourselves and most of the life on our planet" (David Ray Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," in Griffin, _God and Religion in the Postmodern World_, SUNY Press, 1989, p. ix). He observes that "a new respect for the wisdom of traditional societies is growing as we realize that they have endured for thousands of years" while "the existence of modern society for even another century seems doubtful." Similarly, modernism_ as a worldview is less and less seen as The Final Truth, in comparison with which all divergent worldviews are automatically regarded as 'superstitious.'" The "modern worldview," Griffin observes, is now "increasingly relativized to the status of one among many, useful for some purposes, inadequate for others" (Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"p. ix). . Griffin also observes that "there have been antimodern movements before, beginning perhaps near the onset of the nineteenth century with the Romantics and the Luddites"(Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"p. ix). However, "the rapidity with which the term _postmodern_ has become widespread in our time suggests that the antimodern sentiment is more extensive and intense than before." It also "includes the sense that modernity can be successfully overcome only by going beyond it, not by attempting to return to a premodern form of existence." The term _postmodernity_, he feels, refers to "a diffuse sentiment rather than to any set of doctrines," to the "sentiment that humanity can and must go beyond the modern" (Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"pp. ix-x). Beyond "connoting this sentiment," Griffin finds that "the term postmodern is used in a confusing variety of ways, some of them contradictory to others." In "artistic and literary circles," for instance, "postmodernity" suggests this "general sentiment" but "also involves a specific reaction against 'modernism' in the narrow sense of a movement in artistic-literary circles in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries"--in other words, to a reaction against doing any more imitations and rehashes of Proust, Joyce, Eliot, Pound, Yeats, Kafka, Pirandello, Beckett, Picasso, Braque, Dal?, Matisse, Stravinsky, Sch?nberg, and Hindemith."Postmodern architecture," again, is "very different from postmodern literary criticism"(Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"p. x). In "some circles," Griffin continues, "the term_ postmodern_ is used in reference to that potpourri of ideas and systems sometimes called _new age metaphysics_, although many of these ideas and systems are more premodern than postmodern." Then, he adds, "even in philosophical and theological circles" in academia, "the term _postmodern_ refers to two quite different positions, one of which is reflected in this series" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). Both positions seek to "transcend both _modernism_ in the sense of the worldview that has developed out of the seventeenth century Galilean-Cartesian-Baconian-Newtonian science, and _modernity_ in the sense of the world order that both conditioned and was conditioned by this world-view." However, "the two positions seek to transcend the modern in different ways." (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). "Closely related to literary-artistic postmodernism," Griffin finds a "philosophical postmodernism inspired variously by pragmatism, physicalism, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, and Jacques Derrida and other recent French thinkers." This "can be called __deconstructive_ or _eliminative postmodernism._ Griffin feels that it "overcomes the modern worldview through an anti-worldview." It "deconstructs or eliminates the ingredients necessary for a worldview, such as God, self, purpose, meaning, a real world, and truth as correspondence." While it is "motivated in some cases by the ethical concern to forestall totalitarianism," Griffin feels that "this type of postmodern thought issues in relativism, even nihilism." It indeed "could also be called _ultramodernism_, in that its eliminations result from carrying modern premises to their logical conclusions" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). This "ultramodernism," as Griffin calls it, is of course the "postmodernism" associated with figures like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard, and Richard Rorty. In a somewhat revised version of this "Introduction" in his _Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts_ (SUNY Press, 2000), Griffin derives "deconstructive" or "eliminative" postmodernism from the thought of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and "a cluster of French thinkers--including Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Julie Krist?va" (p. x). By contrast, the "postmodernism" of Griffin's "SUNY Series in Constrictive Postmodern Thought" is a "_constructive_ or _revisionary_" postmodernism. It "seeks to overcome the modern worldview not by eliminating the possibility of worldviews as such," but rather by "constructing a postmodern worldview through a revision of modern premises and traditional concepts." It "involves a new unity of scientific, ethical, aesthetic, and religious intuitions." It "rejects not science as such but only that scientism in which the data of the modern natural sciences are alone allowed to contribute to the construction of our worldview" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). Such "constructive activity" is "not limited to a revised worldview," but is "equally concerned with a postmodern world that will support and be supported by the new worldview" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," pp. x-xi). A "postmodern world,' Griffin feels, will "involve postmodern persons, with a postmodern spirituality," and also a "postmodern society, ultimately a postmodern global order." Going beyond the "modern world" involves "transcending its individualism, anthropocentrism, patriarchy, mechanization, economism, consumerism, nationalism, and militarism." Griffin believes that the "constructive postmodern thought" he advocates "provides support for the ecology, peace, feminist, and other emancipatory movements of our time," but adds that "the inclusive emancipation must be from modernity itself." Griffin adds that the "term _postmodern_, however, by contrast with _premodern_, emphasizes that the modern world has produced unparalleled advances that must not be lost in a general revulsion against its negative features" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. xi). Thus, Griffin does not want to restore the "good old days" of the feudal Middle Ages, Puritan New England, or the ante-bellum Southern plantation, to drive women back to the kitchen, Blacks back to the cotton-fields, or Jews back to the ghetto, to force women to wear_chadors_ and Jews to wear yellow Stars of David, or to bring back witch-burning and the Holy Inquisition! Despite his critique of "modernity," Griffin does not want to do away with democracy, penicillin, smallpox vaccination, birth control, telephones, and computers, or return the Bourbon, Habsburg, and Romanov dynasties to their thrones! Griffin admits that from the viewpoint of the "deconstructive postmodernists" like Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard, and Richard Rorty,his "constructive postmodernism" is "still hopelessly wedded to outdated concepts" like God, soul, truth, meaning, and purpose, "because it wishes to salvage a positive meaning not only for the notions of the human self, historical meaning, and truth as correspondence, which were central to modernity, but also for premodern notions of a divine reality, cosmic meaning, and an enchanted nature." From the viewpoint of its "advocates," however, Griffin sees his "revisionary postmodernism" as "not only more adequate to our experience" than the deconstructive postmodernism of Derrida, Baudrillard, and Rorty, "but also more genuinely postmodern." Griffin's constructive postmodernism "does not simply carry the premises of modernity through to their logical conclusions" like the followers of "but criticizes and revises those premises." Through its "return to organicism" and its "acceptance of nonsensory perception," Griffin's constructive postmodernism "opens itself to the recovery of truths and values from various forms of premodern thought and practice that had been dogmatically rejected by modernity." It "involves a creative synthesis of modern and premodern truths and values"(Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. xi). -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 21 03:29:55 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 20:29:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40AD23C8.9010203@pobox.com> Message-ID: <001e01c43ee3$e2f7b780$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > Spike writes: > > > >> ...most people say red and green gorfs are equal but a > >> small and perhaps not very credible minority insist > >> reds are better, while no one is actually claiming the > >> greens are better, then I would choose a red gorf, > >> assuming the same price. > > > > Spike, this would lead you to superstition... OK I get ya, but Im glad you introduced superstition: this 2 envelope problem is driving me crazy(er). Recall you are given a choice of two identical envelopes with unspecified amounts of money. All you know is one envelope contains twice as much as the other. You choose one, open it to find 10 zorgs, a zorg being some unknown unit of money that can be anything between pocket change and a gatesian pile. The other envelope contains either 5 zorgs or 20 and you may swap if you wish, in a one-time irreversible swap, your ten for the 5 or 20. My mathematical mind assures me that the mathematical expectation of the value of the other envelope *must* somehow come out to exactly 10 zorgs. But almost superstitiously, I would be sorely tempted to swap, just in case my logic is flawed. Sorta like the gorf problem where most people think reds and greens are equally good but a few say reds are better, compelling you to choose red, the 10 zorgs problem would compel me to choose swap over stick. Reasoning: the logic for stick says that sticking is *exactly* as good as swapping, but another line of suspected erroneous logic says that swapping gains you a virtual 25% zorg profit. You can imagine no logic that says sticking is actually *better* than swapping, only that sticking is exactly as good as swapping. With that choice, either swapping is equal or swapping is better, then I would swap *even if I knew I was being superstitious*! Can you imagine? Me? Superstitious? A possibly irrelevant factor: a certain jupiter brain who shall remain nameless (but whose initials are Eliezer Yudkowsky) sat in my living room Monday and expounded an argument for sticking which I think may have been erroneous. If the Bayesian Master could miss it, then I could waaaaay miss it, in which case the simple intuitive swap really might be the right way to maximize your zorgs. If you didn't swap and later discovered the error in your reasoning, you would forever curse your own Vulcan brain for not swapping! Your human brain was telling you: "Spike! Swap, fer cryin out loud! You are betting 5 against 10 in an even-chances bet! Whats wrong with you?" etc. Of course I might be just waxing superstitious. Nowthen, do let me tie all this together. I have asked a number of people what they would do with the 10 zorg problem. The people being asked are technically trained, all. They turned out to be about 80% swappers, 20% stickers. I asked for their reasoning, and most of the swappers trotted out the mathematical expectation calculation without the slightest hesitation, .5*5 + .5*20 = 12.5 > 10, swap, no brainer. When I then pointed out the paradox of non-convergence (the expectation argument still works if you dont look in the envelope, and so it would *still* be beneficial to swap *after* you have swapped) there was much bafflement going around. Arguments ensued, productivity was lost. Of the stickers, only one person derived an equation that suggested that the probability of the other envelope containing the twenty zorgs somehow reverted to 1/3, and the probability of the fiver reverted to 2/3. I agreed that this must somehow be true, however (this is a good one) this conclusion *also leads to a paradox*! If true, one must conclude that until one opens one of the envelopes, the mathematical expectation of the two envelopes is identical, 50-50. After opening one, the probability collapses to 1/3-2/3, and this works *even if one knows not how much a zorg is*! {Insert Twilight Zone music here} So that is how I got back to this red-green gorf problem. If one line of reasoning says red and green are the same, another says red is better, then green cannot be better, only equal, then superstition be damned, pass the salt and I choose red. If one line of reasoning says sticking and swapping are equal, and another line of reasoning (even if highly suspicious) says swapping is better, then sticking cannot actually be advantageous, so pass the salt, I choose swap. I will take my zorgs and endure the ridicule. Another insight: of those who chose stick, the reasoning they gave for sticking was (with only one exception) illogical, self contradictory, flippant, clearly erroneous, intuitive or just plain irrelevant. Examples of sticker reasoning: 1. I dislike gambling. 2. I don't want to take advantage of the kindness of the gift giver. 3. How do I know these are not counterfeit zorgs? 4. My first guess is usually the best. 5. I couldn't risk losing half my zorgs, even for an even shot at twice as many. 6. I might be able to retire, if zorgs are big enough... etc. These people are all registered voters. There was no real insight on the part of the stickers, and the insights of the swappers apparently leads to a wild paradox. One bachelor offered the survivor solution: propose marriage to the messenger, then you get both envelopes. An old married man pointed out that on the contrary, you would get neither: your new bride would get both. {8^D I pointed out that one might already be married, or perhaps one might look like, well... one of us extropians, in which case the messenger would politely refuse your proposal. {8^D <--- (see that? Eyes of different sizes, no pupils, pointy nose, mouth shaped like the letter D, oy vey! Lets face it guys, we are not exactly the most handsome bunch you ever saw.) I came up with a neat solution however. If looking in one envelope somehow collapses the probability wave distribution (insert zen quantum mechanics here) then simply have the messenger open her envelope first, which then would cause your envelope to mysteriously become worth 1.25 times whatever amount she saw there. Then you stick and take your envelope to the bank. You get to be a scientific and logical sticker, yet still follow your superstitious gut feel, all at the same time. spike From sentience at pobox.com Fri May 21 03:57:44 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 23:57:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <001e01c43ee3$e2f7b780$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <001e01c43ee3$e2f7b780$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40AD7E38.4020703@pobox.com> Spike wrote: > > A possibly irrelevant factor: a certain jupiter brain > who shall remain nameless (but whose initials are > Eliezer Yudkowsky) sat in my living room Monday and > expounded an argument for sticking which I think may > have been erroneous. If the Bayesian Master could > miss it, then I could waaaaay miss it, in which case > the simple intuitive swap really might be the right way > to maximize your zorgs. If you didn't swap and later > discovered the error in your reasoning, you would > forever curse your own Vulcan brain for not swapping! > Your human brain was telling you: "Spike! Swap, fer > cryin out loud! You are betting 5 against 10 in an > even-chances bet! Whats wrong with you?" etc. > Of course I might be just waxing superstitious. Ah, we thus find the obviously erroneous assumption at the heart of the paradox: You suppose that I have made a mistake. I didn't say to stick, Spike. I said to keep the envelope if the amount of money in the envelope was surprisingly high, and otherwise swap. As for this business of zorgs, I would still be surprised to find 10^100 zorgs in the envelope, so there must be a limit somewhere. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 21 04:40:52 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:40:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40AD7E38.4020703@pobox.com> Message-ID: <002301c43eed$cca9d530$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > > Ah, we thus find the obviously erroneous assumption at the > heart of the paradox: You suppose that I have made a mistake. > I didn't say to stick, Spike. I said to keep the envelope if > the amount of money in the envelope was surprisingly high, and otherwise > swap. As for this business of zorgs, I would still be surprised to find 10^100 > zorgs in the envelope, so there must be a limit somewhere. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky I may have misunderstood. My notion is that the term zorg can mean anything. The term google, before about 2001 meant 10^100. So a googleth is 10^(-100), so 10^100 googleths is 1. A googleplex was once equal to google^2, so even 10^200 googleplexeths still wont buy you a good cup of java. A zorg could be a picogoogleplexeth of a cent. My understanding is that you argued for swapping unless there was an absurdly large number of zorgs. But this reasoning breaks down if one really knows not what a zorg might be. The only information you get from opening your envelope is to determine if you ultimately doubled your money or lost half. Your line of reasoning works if the envelope contains a familiar currency such as dollars. Even if someone gives you a million bucks, they are unlikely to give you two million. I agree. Unfortunately this example is causing people to get tripped by the details of the problem, as happened with the red and green gorf paradox. Do suggest a fix if you know one in both cases. I want to express the notion that swapping is the intuitively correct path, yet leads to paradox: swapping is still the best strategy even after swapping. We know this cannot be right, so the first envelope you choose must (somehow) have a higher chance of being the larger amount. How, oh evolution, how can this be so? spike From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri May 21 06:04:20 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 23:04:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] David Ray Griffin's constructive postmoden theology Message-ID: <40AD9BE4.BA5A6102@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:15:42 -0700 From: "T. Peter Park" To: forteana at yahoogroups.com Subj: FWD [forteana] David Ray Griffin's constructive postmoden theology Dear Listmates, friends, and philosophers, Are any of you familiar with this rather interesting thinker? If so, what do you think of him? A few years ago, I began reading some very intrigung and thought-provoking books on religion and science by the Whiteheadian "constructive postmodernist" philosopher and liberal Protestant theologian David Ray Griffin, a professor at the Claremont Colleges in California. Griffin is the Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the School of Theology at Claremont, Executive Director of the Center for Process Studies, and founding president of the Center for a Postmodern World in Santa Barbara. He is also the Editor of the "SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought.." Many of his books are published in Albany, N.Y., by the State University of New York Press. Griffin calls himself a "postmodernist"--but his outlook is very different from that of the writers usually associated with that designation, like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Georges Bataille, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard, Julie Krist?va,and Richard Rorty. The books by Griffin I first read include _The Reenchantment of Science: Postmodern Proposals_ (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), _God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology_ (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), and _Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration_ (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1997), Other books by Griffin on philosophy, theology, and religion and science that I read a bit later include _God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy_ (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976),_A Process Christology_(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973),_Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem_ (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998), and _Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts_ (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000). _God and Religion in the Postmodern World_ (1989),_Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality_(1997), and _Religion and Scientific Naturalism _(2000) are part of Griffin's SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought. In a nutshell, David Ray Griffin is a "process philosopher" heavily influenced by Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), whom he quotes extensively in all his books. He is what some people might call a "Higher New Age" thinker. The main influences on Griffin's thought are Whitehead, and the Whiteheadian Protestant "process theologians" John B. Cobb and Charles Hartshorne, whom he also frequently cites in his books. Griffin describes his philosophy variously as "constructive postmodernism," as "process philosophy," as "organicism," as "panexperientialism," and as "naturalistic theism." Griffin, like Whitehead, sees the Universe as a hierarchy of more or less conscious experiencing self-determining beings, from God down through human beings, animals, cells, complex organic molecules like DNA, and simple molecules, down to atoms, electrons, and quarks. All of these are historically connected chains of events or "actual occasions." Every event or "actual occasion" has a "physical pole" and a "mental pole," and "prehends" all other events in the Universe with greater or lesser clarity, adequacy, and vividness. The environment of every event includes first of all God and the events in its immediate past and immediate vicinity, but to a lesser extent also all the other events that have ever occurred in the Universe. All events (and all chains of events like God, the human soul, the soul of an animal, or the dim inchoate awareness of an atom or electron) have experience (if not always quite full consciousness in the human or animal sense) and a degree of self-determination and free will. As a "panexperientalist," Griffin vehemently rejects the Cartesian mind/matter dualism of two radically different "substances," instead arguing zealously that _all_ events and _all_chains or strings of events are _both_ "mental" and "physical." Griffin argues for an evolutionary theism of a God gradually shaping Chaos into Cosmos over the aeons. God did not create the Universe out of nothing, Griffin believes, but has always been working on chaos, trying to organize it to ever higher levels of beauty, awareness, and significance. God has persuasive but not coercive power on events and beings in the Universe, and is not omnipotent--he thus disposes of the "problem of evil." Griffin believes in God, the immortality of the soul, free will, the ultimate meaningfulness of human life, and the reality of paranormal phenomena like ESP, PK, near-death experiences, mediumistic communications, and reincarnation memories. While believing in God, immortality, and the paranormal, calls himself a "naturalist" rather than a "supernaturalist," declaring that all seemingly "supernatural," "miraculous," or "paranormal" phenomena are in fact part of the course of Nature. Griffin attacks both "supernaturalism" for attributing an arbitrary coercive willfulness to God and "dualism" for positing an unbridgeable mind/matter gap. Griffin argues that the 17th century early-modern thinkers of the Scientific Revolution--Descartes, Mersenne, Newton, Huyghens, Boyle, etc.--advocated a mechanistic world-view in order to bolster a supernaturalist theology, defend the uniqueness of Christian miracles, and forestall theologically embarrassing natural explanations of seeming miracles in terms of what we would now call ESP and PK. Modern fundamentalists, Griffin feels, still cling stubbornly to this 17th century world-view--which has also always been my own contention! Griffin would definitely NOT think that weeping Madonnas, or the remarkable coincidences reported by some fundamentalists and charismatics, "prove" that God hates abortion, homosexuality, proposals to ordain women and active gays as priests, and people who disagree with Pope John Paul II or Pat Robertson! In _God and Religion in the Postmodern World_ (1989), Griffin presents a naturalistic process theism for readers who have found standard liberal theology empty or who believe that one cannot be religious and fully rational and empirical at the same time. He tries to appeal both to people who are intensely interested in religion and spirituality who find traditional theology incredible and modern liberal theology irrelevant, and to fully modern-minded people who have dismissed religious spirituality as well as theology because of the assumptions they have imbibed from modern culture. He argues that his constructive postmodern world-view is more empirical and rational than that of late-modern scientific materialism, more coherent than the modern world-view and more helpful ethically. This Whiteheadian constructive postmodernism, he claims, is not a return to early-modern dualistic supernaturalism. The mechanism and sensationism of Descartes, Newton, Boyle, and Huyghens, he feels, precluded a real union of religion and science, and unavoidably slid over into the all-out atheism and materialism of the 18th century Enlightenment _philosophes_, the late Victorians, and the Social Darwinists, Marxists, Behaviorists, and Logical Positivists. Griffin believes that his own postmodernism offers a deeply religious yet fully scientific theology, providing a new basis for spiritual discipline and for a pacific morality that could reverse the militarism, imperialism, racism, sexism, consumerism, "rugged individualism," and Kissingerian amoral _Realpolitik_ of modernity. With what he calls his revisionary and constructive postmodern theology, Griffin also challenges the deconstructive or eliminative postmodernism inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Jean Baudrillard, Julie Krist?va,and Richard Rorty that he calls "ultramodernism" and sees as leading to ultra-relativism, ultra-skepticism, and nihilism. In _Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality_ (1997), Griffin explores the implications of parapsychology for philosophy and religion. He examines why most mainstream modern scientists, philosophers, and theologians have held parapsychology in disdain, and argues that neither_a priori_ philosophical attacks nor wholesale rejection of the evidence can withstand scrutiny. After outlining a Whiteheadian organicist constructive postmodern philosophy that would allow parapsychological evidence to be taken seriously, Griffin examines this evidence at length. He identifies and describes the various types of repeatable paranormal phenomena that strongly suggest the reality of ESP and PK. Then, on the basis of an interactionist but non-dualist and non-Cartesian distinction between mind and brain, which makes the idea of life after death conceivable, Griffin examines five types of evidence for the reality of life after death: messages from mediums; apparitions; cases of the possession type; cases of the reincarnation type (especially as investigated by the University of Virginia's Ian Stevenson); and out-of-the-body experiences. His philosophical and empirical examinations of these phenomena, he feels, suggest that they provide support for a postmodern spirituality that overcomes the thinness of modern "liberal" religion without returning to what he considers an objectionable supernaturalism or fundamentalism. In _God, Power, and Evil_ (1976), Griffin explores the problem of evil, the question "If there is a good God, why is there evil and suffering in the world?," from the process perspective of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, arriving at a view of a good, loving, and powerful but limited and non-omnipotent God. He examines the sources of the problem and what he sees as the repeated failures of the theodicies of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Spinoza, Leibniz, Karl Barth, John Hick, Emil Brunner, Emil Fackenheim, and others to provide an acceptable solution. Griffin discusses the one possibility everybody agrees would resolve the problem--the possibility of rejecting the idea of Divine power as totally omnipotent and actually or potentially controlling all events--and examines the reasons for theologians' resistance to this simple, logical, reasonable (as he sees it) solution. Griffin finds these reasons fallacious and unconvincing, and goes on to present a nontraditional theodicy, showing how the theoretical difficulties posed for theism by evil can be handled. Griffin's view is that God _cannot_ control everything that happens in the Universe, that there is in fact no "problem of evil" because She could _not_ prevent earthquakes, hurricanes, AIDS epidemics, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, or the Crucifixion though She suffers fully with us in such calamities. It's not a unique or original view with Griffin: John Stuart Mill, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, and the contemporary Protestant "process theologians" John Cobb and Charles Hartshorne have all held the same view. At the same time, Griffin presents a view of God as perfect in power and goodness (though _not_ literally omnipotent), and thus adequate as a worthy object of worship. In _A Process Christology_ (1973), Griffin argues that Whitehead's process philosophy provides a basis for understanding and interpreting Jesus Christ as God's decisive self-revelation, in a manner that Griffin feels is consistent with both modern thought and Christian faith. He tries to bring together the quest for the historical Jesus, the neo-orthodox emphasis on God's self-revealing activity in history, and a theology based on the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, and John Cobb. Griffin discusses the basis for making the notion that Jesus was the supreme self-expression of God's character and purpose (the Divine Logos) central to contemporary Christology. He examines the theologies of Paul Tillich, H. Richard Niebuhr (Reinhold Niebuhr's brother), Rudolf Bultmann, and Friedrich Schleiermacher to illustrate that the claims of Jesus have caused problems for modern theologians. He then tries to offer what he sees as a constructive position that solves these problems based on process concepts, especially Whitehead's idea that each and every moment of experience is provided by God with an "ideal aim." This, Griffin feels, allows one to maintain both a formal commitment to rationality and a substantive conviction as to the truth of the basic essential Christian belief in the self-revealing activity of a personal God. Thus, with the help of process philosophy, Griffin hopes, a modern Christian could reaffirm basic core Christian beliefs about Jesus without adopting an irrationalist approach to truth, ignoring any historical evidence about Jesus' fallibility, or claiming a supernatural Divine interruption of the normal causal patterns of reality. In the "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought" at the beginning of his _God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology_ (SUNY Press, 1989), Griffin distinguishes between "deconstructive" or "eliminative" postmodernism, which he also calls "ultramodernism," versus "constructive" or "revisionary" postmodernism. Griffin begins by noting that "the rapid spread of the term postmodernism in recent years witnesses to a growing dissatisfaction with modernity," to "an increasing sense that the modern age not only had a beginning but can have an end as well,"and to a "growing sense" that "we can and should leave modernity behind--in fact, that we _must_ if we are to avoid destroying ourselves and most of the life on our planet" (David Ray Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," in Griffin, _God and Religion in the Postmodern World_, SUNY Press, 1989, p. ix). He observes that "a new respect for the wisdom of traditional societies is growing as we realize that they have endured for thousands of years" while "the existence of modern society for even another century seems doubtful." Similarly, modernism_ as a worldview is less and less seen as The Final Truth, in comparison with which all divergent worldviews are automatically regarded as 'superstitious.'" The "modern worldview," Griffin observes, is now "increasingly relativized to the status of one among many, useful for some purposes, inadequate for others" (Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"p. ix). . Griffin also observes that "there have been antimodern movements before, beginning perhaps near the onset of the nineteenth century with the Romantics and the Luddites"(Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"p. ix). However, "the rapidity with which the term _postmodern_ has become widespread in our time suggests that the antimodern sentiment is more extensive and intense than before." It also "includes the sense that modernity can be successfully overcome only by going beyond it, not by attempting to return to a premodern form of existence." The term _postmodernity_, he feels, refers to "a diffuse sentiment rather than to any set of doctrines," to the "sentiment that humanity can and must go beyond the modern" (Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"pp. ix-x). Beyond "connoting this sentiment," Griffin finds that "the term _ postmodern _ is used in a confusing variety of ways, some of them contradictory to others." In "artistic and literary circles," for instance, "postmodernity" suggests this "general sentiment" but "also involves a specific reaction against 'modernism' in the narrow sense of a movement in artistic-literary circles in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries"--in other words, to a reaction against doing any more imitations and rehashes of Proust, Joyce, Eliot, Pound, Yeats, Kafka, Pirandello, Beckett, Picasso, Braque, Dal?, Matisse, Stravinsky, Sch?nberg, and Hindemith."Postmodern architecture," again, is "very different from postmodern literary criticism"(Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"p. x). In "some circles," Griffin continues, "the term_ postmodern_ is used in reference to that potpourri of ideas and systems sometimes called _new age metaphysics_, although many of these ideas and systems are more premodern than postmodern." Then, he adds, "even in philosophical and theological circles" in academia, "the term _postmodern_ refers to two quite different positions, one of which is reflected in this series" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). Both positions seek to "transcend both _modernism_ in the sense of the worldview that has developed out of the seventeenth century Galilean-Cartesian-Baconian-Newtonian science, and _modernity_ in the sense of the world order that both conditioned and was conditioned by this world-view." However, "the two positions seek to transcend the modern in different ways." (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). "Closely related to literary-artistic postmodernism," Griffin finds a "philosophical postmodernism inspired variously by pragmatism, physicalism, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, and Jacques Derrida and other recent French thinkers." This "can be called __deconstructive_ or _eliminative postmodernism._ Griffin feels that it "overcomes the modern worldview through an anti-worldview." It "deconstructs or eliminates the ingredients necessary for a worldview, such as God, self, purpose, meaning, a real world, and truth as correspondence." While it is "motivated in some cases by the ethical concern to forestall totalitarianism," Griffin feels that "this type of postmodern thought issues in relativism, even nihilism." It indeed "could also be called _ultramodernism_, in that its eliminations result from carrying modern premises to their logical conclusions" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). This "ultramodernism," as Griffin calls it, is of course the "postmodernism" associated with figures like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard, and Richard Rorty. In a somewhat revised version of this "Introduction" in his _Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts_ (SUNY Press, 2000), Griffin derives "deconstructive" or "eliminative" postmodernism from the thought of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and "a cluster of French thinkers--including Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Julie Krist?va" (p. x). By contrast, the "postmodernism" of Griffin's "SUNY Series in Constrictive Postmodern Thought" is a "_constructive_ or revisionary_" postmodernism. It "seeks to overcome the modern worldview not by eliminating the possibility of worldviews as such," but rather by "constructing a postmodern worldview through a revision of modern premises and traditional concepts." It "involves a new unity of scientific, ethical, aesthetic, and religious intuitions." It "rejects not science as such but only that scientism in which the data of the modern natural sciences are alone allowed to contribute to the construction of our worldview" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). Such "constructive activity" is "not limited to a revised worldview," but is "equally concerned with a postmodern world that will support and be supported by the new worldview" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," pp. x-xi). A "postmodern world,' Griffin feels, will "involve postmodern persons, with a postmodern spirituality," and also a "postmodern society, ultimately a postmodern global order." Going beyond the "modern world" involves "transcending its individualism, anthropocentrism, patriarchy, mechanization, economism, consumerism, nationalism, and militarism." Griffin believes that the "constructive postmodern thought" he advocates "provides support for the ecology, peace, feminist, and other emancipatory movements of our time," but adds that "the inclusive emancipation must be from modernity itself." Griffin adds that the "term _postmodern_, however, by contrast with _premodern_, emphasizes that the modern world has produced unparalleled advances that must not be lost in a general revulsion against its negative features" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. xi). Thus, Griffin does not want to restore the "good old days" of the feudal Middle Ages, Puritan New England, or the ante-bellum Southern plantation, to drive women back to the kitchen, Blacks back to the cotton-fields, or Jews back to the ghetto, to force women to wear_chadors_ and Jews to wear yellow Stars of David, or to bring back witch-burning and the Holy Inquisition! Despite his critique of "modernity," Griffin does not want to do away with democracy, penicillin, smallpox vaccination, birth control, telephones, and computers, or return the Bourbon, Habsburg, and Romanov dynasties to their thrones! Griffin admits that from the viewpoint of the "deconstructive postmodernists" like Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard, and Richard Rorty, his "constructive postmodernism" is "still hopelessly wedded to outdated concepts" like God, soul, truth, meaning, and purpose, "because it wishes to salvage a positive meaning not only for the notions of the human self, historical meaning, and truth as correspondence, which were central to modernity, but also for premodern notions of a divine reality, cosmic meaning, and an enchanted nature." From the viewpoint of its "advocates," however, Griffin sees his "revisionary postmodernism" as "not only more adequate to our experience" than the deconstructive postmodernism of Derrida, Baudrillard, and Rorty, "but also more genuinely postmodern." Griffin's constructive postmodernism "does not simply carry the premises of modernity through to their logical conclusions" like the followers of "but criticizes and revises those premises." Through its "return to organicism" and its "acceptance of nonsensory perception," Griffin's constructive postmodernism "opens itself to the recovery of truths and values from various forms of premodern thought and practice that had been dogmatically rejected by modernity." It "involves a creative synthesis of modern and premodern truths and values"(Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. xi). One of Griffin's most interesting observations is his view that the mechanistic world-view of early modern science, as formulated in the 17th century by thinkers like Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Huyghens, and Boyle, was developed and propagated for basically religious reasons, to prop up what we would call a fundamentalist approach to theology against what we would now call "New Age" trends! I think Griffin is probably correct, and he seems to confirm what I myself have suspected! In _God and Religion in the Postmodern World_ and _Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality_, Griffin finds it an ironic fact that the modern scientific world-view was initiated by thinkers who wanted to forestall materialism and to protect a particular type of Divine action. It has long been recognized, Griffin notes, that the central feature of the modern scientific worldview inaugurated in the 17th century is its mechanistic account of nature. But it has not been so widely known, he feels, that this account was directed not only against the Aristotelians, as most histories of science note, but also against Hermetic, Neoplatonic, holistic, "magical" views of nature popular in the Renaissance. Griffin notes that it has been conventionally assumed that the modern scientific worldview, which first emerged in the 17th century, was based on reason and experience and was inherently hostile to theology. However, he feels, it was in fact originally based more upon theological and ecclesiastical than upon empirical reasons. The culturally, sociologically, and philosophically most important characteristic of the modern scientific worldview, which was originally known as the "new mechanical philosophy," was that it was an anti-animistic philosophy. It was opposed not only to Aristotelian animism (which made organisms paradigmatic, even seeing a falling stone as "seeking a state of rest") but still more emphatically to an assortment of Hermetic, Neoplatonic, and Cabalistic "magical" Renaissance philosophies, some of which were strongly animistic. In these animistic philosophies, matter was seen as having both the power of self-motion and the power of perception. Each unit was a microcosm, reflecting the whole universe within itself. Action at a distance was considered to be a quite natural phenomenon: if all things are living, perceiving organisms rather than blind chunks of dead matter, there is no reason to believe that all influence must be by direct contact. The "magical" or "miraculous" could thus occur without supernatural intervention into the natural order of things. Also, God was understood more as the _anima mundi_ than as an external, supernatural creator. Sometimes this "soul of the world" was understood pantheistically, sometimes more panentheistically (as we would nowadays put it). These Renaissance animisms, it was widely feared by 17th century orthodox Catholic and Protestant theologians and clerics, could lead to atheism or, what was generally considered the same thing, pantheism. If matter was self-moving, the universe could perhaps be self-organizing. If so, it was feared, the order of our world would provide no evidence for an external creator God. An atheistic philosophy was seen as dangerous to the Church's authority. So also was a pantheistic or panentheistic philosophy, insofar as it implied that God was immediately present to everybody, rather than being mediated only through the doctrines and sacraments of a hierarchical Church. Also, the Church could threaten the disobedient with Hell no more in the name of a pantheistic or panentheistic God than in that of a nonexistent one. The mechanical, antianimistic philosophy was thus seen as the answer. Newton, and many other 17th century intellectuals, argued that a natural world composed of inert bits of matter demanded an external God who created matter, set it in motion, and imposed the laws of motion upon it. Newton also argued that neither the cohesion between the atoms in a rock nor the gravitational attraction between heavenly bodies could be inherent to matter itself. These phenomena therefore proved an external God who imposed the appearance of mutual attraction upon matter. A mechanistic view of nature, far from being viewed as hostile to theistic belief, was considered the best defense for it. These Renaissance animisms, because they allowed action at a distance, threatened the Church's belief in supernatural miracles. If events like reading minds, healing by prayer, and moving physical objects by thought alone could occur without supernatural intervention, then the miracles of the Bible and the later history of the Church no longer proved that God had designated Christianity as the one true religion. Because the "argument from miracles" was a main pillar of the Church's evidence for its authority, this naturalization of the Church's "miracles" was a serious threat to the Church's authority. The mechanistic philosophy thus seemed a godsend to both Catholic and Protestant defenders of orthodoxy in Church and State. The Catholic priest, theologian, mathematician, and natural philosopher Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), Descartes' predecessor in popularizing the mechanistic philosophy in France, at first relied on Aristotle in his battles against the Hermetic, animistic philosophers like Robert Fludd (1574-1637) and against the alchemy, astrology, and related arcane arts fashionable in the Renaissance, because Aristotelianism forbade action at a distance. Upon learning of Galileo's mechanistic philosophy, Mersenne embraced it, as it stressed even more clearly the impossibility of action at a distance--in a machine, all influence is by direct physical contact. Thus, when events occurred that could not be explained in terms of the principles of natural philosophy--and Mersenne and most other people in the 17th century had no doubt that such events occurred--then a supernatural agent had to be involved: these events had to be the work of God--or of Satan, if they involved witches or pagans. The Christian miracles were thus really _ miraculous_, that is, supernaturally caused. The mechanistic philosophy, far from being opposed to belief in the miraculous, was originally adopted in part to support this belief. The 17th century view that extraordinary events have to be the work of God--or of Satan, if they involve New Agers, occultists, pagans, witches, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or agnostics--is still the view of many late 20th century fundamentalists and charismatics. It's the explicit teaching, for instance, of charismatic writers Dennis & Rita Bennett's _ The Holy Spirit and You_, long a favorite book of a tongue-speaking charismatic friend of mine. Griffin himself notes that the world-view of contemporary conservative and fundamentalist Christians is largely a continuation of the 17th century early-modern world-view of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Mersenne, Boyle, and Huyghens. Peace, T. Peter tpeterpark at erols.com Garden City South, LI, NY -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From matus at matus1976.com Fri May 21 07:56:43 2004 From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 03:56:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on Transhumanism / Posthumanism / Extropy in Free Inquiry magazine Message-ID: <000001c43f09$2b7ca0e0$6a01a8c0@GREYBOOK> Not sure if this was posted yet, but I don't see it. The issue of Free Inquiry that came in my mail today featured on its cover 'Upgrading Humanity: Are People Obsolete?' This is usual a pretty good magazine IMHO but I have been more disappointed with it recently. It is edited by Paul Kurtz, of Skeptical Inquirer fame I believe, and features frequent articles by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens among others. There website is here http://www.secularhumanism.org/ although the article is not available online. The Author starts by quoting Nick Bostrom and suggests that by bettering oneself (e.g. seeing ultra-violet, having perfect picth, etc) that one might no longer be considered 'human'. It goes on to mention/quote Kass, McKibbin, and Joy. Mentions specifically the Extropy Institute, BetterHUmans, and the World Transhumanist Association as "a motley crew of serious academics, journalists, and scientists, cyber self help gurus, nanotech venture capitalists, polyamorists and gender-benders, cryonics freaks, and artificial intelligence geeks". I presume 'freaks' was added to merely rhyme with 'geeks' It goes on to childishly imply that Max More changing his name was an example of the 'sheer goofiness that organized transhumanism has attracted', skims the surface of the debate of what it means to be human, points out the false dichotomy presented by the opposing 'idealogical camps now squaring off' making its strongest point with "The hard task for transhumanists, then, is the one they haven't yet taken head-on: making a positive and widely appealing moral case for their particular vision of the excellent person and the good society" and "neither should anyone settle for Max More's [answer]: It is not enough to say that humans should go for more of whatever they go for. We need to know precisely what we should want more of and why" This is the height of absurdity and one of the reasons I continue to dislike this magazine more and more. I don't know him, but I would place a good bet that Max knows why he goes after what he goes after and doesn't need to justify it to anyone else. The FI writers pretend to be ethical columnists more frequently yet are basically moral relativists disguised as 'free thinking skeptics' Dissapointing of the skeptic community, since Shermers rather objective account of the Extropy institute in a short blurb many years ago in 'Skeptic' is what got me interested in the group in the first place. As if transhumanists / extropians have to prove the moral right of their self ownership instead of everyone else proving their moral right to tell transhumanists / extropians how long they get to live. Not once is the suggestion ever remotely made that being human is being what we want to be for whatever reason we might want to, instead we have to know *why* we want something and to prove it justified to the Mckibbins of the world. Additional articles included in the "Upgrading Humanity, should we become Post-Human feature" are: "From Regenerative Medicine to Human Design" "Mann Vs Machine" "Humanism for Personhood: Against Human-Racism" I have yet to read these other articles so they may be better, the last one upon a quick skimming looks promising, I see in it 'The transhumanist works toward the fullest flowering of all person's potentials, freeing them from the domination of other people, ensuring that they are educated, housed, and fed, and that they are empowered to control their own lives' Regards, Michael Dickey From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Fri May 21 12:31:39 2004 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:31:39 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <002301c43eed$cca9d530$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <002301c43eed$cca9d530$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40ADF6AB.7010602@optusnet.com.au> >spike said > >Unfortunately this example is causing people to get >tripped by the details of the problem, as happened >with the red and green gorf paradox. Do suggest a >fix if you know one in both cases. I want to express >the notion that swapping is the intuitively correct >path, yet leads to paradox: swapping is still the >best strategy even after swapping. We know this >cannot be right, so the first envelope you choose >must (somehow) have a higher chance of being the >larger amount. How, oh evolution, how can this be so? > >spike > > > The expected value of each envelope before opening one is 50% of the total. After opening one you still don?t know what a zorg is worth and you have no further information, so the expected value of your envelope is still 50% of the total. This makes the other envelope worth either 2/3 or 4/3 of your envelope. An even money bet. If you did this a few thousand times, regardless of whether you swap or not you will end up averaging 15 zorgs per go. ps. the rare purple gorf is far and away the tastiest. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 21 16:04:13 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:04:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40ADF6AB.7010602@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <004501c43f4d$430fb0f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> David > > >spike said > > > >...Do suggest a fix if you know one in both cases. I want to express > >the notion that swapping is the intuitively correct > >path, yet leads to paradox... > > > >spike > > > > > > > The expected value of each envelope before opening one is 50% > of the total... Agreed. > After opening one you still don?t know what a zorg is worth > and you have no further information... This part with which I am not sure I totally agree, for we do have one further, and critically important piece of information: that one of the envelopes contains twice as much as the other. With that information, it seems to me that one need not know the absolute amount in one's own envelope, but rather only to fix the amount somehow, such as by opening it and peering at the number of zorgs. > so the expected value of your envelope is still 50% of > the total... I agree with this as well. > This makes the other envelope worth either 2/3 or 4/3 of > your envelope. An even money bet. Oy vey! This must somehow be true but simultaneously seems to contradict the prior knowledge. You know that the other envelope contains *neither* 2/3 or 4/3 of yours, but rather half or double! We already know this! If we could somehow make ourselves *forget* that prior knowledge, then I would agree that swapping or sticking is the same. But it is unclear that it is worth a frontal lobotomy to make the puzzle come out right. > If you did this a few thousand times, regardless of whether > you swap or not you will end up averaging 15 zorgs per go. I agree with this as well, in fact I may write a sim to prove it, however the result seems paradoxical to me. Its as if the act of opening and peering into your envelope somehow causes the amount in the other one to change. The whole question has caused me to look at the Schoedinger's cat paradox in a whole new light. > ps. the rare purple gorf is far and away the tastiest. Heretic! {8^D spike From jonkc at att.net Fri May 21 16:08:36 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:08:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <001e01c43ee3$e2f7b780$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40AD7E38.4020703@pobox.com> Message-ID: <007901c43f4d$e64a30b0$d2ff4d0c@hal2001> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" Wrote: >I would still be surprised to find 10^100 zorgs in the envelope But if you actually did find 10^100 zorgs in the envelope would it really be inconceivable that the other envelops had twice as much, (10^101)/5 zorgs? John K Clark jonkc at att.net From max at maxmore.com Fri May 21 16:32:58 2004 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:32:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on Transhumanism / Posthumanism / Extropy in Free Inquiry magazine In-Reply-To: <000001c43f09$2b7ca0e0$6a01a8c0@GREYBOOK> References: <000001c43f09$2b7ca0e0$6a01a8c0@GREYBOOK> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040521112823.03abd1a8@mail.earthlink.net> I haven't seen Free Inquiry in some time. They published my piece "On Becoming Posthuman" ten years ago. The editor said that it generated a tremendous amount of discussion, about equally pro and con. You can see that article here: http://www.maxmore.com/becoming.htm At 02:56 AM 5/21/2004, Michael Dickey wrote: >Not sure if this was posted yet, but I don't see it. > >The issue of Free Inquiry that came in my mail today featured on its >cover 'Upgrading Humanity: Are People Obsolete?' This is usual a pretty >good magazine IMHO but I have been more disappointed with it recently. _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org ________________________________________________________________ Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com --- Thought leadership in the innovation economy m.more at manyworlds.com _______________________________________________________ From scerir at libero.it Fri May 21 16:45:31 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 18:45:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <004501c43f4d$430fb0f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <002d01c43f53$0822a460$8db01b97@administxl09yj> > I agree with this as well, in fact I may write a sim > to prove it, however the result seems paradoxical to me. Its as > if the act of opening and peering into your envelope somehow > causes the amount in the other one to change. The whole > question has caused me to look at the Schoedinger's cat > paradox in a whole new light. - spike No, no. The Einstein-de Broglie boxes are much better. A friend of mine wrote something, recently, (and forgot to mention the most interesting issues !). Let me see, yes, here it is http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404016 Of course in QM the problem is: what the quantum-theoretical description is about? Physical states (objects)? Available information about physical states? Images of physical procedures (measurements, pre-measurements, set-up, post-selections, etc.) defining physical states ("contextuality")? Dunno if there is the same bifurcation here (MH): reality or available information? Regards, s. From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Fri May 21 17:30:56 2004 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 03:30:56 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <004501c43f4d$430fb0f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <004501c43f4d$430fb0f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40AE3CD0.405@optusnet.com.au> Spike wrote: >> After opening one you still don?t know what a zorg is worth >> and you have no further information... > > > This part with which I am not sure I totally agree, for > we do have one further, and critically important piece > of information: that one of the envelopes contains twice > as much as the other. With that information, it seems to > me that one need not know the absolute amount in one's own > envelope, but rather only to fix the amount somehow, such > as by opening it and peering at the number of zorgs. The missing information is that you still don?t know the total value contained in the envelopes. You have either 1/3 or 2/3 of that total. If you don?t know which you have to average it and call it half. Same for the other envelope. Hence they are of equal value until both are opened and the values becomes known. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 21 17:43:36 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:43:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <002d01c43f53$0822a460$8db01b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <004801c43f5b$2538a6a0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> The whole > > question has caused me to look at the Schoedinger's cat > > paradox in a whole new light. > - spike > > No, no. The Einstein-de Broglie boxes are much better. > A friend of mine wrote something, recently, (and forgot > to mention the most interesting issues !). Let me see, > yes, here it is http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404016 ... > Regards, s. All right, we can go down that path, and even save Eliezer's conjecture (if I understand it correctly). We have been saying one envelope contains twice the amount in the other, but the ratio can be anything. Suppose now that we are told one envelope contains one thousand times the other. You choose, open, find ten bucks. The other now contains either one lousy cent or a cool ten grand. Is there anyone here who would not swap? If so, how the helllll do you figure? But what if you open yours and find a cool ten grand? Now would you swap? I think I would reason that no mysterious benefactor is likely to just give me 10 million bucks, I'm really not that nice a guy. {8^D I'm already amazed that she would just give me 10 thousand, shocked I say. So I would take the money and run. Are there those present who would swap? Mathematically it looks like a terrific deal, does it not? And sticking proves Elizer's contention. But any *real* Vulcan would swap. What if you are not told the ratio? Now it is easy to see that there is no profit in swapping, regardless of the amount in your envelope, so there is no point in even opening it, right? Choose and envelope and cheerfully walk away, marvelling at your good fortune. How does knowing the ratio affect your stick/swap decision? Is this not itself a paradox? OK what if the ratio is one thousand and you choose, open, find 10 zorgs? What if the ratio is one million and you find 10 zorgs? I think if we can logically answer this question, the paradox disappears, and I can cheerfully return to at least a functional level of sanity. spike From hal at finney.org Fri May 21 18:35:50 2004 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs Message-ID: <20040521183550.5DA4B57E87@finney.org> A logic paradox is a situation where there are two arguments that reach opposing conclusions, yet both arguments seem equally valid. In this case, one argument goes as follows. We have the two envelopes, and when they are closed it is obvious that there is no point in switching. We know in advance that when we open one we will see some number, so after doing so we gain no new information, hence there should still be no point in switching. The other argument says that once you open the envelope and see X, the other envelope has X/2 or 2X with equal likelihood, hence you have an expected gain of X/4 if you switch, so you should switch. Both arguments seem valid on their own. But they can't both be right. (Or can they? See below.) One of the problems in discussing paradoxes is that people tend to talk past each other. Each side recites his argument, as if that refutes the other. But that doesn't resolve it, no matter how loudly you shout one argument or the other. The nature of a paradox is two sided. Both arguments appear valid. Emphasizing the validity of one of them merely deepens the paradox. The only way to resolve a paradox is to point out a flaw in one of the arguments. You have to look for weaknesses, not strengths. You have to say why one of the arguments doesn't work. And again, this can't be done merely by going back and emphasizing the validity of the opposing argument. You have to find a flaw in the internal logic of one of the arguments. That's how you make progress in a paradox. If people don't understand this rule, then arguing about paradoxes is unproductive. Now, in this particular case, things are a little different, because both arguments really are valid, in my opinion. How can this be, when they reach opposite conclusions? Isn't that a contradiction, which should never happen in logic? The problem is that the paradox as stated is simply logically impossible. It contains a contradiction. And once you start with a contradiction, it should be no surprise that you can derive one. The contradiction is very simple. There is supposedly a uniform and equal probability distribution over the values which could be in the envelope. But in fact there can be no uniform, nonzero probability distribution over an infinite number of values. Hence the circumstances in the paradox cannot arise. If you change the rules to say that there could be any value in the envelope less than one billion dollars, then the correct strategy is to switch if the value you see is less than half a billion, else don't switch. This is simple and logical and no one will disagree with it. Things are more complicated if you don't know the probability distribution, but again, there is really no such thing as a totally unknown probability distribution. A totally unknown probability distribution would have to give nonzero probability to an infinite number of values, which is again impossible. The truth is that you can always make some estimate based on your experience with life circumstances and with logic puzzles for what is a reasonable probability distribution over the values in the envelopes. Given any such distribution, you can logically derive an optimum rule for when to switch, similar to the rule for the billion dollar cap example. And no one will disagree with what the optimal rule is for a given distribution, because it requires only unambiguous math to derive it. No paradox arises in such cases. Hal From rafal at smigrodzki.org Fri May 21 22:00:13 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 15:00:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <004801c43f5b$2538a6a0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <004801c43f5b$2538a6a0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40AE7BED.20703@smigrodzki.org> Spike wrote: > But any *real* Vulcan would swap. > ### Since my wife frequently remarks on my remarkable psychological similarity to Mr. Spock, let me give the Vulcan advice: The paradox is not a paradox of probabilities, but a spectacle of non-linear attitudes towards measurements of financial value. Humans don't really care much about 1 cent, many care a little about 10$ (but not a thousand times more), most will care a lot about 10 000 but hardly anybody will care about 10^20 $. I would posit that hardly anybody would wager 10^8$ to get 10^20 - simply because almost everybody will be *satisfied* with what he has already, and risking 9/10ths of it all to gain even more is irrational. On the other hand, most would risk 1$ to get 10$, because 1$ is almost as close to nothing as a dime but 10$ buys you a good desert. So, if you know the subjective value of the money in the first opened envelope, and you know the subjective values of the other options, you will choose according to your relative feeling of satisfaction with what you have, vs. what you could have. If the true value of the envelope is truly unknown, an abstract number, then one should not swap, since swapping costs time and effort, but you chance of attaining a given level of satisfaction (after you exchange your zorgs for cold hard cash) is exactly equal with either course of action. Rafal From sentience at pobox.com Fri May 21 19:44:21 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 15:44:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <007901c43f4d$e64a30b0$d2ff4d0c@hal2001> References: <001e01c43ee3$e2f7b780$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40AD7E38.4020703@pobox.com> <007901c43f4d$e64a30b0$d2ff4d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <40AE5C15.6090403@pobox.com> John K Clark wrote: > "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" Wrote: > > >I would still be surprised to find 10^100 zorgs in the envelope > > But if you actually did find 10^100 zorgs in the envelope would it really > be inconceivable that the other envelops had twice as much, (10^101)/5 > zorgs? Inconceivable, no. Slightly more improbable, yes. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Fri May 21 20:21:17 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:21:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <20040521183550.5DA4B57E87@finney.org> References: <20040521183550.5DA4B57E87@finney.org> Message-ID: <40AE64BD.4070904@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > > The problem is that the paradox as stated is simply logically impossible. > It contains a contradiction. And once you start with a contradiction, > it should be no surprise that you can derive one. I can take money from my wallet, put one-third into one envelope, and two-thirds into the other envelope, and flip a coin - a quantum coin, if need be - to decide which envelope to give you. It is definitely physically possible. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 21 20:29:29 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 13:29:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40AE7BED.20703@smigrodzki.org> Message-ID: <000001c43f72$517c2a90$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Rafal Smigrodzki > Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs > > > Spike wrote: > > > But any *real* Vulcan would swap. > > > > ### Since my wife frequently remarks on my remarkable psychological > similarity to Mr. Spock, let me give the Vulcan advice: Rafal, please compel Karen to get online and comment on this whole sordid affair. I am interested in seeing if there is a systematic male/female dichotemy in the way this problem is viewed. I have seen an apparent dichotemy so far, but my sample size of women is too small to derive statistical significance. > The paradox is not a paradox of probabilities, but a spectacle of > non-linear attitudes towards measurements of financial value... Yes, the non-linearity of money argument. If one dollar gives you one grin, then 1000 dollars does not produce 1000 grins, but rather a paltry 50 or so, and a million dollars produces a disappointing but still fun few hundred. This reasoning should not be taken to extremes, however, for this can lead to the absurd conclusion that money cannot buy happiness. Spike's first theorem of money clearly states: Money can indeed buy happiness, assuming sufficient quantities of money. Spikes second law of money: Any problem can be solved by hurling money at it, again assuming amply sufficient quatities of money. Spike's cheerful observations: The price of happiness has been falling steadily for decades. In spite of the first theorem, happiness can be achieved with little or no money at all, assuming sufficient skill in producing happiness. Regardless of one's skill in producing happiness, it is *always* easier with money than without it. Money can get lonely, so it always tends to seek company of other money. This explains the oft-noted rule that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer: it is merely money looking for company. Wealth tends to concentrate in the hands of a few. This is a good thing, for wealth that is evenly distributed is merely money, whereas if it finds other money and gets highly concentrated, it gets promoted to CAPITAL, and takes on a life, a power all its own. Things get built, jobs are created. Money changes hands, and then causes good things to happen while on its journey to find its long lost friends, the rest of the money. It like one of those "Finding Nemo" things, except it's our few paltry dollars that are always scampering off at every opportunity. This whole situation is much more cheerful if one is one of the fortunates who actually own a bank account filled with happy money, which are cheerfully attracting other happy money, also known as interest. You and I are not among this fortunate population of course, but I know those who are. Money does not like to live in places where there isn't much other money to play with. That's is why those kinds of places look the way they do. Money seems to escape from those places at every opportunity, in spite of humans' best efforts to forceably insert money there. > ...but 10$ buys you a good desert... Rafal, the cheapest I have seen desert for sale is about 100 bucks an acre. But those who have lived in the desert love to make smart ass comments about this particular common misspelling. {8^D > So, if you know the subjective value of the money in the first opened > envelope, and you know the subjective values of the other > options, you will choose according to your relative feeling of > satisfaction with what you have, vs. what you could have... True, which is why we have introduced the concept of zorgs, the unknown unit of money. > If the true value of the envelope is > truly unknown, an abstract number, then one should not swap, since > swapping costs time and effort, but you chance of attaining a given > level of satisfaction (after you exchange your zorgs for cold > hard cash) is exactly equal with either course of action. Rafal OK I see your point. Let us assume away the nonlinearity of money then. Let us assume some quantity of something that *everyone* likes, and that more is *always* better, such as grins or orgasms or something. Actually Im not at all sure that this will work right either, for we might get all tripped up in fractional orgasms. Is a milli-orgasm a sneeze? Is a kilo-orgasm a heart attack? (Actually that kinda works on two different levels. {8^D It would be a *really* good way to go out, would it not?) But I digress wildly. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 21 20:50:35 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 13:50:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40AE64BD.4070904@pobox.com> Message-ID: <000a01c43f75$43e4d410$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Eliezer Yudkowsky > > Hal Finney wrote: > > > > The problem is that the paradox as stated is simply > > logically impossible. It contains a contradiction. And once you start with a > > contradiction, it should be no surprise that you can derive one. > > I can take money from my wallet, put one-third into one envelope, and > two-thirds into the other envelope, and flip a coin - a > quantum coin, if need be - to decide which envelope to give you. It is definitely > physically possible. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky Is anyone else here concerned that the Royal Smart Persons are putting forth what appear to be contradictory arguments? I expect RSPs contradicting on political discussions, but this isn't a political discussion, and should be solvable with mathematics alone. So far I have not derived or seen the right equations. I thought I did, but then still ended up with a logical contradiction. Come on RSPs, think harder! What are we doing wrong here? spike Please someone on SL4 collect this thread and post it over there, or have Emil Gilliam log in here. Perhaps he has some insights we have overlooked. Where is Lee Corbin these days? Where are Anders and the other monster brains hanging out? From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Fri May 21 21:01:58 2004 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] space: a novel approach to the NEO problem In-Reply-To: <66DDADFD-AA86-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com> Message-ID: <20040521210158.5855.qmail@web60006.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > Sigh. it is a start but it would be much more > intelligent to actually > mine the asteroids for volatiles, metals, precious > metals and so on > while we are there. > > -s It all reminds me of the approach nuclear waste 'disposal'. What is waste? Yesterday's high energy garbage is tomorrows valuable raw material. A few years down the line we will likely find some constructive use for it. (Of course using Plutonium extraction and breeder reactors we could use up substantially more of the Uranium fuel, and thus have more energy and less 'waste'. However, I digress.) So, as the 'problem' is defined, we have this asteroid headed for earth. So stop already with the "We're ALL gonna die!" Glass-half-empty negativity, and reappraise the situation sans the Chicken Little chicken brain. Seek out said asteroid, modify its course so that it is gradually redirected into an orbit conveniently in the neighborhood of the earth (Or perhaps a less gradual and strikingly more dramatic grazing deceleration across the surface of the moon. Or perhaps not. Whatever.), and then make constructive use of the raw material. Say, turn part of the asteroid into a launch system, then make the rest into O'Neill Habitat Kits, and launch them to various locations so that, in the end all the bits are Matrioshkally distributed and we all live happily and transhumanistically ever after. Or if the satanic asteroid shows itself too speedy and too late to be diverted, then by all mean, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. But lovingly. Best, Jeff Davis I believe -- no pun intended:) -- the practical thing is usually to change those beliefs that cause the most immediate trouble... Daniel Ust __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 21 21:05:56 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 23:05:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000a01c43f75$43e4d410$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <40AE64BD.4070904@pobox.com> <000a01c43f75$43e4d410$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <20040521210556.GR16732@leitl.org> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:50:35PM -0700, Spike wrote: > Come on RSPs, think harder! What are we doing wrong here? Wasting your synapse-second-joules on non-problems? Spike, you must have a couple of spare lives in your basement... -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Fri May 21 21:46:09 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 07:46:09 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <20040521183550.5DA4B57E87@finney.org> References: <20040521183550.5DA4B57E87@finney.org> Message-ID: <1085175968.21497.19.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 11:35 -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > If you change the rules to say that there could be any value in the > envelope less than one billion dollars, then the correct strategy is > to switch if the value you see is less than half a billion, else don't > switch. This is simple and logical and no one will disagree with it. *Raises hand* I do. The problem is not so easily dealt with. I was thinking of doing a simulation today until i realised the ridiculousness of what i was about to program: two agents, two envelopes. both get the same envelope (50:50 probability of getting each envelope), but now one agent sits, and one swaps. ie, summarised: Agent1 = Envelope1 Agent2 = Envelope2 There's no way that this can lead to any difference between the agents' outcome (unless some magic happens when i first assign Envelope1 to Agent2 and then set it to Envelope2). Sticking or swaping makes no difference. The hard bit is how to get rid of the double or half argument after opening the first one. Probability of holding the bigger envelope then seems to get modified to 2/3 as soon as you open it. How!? alejandro From alito at organicrobot.com Fri May 21 21:52:17 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 07:52:17 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000a01c43f75$43e4d410$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000a01c43f75$43e4d410$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <1085176337.21497.26.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 13:50 -0700, Spike wrote: > Please someone on SL4 collect this thread and post it over > there, or have Emil Gilliam log in here. Perhaps he has > some insights we have overlooked. Where is Lee Corbin > these days? Where are Anders and the other monster brains > hanging out? And where has poker statistician Lee Daniel Crocker been hiding? alejandro From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 21 21:37:23 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 23:37:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] space: a novel approach to the NEO problem In-Reply-To: <20040521210158.5855.qmail@web60006.mail.yahoo.com> References: <66DDADFD-AA86-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com> <20040521210158.5855.qmail@web60006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040521213723.GU16732@leitl.org> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 02:01:58PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > It all reminds me of the approach nuclear waste > 'disposal'. What is waste? Yesterday's high energy > garbage is tomorrows valuable raw material. A few Today's radioactive/toxic garbage is best immobilized and contained in clearly-marked compounds, so it doesn't enter the ecosystem and cruise around *now*. You can bet those Bangladeshi would want to get rid of their arsenic water contamination problem. Sorry, no can do after the fact, at least right now. > years down the line we will likely find some > constructive use for it. (Of course using Plutonium Maybe yes, maybe not. Toxic heavy metal contamination is with us since De res metallica (1531). We still don't know how to clean it once it's cruising around, so the best solution right now (and in general, because you really don't want to clean a whole large ecosystem with contaminants even with nanoware, because it's such a disruptive technology it's fraught with own dangers) is to immobilize it. Think of it as a green person's Hippocratic Oath, or something. > extraction and breeder reactors we could use up > substantially more of the Uranium fuel, and thus have > more energy and less 'waste'. However, I digress.) You do. > So, as the 'problem' is defined, we have this asteroid > headed for earth. So stop already with the "We're ALL > gonna die!" Glass-half-empty negativity, and > reappraise the situation sans the Chicken Little > chicken brain. Okay, here's a 20 (..50, 100, 200..) km rock, coming your way. Impact in weeks/months/couple of years (best case, because right now it takes a really lucky orbit for us to spot it). So, what are you going to do about it? > Seek out said asteroid, modify its course so that it Ha. Haha. You sure are funny. While we might be able to do that, many many years downstream (after we have proper early warning, and intercept system) there just no such capability present right now, or for the next twenty (thirty, future is hazy) years, for that matter. > is gradually redirected into an orbit conveniently in > the neighborhood of the earth (Or perhaps a less > gradual and strikingly more dramatic grazing > deceleration across the surface of the moon. Or > perhaps not. Whatever.), and then make constructive Whatever. > use of the raw material. Say, turn part of the > asteroid into a launch system, then make the rest into > O'Neill Habitat Kits, and launch them to various > locations so that, in the end all the bits are > Matrioshkally distributed and we all live happily and > transhumanistically ever after. > > Or if the satanic asteroid shows itself too speedy and > too late to be diverted, then by all mean, bend over > and kiss your ass goodbye. But lovingly. It takes a really huge rock to take out a redneck, holed up in a cave (way off scavenger bands) with sufficient supplies to last a couple of years, or more. If a really big one hits, you'd be so lucky to be that smart redneck. (Or be dead on impact, whatever comes first). > Best, Jeff Davis > > I believe -- no pun intended:) -- the practical > thing is usually to change those beliefs that > cause the most immediate trouble... > Daniel Ust Tut-tut. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Fri May 21 22:02:02 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 08:02:02 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40AE3CD0.405@optusnet.com.au> References: <004501c43f4d$430fb0f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40AE3CD0.405@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1085176921.21379.38.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 03:30 +1000, David wrote: > Spike wrote: > > >> After opening one you still don?t know what a zorg is worth > >> and you have no further information... > > > > > > This part with which I am not sure I totally agree, for > > we do have one further, and critically important piece > > of information: that one of the envelopes contains twice > > as much as the other. With that information, it seems to > > me that one need not know the absolute amount in one's own > > envelope, but rather only to fix the amount somehow, such > > as by opening it and peering at the number of zorgs. > > > > The missing information is that you still don?t know the total value > contained in the envelopes. You have either 1/3 or 2/3 of that total. > If you don?t know which you have to average it and call it half. > Same for the other envelope. Hence they are of equal value until > both are opened and the values becomes known. > But you are holding 1/3 of a large total, or 2/3 of a small total. And the other envelope has 2/3 of a large total or 1/3 of a small total. 1/3 large total possible win > 1/3 of small total possible loss, therefore other envelope is better (btw, i don't really think that the envelopes are of different values, but this argument just doesn't seem like a good explanation) alejandro From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 21 21:29:26 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:29:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] space: a novel approach to the NEO problem In-Reply-To: <20040521213723.GU16732@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 May 2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: > While we might be able to do that, many many years downstream (after we have > proper early warning, and intercept system) there just no such capability > present right now, or for the next twenty (thirty, future is hazy) > years, for that matter. Allright, I'm going to take my head in my hands and offer it up on a silver platter (from some movie I saw many years ago involving bringing the head of "John the Baptist" on a silver platter...) At any rate I do not interject into Eugen's opinions lightly... *But* we do *clearly* have the detection capability currently. This is a simple matter of building enough telescopes to do the observations. In fact there is a rather big sticky point between the Air Force and NASA in that NASA is funded to identify all of the NEOs which represent a threat but the Air Force using CCDs produced at Lincoln Labs has a much higher identification rate. Of course NASA cannot get access to the LL CCDs because they are for classified purposes... [Note -- this analysis on my part is a couple of years old -- things may have changed -- so buyer beware.] Robert From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 21 22:38:23 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:38:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <1085175968.21497.19.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <20040521183550.5DA4B57E87@finney.org> <1085175968.21497.19.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040521173541.01c36ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:46 AM 5/22/2004 +1000, alejandro wrote: >Probability >of holding the bigger envelope then seems to get modified to 2/3 as soon >as you open it. How!? Because probability is a measure of your inadequate knowledge, at a given time, of aspects of a system, and the confidence with which you estimate that you can act with a predictable outcome on that partial knowledge. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 21 23:45:24 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:45:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <20040521210556.GR16732@leitl.org> Message-ID: <000001c43f8d$b01d10d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:50:35PM -0700, Spike wrote: > > > Come on RSPs, think harder! What are we doing wrong here? > > Wasting your synapse-second-joules on non-problems? > > Spike, you must have a couple of spare lives in your basement... > > -- > Eugen* Leitl Yes even RSPs with attitudes, please help us out. {8^D Gene, glad to see you posting here, even if only occasionally. We worried you might vanish without a trace. {8-] If only it were true that I had a couple of spare lives. I found this 10 zorgs variation of the two- envelope problem so very intriguing because it looks to me like a better illustration of quantum uncertainty than Shroedinger's cat. The cat thing never did work for me: I always thought that cat was either perfectly healthy or a cooling carcass, not some mysterious in-between state. But I suspected that I was somehow getting bogged down in the details of the analogy and missing the real point, as many did with the red and green gorf analogy. My point in that model was to show that if you have two choices, equal cost, equal everything, and most evidence says red and green are equal but a very small and suspect piece of evidence that red is better, then logic tells me to pick red, even without good justification, even at the risk of being thought superstitious. The two envelope problem similarly presents two choices, stick or swap. Logic insists sticking and swapping are equal, but another *very suspect* line of reasoning suggests that swapping is better. I would very apologetically open the envelope and then swap. I would hope none of my math friends saw me do it, but I would swap just the same. I cannot stand thinking that I might be superstitious. I have struggled against superstition all my adult life. I may write a letter to Martin Gardner. I did that once, he wrote back. {8-] spike From scerir at libero.it Sat May 22 07:02:24 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 09:02:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <20040521183550.5DA4B57E87@finney.org><1085175968.21497.19.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.0.3.0.0.20040521173541.01c36ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00b001c43fca$bcb66430$8eb81b97@administxl09yj> > >Probability of holding the bigger envelope > >then seems to get modified to 2/3 as soon > >as you open it. How!? Because unperformed measurements have no results. From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sat May 22 07:41:55 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 03:41:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <000001c43f72$517c2a90$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <002501c43fd0$429e6200$6401a8c0@dimension> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spike" > > Rafal, please compel Karen to get online and comment on > this whole sordid affair. I am interested in seeing if there > is a systematic male/female dichotemy in the way this > problem is viewed. I have seen an apparent dichotemy > so far, but my sample size of women is too small to > derive statistical significance. ### I'll ask her. BTW, the spelling is "dichotomy" :) --------------------------------------- > This whole situation is much more cheerful if one > is one of the fortunates who actually own a bank > account filled with happy money, which are > cheerfully attracting other happy money, also > known as interest. You and I are not among > this fortunate population of course, but I > know those who are. ### But I am! (I own stock) And wholeheartedly agree with the exposition of economical ethics above. ----------------------------------- > OK I see your point. Let us assume away the nonlinearity > of money then. Let us assume some quantity of something > that *everyone* likes, and that more is *always* better, > such as grins or orgasms or something. Actually Im not at > all sure that this will work right either, for we might get > all tripped up in fractional orgasms. Is a milli-orgasm > a sneeze? Is a kilo-orgasm a heart attack? (Actually that > kinda works on two different levels. {8^D It would be a > *really* good way to go out, would it not?) ### Well, even then there is the problem that Hal alluded to - infinite quantities, or quantities so large as to be indistinguishable from infinity, from the perspective of our pedestrian desires. Let's say, the specie in the envelope is exchangeable at the Transfinity Bank for an infinite number of years of immensely satisfying life. However, while one envelope contains funds sufficient to keep you conscious at every nth unit time, the other lets you experience every 1/2nth unit. Presumably, everybody likes to have more life, especially infinite life - but, wait, you already have an infinity of what you desire by opening the first envelope! Should you open the other one? You could gain an infinite amount of time by opening it, and even if you lose, you would still have your 1/n th infinity to enjoy. May advice is to get on with the first day of your infinite life, rather than delay and possibly get involved in an eternity of swapping envelopes. Human volition is a computational device with its own quirks, quite appropriate for monkeys pondering bananas, but clumsy and confused if confronted with the frigid clarity of logic and mathematics (especially of the transfinite persuasion). Maybe you would have to use all of your allotted infinity to solve this problem... Don't do it. Rafal From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sat May 22 07:55:45 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 03:55:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <20040521183550.5DA4B57E87@finney.org> <1085175968.21497.19.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <004201c43fd2$3381c080$6401a8c0@dimension> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alejandro Dubrovsky" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 5:46 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs > On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 11:35 -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > > If you change the rules to say that there could be any value in the > > envelope less than one billion dollars, then the correct strategy is > > to switch if the value you see is less than half a billion, else don't > > switch. This is simple and logical and no one will disagree with it. > > *Raises hand* I do. The problem is not so easily dealt with. I was > thinking of doing a simulation today until i realised the ridiculousness > of what i was about to program: > two agents, two envelopes. both get the same envelope (50:50 > probability of getting each envelope), but now one agent sits, and one > swaps. > ie, summarised: > Agent1 = Envelope1 > Agent2 = Envelope2 > > There's no way that this can lead to any difference between the agents' > outcome (unless some magic happens when i first assign Envelope1 to > Agent2 and then set it to Envelope2). > > Sticking or swaping makes no difference. The hard bit is how to get rid > of the double or half argument after opening the first one. Probability > of holding the bigger envelope then seems to get modified to 2/3 as soon > as you open it. How!? > ### Is there a connection between the estimate of the relative size of reward and the probability of holding the larger envelope? I don't see it. Talking about relative reward sizes tends to obscure the issue. Note that the absolute size of expected swapping reward if you hold the smaller envelope is equal to the absolute size of swapping loss if you hold the larger envelope, and both situations are assumed equally likely to occur - isn't this a sufficient reason to stop fiddling with these envelopes? Rafal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat May 22 08:38:57 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:38:57 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again References: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <020401c43fd8$3df2e1b0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Coming late to this thread, partly to see what all the fuss is about, I see that. Spike initially wrote: > Suppose an unknown but whimsical benefactor has chosen > to give you a monetary gift. A messenger is sent with > two identical envelopes and offers to give you one of > them. The messenger knows not the amounts of money > in either envelope, but tells you that one of the > envelopes contains twice as much as the other. You > are to choose an envelope. You choose, and inside you > find ten dollars. Now the messenger offers to > trade your ten dollars for the contents of > the other envelope. Would you trade? Why? Yes I'd trade. > I reason that there is a 50% chance the other envelope > contains 5 dollars and 50% chance it contains twenty, > so mathematical expectation value of the other envelope > is .50*5 + .50*20 = 12.50 so I would trade. 12.5 > 10. And time spent trading is negligable, so I'd trade. > Same reasoning > applies if the first envelope contained 500 or 5000 > dollars or a billion, all under the assumption that seems > so natural to me, that money is good, so more is > better and too damn much is just right. You trade > 5 dollars for a 50% shot at 20. Such a deal! Maybe not. Some pertinent counterpoint on scaling of exchangable currency already outlined by Rafal and Eliezer. But in any case it doesn't matter Spike as you had specified as the creator of the hypothetical that 10 dollars not 500 or 5000 dollars was found to be in the first envelope. > Nowthen, since we have concluded that for each dollar > in the envelope you choose, the other envelope contains > an expected buck twenty five, you would *always* trade, > regardless. Nowthen, Spike, you have confounded your own hypothetical. i.e. You've changed it without acknowledging that you have changed it. Could it really be that you don't realise? Could it be that you do realise and some others don't and that you enjoy that? > For that reason, there really is no reason to bother opening > and looking in the envelope you chose first. Re-read what you wrote when you first outlined the hypothetical at the top. It is only AFTER an envelope is chosen and opened revealing that it contains 10 dollars that the messenger offers a second trade. The messenger did not say from the outset that whatever the first envelope contained the contents could be exchanged after being determining for the contents of the other envelope prior to their being determined. If that whats you wanted the messenger to say thats a different hypothetical. How long has this list been discussing a twisted hypothetical? > Regardless of the amount therein, you will immediately trade > it away for the other one since you expect it to contain more. This is not the original hypothetical you outlined. You have changed the hypothetical in the very same post as you raised it. > So why not skip the step of choosing the first envelope > and subsequently trading it (opened or unopened) for the second? Because that wasn't an option available at any time in the scenario as you outlined it. > Why not just decide which one you would choose, then take > the other one instead? Or if you choose one, then trade > it, you might go thru the same line of reasoning that > you did before and conclude that regardless of the amount > in the envelope you now hold, the other one contains 25% > more, and since you still haven't opened either envelope, > you can still trade back. Then of course the same line > of reasoning *still* applies, so you trade again. And > again. And so on to infinity and beyond. This is changing the scenario from the original. One can't apply probability theory sensibly to a non sensible problem. Or to an internally inconsistent hypothetical scenario. > So, is this not a strange situation? Ideally of course > you could smite the messenger and run off with both > envelopes. Or you could keep trading unopened envelopes > until you lose track of which one you chose first. Or > you could trade envelopes until the messenger perishes > of age-related infirmities, then run off with both. But > you notice that the messenger is both stronger and younger > than yourself, and so would be unlikely to precede you > in death, and if you were to smite her she would likely > knock you silly and take both envelopes herself. So a > choice must be made. Ideally? When in trouble, when in doubt don't just run in circles scream and shout. Really smite that messenger - knock him out? [snipped stuff ] Do you still really have a question or see a quandry if you ever really did? Or could it be that you are posting just for the sheer fun of it. 'Spiking' the metaphorical drink like an extropy-list socialising Bacchus? If so, cheers Brett Paatsch From samantha at objectent.com Sat May 22 09:03:20 2004 From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 02:03:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article on Transhumanism / Posthumanism / Extropy in Free Inquiry magazine In-Reply-To: <000001c43f09$2b7ca0e0$6a01a8c0@GREYBOOK> References: <000001c43f09$2b7ca0e0$6a01a8c0@GREYBOOK> Message-ID: On May 21, 2004, at 12:56 AM, Matus wrote: > Not sure if this was posted yet, but I don't see it. > > The issue of Free Inquiry that came in my mail today featured on its > cover 'Upgrading Humanity: Are People Obsolete?' This is usual a > pretty > good magazine IMHO but I have been more disappointed with it recently. > It is edited by Paul Kurtz, of Skeptical Inquirer fame I believe, and > features frequent articles by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens > among others. There website is here http://www.secularhumanism.org/ > although the article is not available online. The Author starts by > quoting Nick Bostrom and suggests that by bettering oneself (e.g. > seeing > ultra-violet, having perfect picth, etc) that one might no longer be > considered 'human'. It goes on to mention/quote Kass, McKibbin, and > Joy. Mentions specifically the Extropy Institute, BetterHUmans, and > the > World Transhumanist Association as "a motley crew of serious academics, > journalists, and scientists, cyber self help gurus, nanotech venture > capitalists, polyamorists and gender-benders, cryonics freaks, and > artificial intelligence geeks". And they think all of these descriptive phrases are derogatory??? Why on earth would supposed rational people expect respect when they bully and smear other people whose views they would like to pretend they are rationally analyzing? This is childish and an excellent reason for desiring human augmentation and general improvement. > I presume 'freaks' was added to merely > rhyme with 'geeks' It goes on to childishly imply that Max More > changing his name was an example of the 'sheer goofiness that organized > transhumanism has attracted', skims the surface of the debate of what > it > means to be human, points out the false dichotomy presented by the > opposing 'idealogical camps now squaring off' making its strongest > point > with "The hard task for transhumanists, then, is the one they haven't > yet taken head-on: making a positive and widely appealing moral case > for > their particular vision of the excellent person and the good society" > and "neither should anyone settle for Max More's [answer]: It is not > enough to say that humans should go for more of whatever they go for. > We need to know precisely what we should want more of and why" > They would like to pretend that none of us are concerned with this question? Do they believe we can know precisely what we "should want" more of within acceptable limits with our current capabilities? Why would increasing our capabilities not make us capable of even more precise vision of where we wish to go and the best means for getting there? - samantha From benboc at lineone.net Sat May 22 09:45:37 2004 From: benboc at lineone.net (Ben Cunningham) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:45:37 +0100 Subject: Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and References: <200405211800.i4LI0Cn19773@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <001301c43fe1$9d8754e0$51cce150@ibm300mx> some of you keep talking about 'logic'. i strongly suspect that logic has nothing to do with it. rather, it sounds to me that this is a matter of human psychology, and a result of evolution. why do people do the lottery? - anyone with half a brain can see they have such a slim chance of winning that it might as well be no chance. but look at the gains if you do win! this is why when the jackpot is higher, more people buy tickets, driving the probability of winning down even further, and people know this, but still they buy. maybe there is a good evolutionary reason for this propensity to take a gamble when the reward just might be bigger than you would reasonably expect. maybe the 80% swappers / 20% stickers ratio is a result of evolution favouring people with a tendency for taking a risk. if you're an unlucky risk-taker, ok, you probably die, and that's the end of your contribution to the gene-pool. but, if you are a lucky risk-taker, your disproportionate gains give you an advantage over the steady stickers, who reckon that what they have is fine. the lucky risk-taker then outbreeds the stickers. the population as a whole develops a tendency to take irrational risks, which sounds bad, but isn't, because the gains are so much greater than the losses. (not true in one individual case, but true in aggregate, across the whole population, across many generations, because success gives many different results, some disproportionately large, but failure always gives the same result) do you think this makes sense? as far as logic goes, i must agree with eleizer - if you get an agreeably high amount of money when you look in the envelope, stick (and try not to think of what might have been in the other envelope), if you get a disappointingly low amount, swap - and try not to be mad if you get even less. if it's zorgs, and you don't know what they are worth, what the hell, let evolution have it's way. swap. and as far as the actual maths of the problem is concerned, i haven't got a clue. i can't even work out what minus one minus minus one is. it makes my brain hurt! ben From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 22 17:10:39 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:10:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <002501c43fd0$429e6200$6401a8c0@dimension> Message-ID: <003a01c4401f$bb195560$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > From: "Spike" > > > > > Rafal, please compel Karen to get online and comment on > > this whole sordid affair. I am interested in seeing if there > > is a systematic male/female dichotemy in the way this > > problem is viewed. I have seen an apparent dichotemy > > so far, but my sample size of women is too small to > > derive statistical significance. > > ### I'll ask her. BTW, the spelling is "dichotomy" :) > Rafal Ah yes, but of course it was not a mere failure to use the spell checker, but rather a very clever use of language on my part. A "dichotemy" is a "false dichotomy". {8^D spike From reason at longevitymeme.org Sat May 22 17:42:56 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:42:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sean Murdoch wants a "Proactive Principle" In-Reply-To: <003a01c4401f$bb195560$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: In this article: http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=7937 Sean Murdoch, new NanoBusiness Alliance head, says he wants to see a "Proactive Principle" to counter the precautionary principle. Anyone here have a better line of communication than myself to let him know about the Proactionary Principle? Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua Sat May 22 16:02:18 2004 From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 20:02:18 +0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] NeuroAge & Zack Lynch Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040522195242.00b5cec0@pop.cris.net> An excellent interview with Zack Lynch: neurotechnology, neurosociety, neuro-competitive advantage, neuroceuticals, emoticeuticals, cogniceuticals, therapy vs. enhancement vs. enablement etc. Gratitude to CCLE for the link and information: The NeuroAge - Zack Lynch in Conversation with R.U. Sirius The Neofiles, Vol 1, No. 7 *************************************************** Zack Lynch, CCLE Advisor and author of the forthcoming book _Neurosociety: How Brain Science Will Shape The Future of Business, Politics, and Culture_, believes that neurotechnology will be the next driving technology that will shape humanity?s future. In this exceptional conversation with R.U. Sirius, Zack shares his thoughts on a dazzling array of topics including the coming wave of neuroceuticals, how people will be able to use these new tools for mental health to enable them to live better, and how they will likely impact economic productivity and personal well being. http://www.life-enhancement.com/neofiles/default.asp?id=34 ==== Best! Gennady Simferopol Crimea Ukraine From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat May 22 18:16:35 2004 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 14:16:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <002301c43eed$cca9d530$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <40AD7E38.4020703@pobox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040522114617.025fa0d8@mail.comcast.net> It's interesting to see how, even after all the postings on this thread, people still come up with new angles. My contribution -- if other people have an unsupported preference for red, or a supported preference based on factors that do not apply to me, I may rationally prefer either red or green. Green might be preferable because there's less competition for green. Or because I feel special and independent for spurning the trend. Red might be preferable to me because if other people prefer red, it is more fungible than green. And if the preference persists, the resale value could well rise. Also, the continued demand may lead to the availability of an on-going supply and support infrastructure. For some goods, once an initial choice has been made, there are on-going supply or repair needs, or other choices that necessarily follow the choice. As I write this, I realize that there's a long list of other practical justifications welling to be written, almost all on the red side. Basically, society provides rational benefits to conformance on a wide range of issues. Spike wrote: >A googleplex was once equal to google^2, so even 10^200 googleplexeths >still wont buy you a good cup of java. A googolplex is not googol^2; it's 10^googol. Amusingly, this discrepancy may be far away the greatest finite numeric error ever posted on this, or any, list. Congrats, Spike! Even in error you distinguish yourself... :-) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Googolplex.html http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=googolplex -- David Lubkin. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 22 19:24:10 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 12:24:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040522114617.025fa0d8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <004001c44032$5beae640$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > David Lubkin > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:17 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: > reds and green gorfs > > > It's interesting to see how, even after all the postings on > this thread, people still come up with new angles. > > My contribution:... This proves my point exactly. I fear that many of us including myself might do the right thing for the wrong reasons, in which case it is still the right thing. Conversely, to err on the side of caution is to err just the same. > Spike wrote: > > >A googleplex was once equal to google^2, so even 10^200 > googleplexeths still wont buy you a good cup of java. > > A googolplex is not googol^2; it's 10^googol. Amusingly, this > discrepancy may be far away the greatest finite numeric error ever posted > on this, or any, list. Congrats, Spike! Even in error you distinguish > yourself... :-)-- David Lubkin. You are too kind. I figure whats ((10^100)-2) orders of magnitude error between friends? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 22 20:56:59 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 13:56:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <004001c44032$5beae640$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <004101c4403f$53757360$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Spike wrote: ...I fear that many of us > including myself might do the right thing for the wrong > reasons, in which case it is still the right thing. > > Conversely, to err on the side of caution is to > err just the same... spike I may need to explain that comment further. Some have chosen a stick/swap choice, then given reasons for their choice which are self contradictory, in which case the reasons cannot all be valid. Preliminary results of the informal poll I have taken at my workplace are interesting. Of those who gave a clear answer, there were 3 women and 18 men, all with formal training in a technical field, nearly all with masters degrees or higher. Of these there were 4 stickers and 17 swappers. Curious observations: The three women were all stickers. The lone male sticker is gay. (Im not kidding this time.) The three women offered reasoning for sticking that is uniformly irrelevant or incorrect (from my current view); that is they suggested what I think is the right answer for what I think is the wrong reason. The ladies often gave more than one reason, apparently self contradictory, such as: - My first guess is usually best. - I do not like gambling. - I recognize that the other envelope probably contains more zorgs, but I would not take advantage of a generous benefactor. - God does not wish for us to be covetous, but rather to be satisfied with what we have. - I would stay, suspecting a diabolical trick - I am happy with my 10 zorgs, regardless of their size. Size really doesn't matter to me (har har har) - Our society is far too materialistic - Greed is a bad thing etc. Only the gay man (brilliant PhD in mathematics) trotted out a calculation showing that the probability of the larger amount in the other envelope collapses to 1/3 upon your gazing at the amount in your first envelope. It doesn't matter if you know not how or why, it must happen that way. A simple simulation proves it. Or so goes that line of reasoning. Which tempts me to speculate: is there really something to women's intuition? We might even observe that clearly testosterone makes humans do stupid thing, the examples being numerous indeed; just watch The Man Show on the Spike Channel (no relation) to see many young single males, (all high testosterone units) doing stupid human tricks. These often involve skateboards, bicycles, motorcycles, all high risk, low payoff stunts. If testosterone leads to stupid, then not-testosterone leads to not-stupid? How universal is that observation? But what happens to that concept if the not-testosterone individuals give faulty or irrelevant reasoning for the correct answer? Does it still count as correct? Is the lesson here that whenever one is in a logically insoluble dilemma, to simply round up some smart women, ask them what to do, but don't ask them why? Or to round up a number of high-testosterone individuals, ask them what to do, then do the opposite? Or perhaps that this outcome is mere coincidence, and that a larger sample size would erase this signal? I note that none of our extropian female RSPs have offered their insights so far. All this would make a tidy picture except for the observation that most of the (all male) swappers also offered multiple self-contradictory, irrelevant or clearly erroneous lines of reasoning. Furthermore, if one decides that swapping is erroneous, then one could argue that *all* the swappers offered erroneous reasoning, for it leads them to an erroneous conclusion! Oy vey. spike From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sat May 22 21:19:51 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 17:19:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <003a01c4401f$bb195560$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <003401c44042$883aa360$6401a8c0@dimension> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 1:10 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs > > > From: "Spike" > > > > > > > > Rafal, please compel Karen to get online and comment on > > > this whole sordid affair. I am interested in seeing if there > > > is a systematic male/female dichotemy in the way this > > > problem is viewed. I have seen an apparent dichotemy > > > so far, but my sample size of women is too small to > > > derive statistical significance. > > > > ### I'll ask her. BTW, the spelling is "dichotomy" :) > > Rafal Karen says stick with it in the case of zorgs, and stick or swap according to the nonlinear valuations in the case of dollars (and I didn't coach her). A good Vulcan wife she is. Rafal From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sat May 22 21:30:04 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 17:30:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <004101c4403f$53757360$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <004701c44043$f2d94bd0$6401a8c0@dimension> Hi Spike, I think your informal poll results can be reconciled with human behavior. Men tend to take risks without thinking. Women tend to be conservative without thinking. The reason my answer did not coincide with those of the women in your poll is that I am vulcan -- like Rafal. ;) Karen > Preliminary results of the informal poll I have taken > at my workplace are interesting. Of those who gave a > clear answer, there were 3 women and 18 men, all with > formal training in a technical field, nearly all with > masters degrees or higher. > > Of these there were 4 stickers and 17 swappers. > > Curious observations: The three women were all stickers. > > The lone male sticker is gay. (Im not kidding this time.) > > The three women offered reasoning for sticking that is > uniformly irrelevant or incorrect (from my current view); > that is they suggested what I think is the right answer for > what I think is the wrong reason. The ladies often gave more > than one reason, apparently self contradictory, such as: > > - My first guess is usually best. > > - I do not like gambling. > > - I recognize that the other envelope probably contains > more zorgs, but I would not take advantage of a generous benefactor. > > - God does not wish for us to be covetous, but rather to > be satisfied with what we have. > > - I would stay, suspecting a diabolical trick > > - I am happy with my 10 zorgs, regardless of > their size. Size really doesn't matter to me (har har har) > > - Our society is far too materialistic > > - Greed is a bad thing > > etc. Only the gay man (brilliant PhD in mathematics) trotted out > a calculation showing that the probability of the larger > amount in the other envelope collapses to 1/3 upon your > gazing at the amount in your first envelope. It doesn't > matter if you know not how or why, it must happen that way. > A simple simulation proves it. > > Or so goes that line of reasoning. > > Which tempts me to speculate: is there really something > to women's intuition? We might even observe that clearly > testosterone makes humans do stupid thing, the examples > being numerous indeed; just watch The Man Show on the Spike > Channel (no relation) to see many young single males, > (all high testosterone units) doing stupid human tricks. > These often involve skateboards, bicycles, motorcycles, all high > risk, low payoff stunts. If testosterone leads to stupid, > then not-testosterone leads to not-stupid? How universal > is that observation? > > But what happens to that concept if the not-testosterone > individuals give faulty or irrelevant reasoning for > the correct answer? Does it still count as correct? > > Is the lesson here that whenever one is in a logically > insoluble dilemma, to simply round up some smart women, > ask them what to do, but don't ask them why? Or to > round up a number of high-testosterone individuals, > ask them what to do, then do the opposite? > > Or perhaps that this outcome is mere coincidence, and > that a larger sample size would erase this signal? > I note that none of our extropian female RSPs have > offered their insights so far. > > All this would make a tidy picture except for the > observation that most of the (all male) swappers also > offered multiple self-contradictory, irrelevant or clearly > erroneous lines of reasoning. Furthermore, if one decides > that swapping is erroneous, then one could argue that > *all* the swappers offered erroneous reasoning, for it > leads them to an erroneous conclusion! > > Oy vey. > > spike > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sat May 22 21:30:09 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 17:30:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <004101c4403f$53757360$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <004801c44043$f52fbef0$6401a8c0@dimension> Hi Spike, I think your informal poll results can be reconciled with human behavior. Men tend to take risks without thinking. Women tend to be conservative without thinking. The reason my answer did not coincide with those of the women in your poll is that I am vulcan -- like Rafal. ;) Karen > Preliminary results of the informal poll I have taken > at my workplace are interesting. Of those who gave a > clear answer, there were 3 women and 18 men, all with > formal training in a technical field, nearly all with > masters degrees or higher. > > Of these there were 4 stickers and 17 swappers. > > Curious observations: The three women were all stickers. > > The lone male sticker is gay. (Im not kidding this time.) > > The three women offered reasoning for sticking that is > uniformly irrelevant or incorrect (from my current view); > that is they suggested what I think is the right answer for > what I think is the wrong reason. The ladies often gave more > than one reason, apparently self contradictory, such as: > > - My first guess is usually best. > > - I do not like gambling. > > - I recognize that the other envelope probably contains > more zorgs, but I would not take advantage of a generous benefactor. > > - God does not wish for us to be covetous, but rather to > be satisfied with what we have. > > - I would stay, suspecting a diabolical trick > > - I am happy with my 10 zorgs, regardless of > their size. Size really doesn't matter to me (har har har) > > - Our society is far too materialistic > > - Greed is a bad thing > > etc. Only the gay man (brilliant PhD in mathematics) trotted out > a calculation showing that the probability of the larger > amount in the other envelope collapses to 1/3 upon your > gazing at the amount in your first envelope. It doesn't > matter if you know not how or why, it must happen that way. > A simple simulation proves it. > > Or so goes that line of reasoning. > > Which tempts me to speculate: is there really something > to women's intuition? We might even observe that clearly > testosterone makes humans do stupid thing, the examples > being numerous indeed; just watch The Man Show on the Spike > Channel (no relation) to see many young single males, > (all high testosterone units) doing stupid human tricks. > These often involve skateboards, bicycles, motorcycles, all high > risk, low payoff stunts. If testosterone leads to stupid, > then not-testosterone leads to not-stupid? How universal > is that observation? > > But what happens to that concept if the not-testosterone > individuals give faulty or irrelevant reasoning for > the correct answer? Does it still count as correct? > > Is the lesson here that whenever one is in a logically > insoluble dilemma, to simply round up some smart women, > ask them what to do, but don't ask them why? Or to > round up a number of high-testosterone individuals, > ask them what to do, then do the opposite? > > Or perhaps that this outcome is mere coincidence, and > that a larger sample size would erase this signal? > I note that none of our extropian female RSPs have > offered their insights so far. > > All this would make a tidy picture except for the > observation that most of the (all male) swappers also > offered multiple self-contradictory, irrelevant or clearly > erroneous lines of reasoning. Furthermore, if one decides > that swapping is erroneous, then one could argue that > *all* the swappers offered erroneous reasoning, for it > leads them to an erroneous conclusion! > > Oy vey. > > spike > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From scerir at libero.it Sat May 22 23:39:35 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 01:39:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] two-envelope paradox References: <406f9e671bb20@imminst.org> Message-ID: <000701c44056$0b8b9a40$b2c21897@extropy> http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/stpete.html http://viadrina.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~vwlmikro/veroeffentlichungen/bolle/parad ox.pdf. It seems that people wrote a lot about that two-envelope (or exchange-envelope) paradox (or paradoxa, since there are more than one). It seems, also, there is a sort of symmetry between the two envelopes and, in this case, the supposed symmetry forbids (among many other boring factors) any meaningful choice (to swap, or not to swap). Real undecidability? I do not know. But I did not find, reading the above papers, in few seconds, any suggestion about a possible "entanglement" between the two envelopes. Not a physical or a quantum "entanglement" of course, since the "entanglement" is mainly a topological situation, described by knots, braids, Borromean and Knopf rings, depending on the specific "entanglement". Now, if the above has some sense, which is difficult to realize, since here is very late now, the point is that it is meaningless to assert that two envelopes are "entangled" without specifying in which specific state they are "entangled" (just as it is meaningless to assert that a quantum system is in a pure state without specifying that state). My guess is that - if those envelopes are "entangled" - after we have specified the specific "entangled" state, many of those paradoxa vanish. s. An example of *physical* entanglement (and related non-separability) in the classical domain is paper n. 11 in this page. http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publications/chronological.html From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 23 01:40:35 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:40:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <004801c44043$f52fbef0$6401a8c0@dimension> Message-ID: <000001c44066$f2533e00$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > [Karen] Smigrodzki > Hi Spike, ... > Men tend to take risks without thinking... Oh Karen you are too kind to us. The sad truth is that we guys often think and ponder and carefully cogitate at great length, THEN go off and do some goofy stunt that is so stunningly brainless that even WE are at a loss to explain. Its tough being a guy. You just can't help doing stupid stunts. Its a testosterone thing. {8^D > Women tend to be conservative without thinking... Ja, that is one reason why we guys marry and cherish ladies. It isn't just because it's legal to do so, but rather because women are ideally suited to protecting our children. Notice the Disney Movie Effect: the mom must always somehow be removed from the scene before the big adventure starts. Otherwise the mom would minimize the dangers, people and animals would survive in perfect safety, movies would be boring, untold dollars would be tragically lost. > The reason my answer did not coincide with > those of the women in your poll is that I am vulcan -- like Rafal. ;) > > Karen Actually your answer *did* coincide with the women of the poll. I was more interested in the 10 zorg version of the two-envelope problem, since the real dollar version is subject to non-linearity-of-money issues. Furthermore the paradox in the real money version disappears with Eliezer's argument: one can make a reasonable guess of the probability some yahoo is willing to give you twice the amount you are holding. It becomes a poker game, not paradoxical at all. In the 10 zorg version, the three women were all stickers, and the men were swappers. (I don't know how to count the one gay male sticker). You said stick, right? I don't see why this should be one of those Mars/Venus things. I know of plenty of women who love to gamble. go to any casino, you will likely see more women than men there. Be that as it may, this whole question tends toward something I posted a couple years ago that may have been misunderstood as a sexual thing: I would like to somehow get a womans-eye view of the world. If the AI guys work out uploading, I want them to give me a superset of human thought-space, a switch that I can flip that would let me see the world the way a woman sees the world. If I could see it both ways, then I could be super-human in a sense. When I brought that up, well-meaning individuals suggested I dress in women's clothing and go downtown, etc, but that wouldn't accomplish what I was asking at all. I would be seeing the world thru the eyes of a hetero male who was feeling very stupid and getting waaay squicked by the way other men were looking over my direction (ewwww gross, put your eyes back in your head bud. {8-[ {8^D ) What I want to understand is why women seem to have an uncanny intuition that sticking is at least equivalent to swapping, *even without actually doing a mathematical model*. What puzzles me even more is the reasoning of the gay mathematician, who had no problem with the idea that opening one envelope somehow causes the other one to become "probably the smaller one." How? I asked. "It doesn't matter how," he calmly replied. "Physicists worry about that sort of thing, the crass impericists. Mathematicians do not." I must have been wearing a stunned or puzzled countenance. "Well," he continued, "It must do it, right? There cannot be any inherent profit to swapping. You can write a quick sim to prove it. The probability that the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't matter how it gets there." Well, to me it does matter. So Karen, please would you explain in detail your reasoning for why you chose stick. This may be the closest I ever come to seeing the universe thru a woman's eyes. spike From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 23 02:00:55 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 22:00:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000001c44066$f2533e00$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c44066$f2533e00$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40B005D7.3030109@pobox.com> Spike wrote: > > What I want to understand is why women seem to have an > uncanny intuition that sticking is at least equivalent > to swapping, *even without actually doing a mathematical > model*. What puzzles me even more is the reasoning of > the gay mathematician, who had no problem with the idea > that opening one envelope somehow causes the other > one to become "probably the smaller one." How? I > asked. "It doesn't matter how," he calmly replied. > "Physicists worry about that sort of thing, the crass > impericists. Mathematicians do not." > > I must have been wearing a stunned or puzzled countenance. > "Well," he continued, "It must do it, right? There > cannot be any inherent profit to swapping. You can > write a quick sim to prove it. The probability that > the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't > matter how it gets there." Your mathematician friend is flat wrong, and needs to study Bayesian probability theory. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 23 02:45:07 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 19:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <000001c43d69$f74ebf10$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <20040523024507.82532.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> THe solution comes in terms of you figuring your personal marginal risk. If the envelope just has ten bucks in it, you figure, "eh, that'll buy me lunch, not a big risk for me," so you trade it for the second envelope. Twenty bucks is twice as nice, would allow you to schmooze your boss by buying him or her lunch, while five bucks would allow you to upgrade from the cheap $5 lunch you were already planning on having. If, instead, there is a million bucks, you figure, "this is more money than I'll be able to save on my own over the next 15-30 years, and while the odds of the other envelope being $2 million vs $500k are 50-50, the $500k difference between this and the lesser choice means the difference between having a really nice house AND being able to retire, versus having to choose one or the other. I'll stick with the million." --- Spike wrote: > > Eliezer has proposed a puzzle, a variation of > which we have discussed here before, but with > a maddening twist. > > Suppose an unknown but whimsical benefactor has chosen > to give you a monetary gift. A messenger is sent with > two identical envelopes and offers to give you one of > them. The messenger knows not the amounts of money > in either envelope, but tells you that one of the > envelopes contains twice as much as the other. You > are to choose an envelope. You choose, and inside you > find ten dollars. Now the messenger offers to > trade your ten dollars for the contents of > the other envelope. Would you trade? Why? > > I reason that there is a 50% chance the other envelope > contains 5 dollars and 50% chance it contains twenty, > so mathematical expectation value of the other envelope > is .50*5 + .50*20 = 12.50 so I would trade. Same reasoning > applies if the first envelope contained 500 or 5000 > dollars or a billion, all under the assumption that seems > so natural to me, that money is good, so more is > better and too damn much is just right. You trade > 5 dollars for a 50% shot at 20. Such a deal! > > Nowthen, since we have concluded that for each dollar > in the envelope you choose, the other envelope contains > an expected buck twenty five, you would *always* trade, > regardless. For that reason, there really is no reason > to bother opening and looking in the envelope you chose first. > Regardless of the amount therein, you will immediately trade > it away for the other one since you expect it to contain more. > So why not skip the step of choosing the first envelope > and subsequently trading it (opened or unopened) for the second? > Why not just decide which one you would choose, then take > the other one instead? Or if you choose one, then trade > it, you might go thru the same line of reasoning that > you did before and conclude that regardless of the amount > in the envelope you now hold, the other one contains 25% > more, and since you still haven't opened either envelope, > you can still trade back. Then of course the same line > of reasoning *still* applies, so you trade again. And > again. And so on to infinity and beyond. > > So, is this not a strange situation? Ideally of course > you could smite the messenger and run off with both > envelopes. Or you could keep trading unopened envelopes > until you lose track of which one you chose first. Or > you could trade envelopes until the messenger perishes > of age-related infirmities, then run off with both. But > you notice that the messenger is both stronger and younger > than yourself, and so would be unlikely to precede you > in death, and if you were to smite her she would likely > knock you silly and take both envelopes herself. So a > choice must be made. > > Could it be that it somehow doesn't matter if one chooses > then trades, or chooses then sticks? For that to be the > case, then one must somehow explain how it is that if one > chooses and opens to find a ten spot, then the probability > that the other envelope contains a fiver has somehow > mysteriously increased to 2/3, and the probability it > contains a 20 has dropped to 1/3, so that 5*2/3 + 20*1/3 > = 3.33 + 6.67 = 10. But how? > > Eliezer has suggested that if the first envelope contains > a sufficiently large sum, say a million bucks, one could > make an educated guess that no one is likely to give you > two million. I say this argument is irrelevant. Regardless > of the amounts in the envelopes, I see no reason for it > to be more likely that you chose the larger amount the > first time. > > Emil Gilliam suggested a clever variation. Suppose the > envelopes contain sums expressed in some unfamiliar > foreign currency, zorgs, again with one envelope containing > twice as many zorgs as the other. There is a currency > exchange down the street where you can trade your zorgs > for dollars, euros, gold, sex, whatever you want, but you > have no idea how much you have. You open your first > envelope and find you have 10 zorgs, but this can > represent any amount between pocket change and 10 tall > piles of dough, you know nothing. So now would > you trade? Does it matter now if you open the > first envelope? Why? > > If you decide it does matter if you open or not, > what have you actually learned from seeing you > have 10 zorgs? It might be large enough to > use Eliezer's argument, but you don't know that. > Does it matter if the messenger knows > how much is 10 zorgs? Why? Would you trade for > the other envelope after opening yours? Would you > trade without opening yours first? How does the > law of averages somehow know if you looked in > your envelope, so as to readjust the probabilities > to make it of no value to open your envelope before > trading? > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 23 02:48:50 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 19:48:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40B005D7.3030109@pobox.com> Message-ID: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Eliezer Yudkowsky > > > ...The probability that > > the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't > > matter how it gets there." > > Your mathematician friend is flat wrong, and needs to study Bayesian > probability theory. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky OK cool, I was hoping someone would say that. So where is the error? Are you saying that Bayesian reasoning predicts that there *is* a profit in swapping? Even if you have no idea how much a zorg is? How do you set up the Bayesian priors? How do you set up a sim to prove it? spike From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun May 23 00:42:34 2004 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 20:42:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Big finite numbers In-Reply-To: <004001c44032$5beae640$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040522114617.025fa0d8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040522203259.02e80d80@mail.comcast.net> Spike wrote: >A googleplex was once equal to google^2, so even 10^200 googleplexeths >still wont buy you a good cup of java. to which I replied: >A googolplex is not googol^2; it's 10^googol. Amusingly, this discrepancy >may be far away the greatest finite numeric error ever posted on this, or >any, list. Congrats, Spike! Even in error you distinguish yourself... :-) Your crown may have been dramatically supplanted. In http://www.fpx.de/fp/Fun/Googolplex/GetAGoogol.html, Don Page is quoted: >You might be amused to note that in Information Loss in Black Holes and/or >Conscious Beings? to be published in Heat Kernel Techniques and Quantum >Gravity, edited by S. A. Fulling (Discourses in Mathematics and Its >Applications, No. 4, Texas A&M University Department of Mathematics, >College Station, Texas, 1995) (University of Alberta report >Alberta-Thy-36-94, Nov. 25, 1994), hep-th/9411193, I estimated a quantum >Poincare recurrence time for the quantum state of an extremely >hypothetical rigid nonpermeable box containing a black hole with the mass >of what may be the entire universe in one of Andrei Linde's stachastic >inflationary models and got 10^(10^{10^[10^(10^1.1)]}) Planck times, >millenia, or whatever. As I wrote in the following line, "So far as I >know, these are the longest finite times that have so far been explicitly >calculated by any physicist." I do not know of an error in his calculations, but Page's number is emphatically larger than a googolplex. So if there is, he wins. The actual paper is at http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9411193. -- David Lubkin. From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 23 06:55:44 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 23:55:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <020401c43fd8$3df2e1b0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <000401c44092$f882efb0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Could it really be that you don't realise? Could it be that you > do realise and some others don't and that you enjoy that? Oh I enjoy it, but no I do not realize. Read on. > > > For that reason, there really is no reason to bother opening > > and looking in the envelope you chose first. > > Re-read what you wrote when you first outlined the hypothetical > at the top. It is only AFTER an envelope is chosen and opened > revealing that it contains 10 dollars that the messenger offers a > second trade. The messenger did not say from the outset that > whatever the first envelope contained the contents could be > exchanged after being determining for the contents of the other > envelope prior to their being determined. If that whats you > wanted the messenger to say thats a different hypothetical. > > How long has this list been discussing a twisted hypothetical? Brett Paatsch You may be onto something Brett. What difference does it make if the messenger tells you up front that after making a choice, you will be given the option of trading? The paradox doesn't seem to disappear if it is carefully explained up front, but do suggest a modification of the scenario if you can fix it. spike From alito at organicrobot.com Sun May 23 08:33:25 2004 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:33:25 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <1085301204.21297.55.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 19:48 -0700, Spike wrote: > > Eliezer Yudkowsky > > > > > ...The probability that > > > the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't > > > matter how it gets there." > > > > Your mathematician friend is flat wrong, and needs to study Bayesian > > probability theory. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > > OK cool, I was hoping someone would say that. So where > is the error? Are you saying that Bayesian reasoning > predicts that there *is* a profit in swapping? Even > if you have no idea how much a zorg is? How do you > set up the Bayesian priors? How do you set up a > sim to prove it? > Like Brett said, the results change depending on how the problem is stated. If you run a simulation and you get an agent to stick and one to switch on two envelopes one containing twice the amount of the other, then they both end up with the same amount. But if you set it up so that the sticker gets 10 and the switcher gets 5 or 20 with equal probability then switcher wins. Of course, this equal probability is set a posteriori to getting the 10, and it clashes with it having a 1/3 - 2/3 probability that comes up in the first simulation. How this makes any sense is beyond me, and will ruin me for another week at least. (btw, spike, could you tell me if you got any of the two emails that i sent to you directly? your isp doesn't seem to like mine) alejandro From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 23 08:23:51 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 04:23:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40B05F97.2060002@pobox.com> Spike wrote: >>Eliezer Yudkowsky >> >>> ...The probability that >>>the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't >>>matter how it gets there." >> >>Your mathematician friend is flat wrong, and needs to study Bayesian >>probability theory. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > > OK cool, I was hoping someone would say that. So where > is the error? Are you saying that Bayesian reasoning > predicts that there *is* a profit in swapping? Even > if you have no idea how much a zorg is? How do you > set up the Bayesian priors? How do you set up a > sim to prove it? Here's a slightly edited version of a post I sent to the evol-psych mailing list: Herbert Gintis wrote: > If you thought the Monty Hall problem was tough, try the following. > > A man has two sons, whom he want to give money to. He says to the sons, > "I am giving you each a sealed envelope. One envelope has twice as much > money as the other in it. I will allow you look inside the envelope. If > neither of you is satisfied with your gift, you can exchange envelopes." > Each son looks in his own envelope. The first says to himself, "Dad gave > me $10,000. So my brother has either $5000 or $20,000, the average of > which is $12,500, which is more than what I have. So I'll switch if he > is willing." The other brother has either $5000 or $20000. Call this > amount X. The brothers makes the same argument to himself, saying "My > brother has either X/2 or 2X, the average of which 1.25 X, which is > greater than what I have, which is X. So I'll trade if he's willing." So > both trade. > > But how could this be? It makes no sense that they would both want to > trade no matter how much money is in their envelope, because it is > random who got which envelope. Moreover, the brothers could use the same > reasoning to trade, even without looking in the envelope!!!! This *is* a really tough puzzle... I think it's fair to assume that the dollar amounts of $X and $2X directly translate into player's utilities, rather than answering that the dollar amounts should be adjusted on a logarithmic scale or whatever - I don't think that's the intended problem being posed, although psychologically, as opposed to mathematically, dollars as such are (a) logarithmic incremental utilities (b) inconsistently valued depending on whether they are gains or losses. Let us suppose that the problem is being posed to a Bayesian decision system rather than a human - it still seems troublesome. It seems to me that this problem derives from having an improper prior probability distribution on the dollar amounts offered, such that the total expected amount offered is infinite. In other words, suppose that when I look inside the envelope, then no matter what $X I see, it still seems to me exactly 50% likely that the other brother has $2X as that he has $X. Intuitively (I am not doing the math, just thinking as I go along) this seems to require a prior probability distribution which is completely uniform across all real values stretching from zero to infinity. It is like the old paradox of randomly picking a number between zero and infinity - no matter which number you pick, almost all other numbers will be larger. So given one of two finite dollar amounts randomly picked from between 0 and infinity, you should prefer the other one. If we assume a saner prior probability distribution for the total amount of money $3X - one where the total possible range of 3X is finite - then a Bayesian decision system should never have any trouble. The next question is what this looks like from the viewpoint of the person holding the envelope. It seems to me that the basic error is saying, "I am holding $X, and my brother is equally likely to be holding $X/2 or $2X, therefore I should switch." For each possibility in the prior probability distribution for the total money $T, it is equally likely that you are holding the envelope containing $T/3 or $2T/3. As soon as you look in the envelope and find out that you are holding a specific amount $X, you will have to update your prior probability distribution based on that new information, and it may no longer be equally likely that the other person is holding $2X or $X/2. You cannot, at the beginning of the problem, say that you are holding a constant amount (when you do not know what it is) and ask whether your brother is holding $2X or $X/2, assuming equal probabilities, because this requires a different prior probability distribution. Why? Let's suppose there's a uniformly distributed set of possible total amounts $T from $3 to $300. If you open the envelope and see $1, you *know* the other person has $2. If you open the envelope and see $200, you *know* the other person has $100. So given any finite prior distribution, it cannot be possible, for all specific dollar amounts $X, that the other person is equally likely to have $2X or $X/2. If you think to yourself, "The total amount of money in these total envelopes is $T, and I am holding the envelope with either $2T/3 or $T/3, with equal probability," your math is straightforward. If you think to yourself, "I am holding some amount of money $X, and the other person has a probability P of holding $X/2 and a probability 1-P of holding $2X," you must then use an unsimple probability distribution for X and an unsimple X-dependent distribution for P in order to calculate your expected utility from switching. A specific example: Suppose the prior value of $T is distributed evenly from $3 to $300, and you open up the envelope and find $100? It is equally likely that the other person's envelope contains $50 or $200, and you should switch (assuming the dollar amounts represent your utilities). But if you see a value between $101 and $200, you should definitely refuse to switch. If you see $101, you know the other envelope cannot contain $202. So most of the times you open the envelope you will somewhat want to switch, but a substantial portion of the times you will *definitely* not want to switch. And it balances exactly, so before you open the envelope, you have no particular motive to switch one way or the other. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sun May 23 08:35:57 2004 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:35:57 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <000401c44092$f882efb0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000401c44092$f882efb0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40B0626D.5030109@optusnet.com.au> Spike wrote: >> Could it really be that you don't realise? Could it be that you >> do realise and some others don't and that you enjoy that? > > > Oh I enjoy it, but no I do not realize. Read on. > >>> For that reason, there really is no reason to bother opening >>> and looking in the envelope you chose first. >> >> Re-read what you wrote when you first outlined the hypothetical >> at the top. It is only AFTER an envelope is chosen and opened >> revealing that it contains 10 dollars that the messenger offers a >> second trade. The messenger did not say from the outset that >> whatever the first envelope contained the contents could be >> exchanged after being determining for the contents of the other >> envelope prior to their being determined. If that whats you >> wanted the messenger to say thats a different hypothetical. >> >> How long has this list been discussing a twisted hypothetical? Brett > > Paatsch > > You may be onto something Brett. What difference does it make > if the messenger tells you up front that after making a > choice, you will be given the option of trading? The > paradox doesn't seem to disappear if it is carefully > explained up front, but do suggest a modification of > the scenario if you can fix it. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Lets make things worse :) If you open the envelope to find 10 zorgs there are two possible scenarios : 5:10 and you have the larger amount, and 10 :20 and you have the smaller. Each of these has a 0.5 probability of being the scenario you are in. Therefore there are four possible values to the envelopes : 5 10 (high) 10 (low) 20 giving an average value to an envelope of 11.25 zorgs. At least that?s closer to 10 than 12.5 is. :) From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sun May 23 09:01:21 2004 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 19:01:21 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <40B0626D.5030109@optusnet.com.au> References: <000401c44092$f882efb0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40B0626D.5030109@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <40B06861.9050304@optusnet.com.au> David wrote: > Spike wrote: > >>> Could it really be that you don't realise? Could it be that you >>> do realise and some others don't and that you enjoy that? >> >> >> >> Oh I enjoy it, but no I do not realize. Read on. >> >>>> For that reason, there really is no reason to bother opening >>>> and looking in the envelope you chose first. >>> >>> >>> Re-read what you wrote when you first outlined the hypothetical >>> at the top. It is only AFTER an envelope is chosen and opened >>> revealing that it contains 10 dollars that the messenger offers a >>> second trade. The messenger did not say from the outset that >>> whatever the first envelope contained the contents could be >>> exchanged after being determining for the contents of the other >>> envelope prior to their being determined. If that whats you >>> wanted the messenger to say thats a different hypothetical. >>> >>> How long has this list been discussing a twisted hypothetical? Brett >> >> >> Paatsch >> >> You may be onto something Brett. What difference does it make >> if the messenger tells you up front that after making a >> choice, you will be given the option of trading? The >> paradox doesn't seem to disappear if it is carefully >> explained up front, but do suggest a modification of >> the scenario if you can fix it. >> >> spike >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> > Lets make things worse :) > If you open the envelope to find 10 zorgs there are two possible > scenarios : > 5:10 and you have the larger amount, and > 10 :20 and you have the smaller. > Each of these has a 0.5 probability of being the scenario you are in. > Therefore there are four possible values to the envelopes : > > 5 > 10 (high) > 10 (low) > 20 > > giving an average value to an envelope of 11.25 zorgs. > At least that?s closer to 10 than 12.5 is. :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Call the larger envelope value LV, the smaller envelope SV, the minimum possible amount of zorgs is z. and i is some integer. SV must be i * z. But LV = 2 * SV , therefore SV can only increment in steps of 2z. This means that for any given range there are twice as many possible SV values as there are LV values. This means that the chance that the other envelope is the smaller one is twice the chance that it is the larger one. expected value becomes 2/3 * 5 + 1/3 * 20 = 10. From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 23 09:03:09 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 05:03:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40B068CD.2020502@pobox.com> Spike wrote: >> Eliezer Yudkowsky >> >>> ...The probability that the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, >>> it doesn't matter how it gets there." >> >> Your mathematician friend is flat wrong, and needs to study Bayesian >> probability theory. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > > OK cool, I was hoping someone would say that. So where is the error? > Are you saying that Bayesian reasoning predicts that there *is* a profit > in swapping? Even if you have no idea how much a zorg is? How do you > set up the Bayesian priors? How do you set up a sim to prove it? The second part of the problem is how to deal with zorgs when "you have no idea how much a zorg is worth". Here's a question: Do you think you are just as likely to see an envelope containing 23,342,001,988 zorgs as you are to see an envelope containing 12 zorgs? Or to put it another way, do you think that your chance of seeing a zorg amount between 1 and 10,000 is the same as your chance of seeing a zorg amount between 23,342,000,001 and 23,342,010,000? Probably not, right? Your mathematician friend is correct if, and only if, we use an evenly distributed logarithmic prior for the value of a zorg - i.e., you think that a zorg is equally likely to be worth an amount on the rough order of 1 dollar, 10 dollars, 1000 dollars, a hundredth of a cent, and so on. So you might open up the envelope and find 100 zorgs, then conclude that the total amount being *exactly* 300 zorgs was twice as improbable (had half the probability density) as the total amount being *exactly* 150 zorgs. So the probability of the other envelope being larger would go to 1/3. But this uniformly distributed logarithmic prior for the value of a zorg is improper for the same reason as the uniformly distributed smooth prior for the dollar amount; there has to be a cutoff somewhere, it is not exactly as likely that a zorg is worth 10^(1,556,823) dollars as one dollar. For that matter, our scenario also assumes that the prior probability of any actual dollar amount in the envelopes is smoothly distributed between zero and infinity, another impropriety. If we use a logarithmic prior from zero to infinity for the dollar amount, we always suppose (before looking) that the probability of the other envelope containing the larger amount is 1/2. *After* looking, and discovering any specific amount such as $100, we always believe the other envelope has a 1/3 probability of containing $200, and a 2/3 probability of containing $50. Magic? No, an improperly formed infinite prior. Pick any quantity 3T from an infinite continuous logarithmic prior, show a person either T or 2T at random, and he will always think it twice as likely that you showed him T as 2T. Similarly, pick any envelopes T and 2T from an infinite smooth prior from 0 to infinity, and your friend will always want to trade up. I am reminded of Martin Gardner's proof that all numbers are tiny: no matter how large a finite number is, most numbers are very much larger. Finally, your friend allegedly stated: > What puzzles me even more is the reasoning of the gay mathematician, who > had no problem with the idea that opening one envelope somehow causes > the other one to become "probably the smaller one." How? I asked. "It > doesn't matter how," he calmly replied. "Physicists worry about that > sort of thing, the crass empiricists. Mathematicians do not." > > I must have been wearing a stunned or puzzled countenance. "Well," he > continued, "It must do it, right? There cannot be any inherent profit > to swapping. You can write a quick sim to prove it. The probability > that the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't matter how > it gets there." 1) This is not a physics problem. This is a Bayesian probability problem. It is squarely the responsibility of mathematicians. 2) There cannot be any inherent profit to swapping as a *universal, automatic* policy. Once you look inside the envelope, you update your probabilities and may make an informed decision to swap or not swap. The fundamental fallacy is that because I have an equal probability of giving you either envelope, you can look in an envelope and *then* say that the other envelope has an equal probability of being larger or smaller. When you look in the envelope you must update your probabilities accordingly. This is why I say your mathematician friend is flat wrong, even though it is possible to construct an improper prior that makes him correct; the fundamental presumption that there must be no expected profit to trading, *after* you look inside the envelope, is un-Bayesian. Bayesians are commanded (by E.T. Jaynes, that's who) to make full use of every tiny scrap of information. If it makes us a profit, that is fine too, but the main thing is to be follow the perfect graceful math of Bayesian probability theory, as pure and bright as the white light of the full moon reflecting from a still pool of clear water. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 23 09:17:37 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 05:17:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40B068CD.2020502@pobox.com> References: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40B068CD.2020502@pobox.com> Message-ID: <40B06C31.2030902@pobox.com> Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > Spike wrote: > > Finally, your friend allegedly stated: > >> What puzzles me even more is the reasoning of the gay mathematician, who >> had no problem with the idea that opening one envelope somehow causes >> the other one to become "probably the smaller one." How? I asked. "It >> doesn't matter how," he calmly replied. "Physicists worry about that >> sort of thing, the crass empiricists. Mathematicians do not." >> >> I must have been wearing a stunned or puzzled countenance. "Well," he >> continued, "It must do it, right? There cannot be any inherent profit >> to swapping. You can write a quick sim to prove it. The probability >> that the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't matter how >> it gets there." > > 1) This is not a physics problem. This is a Bayesian probability > problem. It is squarely the responsibility of mathematicians. I'd also like to note that this is an instance of what E.T. Jaynes called the Mind Projection Fallacy, against which Jaynes often railed: Your mathematician friend seems to suppose that his *estimated probability* of the envelope being the larger one is a *physical property* intrinsic to the envelope, rather than a way of measuring his own *knowledge about* the envelope. Your friend would delegate the problem to the physicists, no less! A clearer case of Mind Projection Fallacy I have rarely seen. The map is not the territory. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 23 09:36:47 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 05:36:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <40B068CD.2020502@pobox.com> References: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40B068CD.2020502@pobox.com> Message-ID: <40B070AF.2020202@pobox.com> Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > > Similarly, pick any envelopes T and 2T from an infinite smooth prior > from 0 to infinity, and your friend will always want to trade up. I am > reminded of Martin Gardner's proof that all numbers are tiny: no matter > how large a finite number is, most numbers are very much larger. PPS: This is not an exact analogy. But the expected value of an envelope randomly selected from a range of 0 to infinity is infinite. Hence it is not surprising that after looking in any one envelope we find that the other envelope has an expected value of 1.25 times the first. The problem is in the absurd prior. If we have a smooth prior *in the area of the dollar amount we actually find*, then it is always wise to trade up, and the expected value of the other envelope is 1.25 times the first. If we have a logarithmic prior *in the area of the dollar amount we actually find*, then the other envelope has a 2/3 probability of being the smaller one. In either case this reflects our *updated* probability *after* finding some actual dollar amount, because the *specific* value happens to lie in a smooth or logarithmic region of our prior. If one asks, "But which prior should I use?", the answer I would give is, "Well, guess how many dollars someone would be likely to actually put into an envelope, and try to have a prior distribution that reflects this." The case of zorgs is dependent on alien psychology, but I would still bet a priori that one zorg is more likely to be worth ten dollars than a googleplexth of a dollar. If you give up and cheat and use a uniform logarithmic distribution for your whole prior, then you will have no expected value for trading, and any paradoxes you find in the math are your fault for using bad math. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun May 23 11:13:02 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 21:13:02 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again References: <000401c44092$f882efb0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <031b01c440b6$ea574570$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Spike wrote: > > Could it really be that you don't realise? Could it be that you > > do realise and some others don't and that you enjoy that? > > Oh I enjoy it, but no I do not realize. Read on. I am glad you enjoy yourself Spike. Your enjoyment is infectious. > > > > > For that reason, there really is no reason to bother opening > > > and looking in the envelope you chose first. > > > > Re-read what you wrote when you first outlined the hypothetical > > at the top. It is only AFTER an envelope is chosen and opened > > revealing that it contains 10 dollars that the messenger offers a > > second trade. The messenger did not say from the outset that > > whatever the first envelope contained the contents could be > > exchanged after being determining for the contents of the other > > envelope prior to their being determined. If that whats you > > wanted the messenger to say thats a different hypothetical. > > > > How long has this list been discussing a twisted hypothetical? >Brett Paatsch > > You may be onto something Brett. #1 What difference does it > make if the messenger tells you up front that after making a > choice, you will be given the option of trading? #2 The > paradox doesn't seem to disappear if it is carefully > explained up front, but do suggest a modification of > the scenario if you can fix it. #3 #1 Or maybe not. I'm confident you changed your hypothetical a bit in the first post and that that affected my approach to the problem. I wasn't sure you had a single problem in mind rather than a cluster of similar problems that somewhat paradoxically, you were trying to work into a usable (and fun) paradox. #2 Haven't worked that out logically yet. I can. But deliberately haven't. Intuitively, when I last posted I saw that it might matter. I could have been wrong. I'd started breaking it out mentally into events and times and dependencies. I was comparing two scenarios. One where the messenger offered the trade after the choice and the other where the messenger advised that a trade would be offered after the first envelopes contents were determined. Even played with a combo of the two (probably irrational). You apparently think that (two cases) doesn't matter mathematically. Bizarrely (at this stage) to be honest, (to give insight into thinking) I haven't done it mathematically, so what I think you think - I haven't yet checked :-) My feeling was (without meaning to be impolite) if you couldn't specify a clean hypothetical why should I spend time on trying to resolve likely or potentially resultant paradoxes. #3 Fix it? Do you want the paradox preserved ('coz paradoxes are fun and then you can use it to test something else) or do you want it solved? Not promising I can do either, but I know I can't do both at once. *Suspect* I could do either. Paradox there too. But merely apparently. Hmm. Stream of consciousness over :-) Stand back for red face or insight. Cheers, Brett (not drunk or drugged :-) From jcorb at irishbroadband.net Sun May 23 14:22:58 2004 From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 15:22:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] David Ray Griffin's constructive postmoden theology Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040523151403.023674f8@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> >Message: 7 >Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 23:04:20 -0700 >From: "Terry W. Colvin" >Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] David Ray Griffin's > constructive postmoden theology >To: "Extropy-chat at extropy.org" , > "skeptic at listproc.hcf.jhu.edu" , UFO > UpDates - Toronto >Message-ID: <40AD9BE4.BA5A6102 at mindspring.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > >Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:15:42 -0700 >From: "T. Peter Park" > To: forteana at yahoogroups.com >Subj: FWD [forteana] David Ray Griffin's constructive postmoden theology > > > >Dear Listmates, friends, and philosophers, > > > Are any of you familiar with this rather interesting >thinker? If so, what do you think of him? I think he's a bog-standard conservative postmodernist whose trying to buy his own personal religious agenda by couching it in academic terms. In other words, your typical god-fearing Christian conservative with some whacky paranormalist beliefs thrown in. Like most of his kind (including the Intelligent Design lot) they believe their take on "science" will swoop down from the skies and magically save their cherished beliefs. No sale. James... From megao at sasktel.net Sun May 23 13:53:46 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 08:53:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] neuro-regenerative/prophylactic in berberine compounds? Message-ID: <40B0ACEA.64723C62@sasktel.net> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=astrocyte&OS=astrocyte&RS=astrocyte United States Patent Application 20040097534 Kind Code A1 Choi, Byung-Kil ; et al. May 20, 2004 Composition for the protection and regeneration of nerve cells containing berberine derivatives Abstract Disclosed is a composition for protecting nerve cells, promoting nerve cell growth and regenerating nerve cells comprising berberine, derivatives thereof or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof. The composition has protective effects against apoptosis of neuronal stem cells and differentiated neuronal stem cells, an effect of inducing the regeneration of nerve cells, a regenerative effect on neurites, a neuroregenerative effect on central nerves and peripheral nerves, a reformation effect on neuromuscular junctions, and a protective effect against apoptosis of nerve cells and a neuroregenerative effect in animals suffering from dementia and brain ischemia. Therefore, the composition can be used as a therapeutic agent for the prevention and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, ischemic nervous diseases or nerve injuries, and for the improvement of learning capability. From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sun May 23 15:59:47 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <001301c440de$fd2e64d0$6401a8c0@dimension> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:48 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs > > > Eliezer Yudkowsky > > > > > ...The probability that > > > the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't > > > matter how it gets there." > > > > Your mathematician friend is flat wrong, and needs to study Bayesian > > probability theory. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > > OK cool, I was hoping someone would say that. So where > is the error? Are you saying that Bayesian reasoning > predicts that there *is* a profit in swapping? Even > if you have no idea how much a zorg is? How do you > set up the Bayesian priors? How do you set up a > sim to prove it? > ### You have two envelopes, one with n zorgs, the other with 2n zorgs. The probability of choosing either one is 1/2. You want to calculate the reward/loss associated with staying with the chosen envelope, vs. swapping after seeing its contents. The reward for sticking after choosing the 2n zorg envelope is 1 zorgs. The loss from swapping after choosing the 2n zorg envelope is 1 zorgs. The loss for sticking with the n envelope is 1 zorgs. The reward for swapping the n envelope is 1 zorgs. There are no other courses of action, given the two envelopes. Since you do not know "n" a priori (yes, you do not have a prior, by the definition of the problem), you cannot tell whether you have the n or the 2n envelope even after seeing its contents (obvious, right?). This is why the probability after opening doesn't "go" anywhere - the contents of the envelope do not provide you with any information that could allow you to adjust the priors, or relate the contents to your desires. Since the desires cannot be consulted (as in the problem with actual dollar amounts), the emotional reward for swapping is exactly the same as the reward for sticking, always. I think that a lot of people approach the problem as if there were 3 envelopes: 1/2n, n and 2n, and opening one of them gave clues to the contents of others (which is similar to the three-door opening problem), then start calculating erroneous probabilities. Rafal From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 23 18:02:55 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:02:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] NeuroAge & Zack Lynch In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040522195242.00b5cec0@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040523110202.02e53d00@mail.earthlink.net> At 08:02 PM 5/22/04 +0400, Gennady wrote: >An excellent interview with Zack Lynch: neurotechnology, neurosociety, >neuro-competitive advantage, neuroceuticals, emoticeuticals, cogniceuticals, >therapy vs. enhancement vs. enablement etc. Yes, I just read it and thought so too. Natasha >http://www.life-enhancement.com/neofiles/default.asp?id=34 From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 23 18:03:55 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:03:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sean Murdoch wants a "Proactive Principle" In-Reply-To: References: <003a01c4401f$bb195560$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040523110317.02e513a0@mail.earthlink.net> At 10:42 AM 5/22/04 -0700, you wrote: >In this article: > >http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=7937 > >Sean Murdoch, new NanoBusiness Alliance head, says he wants to see a >"Proactive Principle" to counter the precautionary principle. Anyone here >have a better line of communication than myself to let him know about the >Proactionary Principle? Thanks for letting us know about this! I will certainly email him today. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sun May 23 16:14:53 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:14:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs References: <000001c44070$7a7e2a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <001301c440de$fd2e64d0$6401a8c0@dimension> Message-ID: <003801c440e1$1b504080$6401a8c0@dimension> I meant "1n" zorgs for all the rewards/losses. And as Eliezer wrote, the assumption of an infinite smooth prior over N is a bizarre one, a non-prior if there is one, and plays havoc with our intuitive mathematical reasoning. Rafal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rafal Smigrodzki" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Spike" > To: "'ExI chat list'" > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:48 PM > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green > gorfs > > > > > > > Eliezer Yudkowsky > > > > > > > ...The probability that > > > > the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't > > > > matter how it gets there." > > > > > > Your mathematician friend is flat wrong, and needs to study Bayesian > > > probability theory. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > > > > OK cool, I was hoping someone would say that. So where > > is the error? Are you saying that Bayesian reasoning > > predicts that there *is* a profit in swapping? Even > > if you have no idea how much a zorg is? How do you > > set up the Bayesian priors? How do you set up a > > sim to prove it? > > > ### You have two envelopes, one with n zorgs, the other with 2n zorgs. The > probability of choosing either one is 1/2. > > You want to calculate the reward/loss associated with staying with the > chosen envelope, vs. swapping after seeing its contents. > > The reward for sticking after choosing the 2n zorg envelope is 1 zorgs. > > The loss from swapping after choosing the 2n zorg envelope is 1 zorgs. > > The loss for sticking with the n envelope is 1 zorgs. > > The reward for swapping the n envelope is 1 zorgs. > > There are no other courses of action, given the two envelopes. Since you do > not know "n" a priori (yes, you do not have a prior, by the definition of > the problem), you cannot tell whether you have the n or the 2n envelope even > after seeing its contents (obvious, right?). This is why the probability > after opening doesn't "go" anywhere - the contents of the envelope do not > provide you with any information that could allow you to adjust the priors, > or relate the contents to your desires. Since the desires cannot be > consulted (as in the problem with actual dollar amounts), the emotional > reward for swapping is exactly the same as the reward for sticking, always. > > I think that a lot of people approach the problem as if there were 3 > envelopes: 1/2n, n and 2n, and opening one of them gave clues to the > contents of others (which is similar to the three-door opening problem), > then start calculating erroneous probabilities. > > Rafal > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 23 16:17:47 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 09:17:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs In-Reply-To: <1085301204.21297.55.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <000901c440e1$7ceb9650$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Alejandro, I have been trying to post you offlist, thrice so far, but of all oddball things the message won't send. I can send to any other place, but your messages sit in my outbox like an electronic version of indigestion, and eventually cause a microsloth outbox send error, which I suppose is analogous to an electronic barf. Computer jockeys, what is the deal with that? spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Alejandro Dubrovsky > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 1:33 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: > reds and green gorfs > > > On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 19:48 -0700, Spike wrote: > > > > Eliezer Yudkowsky > > > > > > > ...The probability that > > > > the other envelope is larger must go to 1/3, it doesn't > > > > matter how it gets there." > > > > > > Your mathematician friend is flat wrong, and needs to > study Bayesian > > > probability theory. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > > > > OK cool, I was hoping someone would say that. So where > > is the error? Are you saying that Bayesian reasoning > > predicts that there *is* a profit in swapping? Even > > if you have no idea how much a zorg is? How do you > > set up the Bayesian priors? How do you set up a > > sim to prove it? > > > > Like Brett said, the results change depending on how the problem is > stated. If you run a simulation and you get an agent to stick and one > to switch on two envelopes one containing twice the amount of > the other, > then they both end up with the same amount. But if you set it up so > that the sticker gets 10 and the switcher gets 5 or 20 with equal > probability then switcher wins. Of course, this equal probability is > set a posteriori to getting the 10, and it clashes with it > having a 1/3 > - 2/3 probability that comes up in the first simulation. How > this makes > any sense is beyond me, and will ruin me for another week at least. > > (btw, spike, could you tell me if you got any of the two emails that i > sent to you directly? your isp doesn't seem to like mine) > > alejandro > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 23 16:34:19 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 09:34:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <40B06861.9050304@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000001c440e3$cc438f30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> David wrote: > Call the larger envelope value LV, > the smaller envelope SV, > the minimum possible amount of zorgs is z. > and i is some integer. > > SV must be i * z. > But LV = 2 * SV , therefore SV can only increment in steps of 2z. > > This means that for any given range there are twice as many > possible SV values as there are LV values. > This means that the chance that the other envelope is the > smaller one is twice the chance that it is the larger one. > > expected value becomes 2/3 * 5 + 1/3 * 20 = 10. I am examining this argument carefully, for it is tempting indeed. The phrase "for any given range" makes me squirm a little, for I fear that it incorrectly causes the zorg version of the puzzle to collapse to the less interesting real dollars version, which is solved by Eliezer's solution. The real dollars version is merely a poker match. On the other hand, I suppose that even with zorgs, there must me *some* finite range. Do let me ponder, thereby dumping even more perfectly good life into this maddening time-sink. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 23 17:52:05 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:52:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cow paradox In-Reply-To: <001301c440de$fd2e64d0$6401a8c0@dimension> Message-ID: <000001c440ee$a95c5050$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Since we seem to be in the mood to think about logical paradox, please someone help me find the error in this one. I am one who cares about animals, I like them. But I am not a vegetarian, for I reason that by purchasing and devouring cows, I create a market for them, thus compelling cowboys and cowpokes to raise them for a living. {How do cowboys get promoted to cowpokes? On second thought, please do not answer that, I don't think I want to know.} If we devour cows, we give them an opportunity to live to their adolescence which is, one would suppose, preferable to not living at all. I had a lot of fun as a child and early teen. If given a choice of having those years, then being slain and devoured, I would choose a short life over never being born at all. One argues that if humans did not raise cattle, then buffalo would have that much more room to be born and live full lives, and a buffalo is kinda like a big cow, so there you have it. I find this argument unconvincing, for the owners of that land would not wish to carry the liability risk of yahoos illegally entering their land to play Indian (wildly galloping around bareback, twanging stone-tipped arrows at the panicked buffalo, counting many coup, etc, which you *know* is a fun-sounding testosterone-charged activity.) One could purchase steaks, then instead of devouring same, could give them a decent burial in the back yard, but then of course one would still need to devour something else, thus using up land that could otherwise be used for wild buffalo. The neighbors might not care for it either. Similarly, for those of us who devour fish (early, often and cheerfully) we are doing a good deed if we devour only farmed fish. But if our sushi is caught from the wild we prevent the hapless beasts from living on to a happy middle age and eventually being devoured by a larger fish. The cow paradox has been hashed over at least twice before on extropians, so do not feel compelled to comment. But any new insight is welcome. I am ready to conclude that this old world is hopelessly mired in ethical paradox. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 23 19:13:28 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cow paradox In-Reply-To: <000001c440ee$a95c5050$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <20040523191328.58547.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> a) land owners cannot be held liable for the allegedly yahoo antics of hunters. b) hunters, the stats say, are actually better citizens, on average, than non-hunters, so any given land owner should prefer to have hunters on his or her land rather than, say, tree huggers, so watch out for brain addled mushroom munching and pot smoking tree huggers as a greater risk to your property (and what one might think of doing to your cows when one is stoned, speaking of cow-pokers). c) while eating fish spares them a painful death from mercury poisoning, doing so is merely transferring the risk to yourself. d) free range buffalo are healthier for you to eat than farm raised cattle. e) farm raised fish are healthier for you than free range fish (ponder the paradox of points (d) and (e)). --- Spike wrote: > > Since we seem to be in the mood to think about > logical paradox, please someone help me find the > error in this one. > > I am one who cares about animals, I like them. > But I am not a vegetarian, for I reason that by > purchasing and devouring cows, I create a market > for them, thus compelling cowboys and cowpokes > to raise them for a living. {How do cowboys get > promoted to cowpokes? On second thought, please > do not answer that, I don't think I want to know.} > > If we devour cows, we give them an opportunity > to live to their adolescence which is, one would > suppose, preferable to not living at all. I had > a lot of fun as a child and early teen. If given > a choice of having those years, then being slain > and devoured, I would choose a short life over > never being born at all. > > One argues that if humans did not raise cattle, then > buffalo would have that much more room to be born > and live full lives, and a buffalo is kinda like > a big cow, so there you have it. I find this > argument unconvincing, for the owners of that land > would not wish to carry the liability risk of yahoos > illegally entering their land to play Indian (wildly > galloping around bareback, twanging stone-tipped arrows > at the panicked buffalo, counting many coup, etc, which > you *know* is a fun-sounding testosterone-charged activity.) > > One could purchase steaks, then instead of devouring > same, could give them a decent burial in the back yard, > but then of course one would still need to devour > something else, thus using up land that could otherwise > be used for wild buffalo. The neighbors might not > care for it either. > > Similarly, for those of us who devour fish (early, > often and cheerfully) we are doing a good deed if > we devour only farmed fish. But if our sushi is caught > from the wild we prevent the hapless beasts from > living on to a happy middle age and eventually > being devoured by a larger fish. > > The cow paradox has been hashed over at least twice > before on extropians, so do not feel compelled to > comment. But any new insight is welcome. I am > ready to conclude that this old world is hopelessly > mired in ethical paradox. > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 23 20:05:10 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 15:05:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040523150440.01bdaec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/ From rafal at smigrodzki.org Sun May 23 20:37:54 2004 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 16:37:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again References: <000001c440e3$cc438f30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <006201c44105$d6cfefd0$6401a8c0@dimension> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 12:34 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again > > David wrote: > > > > Call the larger envelope value LV, > > the smaller envelope SV, > > the minimum possible amount of zorgs is z. > > and i is some integer. > > > > SV must be i * z. > > But LV = 2 * SV , therefore SV can only increment in steps of 2z. > > > > This means that for any given range there are twice as many > > possible SV values as there are LV values. > > This means that the chance that the other envelope is the > > smaller one is twice the chance that it is the larger one. > > > > expected value becomes 2/3 * 5 + 1/3 * 20 = 10. > > I am examining this argument carefully, for it is > tempting indeed. The phrase "for any given range" makes me > squirm a little, for I fear that it incorrectly causes the zorg > version of the puzzle to collapse to the less interesting > real dollars version, which is solved by Eliezer's solution. > The real dollars version is merely a poker match. > > On the other hand, I suppose that even with zorgs, there > must me *some* finite range. Do let me ponder, thereby > dumping even more perfectly good life into this maddening > time-sink. ### Quite simple - in a finite range, there is a maximum amount of zorgs, m. Then for envelopes with x> (m-z)/2, you swap, for x<(m-z)/2 you stick, for x = (m-z)/2 you stick, since swapping costs you effort. For an infinite range, you complain to the donor that thinking about infinite ranges give you a headache, and you don't want to play. Rafal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 23 20:47:52 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 13:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040523150440.01bdaec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040523204752.59186.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/ > An extremely interesting story. Reminds me of the part of Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast when the Burroughs visited a universe where Mars was colonized by Victorian-British and Russians who attained space travel via balloons.... ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From reason at longevitymeme.org Sun May 23 21:14:42 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:14:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040523204752.59186.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 1:48 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/ > > > > An extremely interesting story. Reminds me of the part of Heinlein's > "The Number of the Beast when the Burroughs visited a universe where > Mars was colonized by Victorian-British and Russians who attained space > travel via balloons.... I was thinking that this technology will enable for a viable new frontier. If it pans out, there's nothing stopping small self-organized groups from bringing up soil, plants, etc and putting entire cities thirty miles up over international waters, built one piece at a time. A come-as-you-are sort of affair, very enabling for libertarians if the price point for hoisting a moderate self-sufficient living unit falls low enough. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sun May 23 22:59:55 2004 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 08:59:55 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <000001c440e3$cc438f30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c440e3$cc438f30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40B12CEB.8080100@optusnet.com.au> Spike wrote: > David wrote: > > > > >>Call the larger envelope value LV, >>the smaller envelope SV, >>the minimum possible amount of zorgs is z. >>and i is some integer. >> >>SV must be i * z. >>But LV = 2 * SV , therefore SV can only increment in steps of 2z. >> >>This means that for any given range there are twice as many >>possible SV values as there are LV values. >>This means that the chance that the other envelope is the >>smaller one is twice the chance that it is the larger one. >> >>expected value becomes 2/3 * 5 + 1/3 * 20 = 10. >> >> > >I am examining this argument carefully, for it is >tempting indeed. The phrase "for any given range" makes me >squirm a little, for I fear that it incorrectly causes the zorg >version of the puzzle to collapse to the less interesting >real dollars version, which is solved by Eliezer's solution. >The real dollars version is merely a poker match. > >On the other hand, I suppose that even with zorgs, there >must me *some* finite range. Do let me ponder, thereby >dumping even more perfectly good life into this maddening >time-sink. > >spike > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > "any given range" immediately becomes applicable when you open the first envelope. The range is 2 * the value of the envelope you open. From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon May 24 00:46:21 2004 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] James Hughes is not speaking in the name of WTA Message-ID: <20040524004621.50925.qmail@web41315.mail.yahoo.com> James, Please, kindly remove your links and any association to the WTA in your personal comments to the Methuselah Prize. I don't personally care if you were an admirer of Karl Marx and if you consider Michael Harrington your political mentor, but those are certainly not the views of the WTA. This is the fifth time that I personally request you such a small change. Please, grow up and at least learn from Nick Bostrom, who even as the Chair of the WTA spoke on his own, under his name, and signed with his own web page. Sincerely yours, Jos? Luis Cordeiro http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/MMPDonors.asp?offset=75 World Transhumanist Association - James Hughes 03 November 2003 $25.00 Why Did James Hughes Donate to the Methuselah Mouse Prize? Hartford , CT US "My mother died before she ever had a chance to meet her grandchildren. My father died when my son was one. When I look in my children's eyes I want to know them when they are old and wise, and I want to see what their children and their grandchildren accomplish. Some people think that the struggle for radical life extension is a selfish one, but I see it just the opposite. My political mentor, Michael Harrington, said that being a fighter for social justice was "long distance running." Michael died in 1989, before he could see the fall of the Berlin Wall, something he had longed for his entire life. Like Michael, I want not only to live more life myself, but to see what becomes of this world and do what I can to build a better one. The Methusaleh Mouse prize is an initiative that may allow us all to meet our great-grandchildren and take responsibility for future generations and the future of the planet, since we will be there too." -James Hughes World Transhumanist Association http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/MMPDonors.asp?offset=30 Nick Bostrom 19 November 2003 $170.00 Why Did Nick Bostrom Donate to the Methuselah Mouse Prize? Oxford, GB One day a cure for aging will likely be found. At that point, the questions will be asked; "Could we not have made this happen sooner?" and "Why did hundreds of millions of people have to die prematurely and unnecessarily?" Personally, I do not want to be among those who did nothing. I want to be among those who shared the vision and who cared enough to contribute to its realization. And if it happens in our lifetime, how wonderful that would be! The Methuselah Prize is a great idea. Science prizes have proved an effective funding method in the past. Starting with the mouse makes sense. If we can capture the public imagination, a vast multiplier effect will result. Hopefully, there will eventually be a large international project specifically targeted at finding ways to extend the human health span. Which is more exciting: the international space station or a cure for aging? -Nick Bostrom Website La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 24 01:04:46 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040524010446.89512.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com> --- Reason wrote: > If it pans out, there's nothing stopping small > self-organized groups from > bringing up soil, plants, etc and putting entire > cities thirty miles up over > international waters, built one piece at a time. Except for the total mass these things can lift. Put too many colonists, their personal effects, and life support for them on (or supported from) a balloon and watch it fall. Oh, and the helium resupply (helium, being such a small atom and not needing to form molecules, tends to slowly leak through almost any surface; they mention the result of this deep in the article) - helium is uncommon enough that the US was able to hold it as a strategic resource in the early 20th century, and it still needs to be mined today (unconstrained atmospheric helium tending to float away as it does). From reason at longevitymeme.org Mon May 24 01:17:00 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:17:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524010446.89512.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > --- Reason wrote: > > If it pans out, there's nothing stopping small > > self-organized groups from > > bringing up soil, plants, etc and putting entire > > cities thirty miles up over > > international waters, built one piece at a time. > > Except for the total mass these things can lift. Put > too many colonists, their personal effects, and life > support for them on (or supported from) a balloon and > watch it fall. Oh, and the helium resupply (helium, > being such a small atom and not needing to form > molecules, tends to slowly leak through almost any > surface; they mention the result of this deep in the > article) - helium is uncommon enough that the US was > able to hold it as a strategic resource in the early > 20th century, and it still needs to be mined today > (unconstrained atmospheric helium tending to float > away as it does). Well, lots of balloon volume per colonist, of course. I imagine that materials science will stretch to vacuum balloons sometime in the coming decades, but I'm not up to the BOTE calculation to see what the size/cost ratios are like for building, supplying and long term use of helium balloons. (And ergo whether it can realistically be done without some order of magnitude breakthroughs in helium-obtaining and/or balloon-material technology parameters). Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 24 01:22:05 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040524012205.29290.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> Why even bother with helium? Hydrogen is better, and its now known that the Hindenberg disaster was caused by static electricity igniting the celluloid-based balloon laquer. Could go higher with Hydrogen, too... --- Reason wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Adrian > Tymes > > > --- Reason wrote: > > > If it pans out, there's nothing stopping small > > > self-organized groups from > > > bringing up soil, plants, etc and putting entire > > > cities thirty miles up over > > > international waters, built one piece at a time. > > > > Except for the total mass these things can lift. Put > > too many colonists, their personal effects, and life > > support for them on (or supported from) a balloon and > > watch it fall. Oh, and the helium resupply (helium, > > being such a small atom and not needing to form > > molecules, tends to slowly leak through almost any > > surface; they mention the result of this deep in the > > article) - helium is uncommon enough that the US was > > able to hold it as a strategic resource in the early > > 20th century, and it still needs to be mined today > > (unconstrained atmospheric helium tending to float > > away as it does). > > Well, lots of balloon volume per colonist, of course. I imagine that > materials science will stretch to vacuum balloons sometime in the > coming > decades, but I'm not up to the BOTE calculation to see what the > size/cost > ratios are like for building, supplying and long term use of helium > balloons. (And ergo whether it can realistically be done without some > order > of magnitude breakthroughs in helium-obtaining and/or > balloon-material > technology parameters). > > Reason > Founder, Longevity Meme > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 24 01:47:19 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040524014719.71905.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com> --- Reason wrote: > I imagine that > materials science will stretch to vacuum balloons > sometime in the coming > decades Vacuum balloons happen to be a dream of mine I reality checked some time ago. In theory, if one could get materials strong and light enough, one could make an expandable brick full of near-pure vacuum. Imagine a flexible covering, joined to an internal, size-adjustable support mechanism (say, telescoping support structs). Shrink the supports (telescope the struts in), and pressure forces the covering inwards, resulting in less displacement and thus less lift. Reverse the process for more displacement and more lift (up to whatever the supports & covering can stretch to). It'd be difficult to do this even with today's most advanced materials, mainly due to the weight of the motors to adjust the support mechanism. If one could afford to only adjust during the day, power could come entirely from lots of low-efficiency flexible solar cells: surface area is practically unlimited for that specific application, though weight is a concern. Vacuum, of course, doesn't leak unless the container is breached, and it'd be a simple matter to add a small vacuum pump in case of small leaks (possibly, this would even be what - slowly - gives the balloon its initial vacuum, and just leave it in there in case of future problems). From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 24 01:58:08 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524014719.71905.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040524015808.9339.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Vacuum balloons, while a nice SF fantasy, are not physically practical compared to the next best things, like hydrogen and helium. These gasses are so light that the envelope mass needed to reinforce a vessel to hold a vacuum (not really holding it, but holding matter out of it, eh?) would be greater than that saved by not using one of these gasses. --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Reason wrote: > > I imagine that > > materials science will stretch to vacuum balloons > > sometime in the coming > > decades > > Vacuum balloons happen to be a dream of mine I reality > checked some time ago. In theory, if one could get > materials strong and light enough, one could make an > expandable brick full of near-pure vacuum. Imagine a > flexible covering, joined to an internal, > size-adjustable support mechanism (say, telescoping > support structs). Shrink the supports (telescope the > struts in), and pressure forces the covering inwards, > resulting in less displacement and thus less lift. > Reverse the process for more displacement and more > lift (up to whatever the supports & covering can > stretch to). > > It'd be difficult to do this even with today's most > advanced materials, mainly due to the weight of the > motors to adjust the support mechanism. If one could > afford to only adjust during the day, power could come > entirely from lots of low-efficiency flexible solar > cells: surface area is practically unlimited for that > specific application, though weight is a concern. > > Vacuum, of course, doesn't leak unless the container > is breached, and it'd be a simple matter to add a > small vacuum pump in case of small leaks (possibly, > this would even be what - slowly - gives the balloon > its initial vacuum, and just leave it in there in > case of future problems). > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon May 24 02:53:47 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 12:53:47 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again References: <000001c440e3$cc438f30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40B12CEB.8080100@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <047301c4413a$55f33f90$1a2d2dcb@homepc> David wrote: > Spike wrote: > > > David wrote: > > > >>Call the larger envelope value LV, > >>the smaller envelope SV, > >>the minimum possible amount of zorgs is z. > >>and i is some integer. > >> > >>SV must be i * z. > >>But LV = 2 * SV , therefore SV can only increment in steps of 2z. > >> > >>This means that for any given range there are twice as many > >>possible SV values as there are LV values. > >>This means that the chance that the other envelope is the > >>smaller one is twice the chance that it is the larger one. > >> > >>expected value becomes 2/3 * 5 + 1/3 * 20 = 10. > >> > >> > > > >I am examining this argument carefully, for it is > >tempting indeed. The phrase "for any given range" makes me > >squirm a little, for I fear that it incorrectly causes the zorg > >version of the puzzle to collapse to the less interesting > >real dollars version, which is solved by Eliezer's solution. > >The real dollars version is merely a poker match. > > > >On the other hand, I suppose that even with zorgs, there > >must me *some* finite range. Do let me ponder, thereby > >dumping even more perfectly good life into this maddening > >time-sink. > > > >spike > > "any given range" immediately becomes applicable when you > open the first envelope. > The range is 2 * the value of the envelope you open. I also baulked at "range" but I thought that David had it right. ie. He restated one interpretation of what you *seemed* to want in terms you *seemed* to want. I'd be curious to see if you can fault him. With dollars we have an idea what the units are. Although they could be say US dollars or Australian dollars or dollars in some other country's denomination. With zorgs instead of dollars we don't have such potentially messy preconceptions about purchasing power etc but the ratios don't change. 5 zorgs. 10 zorgs. 20 zorgs. Same as 1 zorg. 2 zorgs, 4 zorgs isn't it? You are just preserving the ratio while removing the preconception of a how much a dollar can bye aren't you? Wasn't that the point ? So you can plug whatever you want into "zorg" including dollars if you want. Just as the person choosing the evelope could. Only thing is you have to be consistent in what you plug in to preserve the ratio you want. One zorg has to always equal a zorg. 5 zorgs has to be half of 10 zorgs and a quarter of 20 zorgs whatever you decide a zorg is. Whether a zorg is a simple familiar dollar or dollar processed by any mathematical function to convert it into some other currency. I'd like to see what you think of David's offering Spike. Brett From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 24 04:36:12 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 21:36:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again In-Reply-To: <047301c4413a$55f33f90$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <000001c44148$a54db300$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Brett Paatsch: > > I'd be curious to see if you can fault him. >... > With dollars we have an idea what the units are... >... > So you can plug whatever you want into "zorg" including dollars > if you want... > ... > I'd like to see what you think of David's offering Spike. Brett Between David's idea and Eliezer's I think I see where my sim might have lead me to the wrong answer, but I still do not see how you would know to stick or swap in the 10 zorg example. The reason I think I was getting so tripped up is that when you write a sim, you *must* give the sim some range over which to generate the random number, and this violates the premise of the puzzle. Right now my mind is temporarily nonfunctional from a run up Mission Peak above Fremont on a day when it was just a little too warm for that activity. But it was well worth it, for I saw something on the way up that made so much sense and was simultaneously so absurdly self contradictory, I cursed myself for not having with me a camera: I saw a presumably arabic young woman running down the mountain wearing typical western style running shorts, running shoes, a T-shirt and... a chaddor. We occasionally see women in chaddors around here, those head and face covering scarfs that Muslim women wear; my own neighborhood has two families where the women don the chaddor. Only the eyes show. Today a young athlete wore that over her head and face, while allowing her quite attractive young legs and arms to be gazed upon by arbitrary many ogling admirers, including my ever so humble self. I have decided to purchase one of those camera-phone things. It was such a wacky juxtaposition of ideas, such a living, breathing, running *paradox* that I just had to laugh out loud. When you think it over, that outfit makes perfect sense, does it not? Perhaps this is the closest thing we will ever see to a conservative Muslim streaker. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 24 04:52:35 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 23:52:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Muslim paradox In-Reply-To: <000001c44148$a54db300$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <047301c4413a$55f33f90$1a2d2dcb@homepc> <000001c44148$a54db300$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040523234938.01c0ade8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:36 PM 5/23/2004 -0700, Spike wrote: >We occasionally see women in chaddors around here, those >head and face covering scarfs that Muslim women wear; >my own neighborhood has two families where the women >don the chaddor. Only the eyes show. Today a young >athlete wore that over her head and face, while allowing >her quite attractive young legs and arms to be gazed >upon by arbitrary many ogling admirers, including >my ever so humble self. In my novel QUIPU (a revised version of the 1984 TRANSMITTERS, as yet unpublished in the USA), one dubious character muses thus: ================ He snickers; a friend returning from the Middle East a couple of years ago swore blind that any of the local women, in purdah, would fling her voluminous skirts over her head in shame and horror if an outsider chanced to see her naked face. Odd enough as a behavior, this performance had the ludicrous consequence in Western eyes of inverting the usual conventions of decency: for these heavily skirted women were entirely innocent of underwear. ================= Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 24 05:35:37 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 22:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524015808.9339.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040524053537.72668.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Vacuum balloons, while a nice SF fantasy, are not > physically practical > compared to the next best things, like hydrogen and > helium. These > gasses are so light that the envelope mass needed to > reinforce a vessel > to hold a vacuum (not really holding it, but holding > matter out of it, > eh?) would be greater than that saved by not using > one of these gasses. Barring fantastically light and strong materials, and/or extremely large balloons (square-cube law: envelope mass scales with the surface area, but lift scales with the volume enclosed), this is true. But neither one is practical at this time. From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon May 24 05:45:25 2004 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 22:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Unauthorized use of our name on your site In-Reply-To: <503D6F7A-AD43-11D8-BB5B-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20040524054525.35479.qmail@web41310.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Aubrey and Methuselah Foundation friends, Please remove any links to the WTA from the unfortunate personal statement of James Hughes. I have alreaday written to him several times to ask for an apology, but he has refused to do so since March, and the WTA Board might now be forced to take other actions. The WTA, and my personally, strongly support your work, but we are an apolitical organization and James Hughes had no right to use unlawfully our name and to further refuse withdrawing that offensive post to many of our members. It is interesting to note the Nick Bostrom, current Chair of the WTA, signed under his own name and personal webpage. Sincerely yours, Jos? Luis Cordeiro Harvey Newstrom wrote: I am a member of the Board of Directors of the World Transhumanist Association. I have been appointed Liaison to other transhumanist organizations. It has come to my attention that our secretary James Hughes has made the following donation: using the name of our organization. He did not have permission to use our organization's name, and has refused repeated requests from various Board members to remove it. He insists that this was a personal statement that doesn't involve the WTA. While the Board of Directors of WTA supports your work greatly, we have received complaints concerning the praise of "Michael Harrington" being submitted under our name, since our organization Constitution forbids corporate officers from endorsing any particular political viewpoints in connection with our organization's name. Do you have a policy concerning private donors using organizational names without permission? Can you remove our organization name so that it just shows "James Hughes" as the donor instead of "World Transhumanist Association - James Hughes"? Can you also remove the link to our website that is included a the bottom of the signature? I appreciate your attention to this matter. I have included comments from six of our nine Board Members below to show you the opinions of the Board. James Hughes' own claim is at the bottom. (The other three have not commented on this issue.) -- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC Jose Cordeiro wrote: > Please, kindly remove your links and any association to the WTA in > your personal comments to the Methuselah Prize. I don't personally > care if you were an admirer of Karl Marx and if you consider Michael > Harrington your political mentor, but those are certainly not the > views of the WTA. Giulio Prisco wrote: > not be that James gave 25$ of WTA money AS an official representative > of the > WTA, but that James gave 25$ of his money AND he is a member of the > WTA. Mike LaTorra wrote: > He was speaking as a member of the WTA, not a spokesman for the WTA. Bruce J. Klein wrote: > Also, after repeated requests from a fellow board member, James Hughes > refuses to remove two "World Transhumanist Association" links from a > public statement where he expresses personal political inspirations. > http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/MMPDonors.asp?offset=75 Harvey Newstrom wrote: > How can you use the WTA name without WTA authorization? James Hughes wrote: > I think Jose's annoyance at the Methuslaeh quote is bizarre, and that > it was > a personal statement that made no particular political affirmation. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon May 24 06:17:43 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:17:43 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] monty hall paradox again References: <000001c44148$a54db300$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <04b101c44156$d3682ff0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Spike wrote: > Between David's idea and Eliezer's I think I see where my > sim might have lead me to the wrong answer, but I still > do not see how you would know to stick or swap in the > 10 zorg example. #1 The reason I think I was getting so > tripped up is that when you write a sim, you *must* > give the sim some range over which to generate the > random number, and this violates the premise of the > puzzle. #2 #1 I see your original hypothetical restated thus: > Suppose an unknown but whimsical benefactor has chosen > to give you a monetary gift. A messenger is sent with > two identical envelopes and offers to give you one of > them [explaining that the currency inside is not dollars > but zorgs that can be redeemed for dollars at your local > Foreign exchange dealer.] The messenger knows not the > amounts of money in either envelope, but tells you that > one of the envelopes contains twice as much as the other. > You are to choose an envelope. You choose, and inside > you find ten [zorgs]. Now the messenger offers to trade > your ten [zorgs] for the contents of the other envelope. > Would you trade? Why? Therefore. Depending a bit on my mood on the day and the demeanour of the messenger and the cost of time (negligable), I'd play. Heck to get my attention the messenger has already interrupted me. (I can be a bit grumpy about that sometimes alas). So I'd figure why not play its some money and an experience for very little time? I'd chose an envelope and find I now had 10 zorgs. The messenger then offers to trade my 10 zorgs for the other envelope which contains either 5 or 20 zorgs. He only has one other envelope and I've already seen what was in the first one. 12.5 zorgs has got to be better than 10 zorgs (you said they came from a benefactor - a zorg isn't a debt) so I'd switch thereby risking 5 zorgs for the chance to get 20 zorgs. Total cost of time for the two separate transactions to me is very little. Total gain for transaction 1 = 10 zorgs. For transaction 2 either a loss of five zorgs or a gain of 10 more zorgs. Was I acting rationally to risk five to make ten? I reckon so. Am I absolutely certain? No. But I am certain I was not acting irrationally. Perhaps a-rationally, thats ok. I'd be ashamed (just a bit) to discover I'd acted irrationally (if it was pointed out that I had) but just a little bit, say enough maybe to make me want to not be irrational next time. Its probably a-rational to participate in this thread at the cost of time (no zorgs :-). Irrational? Nah. Its optional. Just like chosing to take the first envelope is optional. And just like switch or stick on the second transaction was optional. #2 Sims that use random numbers seem to be tricky in themselves. I liked Hal's post in this thread. And Eliezer's response to Hal was interesting too. [Hal wrote] > > The problem is that the paradox as stated is simply logically > > impossible. It contains a contradiction. And once you start > > with a contradiction, it should be no surprise that you can > > derive one. [Eliezer] > I can take money from my wallet, put one-third into one envelope, > and two-thirds into the other envelope, and flip a coin - a > quantum coin, if need be - to decide which envelope to give you. > It is definitely physically possible. Eliezer has a quantum coin !!! Quite a collectable in itself I'd imagine. Too rare a collectable for Eliezer to offer to Hal to toss or examine perhaps :-) Brett Paatsch From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 24 10:33:40 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 12:33:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524014719.71905.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040524014719.71905.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040524103340.GI1105@leitl.org> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 06:47:19PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Vacuum balloons happen to be a dream of mine I reality > checked some time ago. In theory, if one could get > materials strong and light enough, one could make an > expandable brick full of near-pure vacuum. Imagine a This has been thoroughly discussed on nanotechnology Usenet newsgroups of yore. > flexible covering, joined to an internal, > size-adjustable support mechanism (say, telescoping > support structs). Shrink the supports (telescope the > struts in), and pressure forces the covering inwards, > resulting in less displacement and thus less lift. > Reverse the process for more displacement and more > lift (up to whatever the supports & covering can > stretch to). You could also use simple solar thermal management of the hull (electropigment, insulation) to change lift on classical hydrogen/helium lighter than air vehicles. Or use active control of pressurized compartments. > It'd be difficult to do this even with today's most Make that rather "impossible". Nanoscale smart materials currently don't exist. You need machine-phase chemistry to build those. > advanced materials, mainly due to the weight of the > motors to adjust the support mechanism. If one could > afford to only adjust during the day, power could come > entirely from lots of low-efficiency flexible solar There's no reason why thin-film cells need to be low-efficiency. > cells: surface area is practically unlimited for that > specific application, though weight is a concern. > > Vacuum, of course, doesn't leak unless the container > is breached, and it'd be a simple matter to add a In practice, there's outgassing, so you need pumps. In practice, you can make hydrogen from captured atmospheric water vapor, and replenish your leaks, using onboard photovoltaics or beamed terrestrial power. > small vacuum pump in case of small leaks (possibly, > this would even be what - slowly - gives the balloon > its initial vacuum, and just leave it in there in > case of future problems). All of it is feasible, if you have MNT. We don't have MNT, so lighter than air vehicles are limited to gases buoyant in the atmosphere (of which hydrogen is cheapest, but has a very unfortunate rap since that Hindenburg thing). I was pretty amazed that these balooning people thought they could ion (plasma) thrusters (powered from ground with a powerful microwave source) to counteract drag, indeed enough to go orbital, all within a few days (?!). At several Mach oxygen plasma will eat any lightweight plastic alive. Otoh, you can carry payloads up to higher stratosphere within tether reach. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael at acceleratingfuture.com Mon May 24 10:34:57 2004 From: michael at acceleratingfuture.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 03:34:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Promote transhumanist ideas by joining StumbleUpon.com! Message-ID: <40B1CFD1.9000900@acceleratingfuture.com> Hello fellow transhumanists, I've been watching the web statistics of a few key organizations and have found that we get a *lot* of hits from this service called StumbleUpon.com. It's a toolbar that surfers use to be directed towards random websites based on their interests and ratings from fellow users of the software. Like Orkut, transhumanist-oriented ideas seem to be disproportionately popular among users of this service. Let's improve our situation by joining this service, navigating to our favorite websites, rating them with a "thumbs-up", and leaving a positive comment, shall we? It will take about 10 minutes of your time. The potential improvement in traffic could be enormous even if only 10% of the people reading this email step up to the plate. Download the software here: http://www.stumbleupon.com/ Here are some of the sites I gave positive ratings and comments (listed in random order): http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/ http://www.asimovlaws.com/ http://www.extropy.org/ http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael http://www.transhumanism.org/ http://www.imminst.org/ http://www.singinst.org/ http://www.betterhumans.com/ Now that I have everyone's attention, I also wanted to mention that, regardless of what I said in my recent AHA2004 conference report, I'm not an uptight transhumanist Puritan. I don't advocate the outlawing of drinking, gambling, or prostition, but it makes me feel negative when people's long-term happiness is damaged as a result of these short-term pleasures. (As it sometimes is.) I had a great time in Vegas overall, but must admit that I've been to many better cities. (Vancouver and New Haven come to mind.) Thanks, -- Michael Anissimov http://www.singinst.org/ Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence -- Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and community news: http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 24 10:52:18 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 12:52:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524010446.89512.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040524010446.89512.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040524105218.GL1105@leitl.org> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 06:04:46PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Except for the total mass these things can lift. Put > too many colonists, their personal effects, and life > support for them on (or supported from) a balloon and > watch it fall. Oh, and the helium resupply (helium, The only way to achive a large terrestrean launch capacity, is via a Moon bootstrap. > being such a small atom and not needing to form > molecules, tends to slowly leak through almost any > surface; they mention the result of this deep in the > article) - helium is uncommon enough that the US was Helium lifts 97% of hydrogen. I can't find the leakage rate of hydrogen vs. helium off hand. > able to hold it as a strategic resource in the early > 20th century, and it still needs to be mined today > (unconstrained atmospheric helium tending to float > away as it does). So use hydrogen. It will require dedicated rescue systems for manned stratospheric stations in case of catastrophic loss, to safely land the pressurized cabin (it comes down really quickly, and gets surprisingly fast in the process). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon May 24 10:59:20 2004 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 06:59:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide! Message-ID: <00a101c4417e$2b3b2e40$1c893cd1@neptune> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Mon May 24 11:45:19 2004 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:45:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide! In-Reply-To: <00a101c4417e$2b3b2e40$1c893cd1@neptune> References: <00a101c4417e$2b3b2e40$1c893cd1@neptune> Message-ID: If I'm reading correctly between the lines of the article, that's the size of the observable universe, not the real size which is still unknown (and it's unknown also if it is finite or not). Alfio On Mon, 24 May 2004, Technotranscendence wrote: >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 24 14:22:44 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 07:22:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Promote transhumanist ideas by joining StumbleUpon.com! In-Reply-To: <40B1CFD1.9000900@acceleratingfuture.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040524072113.02deb420@mail.earthlink.net> At 03:34 AM 5/24/04 -0700, Michael wrote: >Let's improve our situation by joining this service, navigating to our >favorite websites, rating them with a "thumbs-up", and leaving a positive >comment, shall we? It will take about 10 minutes of your time. The >potential improvement in traffic could be enormous even if only 10% of the >people reading this email step up to the plate. Great idea. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Mon May 24 12:32:00 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:32:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-yearsWide! References: <00a101c4417e$2b3b2e40$1c893cd1@neptune> Message-ID: <001201c4418b$1df595b0$90b51b97@administxl09yj> <> Does this seem to be consistent? Wow, 13.7 billion years ago, when the light left those galaxies, they were much closer to the Earth. How could the light have taken *that* long to get here? Double wow! Another paradox here? Well, I can imagine that Bayes would say: "What kind of prior distribution are you using for space, between those old galaxies and our Earth, static or dynamical?". Btw, it seems to me the "two-envelope" choice, had a hidden assumption. Namely: why one would change the envelope? Money does not make one happy. :-) From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 24 14:58:31 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 07:58:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS:TransVision 2004 Conference Multi-Media Exhibition Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040524072519.02df4bd0@mail.earthlink.net> CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS: http://www.transhumanist.biz "ART & LIFE IN THE POSTHUMAN ERA" On August 5 to 8, 2004 the TransVision Conference will be held at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and featuring a multi-media, digital arts exhibition. The TV2004 Exhibition will focus on art, science and technology interfacing with the transhuman and posthuman era. You can participate in the conference's following categories: SELECTIONS: 1) COMPUTER GENERATED ANIMATION 2) NET-ART 3) DIGITAL ART 3) ON-LINE & OFF-LINE MULTI-MEDIA 4) INTERACTIVE INSTALLATION 5) VIDEO AND DOCUMENTARY 6) MUSIC COMPOSITION 7) SCIENCE FICTION 8) POETRY 9) ESSAY Artworks, including music and written pieces, are to be submitted in digital format and/or on-line as Net-Art. Screening of moving images (animation, video, documentaries) will be presented in real time. For detailed information for submissions see http://www.transhumanist.biz Entry form is located at http://www.transhumanist.biz/entryform.htm Contact: Curator at Transhumanist Arts & Culture: curator at transhumanist.biz Selection of New Media and Technology Works: A TV-2004/TAC committee will be in charge of selecting the artists' work. ________________________________________________ To register for the TransVision 2004 Conference: http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/registration.shtml Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Mon May 24 13:06:58 2004 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:06:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Methusaleh quote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04May24.090659-0400_edt.340522-31929+6371@ams.ftl.affinity.com> J Hughes writes: > Since Jose chose to post this to the wta-talk list I'll briefly explain. > > When the Methusaleh Mouse prize was started we were urged to have WTAers > publicly support it, and encourage rivalry among friendly organizations > to get it going. > > I responded with a personal donation of $25 identifying myself as a > member of the WTA. > > My statement read: [....] To be fair and accurate, I think James should have also reported that he did not submit this donation using the name "James Hughes", but rather using the name of "World Transhumanist Association - James Hughes". -- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC From bradbury at aeiveos.com Mon May 24 12:44:58 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 05:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Muslim paradox In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040523234938.01c0ade8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 May 2004, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:36 PM 5/23/2004 -0700, Spike wrote: > > >We occasionally see women in chaddors around here, those > >head and face covering scarfs that Muslim women wear; Ok, let us look at this from the perspective of rational discussion. In theory a chaddor would hide the face of a woman and perhaps to some extent her health status. (Jaundice could for example be judged by skin color.) So this would put men at a disadvantage when seeking a healthy mate. On the other hand, once married a chaddor would hide the woman from the world making her a less appealing target for overtures to stray from marital fidelity (this all goes back to the fact that until DNA testing became available men had no way to know for sure that a child was theirs). Does any of this make sense??? Or is the chaddor simply some expression of male dominance over females (an expression of "ownership" perhaps)? Robert From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon May 24 14:49:46 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 00:49:46 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Methusaleh quote References: <04May24.090659-0400_edt.340522-31929+6371@ams.ftl.affinity.com> Message-ID: <059601c4419e$5ba3dbc0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> Harvey wrote: > J Hughes writes: > > > Since Jose chose to post this to the wta-talk list I'll briefly explain. > > > > When the Methusaleh Mouse prize was started we were urged to have WTAers > > publicly support it, and encourage rivalry among friendly organizations > > to get it going. > > > > I responded with a personal donation of $25 identifying myself as a > > member of the WTA. > > > > My statement read: > [....] > > To be fair and accurate, I think James should have also reported that he did > not submit this donation using the name "James Hughes", but rather using the > name of "World Transhumanist Association - James Hughes". I'm not sure that that is completely fair and accurate Harvey, so far as I can see James Hughes doesn't seem to have reported anything to the Extropy-chat list yet. Jose has posted twice that I've seen recently regarding James but if James has offended it doesn't seem to have been on this list and if James has felt a need to defend or explain anything then that doesn't seem to have extended to this list either. - Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 24 15:05:03 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 08:05:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Universe Measured: We're 156 BillionLight-yearsWide! In-Reply-To: <001201c4418b$1df595b0$90b51b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <000701c441a0$7e41c9b0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> scerir > > Btw, it seems to me the "two-envelope" choice, > had a hidden assumption. Namely: why one would > change the envelope? Money does not make > one happy. > > :-) It's highly overrated in my opinion. Happiness cannot buy money. {8^D spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 24 15:18:15 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 08:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524105218.GL1105@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20040524151815.59636.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > So use hydrogen. It will require dedicated rescue systems for manned > stratospheric stations in case of catastrophic loss, to safely land > the pressurized cabin (it comes down really quickly, and gets > surprisingly fast in the process). I've got a better idea: combine this balloon idea with Orion. Ride the balloon to above 100,000 feet and cruise to open ocean, then, using the gas envelope as a shock cushion (you've got your orbital ship on top, your bomb on the bottom, or, better, ship at the nose, bomb at the tail) set off your nuke. This should give you a huge boost toward orbit while your fallout should mostly settle in the ocean in a highly dispersed manner, thus greatly reducing even incidental health risks. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 24 15:29:40 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 08:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Universe Measured: We're 156 BillionLight-yearsWide! In-Reply-To: <000701c441a0$7e41c9b0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <20040524152940.86741.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> --- Spike wrote: > scerir > > > > > Btw, it seems to me the "two-envelope" choice, > > had a hidden assumption. Namely: why one would > > change the envelope? Money does not make > > one happy. > > > > :-) > > It's highly overrated in my opinion. Happiness cannot > buy money. Money can't buy happiness, but it can surely rent it for a while! ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From max at maxmore.com Mon May 24 16:33:01 2004 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:33:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Roy Walford, A Tribute Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040503223116.02002b28@mail.earthlink.net> For those who don't receive ExI's Exponent newsletter: Roy L. Walford, M.D. A Tribute by Max More With the passing of Roy Walford, the bright glow of our species flickered and dimmed. Roy was one of many thousands of human beings whose lives terminated on April 27, 2004. But he was not *just* one of the many; Roy was a true individual, a character, and a champion of values we hold dear. Roy was an expert practitioner of Nietzsche?s ?great and rare art? of ?giving style to one?s character?. No one would describe him as a loud-mouth or show-off, yet his distinctive way of living and looking at the world made an impression on others. When you think of Roy, you might think of his academic research, or his pioneering and unrelenting advocacy of extending the human lifespan. Or you might think of the impressive mustache he sports on some book jackets. If you had the good fortune to know Roy more personally, quite different impressions might come to mind: Perhaps you think of Roy the frequent global traveler and natural anthropologist, or as a gentle but powerful magnet that drew attractive, younger women into his orbit. You might wonder how someone could be a widely respected scientist and simultaneously display in his bathroom a poster that broadcast its message in such a painfully pointed way. You might puzzle over Roy?s capacity for welcoming and enjoying the hedonic aspects of life *and* advocating rigorous caloric restriction. In describing (or eulogizing) the great and rare art, Nietzsche made explicit the conditions of giving style to your character, of shaping all your strengths and weaknesses into an ?an artistic plan until everything appears as art and reason?. Those who succeeded ?enjoyed their finest gaiety in such compulsion, in such constraint and perfection under a law of their own?. Most of us aren?t good at living under a law of our own, walking the line between tyrannical discipline and reckless or irresponsible dereliction. Roy *was* a law of his own, in the demanding and complete sense intended by the German who philosophized with a hammer. Not only was Roy a paragon of self-definition, he exemplified agelessness. I have long thought that if there were an award for Most Ageless Man, I would vote for Roy Walford. Around five years ago, as I was thinking that very thought, the degenerative process of ALS was not yet evident. Roy had been increasingly bothered by back pain, but attributed it to damage sustained during his two years in Biosphere 2. Even as the disease began to advance on the cellular battle field at a monstrous pace, Roy lived life as if age was an illusion to be dispelled through living. At that time (the late 1990s) Roy, in his seventies, had recently told me about a interview he had done. A TV crew wanted to film him in an eye-drawing location while picking his brain as one of the world?s foremost experts on aging. There he was working out at World Gym in Venice, California surrounded by massive hulks of both sexes?hypermuscular monsters here in the Mecca of bodybuilding, a gym frequented by Arnold Schwarzenegger. ?What the hell is this!? said their expressions as the camera crew focused on the fit but only human-sized septuagenarian. ?Take a look at me! Look at my biceps. Check out my delts!? silently they seemed to scream. But the cameras in this home of hypertrophy -- this veritable palace of protein -- had eyes only for Roy. Roy Walford seemed to me to foreshadow the ageless posthumans we expect to develop out of the human condition. He defied age-related stereotypes, just as he defied convention throughout his life. During several decades involved in the forefront of aging research at his UCLA laboratory, Roy never stopped adventuring. In his seventh decade he entered the sealed environment of Biosphere 2 for two years, serving as the team?s medic and nutrition specialist. He mentioned to me at some point, that he liked to do something really unusual and memorable every ten years or so. These experiences acted almost like chapter beginnings, marking the episodes of a long life. After Biosphere 2, Roy gradually shifted his focus from aging research to an entirely different field: video art. In his eighth decade, when most people still expected to be retired, Roy was tirelessly mastering Photoshop and Director and exhibiting his videos in art galleries, on top of working on at least two books. He continued traveling for as long as the progressive deterioration allowed. If the ALS had not happened, he would have been off to Africa for a couple of months. He also wanted to run for the US presidency on a platform constructed of wry, penetrating, satire ? satirical political performance art, best compared to Swift?s ?A Modest Proposal?. From what he told me, I expect that a few years from now, he would have changed fields again, this time to become a mathematician. For most people, we might dismiss this plan for the future as whimsy. But not for him. (Unless we can talk of ?serious whimsy?.) Roy stayed flexible, inventive, and life affirming. He played havoc with age stereotypes. I will always remember Roy?s character as just the kind we need if we are to thrive as we extend life spans over the centuries. We know that many people fear the uncertainties and open horizons of an unlimited human life span. They cannot imagine how to live a life that has not been stamped with an expiration date. If they only knew a man like Roy Walford, they would have an answer. I want to scream in rage when I think about the way nature robbed this ageless man of his physical vitality (but could never touch his ageless spirit). I want to scream in rage when I think of those, like Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama, who act as apologists for the barbarous, lethal aspects of nature. Let us honor the memory of Roy Walford by redoubling our efforts to master human biology and to eradicate disease, degeneration, and involuntary death. As Miguel Unamuno wrote in The Tragic Sense of Life, ?Nor should we forget that the supreme sloth consists in failing to long madly for immortality.? _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org _______________________________________________________ From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 24 16:48:55 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524151815.59636.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040524164855.41568.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > I've got a better idea: combine this balloon idea > with Orion. Ride the > balloon to above 100,000 feet and cruise to open > ocean, then, using the > gas envelope as a shock cushion (you've got your > orbital ship on top, > your bomb on the bottom, or, better, ship at the > nose, bomb at the > tail) set off your nuke. This should give you a huge > boost toward orbit > while your fallout should mostly settle in the ocean > in a highly > dispersed manner, thus greatly reducing even > incidental health risks. Nice try; doesn't fly. "They're POISONING the OCEAN!" for example. You'd need to either get the radioactive material completely out of Earth's atmosphere (including potential fallout from the detonation), or reduce the political opposition, before using Orion. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 24 17:15:46 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524164855.41568.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040524171546.88493.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > I've got a better idea: combine this balloon idea > > with Orion. Ride the > > balloon to above 100,000 feet and cruise to open > > ocean, then, using the > > gas envelope as a shock cushion (you've got your > > orbital ship on top, > > your bomb on the bottom, or, better, ship at the > > nose, bomb at the > > tail) set off your nuke. This should give you a huge > > boost toward orbit > > while your fallout should mostly settle in the ocean > > in a highly > > dispersed manner, thus greatly reducing even > > incidental health risks. > > Nice try; doesn't fly. "They're POISONING the OCEAN!" > for example. You'd need to either get the radioactive > material completely out of Earth's atmosphere > (including potential fallout from the detonation), or > reduce the political opposition, before using Orion. Why? Imagine a presidential administration that doesn't give a crap about tree hugging protesters, or a NASA which ignores the miniscule risks of maybe a half dozen lives lost from increased cancer risk. Not too hard to imagine, is it? If Bush can ignore the Kyoto Treaty and NASA is willing to accept a full crew loss every 75-100 missions, as well as the proven acceptance of risk from the Cassini flyby, a very minor amount of fallout (note that being a high altitude detonation, it will not be kicking up huge amounts of radiated dust and steam, unlike ground bursts) cannot possibly exceed the noise level already present from Chernobyl fallout across Europe, or even come near it by any significant degree. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From natashavita at earthlink.net Mon May 24 17:25:40 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:25:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Universe Measured: We're 156BillionLight-yearsWide! Message-ID: <146040-220045124172540781@M2W055.mail2web.com> From: Spike >It's highly overrated in my opinion. Happiness cannot >buy money. When Charles deGaulle decided to retire from public life, the American ambassador and his wife threw a gala dinner party in his honor. At the dinner table the Ambassador's wife was talking with Madame deGaulle. "Your husband has been such a prominent public figure, such a presence on the French and International scene for so many years! How quiet retirement will seem in comparison. What are you most looking forward to in these retirement years?" "A penis," replied Madame deGaulle. A huge hush fell over the table. Everyone heard her answer...and no one knew what to say next. Finally, Le Grand Charles leaned over to his wife and said, "Ma cherie, I believe zee Americans pronounce zat word, 'appiness." -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 24 17:33:42 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524171546.88493.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040524173342.57462.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > I've got a better idea: combine this balloon > idea > > > with Orion. Ride the > > > balloon to above 100,000 feet and cruise to open > > > ocean, then, using the > > > gas envelope as a shock cushion (you've got your > > > orbital ship on top, > > > your bomb on the bottom, or, better, ship at the > > > nose, bomb at the > > > tail) set off your nuke. This should give you a > huge > > > boost toward orbit > > > while your fallout should mostly settle in the > ocean > > > in a highly > > > dispersed manner, thus greatly reducing even > > > incidental health risks. > > > > Nice try; doesn't fly. "They're POISONING the > OCEAN!" > > for example. You'd need to either get the > radioactive > > material completely out of Earth's atmosphere > > (including potential fallout from the detonation), > or > > reduce the political opposition, before using > Orion. > > Why? Imagine a presidential administration that > doesn't give a crap > about tree hugging protesters, or a NASA which > ignores the miniscule > risks of maybe a half dozen lives lost from > increased cancer risk. Not > too hard to imagine, is it? I can imagine a lot of impossible or difficult things. NASA might ignore risks to their own crew and contractors, but they signed up for that. Ignoring risks to public health - especially public health of other nations - is another thing, the kind of thing that could get Congress to shut down the program or (for blanketing other nations with radioactivity) invite someone else to shoot down the manned space vehicle (literally, if need be) to protect their own people. > a very > minor amount of fallout (note that being a high > altitude detonation, it > will not be kicking up huge amounts of radiated dust > and steam, unlike > ground bursts) cannot possibly exceed the noise > level already present > from Chernobyl fallout across Europe, or even come > near it by any > significant degree. Ah, but Chernobyl wasn't planned in advance. It was an accident. Deliberately doing something like that is a whole 'nother story. (And I am having a tough time imagining how you could build, launch, and use a useful Orion vehicle by "accident", especially more than once.) From jcorb at irishbroadband.net Mon May 24 17:47:21 2004 From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:47:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040524184320.023d4400@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> >Message: 5 >Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:14:42 -0700 >From: "Reason" >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space >To: "ExI chat list" >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 1:48 PM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space > > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/ > > > > > > > An extremely interesting story. Reminds me of the part of Heinlein's > > "The Number of the Beast when the Burroughs visited a universe where > > Mars was colonized by Victorian-British and Russians who attained space > > travel via balloons.... >I was thinking that this technology will enable for a viable new frontier. >If it pans out, there's nothing stopping small self-organized groups from >bringing up soil, plants, etc and putting entire cities thirty miles up over >international waters, built one piece at a time. A come-as-you-are sort of >affair, very enabling for libertarians if the price point for hoisting a >moderate self-sufficient living unit falls low enough. Sort of like a freedom flotilla in the sky. Very poetic. I'm guessing there's still near enough sea level gravity at that height? What about weight restrictions and other such challenges? Reminds me of the Flash Gordon floating city concept (or the Nox of Stargate SG-1) James... >Reason >Founder, Longevity Meme > > >------------------------------ From bradbury at aeiveos.com Mon May 24 17:21:20 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040524173342.57462.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 May 2004, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: Re: Orion approaches to space... > > > Nice try; doesn't fly. "They're POISONING the OCEAN!" > > > for example. You'd need to either get the radioactive > > > material completely out of Earth's atmosphere > > > (including potential fallout from the detonation), or > > > reduce the political opposition, before using Orion. Its simple -- launch Orion type space ships from the moon. Now whether you transport the weapons up there or produce them in situ would certainly be topics for discussion but they do not seem to be impossible problems to resolve. There would seem to be at least 7+ countries that have more or less independently resolved the question of bomb production and at least one, perhaps three countries that have resolved the question of how to send rockets to the moon. Producing nuclear propelled spaceships launched from the moon is not a question of technology it is a question of desire. Here is a thought. I was recently nailed against a wall at Spike's by Michael Anissimov, John Oh and others attempting to extract from me my views on the risks of bioterrorism (I have no problem with this and view the thought about and the distribution of information on the topic as useful.) *But* it does perhaps raise the question of what humanity might be capable of? We could (with minimal effort) send hundreds, if not thousands of nuclear weapons to the moon. With more effort we could mine sufficient material and assemble them there. I could go on about what a directed nanotechnology (nanomedicine) effort might be capable of but I will not. I only want to plant in your minds the idea that we are *soooo* underfullfilling our potential. As Extropes you may want to consider how that should be corrected. Robert From natashavita at earthlink.net Mon May 24 18:25:33 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:25:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dual Citizenship - USA/UK Message-ID: <244640-220045124182533303@M2W038.mail2web.com> Does anyone have information on dual citizenship? I googled it unsuccessfully. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From scerir at libero.it Mon May 24 18:35:39 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 20:35:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-yearsWide! References: <00a101c4417e$2b3b2e40$1c893cd1@neptune> Message-ID: <006d01c441bd$e9d15110$cdba1b97@administxl09yj> .......the real size which is still unknown (and it's unknown also if it is finite or not). Alfio At the time I was (let us say so) studying (neutrinos and cosmology) the figures were much different: not 13.7, i.e., but around ... 9 (?). Even the neutrinos were different! Now I'm learning something from this faq, which is very good indeed. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html But what about those distant galaxies which have a redshift (and an energy flux), measured here and now, which tend to infinity (and zero)? "The image reddens and fades out". Figuring out that the visible evolution of the distant objects is slowing to a halt. "No superluminal expansion of the Universe" wrote the (very) subtle Don N. Page http://www.arXiv/abs/gr-qc/9303008 "Imagine there is no space and time in the background; no canvas to paint the dynamics of the physical universe on. Imagine a play in which the stage joins the troupe of actors. Imagine a novel in which the book itself is a character..." writes Abhay Ashtekar http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashtekar/index.html But even these images redden and fade out. From hemm at br.inter.net Mon May 24 18:33:54 2004 From: hemm at br.inter.net (Henrique Moraes Machado - HeMM) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:33:54 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space References: Message-ID: <01f901c441bd$aaded090$fe00a8c0@HEMM> -----Mensagem Original----- De: "Robert J. Bradbury" Para: "ExI chat list" Enviada em: segunda-feira, 24 de maio de 2004 14:21 Assunto: Re: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space (...) | There would seem to be at least 7+ countries that have | more or less independently resolved the question of | bomb production and at least one, perhaps three countries | that have resolved the question of how to send rockets | to the moon. Producing nuclear propelled spaceships | launched from the moon is not a question of technology | it is a question of desire. (...) It's more a question of money. The costs are astronomic (no pun intended). I agree that it's possible. There are plans for nuclear ships since (if I'm not wrong) the sixties. I'd like to see one before I pass (or before I have my brain uploaded... :-) From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 24 18:35:49 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:35:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dual Citizenship - USA/UK In-Reply-To: <244640-220045124182533303@M2W038.mail2web.com> References: <244640-220045124182533303@M2W038.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040524133408.01c3aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:25 PM 5/24/2004 -0400, Natasha wrote: >Does anyone have information on dual citizenship? I googled it >unsuccessfully. This is what I found in the US/Oz case: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=108190 In terms of the intricacies of US Dual Citizenship, here is the official word from the US Department of State: "A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship." "Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance." From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 24 18:41:15 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:41:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dual Citizenship - USA/UK 2 Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040524133947.01c8b730@pop-server.satx.rr.com> I just sez: ================ At 02:25 PM 5/24/2004 -0400, Natasha wrote: >Does anyone have information on dual citizenship? I googled it >unsuccessfully. This is what I found in the US/Oz case: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=108190 < snip brief quote > =================== I hope it was obvious that I recommend reading the whole thread. That in turn leads one to http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html und so weiter. Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 24 18:52:13 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Dual Citizenship - USA/UK In-Reply-To: <244640-220045124182533303@M2W038.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20040524185213.40767.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> It is difficult if one is going the naturalization route, but this depends on which way you are going. A British subject would be required by the US to renounce their British citizenship in order to naturalize into US citizenship. Of course, many countries just don't recognize your renounciation of citizenship in their country unless they choose to exile you. Sasha, for example, was exiled from the USSR and stripped of his Soviet citizenship. He never became a US citizen, so when the USSR collapsed, he was truly a man without a country, a true sovereign individual, which has its own advantages in many ways. Try this link: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/ You may find, if you have British ancestors, that you can easily claim British citizenship, depending on what their laws are. Many countries have such right to claim based on ancestry. --- "natashavita at earthlink.net" wrote: > Does anyone have information on dual citizenship? I googled it > unsuccessfully. > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 24 19:00:17 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 12:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040524190017.86446.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > We could (with minimal effort) send hundreds, if not > thousands of nuclear weapons to the moon. Some people would protest that this would violate international treaties. (This would in theory prohibit private efforts by a country's citizens towards the banned activity, as well as officially government-directed efforts.) I could be wrong, but I think the US never signed the specific one they're talking about, though. > I only want to plant in your > minds the idea that we are *soooo* underfullfilling > our potential. As Extropes you may want to consider > how that should be corrected. Money, and lots of it. More businesses founded to develop and market the relevant advances would be a start; so would radically increased government funding of human improvement R&D. (Military projects have been one traditional source of pork barrel spending: even today, military acquisitions routinely far exceed what even the Pentagon and the DoD claim is wise. One suspects those institutions might not be displeased if much of this excess spending was directed instead towards improving the baseline human, be said human soldier or civilian - not just by redirecting their excess budget as they currently try to do, but by making this R&D the "traditional" pork barrel that can be performed, and thus money spent, in almost any legislator's district.) From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 24 19:10:39 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 21:10:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: References: <20040524173342.57462.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040524191039.GJ1105@leitl.org> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:21:20AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > Now whether you transport the weapons up there or produce > them in situ would certainly be topics for discussion > but they do not seem to be impossible problems to resolve. The Moon never had a hydrogeology history (not all hope is lost, though, as uranium is generally lithophile), so the fissibles present are very dispersed. There's not much water, so all (or at least, the bulk of them) enrichment processes have to be dry. Not impossible, but certainly tough. It makes way more sense to produce the fissible propulsion pellets on earth. Launches have high failure rates, though, so one has to engineer safe reentry vehicles -- not impossible, but certainly tough to sell politically. The greens are going to rise (I'm going to vote for them in the upcoming EU elections, mostly for their consistent stance of software patents, but also to help with the launch of EU-wide greens), and most of them are technophobe, so it will be a *tough* sell. Much tougher than a cryogenic-hydrogen hypersonic scramjet LEO vehicle, for instance. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 24 20:20:35 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:20:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : In-Reply-To: <200405131001.40652.dan@3-e.net> Message-ID: <20040524202035.17626.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com> Sorry for the late reply... --- Daniel Matthews wrote: > Thanks for the ideas. The PDA idea is very cool ( I > was thinking about > solidstate MP3 audio books myself at one point) but > I don't have > $250,000,000. I doubt it'd cost that much. Maybe 1% or .1%, easily raisable. But, your call what you pursue. > The materials and production processes MUST be > low-tech and sustainable so > plastics etc. may have to be replaced with things > you can grow, such as wood. Anything you can grow, you can burn. Anything you can burn, can be usurped for use as fuel. (Not just wood.) But what about thick (and thus hopefully sturdy) glass from sand poured into molds, with electric melters powered by manual cranks or wind/water power? Sure, it'd require a bit of metalworking and some magnetic materials to build the manufacturing units, but this is not beyond the capabilities of a blacksmith using only simple hand tools. > Imagine if you could apply all the annoying "viral" > like human behaviours, > such as pyramid selling, to an altruistic purpose > and that purpose was to > propagate ideas that were readily applicable in the > third world and resulted > in a significant benefit to the intellectual > development of children. Many of the viral behaviors come because of a (frequently falsely) perceived benefit to the practictioner from the behavior. E.g., pyramid selling: they think they'll get a profit (and the ones at the top of the pyramid often do). Many of those who are infected with the meme of furthering their child's development at their own expense tend to migrate to industrialized countries where this is more readily possible. (Indeed, one might claim that versions of this meme, whether improving the child or improving the self, account for the majority of migrants.) Unfortunately, this involves removing the infected one from areas where they would spread the meme to others who need it...but to stay is to risk squelching the meme in the one. From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 24 20:49:42 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040524204942.24480.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com> Again, sorry for the late reply. --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2004, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Paraphrasing from another source... > > > > Solar-rechargable, long-range (satellite, > preferably) > > PDA terminals that can connect to the Internet, > [snip] > > > Of course, this would be incredibly subversive to > many > > third world governments, and therefore likely > > confiscated on sight along with food. [snip more] > > Interesting suggestion. I couldn't recall where I heard it from; I thought it might have been you, in fact. > N. Korea's population is 22 million, say 20% in the > 6-18 > year old range and you have ~4.5 million. Say that > many > PDAs mass produced and delivered for $50+/each and > you are > talking something like $250 million. Or deliver just a fraction. Even 1%, distributed among the countryside (where it'd be most needed, and accounting for less than 100% of the population), counting on shared use (and the fact that, even among the target audience, there will be many who personally reject it, but hopefully they'll at least give their unit to someone else). And in those quantities, you could probably drop costs below $50 per. > Compare that > with > the cost of $6+ billion/year to keep ~35,000 troops > in S. > Korea, or the $2-4 billion/month(!) to keep ~120,000 > troops > in Iraq. We could be dropping PDAs/Satellite phone > combinations > and ubiquitous solar powered WiFi networks all over > the countries > on a quarterly basis (so what if the regime > confiscates them -- > we are just going to provide more of them in a few > months...). Or in Iraq, just handing them out. In earlier months of the occupation, it was pointed out that the regime which had the most popular support (US official, vs. various sects) was the one most successful at bringing basic services to the population. So how about, "We don't have the resources to build your pipes - we keep getting shot at - but here's how to build it yourself, and rebuild it if someone blows it up." Once armed with the right information, most villages could and probably would spare a few mens' honest days labor so that everyone had clean drinking water. It's the same principle behind why there's such a fuss today about Iraqis policing themselves. From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 24 21:09:45 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:09:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <20040524204942.24480.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040524204942.24480.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040524160442.01cdfec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:49 PM 5/24/2004 -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote about the current unpleasantness: >So how about, "We >don't have the resources to build your pipes - we keep >getting shot at - but here's how to build it yourself, >and rebuild it if someone blows it up." Once armed >with the right information, most villages could and >probably would spare a few mens' honest days labor so >that everyone had clean drinking water. Adrian--what?! You think the Iraqis are palaeolithic dopes or something? And ya gotta love that "if someone blows it up." I wonder who that someone could be? > It's the >same principle behind why there's such a fuss today >about Iraqis policing themselves. Ahem. For a different opinion, perhaps consult Bob Herbert's view: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/24/opinion/24HERB.html?th Damien Broderick From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon May 24 22:12:59 2004 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:12:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Dual Citizenship - USA/UK In-Reply-To: <20040524185213.40767.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040524185213.40767.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Um... I'm not too sure this is correct. A lady I work for has dual citizenship with US/UK. She moved to the US in the 1980s and became a citizen some time later. She has two passports. Still. Now. Regards, MB On Mon, 24 May 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote: > It is difficult if one is going the naturalization route, but this > depends on which way you are going. A British subject would be required > by the US to renounce their British citizenship in order to naturalize > into US citizenship. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 24 22:35:50 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Dual Citizenship - USA/UK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040524223550.83072.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> I was reading up that this requirement doesn't get enforced at all, though it is on the books, a consequence of the PTB thoroughly burying the original 13th amendment. --- MB wrote: > > Um... I'm not too sure this is correct. A lady I work for has dual > citizenship with US/UK. She moved to the US in the 1980s and became a > citizen some time later. She has two passports. Still. Now. > > Regards, > MB > > > On Mon, 24 May 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > It is difficult if one is going the naturalization route, but this > > depends on which way you are going. A British subject would be > required > > by the US to renounce their British citizenship in order to > naturalize > > into US citizenship. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 24 22:58:21 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040524160442.01cdfec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040524225821.17202.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:49 PM 5/24/2004 -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote > about the current > unpleasantness: > >So how about, "We > >don't have the resources to build your pipes - we > keep > >getting shot at - but here's how to build it > yourself, > >and rebuild it if someone blows it up." Once armed > >with the right information, most villages could and > >probably would spare a few mens' honest days labor > so > >that everyone had clean drinking water. > > Adrian--what?! You think the Iraqis are palaeolithic > dopes or something? Dopes, no. Not possessed of as many trained technicians who know how to fix up their cities using the materials they can obtain, yes. This would aim to fix that specific problem. > And ya gotta love that "if someone blows it up." I > wonder who that someone > could be? Deliberately not stated, 'cause it doesn't matter in this context. Blown up is blown up, and it needs fixing. > > It's the > >same principle behind why there's such a fuss today > >about Iraqis policing themselves. > > Ahem. For a different opinion, perhaps consult Bob > Herbert's view: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/24/opinion/24HERB.html?th I don't see how this addresses the issue of Iraqis policing themselves, except in indirect senses (like how leaving them with a functioning government would be one of the preconditions for pulling out). From bradbury at aeiveos.com Mon May 24 22:48:36 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rockets from the moon [was: something else but who cares...] In-Reply-To: <20040524191039.GJ1105@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 May 2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: > The Moon never had a hydrogeology history (not all hope is lost, though, as > uranium is generally lithophile), so the fissibles present are very > dispersed. [snip] Interesting. Eugen -- are you effectively saying that uranium concentration is a process dictated (or influenenced) by water? I'm not against this perspective I'm just interested in how significant a factor it might be. If it is significant then it may indicate that uranium mining on the moon may need to wait for nanotech. Of course with a lack of hydrogeology influenced processes on the moon it may be more efficient to send various uranium isotopes in non-critical forms to the moon from Earth. Of course one sends the greens over the edge when one starts talking about sending up plutonium isotopes instead. Though I am not sure I suspect plutonium has 3-4x the effective energy throw-weight of uranium (though that may depend upon enrichment). So it may be cheaper to send to plutonium to the moon if one wants to launch Orion's from there. Robert From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue May 25 00:55:21 2004 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:55:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rockets from the moon [was: something else but who cares...] Message-ID: <1085446521.2314@whirlwind.he.net> Robert Bradbury wrote: > Interesting. Eugen -- are you effectively saying that uranium concentration > is a process dictated (or influenenced) by water? I'm not against this > perspective I'm just interested in how significant a factor it might be. > If it is significant then it may indicate that uranium mining on the > moon may need to wait for nanotech. While I don't know about uranium specifically, this view is probably correct. There is an increasingly popular notion (with plenty of supporting evidence) in mineral exploration that surface concentrations of heavy metals ("heavy metals" roughly meaning any metal with a density greater than around 8g/cc) are generated almost entirely through the action of hydrothermal systems. This is true to a lesser extent with most metals, but is particularly noticeable with heavy metals. Without an active hydrothermal environment acting as an atom transport, these metals won't concentrate to any significant degree. There are probably analogs of these transport mechanisms based on other surface chemistries (e.g. sulfur). Without intensive subsurface vulcanism acting over tens of millions of years in a single location, and a water table to drive with all that heat, one should not expect significant heavy metal concentrations. One of the geological features that makes, for example, the major gold fields remarkable is that they are sitting on massive hydrothermal systems that have been in continuous operation for very long geological periods, which is not all that common. In this sense, volcanoes are too sporadic and short-lived. Major rift zones (e.g. Nevada's Great Basin region) typically provide some of the longest lived hydrothermal systems and hence the best concentrations of heavy metals. j. andrew rogers From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 25 02:11:46 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 21:11:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <20040524225821.17202.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040524160442.01cdfec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040524225821.17202.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040524210920.01c8aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:58 PM 5/24/2004 -0700, Adrian wrote: > > Ahem. For a different opinion, perhaps consult Bob > > Herbert's view: > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/24/opinion/24HERB.html?th > >I don't see how this addresses the issue of Iraqis >policing themselves, except in indirect senses (like >how leaving them with a functioning government would >be one of the preconditions for pulling out). Try this one, then: The myth of the reluctant occupier May 24, 2004 Iraq is a strategic prize in the Arab world with huge reserves of oil. America will stay put, writes Scott Burchill. First there was the "grave danger" (in the words of President Bush) posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, which failed to materialise. Then there were the Baghdad/al-Qaeda links that couldn't be established. Then along came the democratisation rationale. To replace the threat of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, a humanitarian argument was invoked that proved difficult to sustain with more than 10,000 innocent civilians killed by invading and occupying forces. And far from confronting terrorists in situ as promised, Iraq has became a recruiting ground for a proliferating collection of anti-Western militants. Now a new orthodoxy is shaping comment and analysis about events in Iraq. Let's call it the "reluctant occupier myth". Having removed Saddam and his cohorts from power and set Iraq on a path towards democracy, the US is now preparing to leave - the "Vietnamisation" of Iraq. It will find a smooth way out by returning sovereignty to a new Iraqi administration, initially on July 1 through the auspices of the UN and then early next year through democratic elections. Coalition forces, which don't want to be in Iraq a day longer than is necessary to "finish the job", will stay on for a time to "maintain" security, but only at the pleasure of a new interim government in Baghdad. It is difficult to see what could be more obvious than that the US is desperately trying to stay in Iraq - and specifically, in charge in Iraq. Despite disingenuous claims that coalition troops would leave if asked to by a new Iraqi authority after July 1, US Secretary of State Colin Powell got closer to the truth when he stated on April 26 that "I hope they (the Iraqi people) will understand that in order for this government to get up and running - to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given back (to Washington)". So, coalition troops will stay on regardless. After all, what was the point of invading in the first place if they were going to get out? Washington wants others (the United Nations) to share the burden of political reconstruction and rebuilding infrastructure, but it has no intention of relinquishing real control of the country to anyone, including New York or the Iraqi people. As a strategic prize in the heart of the Arab world with the world's second-largest known reserves of oil, a client regime in Baghdad would be of inestimable value to the US. However, it is having difficulty finding a Vichy government willing to follow Washington's orders, because of the domestic risks that collaborators always face. The US is keen to hand over the "nasties", such as local policing and law and order to indigenous control, because this will reduce coalition losses. On the other hand, the lucrative gains of economic sovereignty - including control of the oil industry, the privatisation of state-owned enterprises, and opening up the economy to foreign investment and ownership - will not be matters for the discretion of a post-Saddam administration. The world's largest embassy, which Washington intends to build in Baghdad, would not be necessary if Iraqis were going to genuinely regain control of their country. It will be a constant reminder that full sovereignty, including economic and political independence, will not be returned to them. The US has lost the war politically. Its occupation of Iraq is the cause of regional instability and unremitting violence. Its preference for unilateralism and contempt for the UN, its reluctance to consult with long-standing friends, and its failure to reconcile its global ambitions with the limits of its power has undermined the alliance system upon which its foreign policy has rested since 1947. According to the war historian Gabriel Kolko, the strength and influence of the US in the post-World War II period has "largely rested on its ability to convince other nations that it was to their vital interests to see America prevail in its global role". The false pretexts used to justify the war in Iraq and the revelations of prison brutality have cost Washington considerable moral authority among its allies in Europe and friends in the Middle East. America has never been more militarily powerful but has also never felt less secure. It now confronts this paradox in a much less friendly and respectful world. Dr Scott Burchill is a lecturer in international relations at Deakin University. burchill at deakin.edu.au http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/23/1085250865579.html?from=storylhs From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 25 02:59:06 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 19:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Maximising Human Potential : Education : Toys In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040524210920.01c8aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040525025906.62340.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:58 PM 5/24/2004 -0700, Adrian wrote: > >I don't see how this addresses the issue of Iraqis > >policing themselves, except in indirect senses > (like > >how leaving them with a functioning government > would > >be one of the preconditions for pulling out). > > Try this one, then: [snip] > The US is keen to hand over the "nasties", such as > local policing and law > and order to indigenous control, because this will > reduce coalition losses. Yep. I wasn't saying anything about the bigger picture, just this small element - and your source agrees with me on it. (If you thought I was commenting on the bigger picture: sorry, I'm staying out of that debate for the moment.) From Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu Tue May 25 04:45:18 2004 From: Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu (Johnius) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 21:45:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space Message-ID: <40B2CF5E.945025D6@Genius.UCSD.edu> Hi all, This thread reminds me of an invention of Win Wenger's that uses balloons to suspend a mass-driver for cheap space launches. It occurs to me that several of you might have some great feedback about the idea... What do y'all think? http://winwenger.com/launch.htm Space Launch Invention A safer, gentler, less-expensive launch system which does not consume reaction mass nor affect the ozone layer by Win Wenger, Ph.D. [...] The Invention-the new, inexpensive, safe, gentle, suspended-track Space Launch System * O'Neill's mass drive or other electric or electromagnetic-powered or however-powered catapult system, extended as a very long track-a reusable track system stably supported overtop most of the Earth's atmosphere for hundreds of miles, long enough to give very gentle launches and still build the requisite speeds; * Supported by hydrogen (preferred) or helium (if required) or heated-air (if the engineering and power supply and/or insulation parameters can be so configured) balloons or air-buoyant enclosures; * Tethered in triangular or geodesic-configured networks, to each other and to the ground, maintained in alignment by laser-guided computers and cable-tighteners. [...] From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 25 05:39:15 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 07:39:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <40B2CF5E.945025D6@Genius.UCSD.edu> References: <40B2CF5E.945025D6@Genius.UCSD.edu> Message-ID: <20040525053915.GO1105@leitl.org> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:45:18PM -0700, Johnius wrote: > This thread reminds me of an invention of Win Wenger's > that uses balloons to suspend a mass-driver for cheap > space launches. It occurs to me that several of you might > have some great feedback about the idea... > What do y'all think? It sounds like a really good idea... until you do the math, and realize that LEO energy is all not about height, but about horizontal velocity component. And that goes with 0.5*m*v^2. So a ramp and a maglev stage (or a hypersonic airbreathing scramjet stage) brings you much, much closer to LEO than any stratospheric balloon. Latter have their own uses, though. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael at acceleratingfuture.com Tue May 25 09:08:25 2004 From: michael at acceleratingfuture.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 02:08:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Seeking donors Message-ID: <40B30D09.2070505@acceleratingfuture.com> Hello everyone, please see the following: http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/support.htm Thank you for your consideration! If you have any questions or comments, please email me offlist. -- Michael Anissimov http://www.singinst.org/ Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence -- Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and community news: http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 25 11:26:13 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 13:26:13 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rockets from the moon [was: something else but who cares...] In-Reply-To: References: <20040524191039.GJ1105@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20040525112613.GR1105@leitl.org> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:48:36PM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > Interesting. Eugen -- are you effectively saying that uranium concentration > is a process dictated (or influenenced) by water? I'm not against this Yeah, both primary uranium ores are of hydrothermal origin, and secondary are weathered, so in all cases water is involved. I have no idea, whether there's enough water in sublunar layers for hydrothermal mineral transport. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brentn at freeshell.org Tue May 25 13:15:10 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:15:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Imitation and flattery In-Reply-To: <20040525112613.GR1105@leitl.org> Message-ID: I'm curious to know what the folks involved in the Free State organization make of this: http://www.christianexodus.org/ Amusement? Bemusement? Disgust? Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From dgc at cox.net Tue May 25 13:20:01 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:20:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <01f901c441bd$aaded090$fe00a8c0@HEMM> References: <01f901c441bd$aaded090$fe00a8c0@HEMM> Message-ID: <40B34801.9080908@cox.net> Henrique Moraes Machado - HeMM wrote: >-----Mensagem Original----- >De: "Robert J. Bradbury" >Para: "ExI chat list" >Enviada em: segunda-feira, 24 de maio de 2004 14:21 >Assunto: Re: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space > >(...) >| There would seem to be at least 7+ countries that have >| more or less independently resolved the question of >| bomb production and at least one, perhaps three countries >| that have resolved the question of how to send rockets >| to the moon. Producing nuclear propelled spaceships >| launched from the moon is not a question of technology >| it is a question of desire. >(...) > >It's more a question of money. The costs are astronomic (no pun intended). I agree that it's possible. There are plans for nuclear ships since (if I'm not wrong) the sixties. I'd like to see one before I pass (or before I have my brain uploaded... :-) >_______________________________________________ > > Please see the link for a history of the NS Savannah, a Nuclear-powered ship. Comissioned in 1965, she was decomissioned in 1971 because she was not well designed for economical freight handling. This had nothing to do with her power plant. Of course, there are many nuclear-powered submarines, also. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/NS%20Savannah From pgptag at gmail.com Tue May 25 13:28:35 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:28:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Seeking donors In-Reply-To: <40B30D09.2070505@acceleratingfuture.com> References: <40B30D09.2070505@acceleratingfuture.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52040525062833b80e42@mail.gmail.com> I just sent 50 bucks to Michael via Paypal. If 120 transhumanists on the lists do the same, it will cover Michael for one year, so I hope many will consider following this example. I rarely donate money, in this case I have made an exception in view of Michael's outstanding achievements at a very young age. I do not donate money frequently because I don't have enough money to support all the things that I would like to support. So even if it would be a very nice thing if we were able to support all transhumanists in need of support, I don't think we can. Therefore I wish to urge Michael and others to think of ways of converting transhumanist advocacy into something you can make a living with. There are some markets worth exploring: grants from government and foundations wishing to explore new perspectives on forthcoming changes, movie makers wishing to develop believable scenarios for futuristic movies, etc. One of the best examples I know of creative public funding is: http://itsf.org/index.php?PAGE=project%2Findex.html On the basis of this example and others I believe that the kind of skills of which we have plenty in the transhumanist community could be successfully applied to developing some kind of innovative business scheme. I am developing some ideas along these lines, feel free to write to me if you want to discuss them. G. On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:08:25 -0700, Michael Anissimov wrote: > > Hello everyone, please see the following: > > http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/support.htm > > Thank you for your consideration! > > If you have any questions or comments, please email me offlist. > > -- > Michael Anissimov http://www.singinst.org/ > Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > > -- > Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and community news: > http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html > > _______________________________________________ > wta-talk mailing list > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > From dgc at cox.net Tue May 25 13:54:07 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:54:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040525053915.GO1105@leitl.org> References: <40B2CF5E.945025D6@Genius.UCSD.edu> <20040525053915.GO1105@leitl.org> Message-ID: <40B34FFF.8030906@cox.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:45:18PM -0700, Johnius wrote: > > > >> This thread reminds me of an invention of Win Wenger's >>that uses balloons to suspend a mass-driver for cheap >>space launches. It occurs to me that several of you might >>have some great feedback about the idea... >>What do y'all think? >> >> > >It sounds like a really good idea... until you do the math, and realize that >LEO energy is all not about height, but about horizontal velocity component. >And that goes with 0.5*m*v^2. > >So a ramp and a maglev stage (or a hypersonic airbreathing scramjet stage) >brings you much, much closer to LEO than any stratospheric balloon. > >Latter have their own uses, though. > > > If the idea works vertically, it should also work horizontally. Start with a series of vertically-oriented mass driver balloons to get the payload into the stratosphere at low velocity, Then pass to a mostly horizontal series of mass driver balloons to generate horizontal velocity. As with any mass driver system, the vehicle must add an additional horizontal component after it gets high enough, to move to an orbit that does not intersect the exit point of the mass driver. When the exit point is in an atmosphere, this acceleration must be higher than the atmosphere, also. Of course, each balloon/driver will be accelerated back and down to conserve momentum, so it will need to recover its original position between launches. My guess is that the capital cost of this system is high. The minimum theoretical running cost is quite low, however. Given a horizontal mass driver suspended in the stratosphere with balloons,it might be more economical to lift the payloads to the insertion end of the driver using balloons to provide buoyant lift, rather than supporting a vertical mass driver. From natashavita at earthlink.net Tue May 25 14:27:31 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:27:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Mojave to be Hub for Public Space Travel Message-ID: <4910-220045225142731798@M2W032.mail2web.com> "Spaceport to rise in California desert" by David Leonard http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/24/mojave.spaceport/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From hemm at br.inter.net Tue May 25 14:28:40 2004 From: hemm at br.inter.net (Henrique Moraes Machado - HeMM) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:28:40 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space References: <01f901c441bd$aaded090$fe00a8c0@HEMM> <40B34801.9080908@cox.net> Message-ID: <012a01c44264$93061a30$fe00a8c0@HEMM> -----Mensagem Original----- De: "Dan Clemmensen" Para: "Henrique Moraes Machado - HeMM" ; "ExI chat list" Enviada em: ter?a-feira, 25 de maio de 2004 10:20 Assunto: Re: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space | Please see the link for a history of the NS Savannah, a Nuclear-powered | ship. Comissioned in 1965, she was decomissioned in 1971 because she was | not well designed for economical freight handling. This had nothing to | do with her power plant. Of course, there are many nuclear-powered | submarines, also. | | http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/NS%20Savannah What? Boats? Submarine? I thought I was talking about nuclear space ships. This is more likely... www.nuclearspace.com From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua Tue May 25 15:00:49 2004 From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 19:00:49 +0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040525185837.00b6f340@pop.cris.net> Hello, My Russian translation of Extropian Principles 3.0 is now available at http://home.cris.net/~anyservice/principles-ru.html Best! Gennady Simferopol Crimea Ukraine From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 25 17:20:10 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 12:20:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nano solar Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040525121908.01c68ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Dunno if this is real news or not: MIT Technology Research News Los Alamos National Laboratory researchers have tapped nanotechnology to increase solar cells' potential energy production by as much as 37 percent. Solar cells generate electricity by absorbing photons and directing the resulting energy to move an electron from the low-energy valence band in a material to a higher-energy conduction band where it is free to flow. Researchers working to squeeze more energy from sunlight are generally aiming for solar cells that can absorb and use a higher percentage of the wavelengths of light in the sun's spectrum; today's commercial solar cells can use anywhere from 10 percent to 35 percent. The Los Alamos researchers have found that it is possible to increase a cell's energy production by making each photon move two electrons. Key to the method is lead selenium nanocrystals that measure about ten nanometers in diameter, which is the span of 100 hydrogen atoms or 7,500 times narrower than a human hair. The method could increase what has been thought of as the maximum power conversion of solar cells by as much as 37 percent depending on the materials used, resulting in a solar cell with a potential efficiency of over 60 percent. The method could also be used to make more efficient amplifiers, lasers, switches and light absorbers, according to the researchers. Solar cells that use the researchers' method could become practical in two to three years, according to the scientists. The work is scheduled to appear in Physical Review Letters. From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 25 18:09:46 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <40B34FFF.8030906@cox.net> Message-ID: <20040525180946.38867.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Eugen Leitl wrote: > > >On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:45:18PM -0700, Johnius > wrote: > > > > > > > >> This thread reminds me of an invention of Win > Wenger's > >>that uses balloons to suspend a mass-driver for > cheap > >>space launches. It occurs to me that several of > you might > >>have some great feedback about the idea... > >>What do y'all think? > >> > >> > > > >It sounds like a really good idea... until you do > the math, and realize that > >LEO energy is all not about height, but about > horizontal velocity component. > >And that goes with 0.5*m*v^2. > > > >So a ramp and a maglev stage (or a hypersonic > airbreathing scramjet stage) > >brings you much, much closer to LEO than any > stratospheric balloon. > > > >Latter have their own uses, though. > > If the idea works vertically, it should also work > horizontally. Start > with a series of > vertically-oriented mass driver balloons to get the > payload into the > stratosphere at > low velocity, Or...use balloons as structural supports for a long, lower-altitude mass driver. You'd need a really long (hundreds of kilometers) mass driver to accelerate to orbital speeds at human-tolerable levels (less than 10G, preferably 2G or less), and inclining that at any decent angle (say, 10 degrees or more) means that the far end of the mass driver will also have to be hundreds (or at least many tens) of kilometers in the air. (The 100s of km is a delta altitude from the start, but building up a hundred kilometers from ground level is actually far easier with today's technology than building down a hundred kilometers. Not that either one is easy.) Instead of building large towers to support the higher sections, one could deploy them on airships. Straight shot, and the tube can be (mostly) evacuated to minimize air drag, so overall more efficient than up-and-over. From dgc at cox.net Tue May 25 20:20:58 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 16:20:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040525180946.38867.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040525180946.38867.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40B3AAAA.1080201@cox.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > >>Eugen Leitl wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:45:18PM -0700, Johnius >>> >>> >>wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> This thread reminds me of an invention of Win >>>> >>>> >>Wenger's >> >> >>>>that uses balloons to suspend a mass-driver for >>>> >>>> >>cheap >> >> >>>>space launches. It occurs to me that several of >>>> >>>> >>you might >> >> >>>>have some great feedback about the idea... >>>>What do y'all think? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>It sounds like a really good idea... until you do >>> >>> >>the math, and realize that >> >> >>>LEO energy is all not about height, but about >>> >>> >>horizontal velocity component. >> >> >>>And that goes with 0.5*m*v^2. >>> >>>So a ramp and a maglev stage (or a hypersonic >>> >>> >>airbreathing scramjet stage) >> >> >>>brings you much, much closer to LEO than any >>> >>> >>stratospheric balloon. >> >> >>>Latter have their own uses, though. >>> >>> >>If the idea works vertically, it should also work >>horizontally. Start >>with a series of >>vertically-oriented mass driver balloons to get the >>payload into the >>stratosphere at >>low velocity, >> >> > >Or...use balloons as structural supports for a long, >lower-altitude mass driver. You'd need a really long >(hundreds of kilometers) mass driver to accelerate to >orbital speeds at human-tolerable levels (less than >10G, preferably 2G or less), and inclining that at any >decent angle (say, 10 degrees or more) means that the >far end of the mass driver will also have to be >hundreds (or at least many tens) of kilometers in the >air. (The 100s of km is a delta altitude from the >start, but building up a hundred kilometers from >ground level is actually far easier with today's >technology than building down a hundred kilometers. >Not that either one is easy.) Instead of building >large towers to support the higher sections, one could >deploy them on airships. Straight shot, and the tube >can be (mostly) evacuated to minimize air drag, so >overall more efficient than up-and-over. >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > The reason I suggested a horizontal shot in the stratosphere is to minimize drag. I'm not sure how the math works out, but my gut feeling is that the extra cost of hanging it in the stratosphere (bigger balloons to achieve the same lift) is more than compensated by the costs needed to overcome air friction at lower altitudes. Furthermore, a tropospheric system must withstand tropospheric weather, while a stratospheric system is fairly immune to weather by all accounts. 'Real-estate" costs should be free, so the length of the mass driver is not a consideration, The weight is, of course. Again, I have not done the math, but I suspect the weight scales with the total power rather than the length. I contemplate a system of independent balloons, each of which accelerates the payload toward the next. The transferred momentum forces each balloon out of position as the payload passes. The balloon then uses a solar-powered ion drive to regain its position. From jcorb at irishbroadband.net Tue May 25 23:41:07 2004 From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 00:41:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Imitation and flattery Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040526002703.023ce828@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> >Message: 24 >Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:15:10 -0400 >From: Brent Neal >Subject: [extropy-chat] Imitation and flattery >To: ExI chat list >Message-ID: > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >I'm curious to know what the folks involved in the Free State organization >make of this: >http://www.christianexodus.org/ >Amusement? Bemusement? Disgust? >Brent >-- >Brent Neal >Geek of all Trades >http://brentn.freeshell.org >"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein Not sure what the Free Staters think, but I'd say it'll sputter and die. If there's one thing that seems to ring alarm bells in the U.S., it's talk of secession. There's an air of treason about it. They seem quite tied up on the whole gay marraige thing, in fact I get the feeling that was the trigger event (if this is a fairly new organization). Only problem for them is of course that many gay people are Christians, so this might cause something of a schism. Another angle is that when CCW laws are introduced in various places, there's the usual "they'll be killing each other in the streets" outburst, followed by embarrassed silence when the bloodbath doesn't happen. I've a feeling gay marraige will be the same, and once fence sitting Christians see that, it will make such "revolutionary" ideas all the more difficult to sell. In fact it might just embarrass them into moderacy, damaging the Conservative Christians all the more. In all honesty, it sounds very desperate, pathetic. Another of the "oh woe is us, the poor persecuted Christians" tirades. James... From brentn at freeshell.org Wed May 26 00:43:45 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 20:43:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Imitation and flattery In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20040526002703.023ce828@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> Message-ID: (5/26/04 0:41) J Corbally wrote: >In all honesty, it sounds very desperate, pathetic. Another of the "oh woe >is us, the poor persecuted Christians" tirades. That was my take on it too, since the apparently didn't do the due diligence that the FSP did. All three of the states they picked currently receive more federal tax dollars than they pay in, which would create a wee tiny problem if they did actually try to secede. :) Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed May 26 04:56:41 2004 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:56:41 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just a test pls ignore Message-ID: <009501c442dd$d5cb90b0$1a2d2dcb@homepc> M^ test. Does this appear in the archive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed May 26 06:07:06 2004 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 23:07:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Modern/Postmodern Reflections Message-ID: <40B4340A.10322849@mindspring.com> Dear friends, thinkers, and Listmates, Just a few of my recent random thoughts and observations here and there on Modernity and Postmodernity. As I've often said, during my first year as a graduate History student at the University of Virginia, in 1963-1964, I had the satori-like flash of insight that early "modernity," as exemplified in the Renaissance, Reformation, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment, and 17th & 18th century artistic, literary, and architectural Neoclassicism, consisted above all of a passion for order, symmetry, regularity, streamlining, centralization, and normalization. It was a reaction against what many 15th, 16th, and 17th century Europeans intellectuals perceived as the mediaeval and "Gothic" barbarism, corruption, disorder, anarchy, sloppiness, irregularity, messiness, clutter, and over-complication exemplified by the sale of indulgences, the "superstitious" and "idolatrous" cult of saints and holy relics, Gothic cathedrals (in contrast to Greek and Roman temples), feudalism, Ptolemaic astronomical epicycles, and "barbaric" Church and lawyers' Latin (in contrast to the elegant "pure" Latin style of Virgil, Cicero, Caesar, and Horace). Now, of course, I'm perfectly aware that mediaeval culture itself certainly exalted order, system, hierarchy, and symmetry in theory, as exemplified for instance in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles, and in Dante's Divine Comedy. Thus, Pomona College philosopher and cultural historian W.T. Jones described the "Mediaeval Syndrome" as strongly Order-Biased in The Romantic Syndrome (Martinus Nijhoff, 1961), specifically citing Aquinas and Dante. C.S. Lewis likewise, noted the "classic severity" of the "self-explanatory" and "luminous" official cosmology of mediaeval theology, metaphysics, and literature in The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1964). In his chapter on the "Longaevi" or fairies in mediaeval literature, Lewis noted that as "marginal, fugitive creatures" without an "official status" in mediaeval theology, cosmology, and metaphysics, the Longaevi "soften the classic severity of the huge design" and "intrude a welcome hint of wildness and uncertainty into a universe that is in danger of being a little too self-explanatory, too luminous" (C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image, p. 122). However, the Renaissance Humanists and Protestant Reformers were addressing not the majestic architectonic symmetry and order of the greatest mediaeval thinkers, but rather what they saw--and HATED--as the corrupt, messy, sloppy, irregular, cluttered, jerry-built, patchwork quality of actual mediaeval religious, political, legal, literary, artistic, and architectural PRACTICE. They loathed what I sometimes call the Chaucerian or Breughelesque court-jester, Friar Tuck, Carmina Burana, drunken swineherd, gluttonous lustful monks side of mediaeval life. They wanted to clean up and clear away the mediaeval sloppiness, messiness, irregularity, and clutter--the "wildness and uncertainty" as C.S. Lewis said of the fairies--to which Aquinas and Dante had loftily closed their eyes. I've also been thinking of the way the Modern/Postmodern problem intersects my own "Theosphere/Physiosphere/Sociosphere" trichtomy of cultural orientations. As you may recall, a couple of years ago I used: (1) "Theosphere" for religious beliefs about God, angels, demons, the soul, life after death, absolute moral values, and the Divine inspiration of sacred books like the Bible, Qur'an, or Vedas, including beliefs about Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary; Muhammad, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, the Last Judgment, karma, reincarnation, the Jewish Mosaic Law or Muslim Shariah, Papal infallibility, etc. (2) "Physiosphere" for our knowledge of the material world of tables, chairs, knives, forks, sticks, stones, cells, tissues, neurons, genes, chromosomes, stars, planets, atoms, electrons, quarks, and gravitational fields, including both our own immediate everyday physical environments and our scientific knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, neurology, genetics, geology, astronomy, etc; (3) "Sociosphere" for the domain of human personal, social, and political attitudes and relationships, including our attitudes and beliefs about social justice, sexual behavior, family relationships, gender roles, race relations, education, alcoholism & addiction, and crime & punishment. Basically, as I've noted before, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries liberals and leftists largely think, speak, and write almost exclusively in "Sociospheric" categories in discussing, say, homosexuality, the priestly ordination of women, race and I.Q., and "nature vs. nurture" in relation to crime, poverty, school achievement, alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, personality traits, etc. Conservatives and rightists prefer to rely rather on "Theospheric" and/or "Physiospheric" categories and concepts in discussing these issues. Conservatives feel instinctively that we know quite a lot about the objective factual contents of the Theosphere and/or Physiosphere. Specifically, conservatives believe that we know quite clearly, definitely, and unambiguously what the Bible says about God's own views on homosexuality and sex roles and/or what genetics says about heredity and I.Q. Liberals, on the other hand, feel that our inferences about God or genes, Leviticus or chromosomes, St. Paul or I.Q. tests, are pretty iffy, ambiguous, and subject to wildly differing interpretations. So, they believe, we're really best off relying rather on our decent, compassionate, humanitarian, warm-fuzzy, "politically correct" Sociospheric perceptions. As I have sometimes put it, the extreme Sociospheric liberal position is that nobody we know of has actually ever seen God or a gene, Heaven or a chromosome, Hell or a DNA molecule, the Last Judgment or the fine details of a brain cell--and it may be a bit doubtful if anybody ever will--BUT, we all HAVE seen the human suffering resulting from injustice, prejudice, unfairness, and negative labeling--and if there should be a God up there after all, He probably won't be too angry at us for choosing the most compassionate option! Now, how do my Theosphere, Physiosphere, and Sociosphere tie in with the Modern/Postmodern problematic? As a rough, crude, primitive, tentative first approximation, I would sort of suggest that the Theosphere is privileged by pre-modern thinkers, cultures, and societies, the Physiosphere by early modernity and by bewildered, resentful modernist survivors in the later postmodern society, and the Sociosphere by late-moderns and postmoderns. Our mediaeval ancestors were convinced that the Theosphere is by far the most important and significant part of reality, and that our Theospheric beliefs should also determine our views about the material world and about social ethics--that we cannot and must not hold scientific, cosmological, or ethical views that contradict Divine revelation. Puritan New Englanders believed the same, as do religious fundamentalists and traditionalists--Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.--in our own time, in the USA, England, or Canada and in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or India, Biblical, Qur'anic, or Vedic accounts of Creation and human origins are believed to trump and override materialistic secular "scientific" theories of cosmology, geology, palaeontology, and evolutionary biology, and Scriptural pronouncements about sexual morality and the role of women are believed to trump and override secularist liberal notions of fairness, equality, compassion, tolerance, and individual freedom--and also secularist "scientific" theories about sexual orientation.. 100% strict Theospheric thinkers won't allow speculative "scientific" theories about fossils, geological strata, and an expanding universe where light from the furthest galaxies took 10 or 12 billion years to reach us shake their faith in the literal truth of Genesis, or speculative psycho-medical theories about the genetic or brain chemistry causes of homosexuality sway them from their faith in what they see as the Biblical condemnation of "sodomy" as sinful. The Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and Victorian scientific materialism progressively suggested that it was the Physiosphere that was all-important, instead. Scientific knowledge suggested--or proved outright--that the Bible, Qur'an, Vedas, and other sacred books contained a lot of sheer misinformation, superstition, mythology, old wives' tales, and outdated knowledge about the physical world. "Advanced," "enlightened," and "progressive" Modern thinkers increasingly felt as the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries wore on that a materialistic and empiricist world-view rooted in scientific method and scientific knowledge was more conducive to liberal humanitarian ideals of social justice, of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" and "The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number," than a religious world-view based on "superstition" and "mythology," on "totem and taboo." Marx and the Marxists, in particular, tried to ground what they considered progressive social change in Physiospheric concepts and foundations, on an explicitly, aggressively materialistic world-view. At the same time, on the socio-political Right in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Social Darwinists, racialists, eugenicists. Nazis, Fascists, racialist IQ theorists of the Jensen/Shockley/Herrenstein type, and searchers for genetic factors in neurosis, psychosis, alcoholism, homosexuality, or shyness have all seen human thought, feeling, and behavior as little more than a derivative reflection of Physiospheric factors, and human beings as little more than passive, helpless puppets of those Physiospheric factors. Late-Moderns and Postmoderns, however, it's my hunch, gravitate more to "Sociospheric" explanations and interpretations of human attitudes and behavior. I'll examine that point in more detail in a later essay. For starters, I think it has a lot do with the sheer vastness and complixity of 20th/21st century knowledge and culture which are simply much too vast for any one human being to ever master by himself or herself, with what David Riesman in The Lonely Crowd called the 20th century characterological shift from "Inner-Direction" to "Other-Direction" among middle-class people in contemporary urban high-tech late-industrial societies, and with the fact that the vast majority of miiddle-class jobs in our time involve dealing with, manipulating, persuading, pleasing, flattering, placating, "making nice to," and getting along with other people than grappling with "the coal-face of Nature" (as the British philosopher and sociologist Ernest Gellner put it) or "the hardness of the material" (as David Riesman put it). Peace, T. Peter -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed May 26 15:31:40 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040525185837.00b6f340@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 May 2004, Gennady Ra wrote: > My Russian translation of Extropian Principles 3.0 is now available at > http://home.cris.net/~anyservice/principles-ru.html Gennady, My Russian is not good enough to judge whether this is the best translation (no criticism here -- simply self observation). The best person who might have been able to judge a translation would have been Sasha but unfortunately he is no longer with us. My experience with the Russian language and culture suggests that translations may always offer subtle points for discussion. (I do not know -- perhaps Eugen might be able to offer a perspective.) The precise meaning of words tends to be very subjective and is culture dependent. So I would look forward to a discussion with respect to subtle points over a cup of chai. But however -- it is always good to have the general extropian perspectives translated for other cultures(!). And so thank you for providing the translation. I would urge the list/site admins to make Gennady's work available (onsite subject to his permission) or reference it. Side note to Natasha -- *why* haven't the Extropian principles been translated into Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc. It would seem that these cultures would quite easily accept the principles if they were presented to them. R. From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 26 16:52:26 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:52:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Green Gaian nuclear power call Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040526115148.01c0a3e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> 'Only Nuclear Power Can Now Halt Global Warming' By MICHAEL MCCARTHY Environment Editor The Independent (U.K.) Only nuclear power can now halt global warming' 'The ice is melting much faster than we thought' Guru who tuned into Gaia was one of the first to warn of climate threat James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says. His call will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement. It has long considered the 84-year-old radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as the most important issue facing the world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call. Professor Lovelock, who achieved international fame as the author of the Gaia hypothesis, the theory that the Earth keeps itself fit for life by the actions of living things themselves, was among the first researchers to sound the alarm about the threat from the greenhouse effect. He was in a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on climate change to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989. He now believes recent climatic events have shown the warming of the atmosphere is proceeding even more rapidly than the scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it would, in their last report in 2001. On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough time for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar power - the favoured solution of the Green movement - to take the place of the coal, gas and oil-fired power stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm. He believes only a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no CO2, can now check a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas. He says fears about the safety of nuclear energy are irrational and exaggerated, and urges the Green movement to drop its opposition. In today's Independent, Professor Lovelock says he is concerned by two climatic events in particular: the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which will raise global sea levels significantly, and the episode of extreme heat in western central Europe last August, accepted by many scientists as unprecedented and a direct result of global warming. These are ominous warning signs, he says, that climate change is speeding, but many people are still in ignorance of this. Important among the reasons is "the denial of climate change in the US, where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed". He compares the situation to that in Europe in 1938, with the Second World War looming, and nobody knowing what to do. The attachment of the Greens to renewables is "well-intentioned but misguided", he says, like the Left's 1938 attachment to disarmament when he too was a left-winger. He writes today: "I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy." Scientist's Plea to Use Nuclear Energy Starts New Climate Change Debate by Green Groups By CHARLES ARTHUR Technology Editor The Independent (U.K.) A former Labour energy minister and the nuclear industry both welcomed the call by the scientist James Lovelock yesterday for a massive expansion of the nuclear industry to combat global warming. They also forecast that Professor Lovelock's dramatic call, in yesterday's Independent, would force more environmentalists to consider whether nuclear power really posed a greater threat to humanity than climate change - and that they too would eventually agree with the celebrated scientist. Professor Lovelock's radical suggestion provoked widespread debate yesterday, with both Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace rejecting his claims. However Brian Wilson, who stood down as energy minister last year to become the Prime Minister's special representative on overseas trade, said Professor Lovelock had had the courage to address the question of global warming honestly. "I hope that many others will follow him in questioning the basis of their hostility to nuclear power in the age of global warming." Mr Wilson said it was "a self-evident nonsense" for the UK to run down its nuclear capacity at the same time that there was an unprecedented emphasis on the need to reduce carbon emissions. "Nuclear power is our only significant source of non-carbon electricity. It is the bird in the hand yet the Green lobby wants to shoot it." At the Nuclear Industry Association, which lobbies in favour of nuclear power, Simon James said: "It's self-evident to us that nuclear power can deliver large amounts of energy without producing the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming. "We believe we are winning the argument. Increasingly people are looking at this and saying 'Hang on, if we're serious about global warming we need to do something serious about converting large amounts of energy to non-carbon-producing sources. "Environmentalists are seeing this. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this article means more environmentalists come out backing Professor Lovelock," Mr James said. As the creator of the Gaia hypothesis - which suggests that the Earth acts as a single organism - Professor Lovelock, 84, has a mythic place in the Green movement. But in yesterday's Independent he argued that a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source is necessary to prevent climate change overwhelming civilisation in the next 50 years. Some environmentalists see that as a dramatic volte-face, because nuclear fission produces radioactive waste that remains dangerous for thousands of years and requires special storage and disposal. Environmental groups have thus lobbied - and frequently acted - against nuclear power wherever possible. However, a growing number of scientific bodies, including most recently the Royal Academy of Engineering, have concluded that nuclear power does represent the best compromise between risk and power output, given the world's growing demand for energy. In his article calling for a fresh look at nuclear power, Professor Lovelock considers - and rejects - other options for generating power and criticises the Green movement's rejection of it. He also accuses the group of forgetting the lesson of the Gaia concept. "Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation ... The Green lobbies, which should have given priority to global warming, seem more concerned about threats to people than with threats to Earth, not noticing that we are part of the Earth and wholly dependent upon its well-being." Public attention to global warming and climate change has been heightened by Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, who has repeatedly said that global warming poses a greater threat to the world than terrorism. A new Hollywood blockbuster, The Day After Tomorrow, also uses dramatic effects of global warming as the essence of its plot - a move that environmentalists have said should raise the importance of the topic in people's consciousness. From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed May 26 15:55:34 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <40B34801.9080908@cox.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 May 2004, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/NS%20Savannah Dan, I don't see this as a good reference for nuclear powered ships. There are some derivitive references such as those for the Russian ice-breakers that seem informative. But overall I don't see a good comparison between the engineering that has been done for nuclear powered submarines (which clearly work relatively effectively) and the same kind of effort put into nuclear powered ships. I'm not attempting to say that they are cost effective -- it just seems as if not as much engineering effort was put into them. Now, with respect to nuclear powered airplanes, balloons, mass drivers, etc. there has been some (but minimal) investment into engineering them. It would be nice to see some real hard core analysis on such topics so their merits could be discussed constructively. Robert From natashavita at earthlink.net Wed May 26 17:14:06 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:14:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Meaning of Transhumanism Message-ID: <64780-22004532617146275@M2W103.mail2web.com> Because the words "transhumanist and transhumanism" are growing outside the original concept, let's consider what happened with "humanism." Below is the writing of Frederick Edwords, Executive Director, American Humanist Association: >From http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html and the article "What is Humanism" we can estimate varying forms of transhumanism: "What is humanism?" "The sort of answer you will get to that question depends on what sort of humanist you ask! "The word "humanism" has a number of meanings, and because authors and speakers often don't clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain humanism can easily become a source of confusion. Fortunately, each meaning of the word constitutes a different type of humanism -- the different types being easily separated and defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So, let me summarize the different varieties of humanism in this way. "Literary Humanism is a devotion to the humanities or literary culture. "Renaissance Humanism is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the middle ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood. "Cultural Humanism is the rational and empirical tradition that originated largely in ancient Greece and Rome, evolved throughout European history, and now constitutes a basic part of the Western approach to science, political theory, ethics, and law. "Philosphical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism and Modern Humanism. "Christian Humanism is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "a philosophy advocating the self- fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles." This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism. "Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scien- tific Humanism, Ethical Humanism and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion." Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories. "Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy. "Religious Humanism emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian- Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense. "The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence." _________________________________________ How do you see this relating to transhumanism? Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jonkc at att.net Wed May 26 17:41:04 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:41:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space References: <20040524015808.9339.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006201c44348$bc28bff0$07fe4d0c@hal2001> "Mike Lorrey" Wrote: >Vacuum balloons, while a nice SF fantasy, are not physically practical How about using a conventional balloon to get up to 150,000 feet or so and then start your vacuum pump to get rid of the air in the vacuum balloon. It wouldn't have to be nearly as strong or heavy as one launched at sea level. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 26 17:53:12 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 12:53:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <006201c44348$bc28bff0$07fe4d0c@hal2001> References: <20040524015808.9339.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> <006201c44348$bc28bff0$07fe4d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040526124806.01c081b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:41 PM 5/26/2004 -0400, John K Clark wrote: >How about using a conventional balloon to get up to 150,000 feet or so and >then start your vacuum pump to get rid of the air in the vacuum balloon. It >wouldn't have to be nearly as strong or heavy as one launched at sea level. I love the wonderfully mid-19th century Jules Verne tenor of this whole thread. Multi-stage balloons! Balloon-supported launch systems! To the Moon by Balloon! Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 26 18:04:38 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <006201c44348$bc28bff0$07fe4d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <20040526180438.35594.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > "Mike Lorrey" Wrote: > >Vacuum balloons, while a nice SF fantasy, are not > physically practical > > How about using a conventional balloon to get up to > 150,000 feet or so and > then start your vacuum pump to get rid of the air in > the vacuum balloon. It > wouldn't have to be nearly as strong or heavy as one > launched at sea level. Once you're up to 150,000 feet or so, you might as well just set up the horizontal launch mechanism there. From dgc at cox.net Wed May 26 18:05:32 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:05:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40B4DC6C.6080808@cox.net> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: >On Tue, 25 May 2004, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > >>http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/NS%20Savannah >> >> > >Dan, I don't see this as a good reference for nuclear >powered ships. There are some derivitive references such >as those for the Russian ice-breakers that seem informative. > >But overall I don't see a good comparison between the >engineering that has been done for nuclear powered >submarines (which clearly work relatively effectively) >and the same kind of effort put into nuclear powered >ships. I'm not attempting to say that they are cost >effective -- it just seems as if not as much engineering >effort was put into them. > >Now, with respect to nuclear powered airplanes, balloons, >mass drivers, etc. there has been some (but minimal) >investment into engineering them. It would be nice to >see some real hard core analysis on such topics so their >merits could be discussed constructively. > > > I misunderstood the original poster. I thought he meant that he knew of no civilian nuclear ships. I knew about the Savannah, so I did a quick Google simply to prove that such a ship existed. She was a freighter with accommodations for passengers also. Sure, there are lots of plans on the drawing board, but this was a real vessel. My favorite thought-machine is a nuclear-heated hot-air areostat. i.e., a rigid hot air balloon. A 5km diameter sphere made of currently-available materials should lift with only a few degrees of differential temperature. From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 26 18:20:11 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:20:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <40B4DC6C.6080808@cox.net> References: <40B4DC6C.6080808@cox.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040526131720.01b68018@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:05 PM 5/26/2004 -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote: >My favorite thought-machine is a nuclear-heated hot-air areostat. >i.e., a rigid hot air balloon. A 5km diameter sphere made of >currently-available materials should lift with only a few degrees >of differential temperature. Bucky Fuller, right? I was enthralled by that idea (and some cool illustrations) in PLAYBOY around 1968. (Yes, I only read it for the interviews.) Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 26 18:41:47 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Imitation and flattery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040526184147.82097.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Well, they cribbed most their statement of intent directly from the FSP SOI. I've been hearing murmurs about a Christian State Project for awhile, and not surprised that they didn't even offer a state selection process. The announcement over the gay marriage decision in MA is just a publicity stunt. The group actually dates back to last fall. We're not too perturbed, they picked a pretty good state to promote superstition, fear, and ignorance in. THeir thing also will help differentiate our project in the minds of independent voters. --- Brent Neal wrote: > > I'm curious to know what the folks involved in the Free State > organization make of this: > > http://www.christianexodus.org/ > > Amusement? Bemusement? Disgust? > > Brent > > -- > Brent Neal > Geek of all Trades > http://brentn.freeshell.org > > "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From dgc at cox.net Wed May 26 18:51:28 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:51:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <006201c44348$bc28bff0$07fe4d0c@hal2001> References: <20040524015808.9339.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> <006201c44348$bc28bff0$07fe4d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <40B4E730.8070508@cox.net> John K Clark wrote: >"Mike Lorrey" Wrote: > > > >>Vacuum balloons, while a nice SF fantasy, are not physically practical >> >> > >How about using a conventional balloon to get up to 150,000 feet or so and >then start your vacuum pump to get rid of the air in the vacuum balloon. It >wouldn't have to be nearly as strong or heavy as one launched at sea level. > > John K Clark jonkc at att.net > > > > But the advantage of vacuum over hydrogen at high altitude is negligible. The balloon is supported by differential pressure, not absolute pressure. For a given volume of balloon, you need a much smaller amount of hydrogen at 100K feet than at sea level. If I recall correctly, the same mass of hydrogen will provide the same lift, independently of the pressure of the outside atmosphere. That's why a stratospheric balloon is empty on the ground, but swells to a sphere at its maximum altitude. The problem is not going to be mass, but volume. The project uses three types of balloons: the ascender, the station, and the orbiter. The ascender and station are primarily flotation devices. The orbiter can apparently float at the altitude of the station (nominally 140K feet) but depends increasingly on aerodynamic lift to replace flotation as it ascends to the top of the atmosphere. This means lift and drag forces must be counterbalanced. Eventually, lift and drag go away and we are in a pure ion thrust regime, but this thrust must also be counterbalanced. So, will it take less mass to maintain the shape with hydrogen pressure, or with structural elements? From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 26 19:10:02 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:10:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <40B4E730.8070508@cox.net> References: <20040524015808.9339.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> <006201c44348$bc28bff0$07fe4d0c@hal2001> <40B4E730.8070508@cox.net> Message-ID: <20040526191002.GR1105@leitl.org> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:51:28PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > must be counterbalanced. Eventually, lift and drag go away and we are in > a pure ion thrust regime, but this thrust must also be counterbalanced. I think we're accepting quite a lot on pure faith here. It sure is a smart idea (I've first read about similiar stuff some 25 years ago), but no one has operated an ion thruster in the stratosphere. In terms of thrust/weight unit ion thrusters are horrible. Assuming one can push a large-crossection bubble to hypersonic speeds with some 100 N thrust (a rather large if, as hypersonic drag of large bubbles is not something we're familiar with), in a mere week, will the thin bubble survive the plasma etching ordeal? Can we fortify it with a ceramics/metal oxide layer, and how heavy is this going to be? A thorough treatment of that is well worth a dissertation in aerospace studies, and quite beyond the scope of this list. > So, will it take less mass to maintain the shape with hydrogen pressure, > or with structural elements? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dgc at cox.net Wed May 26 19:24:40 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 15:24:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <20040526191002.GR1105@leitl.org> References: <20040524015808.9339.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> <006201c44348$bc28bff0$07fe4d0c@hal2001> <40B4E730.8070508@cox.net> <20040526191002.GR1105@leitl.org> Message-ID: <40B4EEF8.4060303@cox.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:51:28PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > >>must be counterbalanced. Eventually, lift and drag go away and we are in >>a pure ion thrust regime, but this thrust must also be counterbalanced. >> >> > >I think we're accepting quite a lot on pure faith here. It sure is a smart >idea (I've first read about similiar stuff some 25 years ago), but no one has >operated an ion thruster in the stratosphere. In terms of thrust/weight unit >ion thrusters are horrible. Assuming one can push a large-crossection bubble >to hypersonic speeds with some 100 N thrust (a rather large if, as hypersonic >drag of large bubbles is not something we're familiar with), in a mere week, >will the thin bubble survive the plasma etching ordeal? Can we fortify it >with a ceramics/metal oxide layer, and how heavy is this going to be? > >A thorough treatment of that is well worth a dissertation in aerospace >studies, and quite beyond the scope of this list. > > > Yes. This is the first I've read about this, and I like the stratospheric mass driver a lot better for the orbiter stage. The project does say that their third stage is not well studied yet. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 26 19:31:52 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 12:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <006201c44348$bc28bff0$07fe4d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <20040526193152.23412.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > "Mike Lorrey" Wrote: > > >Vacuum balloons, while a nice SF fantasy, are not physically > practical > > How about using a conventional balloon to get up to 150,000 feet or > so and > then start your vacuum pump to get rid of the air in the vacuum > balloon. It > wouldn't have to be nearly as strong or heavy as one launched at sea > level. Yeah, I thought of that after posting. Kind of a two stage launcher. However, that is only going to get you maybe to 200k or 250k feet, maybe 300 if you are lucky. You are still not at orbital velocity or at 400k alt, the true start of space (i.e. the point at which an airspeed indicator reads 0 even when going at 25 machs.) ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu Wed May 26 23:10:17 2004 From: Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu (Johnius) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 16:10:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: balloon stations at the edge of space Message-ID: <40B523D9.E02DE9A5@Genius.UCSD.edu> Hi all, I forwarded a few of the comments (with initials, not names) >to the inventor(Win Wenger, cc'd at WWenger101 at aol.com), and he responded: > 'DC' has it quite right. > > The rest is "mere" engineering. Everything needed has been "on the shelf" > for decades though the modern computers make possible a considerable improvement > over what we could have done thirty years ago with this (by now we could have > been all over the Solar System, with manned flights and stations, the first > O'Neill-scale habitats could be going up about now...). > > Thank you for bringing this to appropriate people's attention. ...win Does anyone here know what it would take to do a feasibility study or at least an accurate simulation, draw up appropriate blueprints, come up with an estimated budget and projected profits, turn this into a real project, etc.? Thanks, Johnius From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 27 10:18:38 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 03:18:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040525185837.00b6f340@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040527031448.036f3520@mail.earthlink.net> At 08:31 AM 5/26/04 -0700, Robert wrote: >On Tue, 25 May 2004, Gennady Ra wrote: > > > My Russian translation of Extropian Principles 3.0 is now available at > > http://home.cris.net/~anyservice/principles-ru.html > >Gennady, > >My Russian is not good enough to judge whether this is the best >translation (no criticism here -- simply self observation). The best >person who might have been able to judge a translation would have been >Sasha but unfortunately he is no longer with us. My experience with the >Russian language and culture suggests that translations may always offer >subtle points for discussion. (I do not know -- perhaps Eugen might be >able to offer a perspective.) The precise meaning of words tends to be very >subjective and is culture dependent. So I would look forward to a >discussion with respect to subtle points over a cup of chai. > >But however -- it is always good to have the general extropian >perspectives translated for other cultures(!). And so thank >you for providing the translation. Yes, thank you! >I would urge the list/site admins to make Gennady's work >available (onsite subject to his permission) or reference it. > >Side note to Natasha -- *why* haven't the Extropian >principles been translated into Japanese, Chinese, >Korean, etc. It would seem that these cultures would >quite easily accept the principles if they were presented >to them. Good point! Most of the translators are charging a pretty penny. Gennady has offered skills without a charge, which is very generous. By the way, Philippe VanNedervelde's partner, Elena, could be helpful with the Russian translation. I'll email her. Gennady, are you translating the most recent version of the principles? Everyone: Do you know someone who would translate the principles in Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, etc.? Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua Thu May 27 08:09:14 2004 From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:09:14 +0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040525185837.00b6f340@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040527103017.00ac3c10@pop.cris.net> At 08:31 AM 5/26/04 -0700, you, Robert, wrote: >On Tue, 25 May 2004, Gennady Ra wrote: >> My Russian translation of Extropian Principles 3.0 is now available at >> http://home.cris.net/~anyservice/principles-ru.html >Gennady, >My Russian is not good enough to judge whether this is the best >translation (no criticism here -- simply self observation). The best >person who might have been able to judge a translation would have been >Sasha but unfortunately he is no longer with us. >But however -- it is always good to have the general extropian >perspectives translated for other cultures(!). And so thank >you for providing the translation. Robert, Great thanks for your reply. And I use this occasion to thank you for your infinitely ambitious and inspirational Matrioshka Brain and many deep comments that I read on this forum. I am a good mix to perform the translation: a native Russian speaker with a university degree in Russian philology who works as a translator from and into English for the Crimean Chamber of Commerce and Industry, with strong affinity for extropian/transhumanist ideas and Max More's texts, and piety to both languages. I'd like to believe I succeeded in conveying the energy, ideas, style, ethos, spirit and "drive" of the original document. Disseminating of the principles is the least I could do to reciprocate Max More for the writings and efforts advancing our future, and for the positive impact they have on my life. Let's hope the translation will be as encouraging and inspirational for the Russians as the original Principles were for me. Best! Gennady From Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Wed May 26 19:21:37 2004 From: Patrick.Wilken at Nat.Uni-Magdeburg.DE (Patrick Wilken) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:21:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Green Gaian nuclear power call In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040526115148.01c0a3e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040526115148.01c0a3e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 26 May 2004, at 18:52, Damien Broderick wrote: > James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution But of course he has been advocating nuclear power as a solution to climate change for many years; certainly as long as he has been advocating the Gaia hypothesis. Perhaps the sole change is the use of the word "only" in the sentence above. best, patrick From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 27 14:05:06 2004 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 07:05:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040527103017.00ac3c10@pop.cris.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040525185837.00b6f340@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040527070237.02e72b80@mail.earthlink.net> At 12:09 PM 5/27/04 +0400, Gennady wrote: >I'd like to believe I succeeded in conveying the energy, ideas, style, ethos, >spirit and "drive" of the original document. Disseminating of the principles >is the least I could do to reciprocate Max More for the writings and efforts >advancing our future, and for the positive impact they have on my life. > >Let's hope the translation will be as encouraging and inspirational for the >Russians as the original Principles were for me. Your message and manner, and use of English are inspiring. Thank you. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc ---------- President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz http://www.transhuman.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu May 27 14:25:12 2004 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 10:25:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space References: <20040526193152.23412.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <018901c443f6$72860ca0$37f54d0c@hal2001> Ok I've got it, a way to launch a vacuum balloon from sea level without resorting to super strong material made of unobtainium, in fact you could use the same thin plastic film conventional balloons use. It couldn't be simpler, all you have to do is put a little Dark Energy in the vacuum balloon. Of course as the volume of the balloon gets larger due to reduced atmospheric pressure the counter pressure produced by the Dark Energy will get even bigger, so you'll have to bleed off the excess to keep the vacuum balloon from bursting, but these little problems can be worked out; I don't know why anybody hasn't tried this before. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 27 16:07:56 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:07:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] down the universal rabbit hole Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040527110633.01c916e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> This is a month old, but hey, it's news from Dr Frank Stein: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879 < Could the Universe be shaped like a medieval horn? It may sound like a surrealist's dream, but according to Frank Steiner at the University of Ulm in Germany, recent observations hint that the cosmos is stretched out into a long funnel, with a narrow tube at one end flaring out into a bell. It would also mean that space is finite. > From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu May 27 18:39:25 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <018901c443f6$72860ca0$37f54d0c@hal2001> Message-ID: <20040527183925.87609.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > all you have to do is put a little Dark > Energy in the vacuum > balloon. Ah, if only we could obtain such. Even antimatter can be had, for the right price. From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 27 22:54:29 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 17:54:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stanford milking nano (but not as we know it, Jim) Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040527175247.01bb48f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://scpd.stanford.edu/scpd/courses/proed/institute/nanoDetail.htm Nanoscience and Nanotechnology The 2004 Institute program on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology will cover a broad range of topics and emerging applications with potentially significant impact for the materials, manufacturing, semiconductor electronics, photonics, data storage and life science industries. This 5-day program offers a great opportunity to learn from Stanford faculty and industry experts the fundamentals of nanoscience. July 26-30, 04 From bradbury at aeiveos.com Thu May 27 22:19:36 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 15:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040527103017.00ac3c10@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 27 May 2004, Gennady Ra wrote: > I am a good mix to perform the translation: a native Russian speaker with a > university degree in Russian philology who works as a translator from and > into English for the Crimean Chamber of Commerce and Industry, with strong > affinity for extropian/transhumanist ideas and Max More's texts, and piety > to both languages. Natasha, though "philology" is not a common degree in Western educations. I am familiar enough with it in an Eastern context to verify that Gennady is more than qualified to translate the principles. With respect to any finer points (which I would expect you, I, Max and Gennady and perhaps Greg (if we want to drag in the legal perspective)) would have to discuss these may have to wait. I would expect a discussion of the Western vs. the Eastern perspectives of the Extropian principles to be very educational. So I would presume the translations are accurate and perhaps even more pointed (or poignant) than Max's phrasings may be (Russian phrasings can be stronger than English phrasings). Of course you may still wish to verify the translations -- but I generally trust that Gennady has completed the work in a very professional way.) > I'd like to believe I succeeded in conveying the energy, ideas, style, ethos, > spirit and "drive" of the original document. Agreed. And it is unfortunate that we could not meet in person to help in this understanding. For there are very many elements to discuss and I suspect the Western perspective is quite limited in their comprehension. But I do trust that your understandings are accurate and authoritative. Finer points are something that must be dealt with downstream -- as it is not clear whether we even fully understant them ourselves at this time. > Let's hope the translation will be as encouraging and inspirational ... [snip] Of course, ExI welcomes all people to the forum of discussion. We have not given much discussion to mutli-national discussion forums and that (IMO) may be a significant oversight. We as English speaking people *are not the majority* on the planet. So *if* ExI is to be really international *how* do we resolve that? R. From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu May 27 23:38:55 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <40B523D9.E02DE9A5@Genius.UCSD.edu> Message-ID: <20040527233855.85126.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Johnius wrote: > I forwarded a few of the comments (with initials, > not names) > >to the inventor(Win Wenger, cc'd at > WWenger101 at aol.com) Invention is 99% persperation, 1% innovation. He may have innovated, but if he hasn't even tried to reduce it to practice (and from his Web page, it doesn't look like he's so much as built a scaled-down model of any of the components), I'd hesitate to call him the "inventor" (mainly since that implies he has the intellectual property rights to this, which must be earned). > Does anyone here know what it would take to do a > feasibility > study or at least an accurate simulation, draw up > appropriate > blueprints, come up with an estimated budget and > projected > profits, turn this into a real project, etc.? Well...let's break it down, shall we? You've got high-altitude ballooning, which is being done by JP Aerospace among others. It may be possible to simply buy their services, once they are ready. Certainly, one could ask them for a non-binding estimate. (Emphasis on that non-binding! They're not ready to sell service today, so they can't know 100% what it'll cost. But they can certainly give an educated guess.) Then you've got mass drivers, better known as large railguns or coilguns. Google around. The state of that art is amateur and custom made, and this would definitely be a custom project. So if one were to seriously pursue this, one would do well to start by building a small, amateur-grade railgun; there are recipies one can follow for this. Note that this class of device isn't specifically covered under most gun laws, and thus may be able to be built and carried without a license anywhere you could carry other generic weapons - for example, a sword (main purpose: weapon, but it's not a gun) - though if you seriously consider doing this, it'd be best to check with a lawyer, or at least the local police, first. (Usually little problem if you keep it in the workshop, and most amateur railguns are too fragile to remove from there.) Third part: the orbiter. Satellites aren't actually all that hard to build; the reason they cost so much is because of the launch system. When you're spending half a billion dollars just to launch the thing, what's a few extra million dollars to make extra-sure it'll work? If you want the orbiter to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere, then you start getting into more complex turf, but for a sample system you could get away with just considering a simple transponder with a railgun shell - and by the time you've built and succesfully tested a small railgun, you should know enough practical electronics to BOTE calculate how much you would need to build this part. From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri May 28 00:10:15 2004 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 20:10:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040527031448.036f3520@mail.earthlink.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040525185837.00b6f340@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040527200037.02de3b60@mail.comcast.net> Natasha wrote: >Everyone: Do you know someone who would translate the principles in >Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, etc.? I'll take on Hebrew. While many in Israel speak English well enough to read the original, a sizable percentage who would be interested have marginal fluency. I can also assist at some point with the niceties of making the extropy web site trans-language or accessible to the unsighted. -- David Lubkin. From neptune at superlink.net Fri May 28 01:02:10 2004 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 21:02:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: balloon stations at the edge of space References: <20040527233855.85126.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009101c4444f$68ceb960$068a3cd1@neptune> On Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:38 PM Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net wrote: > Invention is 99% persperation, 1% innovation. 1% inspiration! If you come up with something new, isn't it 100% innovation?:) Later! Dan http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceFreedom.html From humania at t-online.de Fri May 28 06:03:52 2004 From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:03:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation References: Message-ID: <001601c44479$8ef2e0b0$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi> Robert Bradbury wrote: > We have not given much discussion to mutli-national discussion forums > and that (IMO) may be a significant oversight. We as English speaking > people *are not the majority* on the planet. You should delete the German version of the extropian principles on Extropy's website. http://spock.extropy.org/ideas/principles0260-de.html This is a pretty amateurish translation of the principles 2.6. Anyone who has an intact feeling for the sound of his native tongue will be annoyed or - worse - amused. There is a solid translation of 3.0. though on the sites of the German Transhumanist organisation "Detrans". http://www.transhumanismus.de/Dokumente/ep30.html You should contact Detrans http://www.transhumanismus.de/ and better take their version. Hubert Mania From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 28 08:51:21 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 01:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A minor point on the history of Matrioshka Brains In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040527103017.00ac3c10@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: Gennady, Your comments with respect to Matrioshka Brains prompted some thoughts on my part that I thought should be shared for historical significance. The concept of Matrioshka Brains arose out of my desire to explore the limits of computing. Anders Sandberg was at the same time (in 1997-99) exploring the concepts as well. The concept of a mega-brain (aka Jupiter Brain) was generated much earlier on the private Extropians list, most probably by Perry Metzger. I have documented this [1]. So the idea was not new. Also, the limits have been subsequently worked on by a number of people which I try to record in [2]. But in any case the purpose of this message is the history. Feynman did his "Plenty of Room at the Bottom" lecture in December 29th, 1959. Dyson's Search paper that gave rise to the concept of "Dyson Sphere's" (which were promoted in one or more Star Trek episodes) was published in Science on June 3, 1960. I do not know if Dyson was aware of Feynman's lecture at the time he wrote his paper -- though I believe they were quite well connected. The concept (and name) "Matrioshka Brains" arose because I believe I had read a document which discussed the importance of providing a good name for people to hold in their minds, specifically "Black Holes" and that provoked my thinking. Though Feynman and Dyson did not at the time merge their technological perspectives my thinking was facilitated by both Drexler (who really looked at nano-biological systems if you read his papers carefully) and my education in microbiology where the concept of one organism living off what another organism produces was explored. Net result a multi-level Dyson shell constructed at the physical engineering limits -- aka a Matrioshka Brain. What is of interest from a historical perspective is that Dyson *never* stated in his original paper that his construct should be a "sphere" and in response to letters to Science he clearly stated "The form of "biosphere" which I envisaged consists of a loose collection or swarm of objects traveling on independent orbits around the star." However there were both U.S. scientists as well as Russian scientists who misunderstood what he proposed a "sphere". And as a result both TV/Movie misconstructions have been presented and a number of refutations have been written. So Dyson's comments dictate the architecture of the Matrioshka Brain extended to include Feynman's and Drexler's insights. Now with regard to the Russian experience. Of course I had extensive Russian experience before I began the MBrain research. But this required extending myself because I wanted to get every last piece of commentary that the Russian perspective could provide. (And it wasn't like the Russians during the cold war were likely to ignore comments by Dyson given his involvement in atomic physics...) So I and my extremely capable Russian assistant went off to the Lenin Library. I am no stranger to "big". I have lived in New York. I have been to the NY public library. I have been to the top one of the WTC towers and had diner at Windows on the World. I have even hiked across the Grand Canyon. Big isn't a problem. The Lenin Library is a temple. It goes far beyond Notre Dame or St. Peters (both of which I have visited). It is a temple to knowledge (and as such I would place it on the top most half dozen sites on the planet that extropians should wish to preserve). Bottom line (because this post is getting a somewhat long). Gennady, a) there is an interesting evolution of the concept of Matrioshka Brains; b) papers by various engineers (U.S. and Soviet) got the details right and I can provide these references; c) Russia (or the S.U.) has made a significant investment in the accumulation and preservation of information --It should be hoped that it will not be lost and that it should be distributed. My few 2-cents worth. Robert 1. http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/JupiterBrains/ 2. http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/ From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua Fri May 28 13:12:28 2004 From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 17:12:28 +0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040527031448.036f3520@mail.earthlink.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040525185837.00b6f340@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040528114839.00ac5b10@pop.cris.net> At 03:18 AM 5/27/04 -0700, you, Natasha, wrote: >Gennady, are you translating the most recent version of the principles? No, I am not. Unfortunately, I found the latest version, Principles of Extropy, Version 3.11 when I almost finished the old Extropian Principles 3.0. I have not read the most recent version yet, just skimmed through. It seems that all basics are preserved and better honed but without fundamental changes in the main text but I am not sure, as I did not compare the versions carefully. When I have time, I'll gladly translate the latest version, too. By the way, each version has its merits (so far six versions are available). For instance, in the version 2.6 "extropy" is defined as "a measure of intelligence, information, energy, vitality ("life" in On Becoming Posthuman), experience, diversity, opportunity, and growth." In The Extropian Principles 3.0 it's defined as "the extent of a system's intelligence, information, order, vitality, and capacity for improvement" ("the extent of a living or organizational system?s intelligence, functional order, vitality, and capacity and drive for improvement" in the version 3.11). While I find the latter more laconic, terse and concise, "energy, experience, diversity and opportunity" exhilarate me as well! A remarkable detail: I had to use seven Russian words to translate a single English word "intelligence". We do not have a one-word equivalent for this notion. >Everyone: Do you know someone who would translate the principles in >Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, etc.? Los Principios Extropianos 3.0 (Espanol) is available at http://www.extropy.org/ideas/principles-es.html along with I Principi Estropici 3.0 (Italiano), Extropianske Principy 3.0 (Slovensky), Die Extropianischen Prinzipien 2.6 (Deutsch). See Site Guide page at http://www.extropy.org/site/index.html . Best! Gennady Simferopol Crimea Ukraine From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 28 13:49:11 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 06:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Limits of Physics question Message-ID: Within the last couple of months I saw a notice for a paper documenting some new limits of physics arguments on computation. The paper seemed to extend work by Anders and Seth Lloyd regarding how far computing might go. It seemed to suggest a hard limit of about 800 years for Moore's Law. However my best efforts to get Google and/or other search engines to offer the reference up seem be producing no results. I had thought it might have been in Science or Nature, but now I'm leaning towards one of the more obscure physics journals. If anyone encounters this paper please send me a reference. Thanks, Robert From scerir at libero.it Fri May 28 14:58:49 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 16:58:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Limits of Physics question References: Message-ID: <000c01c444c4$4978d170$9ac51b97@administxl09yj> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404510 From: "Robert J. Bradbury" > Within the last couple of months I saw a notice for a paper > documenting some new limits of physics arguments on computation. > The paper seemed to extend work by Anders and Seth Lloyd regarding > how far computing might go. It seemed to suggest a hard limit > of about 800 years for Moore's Law. > > However my best efforts to get Google and/or other search engines > to offer the reference up seem be producing no results. I had > thought it might have been in Science or Nature, but now I'm leaning > towards one of the more obscure physics journals. > > If anyone encounters this paper please send me a reference. > > Thanks, > Robert > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From natashavita at earthlink.net Fri May 28 15:01:40 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:01:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] PRINCIPLES OF EXTROPY (Transhumansit Philosophy) Message-ID: <117560-22004552815140466@M2W072.mail2web.com> I am posting the most recent version of the "Principles of Extropy." I have gotten several messages for translations, and I will respond to them this weekend. Thank you everyone for working with us to get these principles translated! Cheers! Natasha ______________________________________ Principles of Extropy Version 3.11 ? 2003 An evolving framework of values and standards for continuously improving the human condition Max More Chair, Extropy Institute more at extropy.org or max at maxmore.com Extropy ? The extent of a living or organizational system?s intelligence, functional order, vitality, and capacity and drive for improvement Extropic ? Actions, qualities, or outcomes that embody or further extropy A Note on the Use of "Extropy" For the sake of brevity, I will often write something like ?extropy seeks ? or ?extropy questions ? You can take this to mean ?in so far as we act in accordance with these principles, we seek/question/study ? ?Extropy? is not meant as a real entity or force, but only as a metaphor representing all that contributes to our flourishing. Similarly, when I use ?we? you should take this to refer not to any group but to anyone who agrees with what they are reading. Rather than assuming any reader to be in full agreement with every one of these principles, this usage instead imagines a hypothetical person who has integrated the principles into their life and actions. Each reader is, of course, at liberty to reject, modify, or affirm each principle separately. What this tentative, conjectural approach to the Principles of Extropy loses in terms of compelling emotive power, it gains in terms of reasonableness and openness to innovation and improvement. Prologue: What is the Purpose of the Principles of Extropy? Philosophies of life rooted in centuries-old traditions contain much wisdom concerning personal, organizational, and social living. Many of us also find shortcomings in those traditions. How could they not reach some mistaken conclusions when they arose in pre-scientific times? At the same time, ancient philosophies of life have little or nothing to say about fundamental issues confronting us as advanced technologies begin to enable us to change our identity as individuals and as humans and as economic, cultural, and political forces change global relationships. The Principles of Extropy first took shape in the late 1980s to outline an alternative lens through which to view the emerging and unprecedented opportunities, challenges, and dangers. The goal was ? and is ? to use current scientific understanding along with critical and creative thinking to define a small set of principles or values that could help make sense of the confusing but potentially liberating and existentially enriching capabilities opening up to humanity. The Principles of Extropy do not specify particular beliefs, technologies, or policies. The Principles do not pretend to be a complete philosophy of life. The world does not need another totalistic dogma. The Principles of Extropy do consist of a handful of principles (or values or perspectives) that codify proactive, life-affirming and life-promoting ideals. Individuals who cannot comfortably adopt traditional value systems often find the Principles of Extropy useful as postulates to guide, inspire, and generate innovative thinking about existing and emerging fundamental personal, organizational, and social issues. The Principles are intended to be enduring, underlying ideals and standards. At the same time, both in content and by being revised, the Principles do not claim to be eternal truths or certain truths. I invite other independent thinkers who share the agenda of acting as change agents for fostering better futures to consider the Principles of Extropy as an evolving framework of attitudes, values, and standards ? and as a shared vocabulary ? to make sense of our unconventional, secular, and life-promoting responses to the changing human condition. I also invite feedback to further refine these Principles. The Principles of Extropy in Brief Perpetual Progress Extropy means seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an open-ended lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to continuing development. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities as individuals, as organizations, and as a species. Growing in healthy directions without bound. Self-Transformation Extropy means affirming continual ethical, intellectual, and physical self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, perpetual learning, personal responsibility, proactivity, and experimentation. Using technology ? in the widest sense to seek physiological and neurological augmentation along with emotional and psychological refinement. Practical Optimism Extropy means fueling action with positive expectations ? individuals and organizations being tirelessly proactive. Adopting a rational, action-based optimism or "proaction", in place of both blind faith and stagnant pessimism. Intelligent Technology Extropy means designing and managing technologies not as ends in themselves but as effective means for improving life. Applying science and technology creatively and courageously to transcend "natural" but harmful, confining qualities derived from our biological heritage, culture, and environment. Open Society Extropy means supporting social orders that foster freedom of communication, freedom of action, experimentation, innovation, questioning, and learning. Opposing authoritarian social control and unnecessary hierarchy and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power and responsibility. Preferring bargaining over battling, exchange over extortion, and communication over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static utopia. Extropia ("ever-receding stretch goals for society") over utopia ("no place"). Self-Direction Extropy means valuing independent thinking, individual freedom, personal responsibility, self-direction, self-respect, and a parallel respect for others. Rational Thinking Extropy means favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over dogma. It means understanding, experimenting, learning, challenging, and innovating rather than clinging to beliefs. The Principles of Extropy Unfolded 1. PERPETUAL PROGRESS Pursuing extropy means seeking continual improvement in ourselves, our cultures, and our environments. Perpetual progress involves improving ourselves physically, intellectually, and psychologically. It means valuing the perpetual pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Perpetual progress calls for us to question traditional assertions that we should leave human nature fundamentally unchanged in order to conform to "God?s will" or to what is considered "natural". Achieving deep and sustained progress leads us to consider fundamental alterations in human nature. This pursuit of betterment stimulates questioning of the traditional, biological, genetic, and intellectual constraints on our progress and possibility. Extropy recognizes the unique conceptual abilities of our species, and our opportunity to advance nature?s evolution to new peaks. Humans as we currently exist can be seen as a transitional stage between our animal heritage and our posthuman future. On the early Earth, mindless matter combined so as to form the first self-replicating molecules and life began. Nature?s evolutionary processes generated increasingly complex organisms with ever-more intelligent brains. The direct chemical responses of single-celled creatures led to the emergence of sensation and perception, allowing more subtle and responsive behaviors. Finally, with the development of the neocortex, conscious learning and experimentation became possible. With the advent of the conceptual awareness of humankind, the rate of advancement sharply accelerated as we applied intelligence, technology, and the scientific method to our condition. Upholding perpetual progress means sustaining and quickening this evolutionary process, overcoming human biological and psychological limits. Valuing perpetual progress is incompatible with acquiescing in the undesirable aspects of the human condition. Continuing improvements means challenging natural and traditional limitations on human possibilities. Science and technology are essential to eradicate constraints on lifespan, intelligence, personal vitality, and freedom. It is absurd to meekly accept "natural" limits to our life spans. Life is likely to move beyond the confines of the Earth ? the cradle of biological intelligence ? to inhabit the cosmos. Continual improvement will involve economic growth. We can continue to find resources to enable growth, and we can combine mindful growth with environmental quality. This means affirming a rational, non-coercive environmentalism aimed at sustaining and enhancing the conditions for flourishing. Individuals enjoying vastly extended life spans and greater wealth will be better positioned to intelligently manage resources and environment. An effective economic system encourages conservation, substitution, and innovation, preventing any need for a brake on growth and progress. Migration into space will immensely enlarge the energy and resources accessible to civilization. Extended life spans may foster wisdom and foresight, while restraining recklessness and profligacy. We can pursue continued individual and social improvement carefully and intelligently. Embodying this principle implies valuing perpetual learning and exploration as individuals, and encouraging our cultures to experiment and evolve. Valuing perpetual progress entails neither universal conservatism nor radicalism: it entails conserving what works for as long as it works and altering that which can be improved. In searching for continual improvement we must steer carefully between complacency and recklessness. No mysteries are sacrosanct, no limits unquestionable; the unknown will yield to the ingenious mind. The practice of progress challenges us to understand the universe, not to cower before mystery. It invites us to learn and grow and enjoy our lives ever more. 2. SELF-TRANSFORMATION Extropy focuses on self-improvement physically, intellectually, psychologically, and ethically. Self-transformation involving becoming better than we are, while affirming our current worth. Perpetual self-improvement requires us to continually re-examine our lives. Self-esteem in the present cannot mean self-satisfaction, since a probing mind can always envisage a better self in the future. In pursing transformation we are committed to deepening our wisdom, honing our rationality, and augmenting our physical, intellectual, and emotional qualities. In choosing self-transformation we choose challenge over comfort, innovation over emulation, transformation over torpor. Extropy emerges from neophiles and experimentalists who track new research for more efficient means of achieving goals and who are willing to explore novel technologies of self-transformation. In our mission of continual advancement, we rely on our own judgment, seek our own path, and reject both blind conformity and mindless rebellion. Self-transformation will frequently lead us to diverge from the mainstream because growth is not chained by any dogma, whether religious, political, or intellectual. The responsibility for self-transformation means choosing our values and behavior reflectively, standing firm when necessary but responding flexibly to new conditions. Advanced, emerging, and future technologies deserve close attention for their potential in supporting self-transformation. Valuing self-transformation entails supporting biomedical research to understand and control the aging process, and implementing effective means of extending vitality. It means practicing and planning for biological and neurological augmentation through means such as information technology, neurochemical enhancement, communications networks, critical and creative thinking skills, cognitive techniques and training, accelerated learning strategies, and applied cognitive psychology. We can shrug off the limits imposed by our natural heritage, applying the evolutionary gift of our rational, empirical intelligence as we strive to surpass the confines of our human limits. Since every individual lives with others, we need to continually improve our personal relationships. Our interests intertwine with those of others making acting for mutual benefit an effective strategy. Self-transformation implies not self-absorption but a continued attempt to understand others and to work toward optimal relationships based on mutual honesty, open communication, and benevolence. Evolution left us with animalistic urges and emotions that sometimes prompt us thoughtlessly into acts of hostility, conflict, fear, and domination. Through self-awareness and understanding of and respect for others we can rise above these urges. While valuing other people we will do better to focus primarily on self-transformation rather than trying to change others. Recognizing the dangers of controlling others suggests that we try to improve the world through setting an example and by communicating ideas. We may be intensely committed to the education and improvement of others, but only through voluntary means that respect the rationality, autonomy, and dignity of the individual. 3. PRACTICAL OPTIMISM Extropy entails espousing a positive, dynamic, empowering attitude. It means seeking to realize our ideals in this world, today and tomorrow. Rather than enduring an unfulfilling life sustained by fantasies of another life (whether in daydreams or in an "afterlife"), An extropic orientation implies directing our energies enthusiastically into moving toward an ever-evolving vision. Living vigorously, effectively, and joyfully, requires prevailing over gloom, defeatism, and negativism. We need to acknowledge problems, whether technical, social, psychological, or ecological, but we need not allow them to dominate our thinking and our direction. We can respond to gloom and defeatism by exploring and exploiting new possibilities. Practical optimism entails an optimistic view of the future, a commitment to discovering potent remedies to many ancient human ailments, and taking charge to create that future. Practical optimism disallows passively waiting and wishing for tomorrow; it propels us exuberantly into immediate activity, confidently confronting today?s challenges while generating more potent solutions for our future. We take personal responsibility by taking charge and creating the conditions for success. Practical optimists question limits others take for granted. Observing accelerating scientific and technical learning, ascending standards of living, and evolving social and moral practices, we can project and encourage continuing progress. Today there are more researchers studying aging, medicine, computers, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other enabling disciplines than in all of history. Technological and social development continue to accelerate. Practical optimists strive to maintain the pace of progress by encouraging support for crucial research, and pioneering the implementation of its results. As practical optimists we maintain a constructive skepticism to the limiting beliefs held by our associates, our society, and ourselves. We see past current obstacles by retaining a fundamental creative openness to possibilities. Adopting practical optimism means focusing on possibilities and opportunities, being alert to solutions and potentialities. It means refusing to moan about the unavoidable, accepting and learning from mistakes rather than staying in a loop of self-punishment. Practical optimists prefer to be for rather than against, to create solutions rather than to protest against what exists. This optimism is also realism in that we can take the world as it is and do not complain that life is not fair. Practical optimism requires us to take the initiative, to jump up and plow into our difficulties, our actions declaring that we can achieve our goals. By embodying practical optimism in our actions and words we can inspire others to excel. We are responsible for taking the initiative in spreading this invigorating optimism; sustaining and strengthening our own dynamism is more easily achieved in a mutually reinforcing environment. We stimulate optimism in others by communicating our extropic values and by living our ideals and standards. Practical optimism and passive faith are incompatible. Practical optimism means critical optimism. Faith in a better future is confidence that an external force, whether God, State, or even extraterrestrials, will solve our problems. Faith breeds passivity by promising progress as a gift bestowed on us by superior forces. But, in return for the gift, faith requires a fixed belief in and supplication to external forces, thereby creating dogmatic beliefs and irrational behavior. Practical optimism fosters initiative and intelligence, assuring us that we are capable of improving life through our own efforts. Opportunities and possibilities are everywhere, calling to us to seize them and to build upon them. Attaining our goals requires that we believe in ourselves, work diligently, and be willing to revise our strategies. Where others see difficulties, practical optimists see challenges. Where others give up, we move forward. Where others say enough is enough, we say let?s try again with a fresh approach. Practical optimists espouse personal, social, and technological evolution into ever better forms. Rather than shrinking from future shock, practical optimists continue to advance the wave of evolutionary progress. 4. INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY Extropy entails strongly affirming the value of science and technology. It means using practical methods to advance the goals of expanded intelligence, superior physical abilities, psychological refinement, social advance, and indefinite life spans. It means preferring science to mysticism, and technology to prayer. Science and technology are indispensable means to the achievement of our most noble values, ideals, and visions and to humanity?s further evolution. We have a responsibility to foster these disciplined forms of intelligence, and to direct them toward eradicating the barriers to the unfolding of extropy, radically transforming both the internal and external conditions of existence. We can think of "intelligent technology" in a variety of useful ways. In one sense it refers to intelligently designed technology that well serves good human purposes. In a second sense it refers to technology with inherent intelligence or adaptability or possessed of an instinctual ability. In a third sense, it means using technology to enhance our intelligence ? our abilities to learn, to discover, process, absorb, and inter-connect knowledge. Technology is a natural extension and expression of human intellect and will, of creativity, curiosity, and imagination. We can foresee and encourage the development of ever more flexible, smart, responsive technology. We will co-evolve with the products of our minds, integrating with them, finally integrating our intelligent technology into ourselves in a posthuman synthesis, amplifying our abilities and extending our freedom. Profound technological innovation should excite rather than frightens us. We would do well to welcome constructive change, expanding our horizons, exploring new territory boldly and inventively. Careful and cautious development of powerful technologies makes sense, but we should neither stifle evolutionary advancement nor cringe before the unfamiliar. Timidity and stagnation are ignoble, uninspiring responses. Humans can surge ahead ? riding the waves of future shock ? rather than stagnating or reverting to primitivism. Intelligent use of bio- nano- and information technologies and the opening of new frontiers in space, can remove resource constraints and discharge environmental pressures. The coming years and decades will bring enormous changes that will vastly expand our opportunities and abilities, transforming our lives for the better. This technological transformation will be accelerated by life extending biosciences, biochemical and genetic engineering, intelligence intensifiers, smarter interfaces to swifter computers, worldwide data networks, virtual reality, intelligent agents, pervasive, affective, and instinctual computing systems, neuroscience, artificial life, and molecular nanotechnologies. 5. OPEN SOCIETY Extropic societies are open societies that protect the free exchange of ideas, the freedom to criticize, and the liberty to experiment. Coercively suppressing bad ideas can be as dangerous as the bad ideas themselves. Better ideas must be allowed to emerge in our cultures through an evolutionary process of creation, mutation, and critical selection. The freedom of expression of an open society is best protected by a social order characterized by voluntary relationships and exchanges. In advocating open societies we oppose self-proclaimed and imposed "authorities", and we are leery of coercive political solutions, unquestioning obedience to leaders, and inflexible, excessive hierarchies that smother initiative and intelligence. We can apply critical rationalism to society by holding all institutions and processes open to continued improvement. Sustained progress and effective, rational decision-making require the diverse sources of information and differing perspectives that flourish in open societies. Centralized command of behavior constrains exploration, diversity, and dissenting opinion. We can pursue extropic goals in numerous types of open social orders but not in theocracies or authoritarian or totalitarian systems. Societies with pervasive and coercively enforced centralized control cannot allow dissent and diversity. Yet open societies can allow institutions of all kinds to exist ? whether participatory, autonomy-maximizing institutions or hierarchical, bureaucratic institutions. Within an open society individuals, through their voluntary consent, may choose to submit themselves to more restrictive arrangements in the form of clubs, private communities, or corporate entities. Open societies allow more rigidly organized social structures to exist so long as individuals are free to leave. By serving as a framework within which social experimentation can proceed, open societies encourage exploration, innovation, and progress. Open societies avoids utopian plans for "the perfect society", instead appreciating the diversity in values, lifestyle preferences, and approaches to solving problems. In place of the static perfection of a utopia, we might imagine a dynamic "extropia" ? an open, evolving framework allowing individuals and voluntary groupings to form the institutions and social forms they prefer. Even where we find some of those choices mistaken or foolish, open societies affirm the value of a system that allows all ideas to be tried with the consent of those involved. Extropic thinking conflicts with the technocratic idea of coercive central control by insular, self-proclaimed experts. No group of experts can understand and control the endless complexity of an economy and society composed of other individuals like themselves. Unlike utopians of all stripes, extropic individuals and institutions do not seek to control the details of people?s lives or the forms and functions of institutions according to a grand over-arching plan. Since we all live in society, we are deeply concerned with its improvement. But that improvement must respect the individual. Social engineering should be piecemeal as we enhance institutions one by one on a voluntary basis, not through a centrally planned coercive implementation of a single vision. We are right to seek to continually improve social institutions and economic mechanisms. Yet we must recognize the difficulties in improving complex systems. We need to be radical in intent but cautious in approach, being aware that alterations to complex systems bring unintended consequences. Simultaneous experimentation with numerous possible solutions and improvements ? social parallel processing ? works better than utopian centrally administered technocracy. Law and government are not ends in themselves but means to happiness and progress. In advocating open societies we do not attach ourselves to any particular laws or economic structures as ultimate ends. We will favor those laws and policies which at any time seem most conducive to maintaining and expanding the openness and progress of society. Fostering open societies means opposing dangerous concentrations of coercive power and favoring the rule of law instead of the arbitrary rule of authorities. Because coercive power corrupts and leads to the suppression of alternative ideas and practices, we need to apply rules and laws equally to legislators and enforcers without exception. Open societies are frameworks for the peaceful, productive pursuit of individual and group goals. In open societies people seek neither to rule nor to be ruled. Individuals should be in charge of their own lives. Healthy societies require a combination of liberty and responsibility. For open societies to exist, individuals must be free to pursue their own interests in their own way. But for individuals and societies to flourish, liberty must come with personal responsibility. The demand for freedom without responsibility is an adolescent?s demand for license. 6. SELF-DIRECTION Extropy sees personal self-direction as a desirable counterpart to open societies. Self-direction increases in importance as culture and technology present us with an ever-expanding range of choice. Each individual should be free and responsible for deciding for themselves in what ways to change or to stay the same. Self-direction means being clear about our values and our purposes. Having clear purpose in life not only brings both practical and emotional rewards but also protects against manipulation and control by others. Freedom from others brings fulfillment and personal progress only when combined with self-direction. Successfully directing ourselves requires first creating a clear (yet developing) sense of self then implementing that vision by exercising self-control. The human self contains a bundle of desires and drives built into the biological organism through evolutionary processes and cultural influence. Taking charge of ourselves requires choosing from among competing desires and subpersonalities. While spontaneity plays an important role, creating and sustaining a healthy and successful self requires self-discipline and persistence. Personal responsibility and autonomy go hand-in-hand with self-experimentation. It is extropic to take responsibility for the consequences of our choices, refusing to blame others for the results of our own free actions. Experimentation and self-transformation require risks; individuals require the freedom to evaluate potential risks and benefits for themselves, applying their own judgment, and assuming responsibility for outcomes. Pursuing extropy means vigorously resisting coercion from those who try to impose their judgments of the safety and effectiveness of various means of self-experimentation. Personal responsibility and self-determination are incompatible with authoritarian centralized control, which stifles the choices and spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons. Coercion of mature, sound minds outside the realm of self-protection, whether for the purported "good of the whole" or for the paternalistic protection of the individual, is unacceptable. Compulsion breeds ignorance and weakens the connection between personal choice and personal outcome, thereby destroying personal responsibility. Extropy calls for rational individualism ? or cognitive independence, living by our own judgment, making reflective, informed choices, profiting from both success and shortcoming. Since self-direction applies to everyone, this principle requires that we respect the self-direction of others. This means trade not domination, rational discussion not coercion or manipulation, and cooperation rather than conflict wherever feasible. Appreciating that other persons have their own lives, purposes, and values implies seeking win-win cooperative solutions rather than trying to force our interests at the expense of others. We respect the autonomy and rationality of others by learning to communicate effectively and working towards mutually beneficial solutions. The virtue of benevolence should guide our interactions with the self-directed lives of others. Benevolence naturally goes along with an appreciation of the value in other selves and with confidence in our own self. We act benevolently not by acting under obligation to sacrifice personal interests; we embody benevolence when we have a disposition to help others. Self-direction means approaching others as potential sources of value, friendship, cooperation, and pleasure. A benevolent disposition not only embodies more emotional stability, resilience, and vitality than cynicism, hostility, and meanness, it is also more likely to induce similar responses from others. Benevolence implies a presumption of common moral decencies including politeness, patience, and honesty. While self-direction cannot mean getting along with everyone at any cost, it does imply seeking to maximize the benefits of interactions with others. Self-direction means being in charge of our lives. This requires choosing actions intelligently. This in turn requires independent thinking. One of the less noble human qualities shows itself when anyone gives up intellectual control to others. Self-direction calls on us to rise above the surrender of independent judgement that we see ? especially in religion, politics, morals, and relationships. Directing our lives asks us to determine for ourselves our values, purposes, and actions. New technologies offer more choices not only over what we do but also over who we are physically, intellectually, and psychologically. By taking charge of ourselves we can use these new means to advance ourselves according to our personal values. 7. RATIONAL THINKING Extropy affirms reason, critical inquiry, intellectual independence, and honesty. Rational thinking means rejecting blind faith and the passive, comfortable thinking that leads to dogma, conformity, and stagnation. Commitment to positive self-transformation requires critically analyzing our current beliefs, behaviors, and strategies. To think rationally we will readily admit error and learn from it rather than professing infallibility. Embodying the disciple of rational thinking means preferring analytical thought to fuzzy but comfortable delusion, empiricism to mysticism, and independent evaluation to conformity. It means affirming values, standards, and principles but remaining distant from dogma ? whether religious, political, or personal ? because of its blind faith, debasement of human worth, and systematic irrationality. Rational people are not cynics who reject every new idea. Nor are they gullible people who accept every new idea without question. Rational thinkers employ critical and creative thinking to discover great new ideas while filtering out indefensible ideas whether new or old. Rational thinkers recognize that advancing individually and socially calls for critically challenging the dogmas and assumptions of the past while resisting the popular delusions of the present. Rational thinkers accept no final intellectual authorities. No individual, no institution, no book, and no single principle can serve as the source or standard of truth. All beliefs are fallible and must be open to testing and challenging. Rational thinkers do not accept revelation, authority, or emotion as reliable sources of knowledge. Rational thinkers place little weight on claims that cannot be checked. In thinking rationally, we rely on the judgement of our own minds while continually re-examining our own intellectual standards and skills. Emphasizing the primacy of reason should not be taken to imply a rejection of emotion or intuition. These can carry useful information and play a legitimate role in thinking. But rational thinkers do not take feelings and intuitions as irreducible, unquestionable authorities. Those processes can more productively be seen as unconscious information processing, the accuracy of which is uncertain. Extropy implies seeking objective knowledge and truth. We can know reality, and through science the human mind can progressively overcome its cognitive and sensory biases to comprehend the world as it really is. Humans deserve to be proud of what we have learned, yet should appreciate how much we have yet to learn. We should have confidence in our ability to advance our knowledge, yet remain wary of the human propensity to settle for and defend any comfortable explanation. FURTHER INFORMATION Version 3.11 is the September 20, 2003 version with purely linguistic and formatting corrections to version 3.1. My thanks to Brett Paatsch for edits. More extended treatments of these principles can be found in essays, some of which have been published in EXTROPY (now Extropy Online at www.extropy.org/eo/). Practical Optimism was previously called Dynamic Optimism. The original (1990) version of "Dynamic Optimism" appeared in Extropy #8. A different, more practically-oriented version is available on the web. Self-Transformation was discussed in "Technological Self-Transformation" in Extropy #10. The principle of Self-Direction was developed in "Self-Ownership: A Core Transhuman Virtue" in Extropy Online. A pancritical rationalist understanding of rational thinking was presented in "Pancritical Rationalism: An Extropic Metacontext for Memetic Rationalism" at the EXTRO 1 conference in 1994. The original essay on transhumanism, "Transhumanism: Toward a Futurist Philosophy" was published in Extropy, and a later statement of transhumanism was published in Free Inquiry as "On Becoming Posthuman". Answers to many questions arising from The Principles of Extropy are answered in the FAQ at www.extropy.org. COPYRIGHT POLICY The Principles of Extropy 3.11 may be reproduced in any publication, private or public, physical or electronic, without need for further authorization, so long as the document appears unedited, in its entirety and with this notice. Notification of publication or distribution would be appreciated. The Principles of Extropy 3.1 are copyright ?2003 by Max More. Contact: more at extropy.org or max at maxmore.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From scerir at libero.it Fri May 28 15:11:17 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 17:11:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Limits of Physics question References: Message-ID: <0a7201c444c6$07949d50$9ac51b97@administxl09yj> From: "Robert J. Bradbury" > Within the last couple of months I saw a notice for a paper > documenting some new limits of physics arguments on computation. there are also papers, more or less, on hypercomputation (also via black holes!) http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403057 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104023 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.LO/0209332 and about a sort of an accelerated computation via "entanglements" or "delayed choices" http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109022 Saluti, s. From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 28 14:35:45 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 07:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040528114839.00ac5b10@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 May 2004, Gennady Ra wrote in some highly educational comments on the various versions of the Extropian principles wrote: > A remarkable detail: I had to use seven Russian words to translate a single > English word "intelligence". We do not have a one-word equivalent for this > notion. I was unaware of this problem. It must make the translation of the concept of IQ tests into Russian very difficult. (Not to claim that the concept of IQ is valid but just to observe that the cross cultural translations do have problems...) On a note related to the interpretation of the principles. Max has obviously spent a great deal of time refining what he feels is the most appropriate definition. [It is hard when one one is defining a philosophy/culture.] However, I have a very simple perspective. Extropy is the opposite of entropy. Another way of viewing it is that Extropy is the process of complexification. The universe is trying to beat one down (i.e. entropy is trying to exert its will) all of the time. Extropy is the process of promoting the fact that entropy will not always win. It may also be the hope that as we understand what the risks, struggles, etc. (against entropy are) we may develop better methods for dealing with them. So for me an extropian philosophy is about understanding that much of the environment is stacked against you and the game is about how we can be clever enough to defeat that. It is the game of "ultimate chess". Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 28 15:07:09 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Limits of Physics question In-Reply-To: <000c01c444c4$4978d170$9ac51b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 May 2004, scerir wrote: > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404510 Precisely. That was the exact reference that I was looking for. Thank-you for providing it. You are both a prince and a scholar and I am indebted to you. Best, Robert From pgptag at gmail.com Fri May 28 16:25:01 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 18:25:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] PRINCIPLES OF EXTROPY (Transhumansit Philosophy) In-Reply-To: <117560-22004552815140466@M2W072.mail2web.com> References: <117560-22004552815140466@M2W072.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52040528092521ee7254@mail.gmail.com> Thanks for posting the most recent version Natasha. I am curious though, why "Principles of Extropy" instead of "Extropian Principles" like it used to be? Best - G. On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:01:40 -0400, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote: > > I am posting the most recent version of the "Principles of Extropy." I > have gotten several messages for translations, and I will respond to them > this weekend. > > Thank you everyone for working with us to get these principles translated! From natashavita at earthlink.net Fri May 28 16:43:52 2004 From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:43:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] PRINCIPLES OF EXTROPY (Transhumansit Philosophy) Message-ID: <132190-220045528164352718@M2W077.mail2web.com> Hi Giulio - It is "Extropy Institute" and transhumanist philosophy of "extropy," thus "Principles of Extropy." Max did have "Extropian Principles, A Transhumanist Declaration" prior to this. Another reason is because extropians was too club sounding - extropians and extropianism - and our researched showed that rather than benefiting ExI, it was hurting ExI by assocaition with the California/clubishness of other "ians" and "isms," rather than an interntional/global organization. I hope this helps. And, listen, comments are welcome. Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 pgptag at gmail.com Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 18:25:01 +0200 To: natashavita at earthlink.net, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] PRINCIPLES OF EXTROPY (Transhumansit Philosophy) Thanks for posting the most recent version Natasha. I am curious though, why "Principles of Extropy" instead of "Extropian Principles" like it used to be? Best - G. On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:01:40 -0400, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote: > > I am posting the most recent version of the "Principles of Extropy." I > have gotten several messages for translations, and I will respond to them > this weekend. > > Thank you everyone for working with us to get these principles translated! -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 28 17:07:48 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:07:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian Principles 3.0, Russian translation In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20040528114839.00ac5b10@pop.cris.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040528120533.01c4fec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:35 AM 5/28/2004 -0700, Robert wrote: >However, I have a very simple perspective. Extropy is the opposite >of entropy. Another way of viewing it is that Extropy is the process >of complexification. Don't forget iterated processes of refinement. Complexification can include clutter; it takes a lot of work to hone it down to robust elegance. Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 28 19:08:38 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <009101c4444f$68ceb960$068a3cd1@neptune> Message-ID: <20040528190838.15480.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > On Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:38 PM Adrian Tymes > wingcat at pacbell.net > wrote: > > Invention is 99% persperation, 1% innovation. > > 1% inspiration! If you come up with something new, > isn't it 100% > innovation?:) Yep. Sorry, was tired when I wrote that. From scerir at libero.it Fri May 28 19:54:06 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 21:54:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] terms References: <20040528190838.15480.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008001c444ed$89a8de60$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj> "position" = p "velocity" = v = first derivative of position "acceleration" = a = second derivative of position "jerk" = "jolt" (in UK) = j = third derivative of position "jounce" = "snap" = s = fourth derivative of position "crackle" = c = fifth derivative of position "pop" = p = sixth derivative of position "momentum" = p "force" = F = rate of change of "momentum" "yank" = Y = rate of change of "force" "tug" = T = rate of change of "yank" "snatch" = S = rate of change of "tug" "shake" = Sh = rate of change of "snatch" "time" = t "emit" = ? = backwards time bbbah! s. A dynamical system which passes through a succession of states, at 'constant' time intervals, is a clock. Clocks measure times, and can also measure the duration of a physical process. Cloks can also be used to 'control' the evolution of a physical system. If a clock has a good time resolution, there is some energy exchange between the clock and the physical system whose evolution is controlled by the clock. Both the evolution of the physical system and the clock are, thus, perturbed. If a clock is too precise, the evolution of the physical system under control may be halted (Zeno effect.) From scerir at libero.it Fri May 28 20:18:12 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 22:18:12 +0200 Subject: [[extropy-chat] diffraction limit References: <20040528190838.15480.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <008001c444ed$89a8de60$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <00ae01c444f0$e736e1f0$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj> Transistors and other features in chips are made using optical lithography, where light etches out patterns on a photosensitive substrate on silicon. The minimum feature size possible is equal to the wavelength (lambda) of the light used. This is the "diffraction limit". If lambda is the (de Broglie) wavelenght of an individual photon, using N entangled (correlated) photons it could be possible to imagine to reduce the "diffraction limit" and also the minimum feature size of chips, since, in this case, the wavelenght might be lambda/N. And in fact .... http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312197 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312186 Any killer application in microscopy? Interferometry? Astronomy? (Cosmology?). From dgc at cox.net Fri May 28 22:44:17 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 18:44:17 -0400 Subject: [[extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <00ae01c444f0$e736e1f0$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj> References: <20040528190838.15480.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <008001c444ed$89a8de60$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj> <00ae01c444f0$e736e1f0$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <40B7C0C1.4030800@cox.net> scerir wrote: >Transistors and other features in chips >are made using optical lithography, >where light etches out patterns on >a photosensitive substrate on silicon. >The minimum feature size possible is >equal to the wavelength (lambda) of >the light used. This is the "diffraction >limit". > > This is not true, and has not been true for at least ten years. The current technology uses 193nm light to achieve 90nm features. This is done by using phase-shift masks. a simple mask is called a "binary mask."any given part of the mask is one of two states: opaque or transparent. The pattern on the mask is exactly reproduced on the substrate when the light shines through it. A phase-shift mask works differently. The mask has a continuum of translucency from opaque to transparent, and is works by creating an interference pattern that is the desired pattern of the result. creating a phase-shift mask is a black art, so a mask set for a complex semiconductor can cost as $250,000 or more. >If lambda is the (de Broglie) wavelenght >of an individual photon, using N entangled >(correlated) photons it could be possible >to imagine to reduce the "diffraction limit" >and also the minimum feature size of chips, >since, in this case, the wavelenght might >be lambda/N. > I don't know if you can do this "in bulk." if you must use a single beam, you lose the advantage of parallel simultaneous exposure, and the exposures then take too long for efficient production. This is why electron-beam lithography is not used for production. The wavelength of an electron is quite small, so an electron beam can "draw"finer lines than a light source can. E-beams are used to make the phase-shift masks. The masks are then used to make (many, many) semiconductor devices. > > >And in fact .... >http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312197 >http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312186 > >Any killer application in microscopy? >Interferometry? Astronomy? (Cosmology?). > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 28 22:06:10 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 15:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Complexification [was Extropian Principles 3.0...] In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040528120533.01c4fec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 May 2004, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:35 AM 5/28/2004 -0700, Robert wrote: > > >However, I have a very simple perspective. Extropy is the opposite > >of entropy. Another way of viewing it is that Extropy is the process > >of complexification. > > Don't forget iterated processes of refinement. Complexification can include > clutter; it takes a lot of work to hone it down to robust elegance. Damien is correct. Simple complexification will only work some limited fraction of the time. I think it might be enough to get life going in some cases. But then one may reach the point where you can see and predict aspects of the future. In such cases, as Damien points out, refinement of ones view, particularly when it may be being communicated, plays an important role in how quickly and effectively one can transmit the knowledge. Where it may become interesting is when the people involved in the complexification process begin to realize how many directions it can take (bacteria don't have this problem...). Then one must make choices with regard to which direction is best and how to steer the ship. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri May 28 23:07:55 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 16:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Life is good... Message-ID: Well there are simply some days that I'm so impressed that I can hardly contain myself. On the one hand there are two robotic machines crawling around on another planet in the solar system. And they have been doing this for four months! And on the other hand you have Cassini about to enter orbit around Saturn. And it was launched in 1997! And last but not least some people in the Congo have discovered a mushroom that is a yard (meter) across and 45 centimeters (1.5 feet) high [1]. I have no doubt that the sequencing of its genome will be added to the current priority list. There are days when one really needs to sit back and appreciate how extropic humanity may indeed be. R. 1. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=5&u=/nm/20040527/sc_nm/congo_mushroom_dc From scerir at libero.it Sat May 29 07:00:54 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 09:00:54 +0200 Subject: [[extropy-chat] diffraction limit References: <20040528190838.15480.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <008001c444ed$89a8de60$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj><00ae01c444f0$e736e1f0$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj> <40B7C0C1.4030800@cox.net> Message-ID: <001f01c4454a$afe45610$39b61b97@administxl09yj> From: "Dan Clemmensen" > >If lambda is the (de Broglie) wavelenght > >of an individual photon, using N entangled > >(correlated) photons it could be possible > >to imagine to reduce the "diffraction limit" > >and also the minimum feature size of chips, > >since, in this case, the wavelenght might > >be lambda/N. > I don't know if you can do this "in bulk." if you must use a single > beam, you lose the advantage of parallel simultaneous exposure, and the > exposures then take too long for efficient production. This is why > electron-beam lithography is not used for production. The wavelength of > an electron is quite small, so an electron beam can "draw" finer lines > than a light source can. E-beams are used to make the phase-shift masks. > The masks are then used to make (many, many) semiconductor devices. I do not know either. Using entangled photons (usual SPDC tech) it would be possible to achieve 20nm features (Boto et al.). But, if the diffraction limit is "violated" by entangled particles, it would be possible, at least in principle, to use entangled electrons (or entangled kaons :-)) to make better phase-shift masks. I mean, a beam made of entangled electrons. It is also possible that atom lithography would be, in any case, much better! http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209084 http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/10/2/1 http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/8/3/1 ("Apparent" violations of the Uncertainty Principle "between" entangled particles - which are a single particle - is another, very speculative, and very remote possibility http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905039 ) Regards, s. From dgc at cox.net Sat May 29 14:40:41 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 10:40:41 -0400 Subject: [[extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <001f01c4454a$afe45610$39b61b97@administxl09yj> References: <20040528190838.15480.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <008001c444ed$89a8de60$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj><00ae01c444f0$e736e1f0$0fbd1b97@administxl09yj> <40B7C0C1.4030800@cox.net> <001f01c4454a$afe45610$39b61b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <40B8A0E9.8000008@cox.net> scerir wrote: >From: "Dan Clemmensen" > > > >>>If lambda is the (de Broglie) wavelenght >>>of an individual photon, using N entangled >>>(correlated) photons it could be possible >>>to imagine to reduce the "diffraction limit" >>>and also the minimum feature size of chips, >>>since, in this case, the wavelenght might >>>be lambda/N. >>> >>> > > > >>I don't know if you can do this "in bulk." if you must use a single >>beam, you lose the advantage of parallel simultaneous exposure, and the >>exposures then take too long for efficient production. This is why >>electron-beam lithography is not used for production. The wavelength of >>an electron is quite small, so an electron beam can "draw" finer lines >>than a light source can. E-beams are used to make the phase-shift masks. >>The masks are then used to make (many, many) semiconductor devices. >> >> > >I do not know either. Using entangled photons (usual SPDC tech) >it would be possible to achieve 20nm features (Boto et al.). > >But, if the diffraction limit is "violated" by entangled particles, >it would be possible, at least in principle, to use entangled >electrons (or entangled kaons :-)) to make better phase-shift >masks. I mean, a beam made of entangled electrons. > > > Direct E-beam lithography is used experimentaly, but not for production. When using this technology, the beam feature size is not the system constraint. The system constraint comes from the materials. This means a better beam will not achieve smaller features. I think the E-beam diffraction limit is small enough for atomic precision? The precision of the current phase-shift masks is also not the limiting factor. The current limiting factor is the wavelength of the bulk light source that can support parallel exposure. The industry tried to go from 193nm to 153nm, but this required CaF lenses, and these lenses turned out to be impossible to build in production quantities. The industry then began looking at other tricks. The current new technology is "immersion imaging" wherein the air between the lens and the substrate is replaced with water. This allows for tighter focusing. Please note that I am not an expert on this, I just read EETimes a lot. From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sat May 29 14:44:03 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 07:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [[extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <40B8A0E9.8000008@cox.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 May 2004, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > I think the E-beam > diffraction limit is small enough for atomic precision? I would suspect that to be the case but at the atomic level you have much greater problems such as the purity of the bulk materials involved. > The industry tried to go from > 193nm to 153nm, but this required CaF lenses, and these lenses turned > out to be impossible to build in production quantities. Dan, Eric D. points out in Table 6.2 in Nanosystems that UV-C is from 280 to 200 nm. 193 and 153nm are below this scale. The energy of even UV-C radiation exceeds the many common bond dissociation energies (Table 3.8). Has anything you have read commented on the lifetime of the lenses due to the high flux of bond-breaking photons? Also, there was a lot of talk 3-5 years ago about the efforts to produce even shorter wavelength beams (effectively X-rays) and there were several reports if I recall correctly of capabilities of producing feature sizes as small as 10nm. But I haven't heard anything about these recently. Do you know if these methods are still being worked on? Thanks, Robert From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 29 16:17:48 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:17:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ken MacLeod's Hard Rapture Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529111600.01cb74f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Newton's Wake: A Space Opera * By Ken MacLeod * Tor Books * Hardcover, June 2004 * 320 pages * ISBN: 0-765-30503-8 During a war in the 21st century between the United States and Europe, the war machine artificial intelligences underwent a rapid evolution, sparking a singularity event, the Hard Rapture, which resulted in most of humanity dead and/or scanned and stored by the AIs. Most of the AIs left Earth to continue their evolution, and the remnants of humanity that did not flee were left struggling to survive. [etc] http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue370/books.html From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sat May 29 16:08:35 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 09:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Genocide: The Sudan Message-ID: Kristoff has an interesting editorial on the situation in the Sudan (both good and bad) in the NY Times today. Well worth a read by Extropians. Bush Points the Way, Nicholas D. Kristof, May 29, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/opinion/29KRIS.html?hp=&pagewanted=print Now my pessimistic side says that the recent interest in Africa is due to concerns that it is likely to become a terrorist breeding and/or training ground. Presumably the interest was sparked by the recent Madrid bombings and the clear links of the terrorists to northern Africa). An interesting news report out of London points out that Al Queda has largely reassembled itself but in a very distributed fashion. They cited a figure of 18,000 as the probable number of loyalists scattered all over the globe. This is a problem that will not be easy to solve anytime soon. Robert From dgc at cox.net Sat May 29 17:29:23 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 13:29:23 -0400 Subject: [[extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40B8C873.1060107@cox.net> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: >On Sat, 29 May 2004, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > >>I think the E-beam >>diffraction limit is small enough for atomic precision? >> >> > >I would suspect that to be the case but at the atomic level you >have much greater problems such as the purity of the bulk materials >involved. > > > >>The industry tried to go from >>193nm to 153nm, but this required CaF lenses, and these lenses turned >>out to be impossible to build in production quantities. >> >> > >Dan, Eric D. points out in Table 6.2 in Nanosystems that UV-C is from 280 >to 200 nm. 193 and 153nm are below this scale. The energy of even UV-C >radiation exceeds the many common bond dissociation energies (Table 3.8). >Has anything you have read commented on the lifetime of the lenses due >to the high flux of bond-breaking photons? > >Also, there was a lot of talk 3-5 years ago about the efforts to produce >even shorter wavelength beams (effectively X-rays) and there were several >reports if I recall correctly of capabilities of producing feature sizes >as small as 10nm. But I haven't heard anything about these recently. >Do you know if these methods are still being worked on? > > > 193nm has been standard for some time now. This is about the shortest feasible wavelength for quartz lenses IIRC. Up to and including the 193nm generation, Moore's law has been driven by finding a new technology suite for each shorter wavelength, but the lens material transparency was not the issue. Other lens parameters were important, as were resists, deposition technologies, mask creation, silicon purity, and many others. The hope was that 153nm (ArF lasers and CaF lenses,) would push the refractive optics down one more time, but it didn't work, so the industry is falling back on other tricks. As far as I know, all lower-wavelength approaches will require reflective optics. This will require a radical change in the optical path in the machinery (called a "stepper"for unrelated reasons) that exposes the silicon through the mask. With X-rays, even standard reflective optics fail, and you must move to grazing-incidence lenses. This is even more difficult than standard reflective optics. All of this means that the next two generations of "Moore's Law" will probably be achieved by using tricks that were investigated earlier but which were costlier than the direct approach of using a new generation of reflective optics. Either the industry will use the time gained to implement reflective optics, or Moore's law (applied narrowly to silicon lithography) will come to an end. I personally feel that silicon lithography will be superceeded. I certainly hope so, because is it now very difficult to innovate at the device level, as the capital costs are too high. We are now innovating primarily at the system level, as a very small number of device-level innovations (i.e., cheaper processors and memory) enable a progressively wider range of cost-effective systems (e.g., cell phones.) I feel that global innovation will continue for several years at the Moore's Law rate even if there were no further advances in device electronics, as we continue to explore the space of new systems. Ideally, we will develop a new technology that permits an engineering team to develop and manufacture a new device without huge capital investment. Of course, I think that the existing hardware is more than capable of bootstrapping the singularity, given the right software, From scerir at libero.it Sat May 29 17:35:27 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 19:35:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit References: Message-ID: <001e01c445a3$551a0190$9bc41b97@administxl09yj> > Also, there was a lot of talk 3-5 years ago about the efforts to produce > even shorter wavelength beams (effectively X-rays) and there were several > reports if I recall correctly of capabilities of producing feature sizes > as small as 10nm. But I haven't heard anything about these recently. > Do you know if these methods are still being worked on? > Thanks, > Robert I remember I've seen papers showing that below 20nm start "tunnelling effects". (?) > Please note that I am not an expert on this, > I just read EETimes a lot. > Dan Clemmensen I'm not an expert either. And I do not even read EETimes! Saluti,s. From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sat May 29 17:44:48 2004 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 03:44:48 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ken MacLeod's Hard Rapture In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529111600.01cb74f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529111600.01cb74f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <40B8CC10.2050105@optusnet.com.au> Damien Broderick wrote: > Newton's Wake: A Space Opera > * > By Ken MacLeod > * > Tor Books > * > Hardcover, June 2004 > * > 320 pages > * > ISBN: 0-765-30503-8 > > During a war in the 21st century between the United States and Europe, > the war machine artificial intelligences underwent a rapid evolution, > sparking a singularity event, the Hard Rapture, which resulted in most > of humanity dead and/or scanned and stored by the AIs. Most of the AIs > left Earth to continue their evolution, and the remnants of humanity > that did not flee were left struggling to survive. [etc] > > http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue370/books.html > I don?t know whether the book is any good, but that link leads to a shit-house reviewer. - ?Here?s a summary of what happened, because I don?t know how to review without spoilers.? From charlie at antipope.org Sat May 29 18:07:31 2004 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 19:07:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ken MacLeod's Hard Rapture In-Reply-To: <40B8CC10.2050105@optusnet.com.au> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529111600.01cb74f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <40B8CC10.2050105@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <0DC76631-B19B-11D8-8576-000D9328A216@antipope.org> On 29 May 2004, at 18:44, David wrote: > >> Newton's Wake: A Space Opera >> * >> By Ken MacLeod >> http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue370/books.html >> > I don?t know whether the book is any good, > but that link leads to a shit-house reviewer. > > - ?Here?s a summary of what happened, because > I don?t know how to review without spoilers.? You can find a somewhat less revealing review here: http://news.diversebooks.com/reviews/04/03/15/1128234.shtml And a good but negative review here: http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/sciencefiction/ 0,6121,1178647,00.html (Gwyneth Jones is not my first choice of reviewers for a quasi-extropian novel ...) I liked the book, but then I'm biased (Ken dedicated it to me and my wife :) -- Charlie From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sat May 29 18:14:18 2004 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Genocide: The Sudan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040529181418.27674.qmail@web60006.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > > Kristoff has an interesting editorial on the > situation > in the Sudan (both good and bad) in the NY Times > today. > > Well worth a read by Extropians. > > Bush Points the Way, Nicholas D. Kristof, May 29, > 2004 > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/opinion/29KRIS.html?hp=&pagewanted=print > >From the above article: "This is not a natural famine, but a deliberate effort to eliminate three African tribes in Darfur so Arabs can take their land." What the article does not say, not surprisingly (not to me at least) is that Sudan has substantial as-yet-unexploited oil reserves, so that the "deliberate effort to eliminate three African tribes in Darfur so Arabs can take their land" is also "a deliberate effort to eliminate three African tribes in Darfur so Arabs can take their" oil. Check out the oh-so-very-recent history of Sudanese oil at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html and then ask yourself why it is that the NYT article doesn't say word one about oil. It's all about oil/money. Best, Jeff Davis "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dgc at cox.net Sat May 29 18:41:09 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 14:41:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <001e01c445a3$551a0190$9bc41b97@administxl09yj> References: <001e01c445a3$551a0190$9bc41b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <40B8D945.5010406@cox.net> scerir wrote: >>Also, there was a lot of talk 3-5 years ago about the efforts to produce >>even shorter wavelength beams (effectively X-rays) and there were several >>reports if I recall correctly of capabilities of producing feature sizes >>as small as 10nm. But I haven't heard anything about these recently. >>Do you know if these methods are still being worked on? >>Thanks, >>Robert >> >> > >I remember I've seen papers showing that below 20nm >start "tunnelling effects". (?) > > > This requires 4 answers. Basically, the question is whether or not the designer can use a classical analysis a quantum analysis, or both. 1) Theoretically, there is no upper limit of the length for quantum tunneling effects, but as a practical matter they are undetectable above some upper bound. 2) There is an upper bound on the length at which quantum tunneling becomes practically useful. 3) There is a lower bound on the length at which quantum effects can be practically ignored. 4) There is a lower bound on the length at which a classical model can be used at all. (Can a real physicist please supply these dimensions?) I really don't know where these bounds are. The existence of (4) makes me very skeptical of nano-electronics. Therefore, I'm very happy that Drexler's "Nanosystems" analyzes nanomechanical systems instead of nano-electronic systems. Quantum uncertainty for a mechanical component is four orders of magnitude smaller than for an electron, and can therefore be ignored at the atomic scale. (Four orders of magnitude, because carbon atom weighs more than 10,000 times as much as an electron.) From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sat May 29 18:09:02 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Genocide: The Sudan In-Reply-To: <20040529181418.27674.qmail@web60006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 May 2004, Jeff Davis wrote: > >From the above article: > > "This is not a natural famine, but a deliberate effort > to eliminate three African tribes in Darfur so Arabs > can take their land." > > What the article does not say, not surprisingly (not > to me at least) is that Sudan has substantial > as-yet-unexploited oil reserves [snip] I'm not so sure Jeff. The Darfur provinces are in the West close to Chad. The major oil fields however seem to be in the central south or Eastern parts of the country. I also think I read another article that indicated that the genocide was causing a decline in gum arabic production. That has the executives of some of the major food manufacturing companies (including Coke) quite upset because gum arabic is an important (effectively 'essential') food ingredient. The gum arabic from the Sudan is supposed to be some of the best and can't easily be substituted. So you may be correct about economics being involved but it may not be oil economics. But I'd be as inclined to cite general inter-tribal differences (the Arab "tribe" vs. the African tribes) that have plagued humanity for ages. Robert From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat May 29 19:10:58 2004 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 15:10:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > An interesting news report out of London points out that Al Qaeda has largely > reassembled itself but in a very distributed fashion. They cited a figure of > 18,000 as the probable number of loyalists scattered all over the globe. > > This is a problem that will not be easy to solve anytime soon. Yes, I saw that report. It's not good news. The occupation of Iraq is making the world less safe from al-Qaeda. "The assessment, by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), states that the occupation has become "a potent global recruitment pretext" for al-Qa'ida, which now has more than 18,000 militants ready to strike Western targets... Jonathan Stevenson, the editor of the survey, said: "Invading Iraq damaged the war on terror, there is no doubt about that. It has strengthened rather than weakened al-Qa'ida." This is of course exactly what former Whitehouse counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke predicted. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=524939 More worrisome news on this subject: "[May 28, 2004] "Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf said Thursday that al-Qaeda has penetrated the Pakistani military and even recruited volunteers to carry out two attempts on his life in December... This is the first time Musharraf has said al-Qaeda had penetrated the Pakistani military. In the past, he had rejected all such insinuations." Prior to this infiltration by al-Qaeda, the Pakistani military was already borderline with respect to its loyalty to Musharraf vs. Taliban/al-Qaeda. Much of the Pakistani population consider Osama bin Laden to be some kind of Robinhood-like folk hero. And Pakistan has nukes. http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/28/World/AlQaeda.Infiltrates.Pakistan.Army.Tries.To.Assassinate.Musharraf-683569.shtml From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 29 19:33:38 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 14:33:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:10 PM 5/29/2004 -0400, gts wrote: >The occupation of Iraq is making the world less safe from al-Qaeda. Since this was blindingly evident from the outset, and based on lies (as I and others noted at the time on this list), you have to wonder what propels the decision-makers. Could it really be as simple as the bloated delusions and interests of office coupled with the frailty of human levels of smarts and attention? This is cartooned, of course, in THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (which turns out to be a pretty stunning example of effective CGI work, despite the dubious or mendacious `science' of those great climate experts Art Bell and Whitley Strieber.) Which leads me by an abrupt climate change of topic to note that D.A.T. could serve a useful purpose in preparing people for the idea of drastic sudden change--so that, as technologicl singularity zooms closer, the usual assumption of placid continuity with the past will no longer be the default. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 29 20:06:58 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 15:06:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psi again--a challenge Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529145620.01bd5ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Psi, sigh... I know, I know, the general assessment of this list is strongly against the very possibility of paranormal perception being real, rather than a congeries of errors, illusions, delusions and fakes. However, I'd like to suggest that everyone here put in a couple of minutes once a week for a month on the following real-world psi-application experiment in precognition: http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~fiona/GambIntro.html It is run by Dr. Fiona Steinkamp of the Koestler parapsychology unit at Edinburgh university. Her experiment is simple but quite elegant. It includes some features designed to offset usual biases: for example, the figural options shown are shuffled on each presentation, and nobody can submit more than one response per week. (This is *not* a challenge to hackers to work around this and inundate poor Fiona's experiment with loads of phoney data. Please play nice.) I'll be interested to see what she finds. I should stress, perhaps, that I have no role nor personal stake in this experiment. Damien Broderick From megao at sasktel.net Sat May 29 19:53:42 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 14:53:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast References: Message-ID: <40B8EA46.865C1506@sasktel.net> The cold war accelerated space/rocket technology and computer/electronic technology development AIDS accelerated drug development and distribution /economic rationalization What would a long non-western terrorist "war" deliver as a positive benefit. Perhaps total integration of TIA Grid (tracking and analyzing) with all physical materials living and inanimate In effect creating one distributed global organism? Just the thing needed if the next major computational advance after the "grid" is one or more AI's. In this process it will be the responsibility of the individual to not be integrated into society in a Borgian fashion (surrendering free will for protection) Morris gts wrote: > > An interesting news report out of London points out that Al Qaeda has largely > > reassembled itself but in a very distributed fashion. They cited a figure of > > 18,000 as the probable number of loyalists scattered all over the globe. > > > > This is a problem that will not be easy to solve anytime soon. > > Yes, I saw that report. It's not good news. The occupation of Iraq is making the world less safe from al-Qaeda. > > "The assessment, by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), states that the occupation has become "a potent global recruitment pretext" for al-Qa'ida, which now has more than 18,000 militants ready to strike Western targets... Jonathan Stevenson, the editor of the survey, said: "Invading Iraq damaged the war on terror, there is no doubt about that. It has strengthened rather than weakened al-Qa'ida." > > This is of course exactly what former Whitehouse counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke predicted. > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=524939 > > More worrisome news on this subject: > > "[May 28, 2004] "Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf said Thursday that al-Qaeda has penetrated the Pakistani military and even recruited volunteers to carry out two attempts on his life in December... This is the first time Musharraf has said al-Qaeda had penetrated the Pakistani military. In the past, he had rejected all such insinuations." > Prior to this infiltration by al-Qaeda, the Pakistani military was already borderline with respect to its loyalty to Musharraf vs. Taliban/al-Qaeda. Much of the Pakistani population consider Osama bin Laden to be some kind of Robinhood-like folk hero. And Pakistan has nukes. > > http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/28/World/AlQaeda.Infiltrates.Pakistan.Army.Tries.To.Assassinate.Musharraf-683569.shtml > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From jcorb at irishbroadband.net Sat May 29 23:44:25 2004 From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 00:44:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life is good... Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040530004244.02378d20@pop3.irishbroadband.ie> >Message: 6 >Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 16:07:55 -0700 (PDT) >From: "Robert J. Bradbury" >Subject: [extropy-chat] Life is good... >To: Extropy Chat >Message-ID: > >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Well there are simply some days that I'm so impressed that >I can hardly contain myself. >On the one hand there are two robotic machines crawling around >on another planet in the solar system. And they have been >doing this for four months! >And on the other hand you have Cassini about to enter orbit >around Saturn. And it was launched in 1997! >And last but not least some people in the Congo have discovered >a mushroom that is a yard (meter) across and 45 centimeters >(1.5 feet) high [1]. I have no doubt that the sequencing >of its genome will be added to the current priority list. >There are days when one really needs to sit back and >appreciate how extropic humanity may indeed be. I'd have to agree. I've just read a snippet in New Scientist about a Korean remote control that wouldn't need batteries. Now _that's_ progress. James... >R. >1. >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=5&u=/nm/20040527/sc_nm/congo_mushroom_dc From reason at longevitymeme.org Sun May 30 00:20:47 2004 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:20:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] artist needed for a few minor items In-Reply-To: <20040521183550.5DA4B57E87@finney.org> Message-ID: I need an reliable artist/graphic designer for a few simple items relating to Longevity Meme/Methuselah Mouse projects. I'm willing to pay a modest amount for the service, so if anyone here has any recommendations - or could do it themselves - I'd be glad to hear from you. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun May 30 00:05:21 2004 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:05:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~ Message-ID: <012901c445d9$cc9fa1d0$afa21218@Nano> The Nanogirl News May 29, 2004 The second volume in the Nanomedicine book series by Robert A. Freitas Jr., Nanomedicine, Vol. IIA: Biocompatibility, is now freely available online in its entirety at http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMIIA.htm First published in hardcover by Landes Bioscience in 2003, this comprehensive technical book describes the many possible mechanical, physiological, immunological, cytological, and biochemical responses of the human body to the in vivo introduction of medical nanodevices, especially medical nanorobots. Hollow Nanocrystals and How to Mass Produce Them. Recently Yadong Yin and his colleagues in Paul Alivisatos's laboratory were experimenting with ways to modify the surfaces of nanocrystals - particles only a few billionths of a meter in size, comprised of only a few thousand atoms. After exposing cobalt nanocrystals to sulfur, they examined the results under a transmission electron microscope. (Berkeley Lab Science Beat 5/04) http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/May-2004/02-MSD-hollow-nanocrystals.html Chemists make molecular interlocked rings. UCLA chemists have devised an elegant solution to an intricate problem at the nanoscale that stumped scientists for many years: They have made a mechanically interlocked compound whose molecules have the topology of the beloved interlocked Borromean rings. In the May 28 issue of the journal Science, the team reports nanoscience that could be described as art. The UCLA group is the first to achieve this goal in total chemical synthesis, which research groups worldwide have been pursuing. (EurekAlert 5/27/04) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-05/uoc--cmm052604.php Nanomagnets tapped to generate microwave fields. A new form of electromagnetic interaction in which electron spin changes the magnetic direction of cobalt nanomagnets is being explored at Cornell University with an eye toward new types of memory and signal-processing devices. Experiments have shown that the impact of spin-polarized electrons causes the nanomagnets to process at high speed so that a direct current can produce microwave-frequency oscillations. (EETimes 5/26/04) http://www.eetimes.com/at/n/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=21100413 Nanoparticles Illuminate Brain Tumors for Days under MRI. A research team from Oregon Health & Science University and the Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center is demonstrating some of the world's first clinical applications for nanometer-size particles in the brain. The OHSU scientists have shown that an iron oxide nanoparticle as small as a virus can outline not only brain tumors under magnetic resonance imaging, but also other lesions in the brain that may otherwise have gone unnoticed, according to a study published in the journal Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology. (Oregon Health & Science University 5/26/04) http://www.ohsu.edu/news/2004/052504nano.html Probing Molecular Surfaces (388 KB PDF). The study of biomolecular structure has improved through the use of MALDI-ion mobility-orthogonal time-of-flight mass spectrometry. A. S. Woods et al. (Today's Chemist at Work 5/04). http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/tcaw/13/i05/pdf/504woods.pdf Nanoscale contact optimizes adhesion. Optimal adhesion of geckos and insects based on shape optimization and contact surface size reduction, report Max Planck researchers in Stuttgart, Germany The nanometer size of hairs (spatulae) on the feet of geckos and many insects may have evolved to optimize adhesion strength, according to new research conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Metals Research in Stuttgart. The scientists discovered that there exists an optimal shape of the contact surface of the tip of such hairs which gives rise to optimal adhesion to a substrate via molecular interaction forces. (Max Planck 5/25/04) http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040525/index.html PDF: http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040525/genPDF.pdf Ground Broken for Nanotechnology Center at Sandia and Los Alamos Labs. The new Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies (CINT) at the Department of Energy's Los Alamos (LANL) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) moved closer to reality with two groundbreaking ceremonies this week. The $76 million center is one of five new Nanoscale Science Research Centers to be built by the Department of Energy's Office of Science to provide researchers with world-class facilities for the interdisciplinary study of matter at the atomic scale. (energy.gov 5/25/04) http://energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=15947&BT_CODE=PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE=PRESSRELEASE Scaling Friction Down To The Nano/Micro Realm. An improved method for correcting nano- and micro-scale friction measurements has been developed by researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The new technique should help designers produce more durable micro- and nano-devices with moving parts, such as tiny motors, positioning devices or encoders. (ScienceDaily 5/26/04) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040525060201.htm DNA Robot Takes Its First Steps. A MICROSCOPIC biped with legs just 10 nanometres long and fashioned from fragments of DNA has taken its first steps. The nanowalker is being hailed as a major breakthrough by nanotechnologists. The biped's inventors, chemists Nadrian Seeman and William Sherman of New York University, say that while many scientists have been trying to build nanoscale devices capable of bipedal motion, theirs is the first to succeed. "It's an advance on everything that has gone before," says Bernard Yurke of Bell Labs in New Jersey, part of the team that made one of the best-known molecular machines to date: a pair of "tweezers" also constructed from DNA strands (New Scientist, 12 August 2000, p 23). (bio.com 5/6/04)mhttp://www.bio.com/realm/research.jhtml?realmId=5&cid=700001 Twisty Tweezers. Using only a laser beam, researchers can spin a microscopic bead, but they can't measure or control the twisting force. Now reports in the September 2003 Physical Review A and the 14 May PRL demonstrate that the twisting force, or torque, can be measured by analyzing the light passing through the object. The PRL paper also shows how to control the torque by creating what the authors call an "optical torque wrench." The technique could be useful for exploring cellular machinery such as molecular motors or the proteins that replicate DNA. (Phys. Rev. 5/18/04) http://focus.aps.org/story/v13/st22 Carbon-50 makes its debut. Physical chemists in China have made carbon-50 molecules in the solid state for the first time. Lan-Sun Zheng and colleagues at Xiamen University, and co-workers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and Wuhan, prepared the molecules - which they describe as a long sought little sister of carbon-60 - in an arc-discharge technique involving chlorine. The result will allow scientists to study the properties of carbon-50 with a view to exploiting its unusual properties. The method developed by the Chinese team also opens the way to making other small, cage-like carbon molecules or "fullerenes" (S-Y Xie et al. 2004 Science 304 699). (PhysicsWeb 4/29/04) http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/4/14 A Nano Conveyor. Electrified nanotube is used to move molten metal along the tube's length. When an electrical current is applied to a multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWNT), the structure is transformed into a tiny conveyer belt that shuttles molten metal along the length of the tube, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [Nature, 428, 924 (2004)]. Physics professor Alex Zettl, postdoc Chris Regan, and their coworkers liken the electrified tube to a nanosoldering iron that might someday be used to fabricate nanoscale devices. (Chemical & Engineering News 5/3/04) http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8218/8218notw7.html UCLA Chemists Develop New Coating For Nanoscale Probes. A UCLA-led team of chemists has developed a unique new coating for inorganic particles at the nanoscale that may be able to disguise the particles as proteins -- a process that allows particles to function as probes that can penetrate the cell and light up individual proteins inside, and create the potential for application in a wide range of drug development, diagnostic tools and medications. (bio.com 4/29/04) http://www.bio.com/realm/research.jhtml?realmId=5&cid=400034 Ion beams put nanotubes on the straight and narrow. Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, US, NTT Basic Research Laboratories, Japan, and Yokohama National University, Japan, have bombarded single-walled carbon nanotubes with ion beams in order to straighten them. They applied the technique to nanotubes grown between catalyst-coated pillars, as these often sag. (nanotechweb.org 5/18/04) http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/3/5/10/1 Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco Proclaims June 4, 2004 Nanotechnology Day. In support of Louisiana?s groundbreaking research being conducted in the field of nanotechnology, Governor Kathleen Blanco declares June 4, 2004, Nanotechnology Day, a day of community awareness programs and lectures, culminating in a networking luncheon. Louisiana researchers and economic development professionals will celebrate and showcase this multi-billion dollar industry to the general public, as well as the contributions that Louisiana researchers are making at a gathering in the rotunda at LSU?s Center for Energy, Coastal, and Environmental Studies on Friday, June 4, 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. (Bayoubuzz 5/28/04) http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=1707 GI Joe Goes Nano. As the casualty count rises in Iraq, the safety of our soldiers is paramount in the minds of defense researchers. Nowhere is that more evident than at the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, established at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2002 with a five-year, $50 million grant from the U.S. Army. The ISN is a unique undertaking. It pulls together 44 MIT faculty and more than 100 students and postdoctoral researchers to interact with the Army and industrial partners. The ISN officially opened its doors last May, and I expect that this new incubator will bring important lifesaving improvements to military science. (Forbes 5/27/04) http://www.forbes.com/newsletter/2004/05/27/cz_jf_0527soapbox.html Intel Invests $2B in 65-Nano. Looking for a bit of the luck of the Irish, Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel (Quote, Chart) is adding a bit of its own green to its holdings in Ireland. The chipmaking giant said is investing $2 billion into extended manufacturing facilities at its Fab 24-2 plant to enable 65-nanometer process technology (define). Intel invested $2 billion in the original Fab 24 four years ago. The idea is to extend the company's 15-year record of meeting or beating Moore's Law (define) and churning out a new process generation every two years. (intternetnews 5/19/04) http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3356251 The spooky place where art meets science. Stem-cell revelations, nanotechnology used to make molecular graffiti -- they're at the Subtle Technologies festival of art and science. Ask Jim Ruxton and Tania Thompson what they think about artist Georges Braque's subversive remark that "art upsets and science reassures," and they immediately spring into a defense of the rationale for their little-known, but hugely quirky, festival of art and science called Subtle Technologies. While there are differences in the two communities, says Ruxton, an electrical engineer turned electrical artist/inventor in an artistically loud pink shirt, today things may be the reverse of Braque's statement. "I don't know. I think science upsets a lot of people, and I think that a lot of people in the scientific community are looking to art to help interpret what they do to the general public," he says. (Globeandmail 5/29/04) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040529/SCIENCE29/TPEntertainment/TopStories Insurance industry warned of nanotechnology risks. A major reinsurance company has advised insurance companies that they may need to reconsider covering products manufactured using nanotechnology until more is known about any possible side effects of the technology. 'As a major risk carrier, the insurance industry can only responsibly support the introduction of a new technology if it can evaluate and calculate its inherent risks,' says Swiss Re. 'A risk needs to be identified before its consequences can be measured and a decision can be reached on the optimal risk management approach.' (Science Blog 5/27/04) http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article2803.html Also at Slashdot: http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/05/27/1341220.shtml?tid=126&tid=134&tid=191 A Nanotechnology Turnaround? By Glenn Harlan Reynolds. I've written some pessimistic columns on nanotechnology lately. In essence, my concern was that the nanotechnology industry was pursuing an ostrich-like strategy, trying to deny the potential risks posed by nanotechnology in the hope that nobody would notice. The industry was even going so far as to alienate a lot of its natural supporters, as it tried to argue that the kinds of advanced nanotechnology that might spur popular fears were impossible, and that those who felt otherwise were (despite being pioneers in the field) some sort of kooks. (TCS 5/26/04) http://www.techcentralstation.com/052604D.html Nanotechnology improving energy options. Nanotechnology could help revolutionize the energy industry, producing advances such as solar power cells made of plastics to environmentally friendly batteries that detoxify themselves, experts told United Press International...One nanotech firm, mPhase Technologies in Norwalk, Conn., is partnering with Lucent Technologies to commercialize nanotechnology by creating intelligent batteries, with the intent of bringing the devices to the marketplace within the next 12 to 18 months. (United Press International 5/24/04) http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040520-044040-2981r The First Nanochips. As scientists and engineers continue to push back the limits of chipmaking technology, they have quietly entered into the nanometer realm. For most people, the notion of harnessing nanotechnology for electronic circuitry suggests something wildly futuristic. In fact, if you have used a personal computer made in the past few years, your work was most likely processed by semiconductors built with nanometer-scale features. These immensely sophisticated microchips--or rather, nanochips--are now manufactured by the millions, yet the scientists and engineers responsible for their development receive little recognition. (Scientific American 4/04) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CE8C4-DC31-1055-973683414B7F0000&chanID=sa008 China Sets Up Nano Accreditation Board. China has established an accreditation committee for nanotechnology, according to the China Daily. (SmallTimes 4/21/04) http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=51&document_id=7939 Green Plus in ``Formula'' Fuels Boosts Lukoil Sales in Cyprus; Combination of Better Fuel Economy and Lower Emissions Wins Customers. Biofriendly Corporation and Lukoil Oil Company announced today that sales of Lukoil's new Formula Fuels have increased over 20% since their launch in late February. The fuel, which includes gasoline as well as diesel, has been treated with Biofriendly's Green Plus liquid fuel combustion catalyst. The catalyst improves combustion, which produces better performance, better fuel economy and lower emissions...Under development for over 10 years, Green Plus is a new product that employs nanotechnology (working at the molecular level) to achieve a breakthrough combination of improved fuel economy and reduced emissions. (Businesswire 4/19/04) http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040519005701&newsLang=en Nanotechnology in Fire Protection can save Life and secure Health...Many applications to secure life and health would not be possible without nanotechnology and molecular science. New sensors, glass, electronics, optics, absorbents, concrete additives, coatings, fire retardancy materials, smart fire resistant clothes and new building materials are only some of today's applications. In total there are 48 applications today in fire protection . For the Olympics 2008 in Beijing the state of science in fire protection technologies was defined. Nanochina is a market development that leads several segments in nanotechnology materials and electronics from Chinese companies and technologies. (innovations report 5/17/04) http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-29292.html In this article from Backbone Magazine, Douglas Mulhall, author of 'Our Molecular Future' tells us about the future of nanomedicine. He thinks that medical diagnosis will be the first successful steps, involving nanorobots which will raise alerts when they detect pre-cancerous cells. And twenty years from now, researchers envision that nanomedicine will be a trillion dollar industry. Around 2025, you'll pay $1,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life by suppressing heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases. (Backbone 5/7/04) http://www.backbonemag.com/php_site/home.php?m_column_id=php_news/wmview.php?ArtID=888 Have a nice weekend. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Tech-Aid Advisor http://www.tech-aid.info/t/all-about.html Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 29 16:17:48 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:17:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ken MacLeod's Hard Rapture Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529111600.01cb74f0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Newton's Wake: A Space Opera * By Ken MacLeod * Tor Books * Hardcover, June 2004 * 320 pages * ISBN: 0-765-30503-8 During a war in the 21st century between the United States and Europe, the war machine artificial intelligences underwent a rapid evolution, sparking a singularity event, the Hard Rapture, which resulted in most of humanity dead and/or scanned and stored by the AIs. Most of the AIs left Earth to continue their evolution, and the remnants of humanity that did not flee were left struggling to survive. [etc] http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue370/books.html From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sun May 30 01:23:49 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 18:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 May 2004, Damien Broderick wrote: > This is cartooned, of course, in THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (which turns out to > be a pretty stunning example of effective CGI work, despite the dubious or > mendacious `science' of those great climate experts Art Bell and Whitley > Strieber.) Of course plenty has been written about the poor science in this film. > Which leads me by an abrupt climate change of topic to note that > D.A.T. could serve a useful purpose in preparing people for the idea of > drastic sudden change--so that, as technologicl singularity zooms closer, > the usual assumption of placid continuity with the past will no longer be > the default. Perhaps -- I am reasonably certain that we can reverse the process and/or consequences of global warming using biotech and/or nanotech. That is why the Koyoto agreement is flawed -- a failure to incorporate rapid technological change by humanity. It would of course be nice if we had an example of rapid technological change in a positive direction rather than a negative direction. Robert From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 30 02:38:07 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 21:38:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529213303.01bd0ea8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:23 PM 5/29/2004 -0700, Robert wrote: >It would of course be nice if we had an example of rapid technological >change in a positive direction rather than a negative direction. Judging from the promo, it sure as shit won't be I, ROBOT, despite the disgraceful misappropriation of Asimov's name. Dr. Susan Calvin is no longer a crusty old virgin genius but now a hot young pouty bimbo. Robots run amok. Okay, in that respect it's probably more realistic than Three Laws containment, but it would have killed poor old Isaac if he weren't dead already. Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 30 02:52:06 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529213303.01bd0ea8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040529213303.01bd0ea8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <40B94C56.80107@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > > Dr. Susan Calvin is no longer a crusty old virgin genius but now a hot > young pouty bimbo. Maybe the Singularity Institute should put a bounty on the heads of those responsible for this travesty. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pgptag at gmail.com Sun May 30 06:30:35 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 08:30:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am also certain that we can reverse the process and/or consequences of global warming using biotech and/or nanotech. But since I am less optimistic than many concerning the timeline, I doubt that we will perfect these technologies in time to be able to use them operationally to reverse the process and/or consequences of global warming, or at least to protect ourselves from the worse consequences, before being hit real hard. I think Kyoto would be a way to buy more time to develop better tech before screwing up the planet for good. G. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Robert J. Bradbury Sent: domingo, 30 de mayo de 2004 3:24 To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast I am reasonably certain that we can reverse the process and/or consequences of global warming using biotech and/or nanotech. That is why the Koyoto agreement is flawed -- a failure to incorporate rapid technological change by humanity. It would of course be nice if we had an example of rapid technological change in a positive direction rather than a negative direction. Robert --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.684 / Virus Database: 446 - Release Date: 13/05/2004 From megao at sasktel.net Sun May 30 14:39:35 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:39:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast- global warming - Salute References: Message-ID: <40B9F226.FC92A58F@sasktel.net> Frankly, I think global warming is a marvellous opportunity to go back in time to the cretaceous environment and capturing all that liquid water into productive biomass. All our technology is focused upon creating useful biomass and substrates for technological products and human biomass, yet the limiting factor may indeed be climate and water. Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I am also certain that we can reverse the process and/or consequences of > global warming using biotech and/or nanotech. But since I am less optimistic > than many concerning the timeline, I doubt that we will perfect these > technologies in time to be able to use them operationally to reverse the > process and/or consequences of global warming, or at least to protect > ourselves from the worse consequences, before being hit real hard. > I think Kyoto would be a way to buy more time to develop better tech before > screwing up the planet for good. > G. > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Robert J. > Bradbury > Sent: domingo, 30 de mayo de 2004 3:24 > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast > I am reasonably certain that we can reverse the process and/or > consequences of global warming using biotech and/or nanotech. That is > why the Koyoto agreement is flawed -- a failure to incorporate rapid > technological change by humanity. > > It would of course be nice if we had an example of rapid technological > change in a positive direction rather than a negative direction. > > Robert > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.684 / Virus Database: 446 - Release Date: 13/05/2004 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From pgptag at gmail.com Sun May 30 16:12:12 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:12:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Robotic Space Workers of the Future Message-ID: >From Slashdot: In an article named "Puckish robots pull together," Nature describes the work done at the Polymorphic Robotics Laboratory (PRL) of the University of Southern California on self-reconfigurable teams of robots. There, Wei-Min Shen and his colleagues simulate the absence of gravity by creating a 2D representation of space by using an 'air-hockey table.' With jets of air flow blowing on the surface, the 30 cm-wide robots, working in pairs, evolve in a frictionless environment, pick elements such as girders to assemble structures like if they were in space. NASA will use these teams of autonomous robots to build space systems like 10 km-long arrays of solar panels and other huge spatial structures. You'll find more details, illustrations and references in this overview. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.667 / Virus Database: 429 - Release Date: 23/04/2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgc at cox.net Sun May 30 16:13:58 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 12:13:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Current State of Photolithography Message-ID: <40BA0846.8080709@cox.net> I decided to check this out to make sure that my recollections of my casual reading were approximately correct. Here is the best reference I found: http://www.icknowledge.com/misc_technology/ Immersion%20Lithography.pdf Some minor corrections on my prior posts: Current technology is 193nm, as I said. This is generated by an ArF excimer laser, which I did not say. The industry is struggling to move to 157nm. I incorrectly stated that it was 153nm. 157nm is generated by an Florine (F-F) excimer laser. I incorrectly said it was an ArF laser. The Lens material for 157nm is calcium diflouride, not CaF as I said. The major stumbling block is manufacturing these lenses, as I said. The paper gives some nice histories of the progressions in wavelengths and feature sizes. The best thing in the paper is a formula: Width=KxL/NA. Feature width decreases with Lambda (i.e., wavelength). Feature width decreases as Numerical Aperture increases Feature width decreases with the fudge factor K. As discussed previously, pushing Lambda below 193nm looks really hard. As a practical matter, NA cannot be pushed higher than .93 in air. The paper is mostly about "immersion Lithography," meaning that you fill the space between the lens and the substrate with water. With water, NA can be pushed to 1.47 The paper's description of K is hilarious. K is the factor that accounts for all the tricks other than NA that engineers and physicists have dreamed up to drive the width below the wavelength, including phase-shift masks. The paper asserts that the industry consensus is that K cannot be driven below .25. With all of the above, the paper concludes that fairly straightforward extension of existing technology will get us to W=35nm, which is where the industry wants to be in 2008 or so. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 30 16:17:13 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040530161713.12644.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > > It would of course be nice if we had an example of rapid > technological > change in a positive direction rather than a negative direction. Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Unfortunately most depictions on the screen tend to portray it negatively, as if one is losing one's humanity: 2001: A Space Oddessy, Lawnmower Man, Charlie, etc. though the climax scene in the first Star Trek movie was pretty good. Any rapid change tends to be depicted as a dehumanizing mechanization, or an insect or virus-like biological infection, or a simple transformation into insane monster-hood. Typically the only positive depictions of rapid personal advancement are on the spiritual side, like Daniel Jackson's 'ascendance' in season 6 of Stargate SG-1. As far as entertainment goes, positive depictions tend to sell fewer tickets than negative ones. IMHO, though, The Diamond Age might be the basis of a good movie depiction. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From scerir at libero.it Sun May 30 16:28:31 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:28:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit References: <001e01c445a3$551a0190$9bc41b97@administxl09yj> <40B8D945.5010406@cox.net> Message-ID: <012901c44663$258cd630$94c41b97@administxl09yj> From: "Dan Clemmensen" > 1) Theoretically, there is no upper limit of the length for quantum > tunneling effects, but as a practical matter they are undetectable above > some upper bound. > 2) There is an upper bound on the length at which quantum tunneling > becomes practically useful. > 3) There is a lower bound on the length at which quantum effects can be > practically ignored. > 4) There is a lower bound on the length at which a classical model can > be used at all. > (Can a real physicist please supply these dimensions?) I think real physicists (I'm not!) could perhaps answer knowing details (like energies, barriers/potentials, materials, etc.). Anyway, let me point out this paper (it seems a very good one) http://www.intel.com/research/documents/Bourianoff-Proc-IEEE-Limits.pdf > I really don't know where these bounds are. The existence of (4) makes > me very skeptical of nano-electronics. I've read that in MPU applications the gate physical thickness will reach 1 nm in 2006! Is it true? With such thickness, tunneling leakage current becomes relevant, unless they introduce a higher dielectric constant material. Regards, s. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 30 16:34:00 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529213303.01bd0ea8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040530163400.62060.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:23 PM 5/29/2004 -0700, Robert wrote: > > >It would of course be nice if we had an example of rapid > technological > >change in a positive direction rather than a negative direction. > > Judging from the promo, it sure as shit won't be I, ROBOT, despite > the disgraceful misappropriation of Asimov's name. Dr. Susan Calvin > is no longer a crusty old virgin genius but now a hot young pouty > bimbo. > Robots run amok. Okay, in that respect it's probably more realistic > than Three Laws containment, but it would have killed poor old Isaac > if he weren't dead already. Nah, 'zack always appreciated pouty bimbos. It's how he found his second wife while still married to the first... If you are talking about the robots amok, I don't see that either. While it wasn't at the forefront in his novels, his robots did, in fact, send ships all over the galaxy committing genocide via terraforming against any number of intelligent alien races, which is why in the Foundation series only humans inhabit the galaxy. Daneel was no saint, nor were his comrades. Their zeroeth rule only resulted in the rationalization of the deaths of trillions of intelligent alien beings, who were judged not 'human' only because they didn't have the look of homo sapiens. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From megao at sasktel.net Sun May 30 15:38:22 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 10:38:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible NSA (security based ) disconnect of (Chinese Human Gene Tech) server from web? Message-ID: <40B9FFEE.1C76F64@sasktel.net> I get Biopharm International , a magazine for Applied Technologies of Biopharmaceutical Development The May 2004 Vol 17, #5 issue has an article on pgs 42-49 and appendix 73-76 The titles are: Pgs 42-49 The Genesis of Gendicine The story behind the first gene therapy (sbn at ibiono.com ; http://www.sibiono.com ) Pgs 73-76 Points to consider for Human Gene Therapy ... from State Food and Drug Administration of China Translated by Shenzhen Gene Tech Co., Ltd ********************************************************** I used both netscape and IExplorer to access and the best I get is this: Failure of server APACHE bridge: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No backend server available for connection: timed out after 10 seconds. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Build date/time: Sep 4 2003 14:30:53 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change Number: 289956 ************************************************* usually http://www.biopharm-mag.com has its articles in pdf These items are significant enough that I want to get the paper version in pdf. Can one of you guys please check this link for me and if you have better luck for some reason, download and email me a copy of these 2 items. Morris Johnson From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 30 16:43:08 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Genocide: The Sudan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040530164308.17514.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > > An interesting news report out of London points out that Al Queda has > largely > reassembled itself but in a very distributed fashion. They cited a > figure of > 18,000 as the probable number of loyalists scattered all over the > globe. > > This is a problem that will not be easy to solve anytime soon. It is naive to think that those 18,000 alleged al Qaeda would not have otherwise joined up at some time in the future. The strategy that the Bush admin seems to be pursuing is to take the battle to the enemy, establishing the zone of conflict in THEIR homeland, rather than allowing it to be in ours, as they would have wished. Al Qaeda is now wasting its members lives attacking US soldiers in a guerilla insurgency in Iraq rather than wasting them attacking US civilians in a terrorist insurgency here in our land. It is the tactic of the mosquito zapper: when you buy one of those electic zapper jobbies, you don't set it up next to your patio, you set it up on the other end of the lawn. The bugs are all attracted OVER THERE, where they all die heinous deaths, and are thus far less likely to sting you as you sip your pina colada on your patio, they don't even get a chance for a free meal off your blood on their way to their well deserved deaths.... ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 30 16:54:24 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: balloon stations at the edge of space In-Reply-To: <40B523D9.E02DE9A5@Genius.UCSD.edu> Message-ID: <20040530165424.69068.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> --- Johnius wrote: > > > Does anyone here know what it would take to do a feasibility > study or at least an accurate simulation, draw up appropriate > blueprints, come up with an estimated budget and projected > profits, turn this into a real project, etc.? I would suggest you seek out Austin Meyer, author of X-Plane, for this development project. He and his crew would be invaluable to it. I think he would get a kick out of it, too, as he has a thing for homongous aircraft... ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From megao at sasktel.net Sun May 30 15:54:42 2004 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 10:54:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible NSA (security based ) disconnect of (ChineseHuman Gene Tech) server from web? References: <40B9FFEE.1C76F64@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <40BA03C1.EBC900DB@sasktel.net> http://www.sibiono.com/news/news_images/448.pdf Site is in chinese but has enough english tags to find above copy of pg 73-77 doc "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." wrote: > I get Biopharm International , a magazine for > Applied Technologies of Biopharmaceutical Development > The May 2004 Vol 17, #5 issue has an article on pgs 42-49 and appendix > 73-76 > The titles are: > Pgs 42-49 > The Genesis of Gendicine > The story behind the first gene therapy > (sbn at ibiono.com ; http://www.sibiono.com ) > > Pgs 73-76 > Points to consider for Human Gene Therapy ... from > State Food and Drug Administration of China > Translated by Shenzhen Gene Tech Co., Ltd > ********************************************************** > > I used both netscape and IExplorer to access and the best I get is this: > > Failure of server APACHE bridge: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > No backend server available for connection: timed out after 10 seconds. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Build date/time: Sep 4 2003 14:30:53 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Change Number: 289956 > > ************************************************* > usually http://www.biopharm-mag.com has its articles in pdf > These items are significant enough that I want to get the paper version > in pdf. > > Can one of you guys please check this link for me and if you have better > luck for some reason, > download and email me a copy of these 2 items. > > Morris Johnson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From pgptag at gmail.com Sun May 30 16:57:06 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:57:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Genocide: The Sudan In-Reply-To: <20040530164308.17514.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mike, do you really think that those participating in the guerrilla insurgency in Iraq are the real Al Qaeda operatives? Is this how you would fight this war if you were them? I don't think so, they probably use expendable pawns in Iraq while slowly and carefully regrouping their towers and queens elsewhere. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey Sent: 30 May 2004 18:43 To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Genocide: The Sudan The strategy that the Bush admin seems to be pursuing is to take the battle to the enemy, establishing the zone of conflict in THEIR homeland, rather than allowing it to be in ours, as they would have wished. Al Qaeda is now wasting its members lives attacking US soldiers in a guerilla insurgency in Iraq rather than wasting them attacking US civilians in a terrorist insurgency here in our land. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.667 / Virus Database: 429 - Release Date: 23/04/2004 From dgc at cox.net Sun May 30 17:05:13 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 13:05:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <012901c44663$258cd630$94c41b97@administxl09yj> References: <001e01c445a3$551a0190$9bc41b97@administxl09yj> <40B8D945.5010406@cox.net> <012901c44663$258cd630$94c41b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <40BA1449.3040908@cox.net> scerir wrote: >From: "Dan Clemmensen" > >> >>4) There is a lower bound on the length at which a classical model can >>be used at all. >> >> >>I really don't know where these bounds are. The existence of (4) makes >>me very skeptical of nano-electronics. >> >> > >I've read that in MPU applications the gate physical thickness >will reach 1 nm in 2006! Is it true? With such thickness, >tunneling leakage current becomes relevant, unless they >introduce a higher dielectric constant material. > > > HI-K dielectrics are important, but not precisely for this reason. Gate "thickness" is at best loosely related to photolithographic dimensions. The latter are what we have been discussing. Thickness has to do with material depositions, and can already be controlled to within a very few atomic layers.(by analogy, you can easily paint a very thin and uniform thickness of paint with a spraygun, but you cannot paint a narrow sharp line.) In general, tunneling seems to be designed in and/or accounted for in the vertical dimension. The big problem in this dimension will be when tunneling establishes paths between layers that are not supposed to be there. In the horizontal dimension, as features get smaller, we will reach the point where the same thing happens in this dimension. My uneducated guess is that this imposes a lower bound on feature separation. Consider the "simple" case of two copper paths , or two nanowires, that are supposed to be electrically separate. If you place them close enough together, a tunnel current will flow between them. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 30 18:23:20 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 13:23:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Asimov In-Reply-To: <20040530163400.62060.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529213303.01bd0ea8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20040530163400.62060.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040530131632.01cc5ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >While it wasn't at the >forefront in his novels, his robots did, in fact, send ships all over >the galaxy committing genocide via terraforming against any number of >intelligent alien races, which is why in the Foundation series only >humans inhabit the galaxy. It's years since I dragged myself through the ruinous bloat of Asimov's sequels, but I have the impression that this final solution was due not to Asimov but to Benford, Bear and Brin after his death. (It's a perfectly consistent deeply fucked-up solution, however.) Either way, I, ROBOT was a collection of Asimov's earliest robot tales, with only the Three Laws in play. That allowed all kinds of remarkable casuistry--such as the world-governing Machines, and perhaps a robot passing itself off as human in order to become President--but there was *zero* opportunity for hordes of amok robots. Of course, the movie's not out yet, and the scriptwriter might have found some wiggly way around this that recuperates the Laws. Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 30 18:36:28 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 11:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Asimov In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040530131632.01cc5ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040530183628.25028.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > >While it wasn't at the > >forefront in his novels, his robots did, in fact, send ships all > over > >the galaxy committing genocide via terraforming against any number > of > >intelligent alien races, which is why in the Foundation series only > >humans inhabit the galaxy. > > It's years since I dragged myself through the ruinous bloat of > Asimov's > sequels, but I have the impression that this final solution was due > not to Asimov but to Benford, Bear and Brin after his death. (It's a > perfectly consistent deeply fucked-up solution, however.) Actually, in "Robots of Dawn", we saw that the murder which Giskard committed was directly the result of the political debate on Aurora between sending out robotic systems to terraform planets versus human exploration and settlement. The final solution we read of in the Second Foundation series by Benford Bear and Brin was merely a natural consequence of the plot that Asimov set up in the original robot novels, and portrayed as the final result in the galactic civilization of the pre-Foundation era. Since he said that the latter was the direct result of the former > > Either way, I, ROBOT was a collection of Asimov's earliest robot > tales, with only the Three Laws in play. That allowed all kinds of > remarkable > casuistry--such as the world-governing Machines, and perhaps a robot > passing itself off as human in order to become President--but there > was *zero* opportunity for hordes of amok robots. Well, we may see that the plot has robots amok BEFORE the three laws are implemented, as a rationalization for their creation. This would fit in with the typical Hollywood politics: engineer a media crisis that sows fear in the populace, to justify confiscation of liberty in the form of more regulation. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From dgc at cox.net Sun May 30 18:39:07 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 14:39:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <012901c44663$258cd630$94c41b97@administxl09yj> References: <001e01c445a3$551a0190$9bc41b97@administxl09yj> <40B8D945.5010406@cox.net> <012901c44663$258cd630$94c41b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <40BA2A4B.2080307@cox.net> scerir wrote: >Anyway, let me point out this paper (it seems a very good one) >http://www.intel.com/research/documents/Bourianoff-Proc-IEEE-Limits.pdf > > > Thanks! Very interesting paper. Assuming I understand it correctly, it says that no matter how you build it or what you build it out of, digital electronics cannot be packed more closely that about 20 nm cubed. Each such cube can contain a piece of interconnect, a gate, or a flip-flop. And yes, I'm making a very free interpretation of the paper. The paper is almost entirely about 2D systems. For a 2D system, with flip-flops of 20nm squared, the heat dissipation will be about 60W/cm squared. To a first approximation, this paper concludes that the practical limits of electronic computation coincide with the practical limits of CMOS, and are consistent with the Moore's-law industry roadmap's goal for the year 2017. Note that these limits will are for CPUs (i.e, each cell changes state frequently) as opposed to memory. A nanomechanical memory can be as much as 1000 times denser than a nano-electronic CPU. From scerir at libero.it Sun May 30 18:44:45 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 20:44:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psi again--a challenge References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529145620.01bd5ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c44676$2e19e230$19b81b97@administxl09yj> From: "Damien Broderick" > Psi, sigh... I know, I know, the general assessment of this list is > strongly against the very possibility of paranormal perception being real, > rather than a congeries of errors, illusions, delusions and fakes. That is because no one takes care of those sub-quantum possibilities described by Antony Valentini http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049 (who, together with Shelly Goldstein, is for sure the best theorist in the Bohmian Mechanics field, so it is not a ...). :-) > http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~fiona/GambIntro.html I made my bet. s. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 30 19:16:27 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 12:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bike/Trike from hell.... Message-ID: <20040530191627.32331.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Spike and other motorcycle addicts: Try this puppy on for size: http://go-t-rex.com/anglais.html Saw one yesterday as I was driving through Hollis, NH with my room mate. The driver laid a 60 foot patch of rubber with that 11 x 17 inch rear wheel, peaked out the Kawasaki 1100 egine... I want one.... ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From brentn at freeshell.org Sun May 30 20:39:45 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:39:45 -0400 Subject: [[extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <40B8A0E9.8000008@cox.net> Message-ID: (5/29/04 10:40) Dan Clemmensen wrote: >The precision of the current phase-shift masks is also not the limiting >factor. The current limiting factor is the wavelength of the bulk light >source that can support parallel exposure. The industry tried to go from >193nm to 153nm, but this required CaF lenses, and these lenses turned >out to be impossible to build in production quantities. The industry >then began looking at other tricks. The current new technology is >"immersion imaging" wherein the air between the lens and the substrate >is replaced with water. This allows for tighter focusing. > > (5/29/04 7:44) Robert J. Bradbury wrote: >Also, there was a lot of talk 3-5 years ago about the efforts to produce >even shorter wavelength beams (effectively X-rays) and there were several >reports if I recall correctly of capabilities of producing feature sizes >as small as 10nm. But I haven't heard anything about these recently. >Do you know if these methods are still being worked on? There is long term research going on at CAMD in Louisiana, Brookhaven in New York, and a Japanese facility into using synchrotron light for litho. This is, of course, predicated on the notion that the easiest way to "fix" the diffraction limit is to use a shorter wavelength! ;) (Yes, phase shift masks are one way of dealing with the diffraction limit, but we're still reaching the limit of what can be done with UV resists, no matter how clever we are.) Of course, there are other problems with using synchrotron light - the cost of the facility for one and the fact that the wafers must be stood on end, which is a non-trivial engineering problem, as Dan pointed out. Our current stepper motors are not up to the job. If using entangled photons can be done more cheaply than either synchrotron facilities or FELs, then I think interesting things are on the horizon. My guess is that, like so many other things we've seen that rely of entangled quantum states, we're quite a few years away from solving some of the basic engineering problems involved with using the science in a meaningful, profitable way. (5/29/04 14:41) Dan Clemmensen wrote: >This requires 4 answers. Basically, the question is whether or not the >designer can use a classical analysis a quantum analysis, or both. >(Can a real physicist please supply these dimensions?) Dan, the value you are looking for is the "k," the dielectric constant of the material that is between the traces. The lower the k-value, the more resistive the material is to E-fields. In the good ol' days, we just used SiO2 as the dielectric. No more. Now, we have a whole host of low-k compounds (some of which are patented and/or tightly guarded secrets, such as some of the organosilicate glass compounds) are being using. As I recall, you treat this as a form of the particle in an infinite square well problem, and compute the penetration into the barrier of the electron as a function of the dielectric constant (or rather, the permittivity of the material) fro B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From brentn at freeshell.org Sun May 30 21:26:34 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 17:26:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <40BA1449.3040908@cox.net> Message-ID: (5/30/04 13:05) Dan Clemmensen wrote: >HI-K dielectrics are important, but not precisely for this reason. Gate >"thickness" is at best loosely related to photolithographic dimensions. >The latter are what we have been discussing. Thickness has to do with >material depositions, and can already be controlled to within a very few >atomic layers.(by analogy, you can easily paint a very thin and uniform >thickness of paint with a spraygun, but you cannot paint a narrow sharp >line.) In general, tunneling seems to be designed in and/or accounted >for in the vertical dimension. The big problem in this dimension will be >when tunneling establishes paths between layers that are not supposed to >be there. In the horizontal dimension, as features get smaller, we will >reach the point where the same thing happens in this dimension. My >uneducated guess is that this imposes a lower bound on feature >separation. Consider the "simple" case of two copper paths , or two >nanowires, that are supposed to be electrically separate. If you place >them close enough together, a tunnel current will flow between them. Better dielectrics have a lower k, not a higher k. The dielectric constant is the ratio of the permittivity of the material to the permittivity of free space. You want this number to be as low as possible, as free space is actually a pretty damn good conductor of electrons. And as I pointed out before, the k value of your dielectric is relevant to the tunnelling current. But it is actually more complex than that, as is always the case with quantum mechanics. The permittivity is one parameter in the wave equation, as is the electron energy. In an infinite well, the electron is confined and goes nowhere. Unfortunately for us, the well isn't infinite, and worse, there is another well nearby. The probability of finding the electron somewhere in the barrier, or on the other side of it tails off to zero, but asymptotically. Essentially, the probability of finding the electron in the next well over (the next trace over...) is given by the value of that probability function. Because of that, its fairly meaningless to talk about a "minimum dimension above which no tunnelling occurs." For a given spacing and permittivity, you can talk about the mean time between tunnelling incidents. If that is on the order of 10^10 years, you can safely call that "no tunnelling." If its 10^-10 seconds, then you can talk about a "tunnelling current." For anywhere in between, you likely care more about whether the tunnelling will allow enough electrons through to cause dielectric breakdown (which is bad) or so few that you can call your device reliable. Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 30 22:00:10 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 15:00:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bike/Trike from hell.... In-Reply-To: <20040530191627.32331.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c44691$7a71ff30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Bike/Trike from hell.... > > > Spike and other motorcycle addicts: > Try this puppy on for size: > > http://go-t-rex.com/anglais.html > ... > Mike Lorrey Ja there is one of those cruising around Sunnyvale. Its cool, but it has the same problem as the Lotus super 7 which is referenced on the t-rex site: - Colin Chapman, motorsport expert The problem is that they sit so low, you are likely to get run over by some yahoo in a Ford Exhibition who never even saw you way down there. One of the locals from Fremont has a Lotus 7, drives it only on Sunday when the traffic is low. I can't blame him. This t-rex would be fun toy, but probably not a practical daily commuter. Since you bring up cars, do suggest a course of action for me. My wife and I have been married 20 years. In that entire time we have always had only one four-wheeler. We've had always a stable-full of motorcycles, which serve as a second car in a pinch, but she has never gotten her motorcycle license, so they really are only *my* second car. We haven't any wheels to loan friends and family when they visit (if they do not ride motorcycles). So having only one four-wheeler has presented occasional inconveniences, which I now propose to rectify. We recently were in a season of paradox here; I again find myself deep in doubt. Our only car now gets used about 10k miles per year. A second car would get far fewer miles, perhaps 3k to 5k. If one makes up a matrix of wants and needs vs cost, a low-usage second car should be well-depreciated by age, probably more than 10 years. If one plans to drive only 3k to 5k per year... here is the paradoxical part... it matters very little what gas mileage it returns. The cost of the extra fuel to run a gas-hog is small compared to other costs. I went down to the used car lot and had a shock: the prices of all the long cushy gas-hogs were slashed considerably, whereas the price of the little gas-sipping beer cans were all waaay up. Perhaps because of the recent gas price run-up, one can now get a way-zooty land yacht, such as a BMW 750iL with its twelve big thirsty cylinders for about the same price as a comparably-aged Accord, Camry or equivalently boring, cramped snoozermobile. Looks to me like the depreciation costs of the German pimpmobile would actually be lower than the beer can: in the past 15 years, the Accord's value has dropped from about $18k to $5k, whereas the Beemer has dropped from $85k to $5k. Surely the resale value of Bavaria's finest has nearly bottomed by now. The greens might argue that the environmentally correct thing to do is buy the econobox, saving some fuel even if not much. But ironically, just the opposite seems true, for if I buy the guzzlemeister and don't drive it much, I keep it away from some other yahoo who would drive it a lot more. If I buy the small, economic REO snorewagon, I save *a little* fuel but I keep that gas sipper away from someone who would likely drive it more, causing them to buy something else that would devour more fuel. Total fuel use is minimized if I drive the Bond-James-Bond-cruiser and the other guy gets the Fudd-Elmer-Fudd-buggy. Is that a paradox? Where is the flaw in my logic? spike From brian at posthuman.com Sun May 30 22:32:05 2004 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 17:32:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bike/Trike from hell.... In-Reply-To: <000001c44691$7a71ff30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <000001c44691$7a71ff30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <40BA60E5.6080108@posthuman.com> Sometimes if it seems too cheap to be true, there is a reason: http://my750.com/comments.htm -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 30 22:37:20 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 15:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bike/Trike from hell.... In-Reply-To: <000001c44691$7a71ff30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <20040530223720.81664.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> --- Spike wrote: > Bike/Trike from hell.... > > > > > > Spike and other motorcycle addicts: > > Try this puppy on for size: > > > > http://go-t-rex.com/anglais.html > > > ... > > Mike Lorrey > > Ja there is one of those cruising around Sunnyvale. Its cool, > but it has the same problem as the Lotus super 7 which is referenced > on the t-rex site: > > the spirit of the much-acclaimed Lotus Super Seven would exist...> - > Colin Chapman, motorsport expert > > The problem is that they sit so low, you are likely to get > run over by some yahoo in a Ford Exhibition who never even > saw you way down there. One of the locals from Fremont has > a Lotus 7, drives it only on Sunday when the traffic is > low. I can't blame him. This t-rex would be fun toy, > but probably not a practical daily commuter. Oh, on the contrary: it is classified as a motorcycle, so you get to use the HOV lane with only one seat occupied. The handling is formula 1 level, so you can avoid the idiots who don't see you like your are driving Grand Theft Auto. And especially in So Cal, its lack of a windshield is not an impediment to daily use. While it doesn't mention gas milage, the fact that its engine is 1.1-1.2 litres and the vehicle masses 900 lbs should result in gas milage above 45-55 mpg. The only downside is the price. For $43k, you could nearly buy two Mini Coopers. And of course, Spike, it's a chick magnet, so your wife has an automatic "no"... > We recently were in a season of paradox here; I again > find myself deep in doubt. Our only car now gets used about > 10k miles per year. A second car would get far fewer > miles, perhaps 3k to 5k. If one makes up a matrix of > wants and needs vs cost, a low-usage second car should > be well-depreciated by age, probably more than 10 years. > If one plans to drive only 3k to 5k per year... here > is the paradoxical part... it matters very little what > gas mileage it returns. The cost of the extra fuel to > run a gas-hog is small compared to other costs. > > I went down to the used car lot and had a shock: the > prices of all the long cushy gas-hogs were slashed > considerably, whereas the price of the little gas-sipping > beer cans were all waaay up. Perhaps because of the recent > gas price run-up, one can now get a way-zooty land yacht, such > as a BMW 750iL with its twelve big thirsty cylinders for > about the same price as a comparably-aged Accord, Camry or > equivalently boring, cramped snoozermobile. > > Looks to me like the depreciation costs of the German > pimpmobile would actually be lower than the beer can: in the > past 15 years, the Accord's value has dropped from about $18k > to $5k, whereas the Beemer has dropped from $85k to $5k. > Surely the resale value of Bavaria's finest has nearly > bottomed by now. Ja, fer sure. I discovered the same ten years ago with Peugot. I had myself a really sweet 5-series, electric everything, leather heated seats, sunroof, looked great for business, cost me only $1000.00. Milage wasn't bad, either. The fact that there were no more Peugot dealers in the US didn't bother me any, though it was the main reason the values dropped. > > The greens might argue that the environmentally correct > thing to do is buy the econobox, saving some fuel even if > not much. But ironically, just the opposite seems true, > for if I buy the guzzlemeister and don't drive it much, > I keep it away from some other yahoo who would drive it a > lot more. If I buy the small, economic REO snorewagon, > I save *a little* fuel but I keep that gas sipper away from > someone who would likely drive it more, causing them to > buy something else that would devour more fuel. Total > fuel use is minimized if I drive the Bond-James-Bond-cruiser > and the other guy gets the Fudd-Elmer-Fudd-buggy. > > Is that a paradox? Where is the flaw in my logic? The flaw in the logic is assuming that the other guy buying the guzzler isn't trading in a trashed old chevy getting 10 mpg and burning 3 quarts of oil with every tank. For him, that car is a step up in the world, both visually, economically, and ecologically. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 30 22:48:28 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Genocide: The Sudan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040530224828.41632.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> I think those participating are those who would otherwise have been recruited by the propaganda over the next decade anyways. Don't recall if I mentioned it, but the US strategy is essentially a 'bug zapper' strategy: you put your electric bug zapper on the other side of the yard, NOT right next to your patio. The bugs in your area are attracted OVER THERE, not HERE, where they would be as likely to take a bite before they fry. The queens and rooks are likely elsewhere, outside of a handfull of coreregional command cadre like Zarquawi. The US doesn't want to refight the same war two and three times over, so exhausting the supply of pawns is always the key short game, no point in letting one sneak through to promote a new queen. We got sorta lucky early, nearly pulled off a fool's mate, but could only convert it into nailing the knights and bishops to clean up the mid-game. --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Mike, do you really think that those participating in the guerrilla > insurgency in Iraq are the real Al Qaeda operatives? Is this how you > would > fight this war if you were them? I don't think so, they probably use > expendable pawns in Iraq while slowly and carefully regrouping their > towers and queens elsewhere. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From brian at posthuman.com Sun May 30 22:58:23 2004 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 17:58:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bike/Trike from hell.... In-Reply-To: <40BA60E5.6080108@posthuman.com> References: <000001c44691$7a71ff30$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40BA60E5.6080108@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <40BA670F.6040605@posthuman.com> Brian Atkins wrote: > Sometimes if it seems too cheap to be true, there is a reason: > > http://my750.com/comments.htm Another post re: E32 750il http://bimmer.roadfly.org/bmw/forums/e32/717312-2.html -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From dgc at cox.net Mon May 31 02:51:57 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 22:51:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40BA9DCD.8070103@cox.net> Brent Neal wrote: >Because of that, its fairly meaningless to talk about a "minimum dimension above which no tunnelling occurs." For a given spacing and permittivity, you can talk about the mean time between tunnelling incidents. If that is on the order of 10^10 years, you can safely call that "no tunnelling." If its 10^-10 seconds, then you can talk about a "tunnelling current." For anywhere in between, you likely care more about whether the tunnelling will allow enough electrons through to cause dielectric breakdown (which is bad) or so few that you can call your device reliable. > > > Thanks, Brent. This is the reason that I avoided this terminology. There is a continuum of tunneling from negligible to overwhelming. When features are large, tunneling can be neglected when analyzing device performance. When features are really small, tunneling is overwhelming and classical analysis is useless. We are currently in the range between negligible and overwhelming. As of now, we can treat tunneling as a funny kind of leakage effect, and otherwise simply use classical techniques. What I really want to know is when will tunneling overwhelm the classical analysis. As you may have seen "screrir" found a paper that looks at this issue. If I understood the paper correctly, the answer is basically that classical electronics cannot be supported for devices that are smaller than 20nm in diameter, regardless of the technology. I have trouble with "hi-K" and "low-K" dielectrics. Apparently, we need both, some in some areas, and some in others? From your comment "low-K" is good when we want to minimize tunneling. From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz Mon May 31 03:13:46 2004 From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 15:13:46 +1200 Subject: [extropy-chat] al-Qaeda is growing fast In-Reply-To: <20040530161713.12644.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040530161713.12644.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40BAA2EA.1010900@paradise.net.nz> Mike Lorrey wrote: > Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Unfortunately most depictions on > the screen tend to portray it negatively, as if one is losing one's > humanity: 2001: A Space Oddessy, Lawnmower Man, Charlie, etc. though > the climax scene in the first Star Trek movie was pretty good. An interesting counter example was the final scenes of the hit computer game Dues Ex. As the player finishes the game they hold the future of humanity in their hands: they get to make a choice between three alternatives. The game is set in a future society (say 20-50 years after present). Three choices (as far as I can remember): - Destroy the current economic regime, plunging society back into the dark ages. For thos who see technology and progress as evil. - Form an autocratic world government. Control the future by force. - Become an all-powerful AI/post-human hybrid, subtly working for the good of humanity. So. There are some relatively positive portrayals of posthumanity. Paul Bridger From pgptag at gmail.com Mon May 31 05:13:26 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 07:13:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Cell Hijackers Message-ID: >From Technology Review, by Rodney Brooks: Soon, our knowledge of life processes will let us program cells as we do computers. The last fifty years of molecular biology have largely been devoted to understanding the incredibly complex mechanisms that govern life. Scientists have developed wonderful analytic tools to study what goes on in cells. Now, we are on the brink of an engineering revolution that will transform our ability to manipulate the biological world. The results could be everything from cell-based computers to custom-made microbes that neutralize toxic waste or manufacture chemicals. It?s a leap as large as that from ancient alchemy to today?s materials science. Where does this lead? Whereas now we grow a tree, cut it down, and build a table, in fifty years we might simply grow a table. As more engineers work on biological systems, our industrial infrastructure will be transformed. Fifty years ago it was based on coal and steel. Now it is based on silicon and information. Fifty years from now it will be based on living systems. Sort of like a new agricultural age, only of a radically different kind. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 28/05/2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Mon May 31 06:07:52 2004 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 08:07:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit References: <001e01c445a3$551a0190$9bc41b97@administxl09yj> <40B8D945.5010406@cox.net><012901c44663$258cd630$94c41b97@administxl09yj> <40BA2A4B.2080307@cox.net> Message-ID: <000f01c446d5$9c1c1140$f1b81b97@administxl09yj> From: "Dan Clemmensen" > >http://www.intel.com/research/documents/Bourianoff-Proc-IEEE-Limits.pdf > Thanks! Very interesting paper. There is a comment, on it, here http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5112061.html by Paolo Gargini (Intel Co.) (I had no time to read it though). Saluti, s. From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 31 08:05:56 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 10:05:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <000f01c446d5$9c1c1140$f1b81b97@administxl09yj> References: <40BA2A4B.2080307@cox.net> <000f01c446d5$9c1c1140$f1b81b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <20040531080556.GF12847@leitl.org> On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 08:07:52AM +0200, scerir wrote: > From: "Dan Clemmensen" > > > >http://www.intel.com/research/documents/Bourianoff-Proc-IEEE-Limits.pdf > > > Thanks! Very interesting paper. > > There is a comment, on it, here > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5112061.html > by Paolo Gargini (Intel Co.) > (I had no time to read it though). Given that we have working spintronics and molecular transistors the article says that certain (accustomed) ways of things won't work. Well, duh. Many people tried to prematurely bury Moore, so far unsuccessfully. Moore's law will tank eventually, but I'm putting that limit at about mole amount of switches (not transistors) -- a litre of circuitry, or so. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Mon May 31 08:38:29 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 10:38:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psi again--a challenge In-Reply-To: <000401c44676$2e19e230$19b81b97@administxl09yj> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529145620.01bd5ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <000401c44676$2e19e230$19b81b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <470a3c520405310138599ce7f@mail.gmail.com> Thanks for the link Damien, this is very interesting stuff. It is very difficult to strike a good balance between having an open mind, and blindly believing everything that one might wish to be true. I am not ashamed to admit that I would love living in a universe where paranormal perception phenomena happen. Of course the universe does not have to behave as I would wish it to. I heve never seen any claim of paranormal perception withstanding the criticism of skeptics. But I do not follow these things that much, and "there are more things in Heavens and Earth..." > From: "Damien Broderick" > > > Psi, sigh... I know, I know, the general assessment of this list is > > strongly against the very possibility of paranormal perception being real, > > rather than a congeries of errors, illusions, delusions and fakes. From sentience at pobox.com Mon May 31 10:47:55 2004 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 06:47:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] FAI: Collective Volition Message-ID: <40BB0D5B.8050109@pobox.com> An update to that part of Friendly AI theory that describes Friendliness, the objective or thing-we're-trying-to-do. Those of you who have complained about insufficient specification will now have many other things to complain about instead. http://www.sl4.org/bin/wiki.pl?CollectiveVolition Comments to: http://www.sl4.org/bin/wiki.pl?CommentaryOnCollectiveVolition -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 31 11:37:36 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 07:37:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <20040531080556.GF12847@leitl.org> Message-ID: (5/31/04 10:05) Eugen Leitl wrote: >Given that we have working spintronics and molecular transistors the article >says that certain (accustomed) ways of things won't work. Well, duh. Many >people tried to prematurely bury Moore, so far unsuccessfully. > >Moore's law will tank eventually, but I'm putting that limit at about mole amount >of switches (not transistors) -- a litre of circuitry, or so. Please do remember that "Moore's Law" is not a natural phenomenon, but rather an industry consensus on the progress they expect to make. There is nothing sacred about it, nor is there any particular reason why we -have- to continue to follow it at its 18-24 month doubling rate. There are many reasons to expect that rate constant to lengthen, or even for the exponential growth curve to fail. The one I think is most compelling is what some wags call "Moore's Third Law," which is that the cost to build a new fabrication facility doubles roughly every 36 months. That's a pretty strong limiting factor, IMO. The arguments about "the end of CMOS" I don't put much stock in, since I'm pretty confident we'll find something else. The question is, will whatever we settle upon be cheap enough to be marketable within one "Moore's Law period?" There's also the fact that the current top end of CPUs have begun to exceed the needs of the average user. Without a CPU-intensive "killer app," to drive top end sales, chip manufacturers will start either trying to lower costs to go downmarket or to put in more bells and whistles to make the product attractive. One of these bells is the low power consumption technology Intel is putting into their M series chips - since laptops are where the growth in personal computing is currently. (Of course, if they'd done a better job reading their tea leaves back in 2001, they wouldn't be frantically trying to find ways to hack their chips for low power consumption now.) B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From bradbury at aeiveos.com Mon May 31 12:55:56 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 05:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Climage Change: an alternate view... Message-ID: Given the recent discussion of Climate Change, the article below is quite interesting because it points out how we might get some global warming followed by global cooling in major parts of the globe, particularly Europe due to the disruption of the Gulf Stream. URL: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-04zg.html So the dire predictions in the recent movie focused on climate change definitely oversimplifies things. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Mon May 31 13:27:26 2004 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 06:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: research progress Message-ID: Well, it looks like the mitochondrial theory of aging is getting some support. Scientists created mice with a defective mitochondrial DNA polymerase and it significantly shortened their lifespans. URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040527234844.htm Abstract from PubMed: Point mutations and deletions of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) accumulate in a variety of tissues during ageing in humans, monkeys and rodents. These mutations are unevenly distributed and can accumulate clonally in certain cells, causing a mosaic pattern of respiratory chain deficiency in tissues such as heart, skeletal muscle and brain. In terms of the ageing process, their possible causative effects have been intensely debated because of their low abundance and purely correlative connection with ageing. We have now addressed this question experimentally by creating homozygous knock-in mice that express a proof-reading-deficient version of PolgA, the nucleus-encoded catalytic subunit of mtDNA polymerase. Here we show that the knock-in mice develop an mtDNA mutator phenotype with a threefold to fivefold increase in the levels of point mutations, as well as increased amounts of deleted mtDNA. This increase in somatic mtDNA mutations is associated with reduced lifespan and premature onset of ageing-related phenotypes such as weight loss, reduced subcutaneous fat, alopecia (hair loss), kyphosis (curvature of the spine), osteoporosis, anaemia, reduced fertility and heart enlargement. Our results thus provide a causative link between mtDNA mutations and ageing phenotypes in mammals. URL for Nature article: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6990/abs/nature02517_fs.html Now it looks like the problem is due to an accumulation of mutations in the mitochondrial DNA. But whether that problem causes decreased production of ATP (meaning the cells may have reduced protein production capacity) or in more production of free radicals and is thus linked to the free radical theory of aging (which IMO is linked in complex ways to the somatic mutation theory of aging) doesn't seem to be clear. However it should be considered that there are probably many ways to shorten lifespan -- but that doesn't immediately translate to methods that may be used to extend lifespan. Robert From dgc at cox.net Mon May 31 14:48:05 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 10:48:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <20040531080556.GF12847@leitl.org> References: <40BA2A4B.2080307@cox.net> <000f01c446d5$9c1c1140$f1b81b97@administxl09yj> <20040531080556.GF12847@leitl.org> Message-ID: <40BB45A5.7080406@cox.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 08:07:52AM +0200, scerir wrote: > > >>From: "Dan Clemmensen" >> >> >> >>>>http://www.intel.com/research/documents/Bourianoff-Proc-IEEE-Limits.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>Thanks! Very interesting paper. >>> >>> >>There is a comment, on it, here >>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5112061.html >>by Paolo Gargini (Intel Co.) >>(I had no time to read it though). >> >> > >Given that we have working spintronics and molecular transistors the article >says that certain (accustomed) ways of things won't work. Well, duh. Many >people tried to prematurely bury Moore, so far unsuccessfully. > >Moore's law will tank eventually, but I'm putting that limit at about mole amount >of switches (not transistors) -- a litre of circuitry, or so. > > > The paper we are discussing examines density limits imposed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on classical electronics, and is independent of materials. These limits therefore will apply to molecular transistors and all other nano-electronics. I think they also apply to spintronics. They do not apply to nanomechanical computing. The paper is not about the limits of CMOS, except to note that we may not need to abandon CMOS to reach the fundamental Heisenberg limits in 2D. After thinking about all this, I think we can continue to use nanoelectronics for a long time to come by exploiting the third dimension. The paper implicitly dismisses this approach because of power dissipation. However, there is a mistaken assumption here. When you increase the density, you must increase the power to insure that the classical signal overcomes the tunneling effects. But what if we use nanoelectronics to build highly efficient elements, but keep the elements "far apart" in two dimensions. If we keep the element distances at 45nm even if the elements themselves are smaller, then tunneling effects are not too bad, and we can achieve very good power efficiency. That two-dimensional density is still four times today's density. But since the system is now very low power, we can stack layers, and 45nm/layer, and still avoid inter-layer tunneling effects. This allows continual doubling until the power dissipation is too high, while still staying in the classical electronic regime. Note that nanoelectronics is likely to be unrelated to photolithography. I really hope it can be implemented without the enormous capital costs associated with today's silicon Fabs. From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 31 15:13:23 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 17:13:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: References: <20040531080556.GF12847@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20040531151323.GN12847@leitl.org> On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 07:37:36AM -0400, Brent Neal wrote: > Please do remember that "Moore's Law" is not a natural phenomenon, I do remember. You must be confusing me with Kurzweil, or Moravec. > but rather an industry consensus on the progress they expect to make. No, Moore's law is an empirical observation about integration density progress over time, which has been linear in semi-log plot since 1959. > There is nothing sacred about it, nor is there any particular reason > why we -have- to continue to follow it at its 18-24 month doubling rate. Yes, there are very compelling reasons why Moore's law will hold until at least 2012, or so -- economical demand driving feature shrink in semiconductor photolithography. Major deviations from that will indicate that something has gone seriously wrong with our economy, or ourselves. Physics forecast is plain sailing, under clean blue skies. > There are many reasons to expect that rate constant to lengthen, or > even for the exponential growth curve to fail. The one I think is I do expect a discontinuity before molecular electronics can pick up the torch -- but there might not be one. > most compelling is what some wags call "Moore's Third Law," which > is that the cost to build a new fabrication facility doubles roughly > every 36 months. That's a pretty strong limiting factor, IMO. Big costs are building a new plant, refitting an existing plant to 300 mm are less as Intel has shown. This is completely nonapplicable to organic devices and self-assembly nanoelectronics, where the fab will become cheaper, and scale to desktop fabbing. > The arguments about "the end of CMOS" I don't put much stock in, > since I'm pretty confident we'll find something else. The question > is, will whatever we settle upon be cheap enough to be marketable > within one "Moore's Law period?" OLED displays and printable electronics for smart RFID tags is already very marketable, so I wouldn't start worrying yet. My next hot pick would be nonvolatile organic memory, then molecular FPGAs (reconfigurable hardware in general). > There's also the fact that the current top end of CPUs have > begun to exceed the needs of the average user. Without a Moore's law doesn't unfortunately translate into system speed very well, and current systems are always too slow for the power user -- that'd be power gamer. > CPU-intensive "killer app," to drive top end sales, chip > manufacturers will start either trying to lower costs to > go downmarket or to put in more bells and whistles to > make the product attractive. One of these bells is the > low power consumption technology Intel is putting into Lower power consumption isn't a bell & whistle, it's the only way to drive a current process forward at a power density now rapidly approaching nuclear reactor cores. Ditto power supplies, the demand spikes rise to fast to supply the CPU. > their M series chips - since laptops are where the growth > in personal computing is currently. (Of course, if they'd The growth in pesonal computing is embeddeds. Mobile applications are low-power, which is incompatible with high-performance in current technology. > done a better job reading their tea leaves back in 2001, > they wouldn't be frantically trying to find ways to hack > their chips for low power consumption now.) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 31 16:28:20 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 09:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism Message-ID: <20040531162820.76576.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> A thought encountered this weekend, and some permutations thereof... In many cases where people turn against science and technology in general, without applying logic (except maybe after the fact to try to justify it), it seems to be because they have encountered science mainly as an irritant in their lives. It heralds change, and the labor needed to accomodate it, whether or not they understand the reason for the change (or even if there truly is one, in unfortunately many cases). One wonders, then, if this could be ameliorated by spreading the meme of using science and technology to make one's life personally easier, including to address one's worries. Heard about the recent row over nanostuff being toxic? Rather than sit there and stress out about this new unknown poison, google for the facts. At worst, you'll know what it is and how to deal with it; at best, as in this case and probably most others, you may find the fears completely overblown and that in fact there is nothing to worry about. Either way: far less stress for a few minutes' work. Or, if one has been laid off because one's skills are obsolete, find the easy way to retrain to something attractive - and before that, spend some time dreaming up what you'd like to do, then go searching for jobs that use those skills. And googling is but one example, though it is perhaps the most broadly applicable. Few 16 year olds in America do not look forwards to gaining access to a class of tools only about a century old: automobiles. The DIY movements in, for instance, home improvement are also an example of this - although that is best done for reasons other than simply trying to save money (which tends to lead to removal of safety and quality, which tend to lead to higher overall expenses, especially medical). Or, going back a few decades, the introduction of computers with word processors to eliminate dedicated typists/secretaries: sure, your workload increased because now you had to do your own typing, until one found ways to actually improve one's bandwidth when one could see what one had just "uttered" and correct it, resulting in the same output (which is all the boss cared about) for less overall work. Another thought on this: it has been observed that, in the 19th century before the explosion of knowledge near that century's end, the socially expected stereotype of a Victorian gentleman included broad education in a number of fields. Thus, one did not tolerate "math is hard" as a badge of pride, but instead was able to follow at least the basics of any new discovery, even if one could not comprehend the details. These days, with googling, it is possible to scan any seemingly significant announcement for keywords and search for them, learning what is really being said (and thus brushing up on the field's basics) only once it would be emotionally significant to do so. Indeed, it has been observed that the biggest difference between "have" and "have not" schools in America is not access to high-tech equipment like computers - by and large, they have that if they want it - but rather the percent of students who want to become familiar with said equipment. This is influenced by a number of factors, of which a large one is whether one's parents (or others one lives with) use it and look favorably on it. (I.e., luddism can be hereditary, in the non-genetic sense.) Students even at the poorest of schools, who nonetheless have a drive to learn, tend to learn, but it is difficult to form and maintain this drive when most of one's peers do not have it. Likewise, it is easier to form and maintain it when most of one's peers already have it. (One wonders what forms of motivation might affect this, and how to apply them evenly so the motivation itself does not wind up as the goal. I.e., maybe pay students to reach a certain minimum state-wide standard of knowledge, but enforce the consistency of this minimum so you're not paying for more As at the most grade-inflated schools.) Just some thoughts for contemplation. From pgptag at gmail.com Mon May 31 16:54:05 2004 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 18:54:05 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism In-Reply-To: <20040531162820.76576.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040531162820.76576.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52040531095418075f43@mail.gmail.com> True enough, but when science makes one's life personally easier, it is not called science anymore. It becomes something so embedded in the texture of everyday life that you take it for granted without thinking twice, Most people do not like going to the dentist. They think it is annoying but do not even imagine how it was a few centuries ago when rotten teeth were literally pulled out of people's mouths without anesthetics. We owe to science the fact that these days going to the dentist is a tolarable experience, but sometimes we tend to forget this. Once when children left home to migrate to another part of the world, you knew you would probably never see them or hear from them again. Now they are a phone call away, and you can go see them in a few hours. And of course, we owe this to science. We could continue for hours... If only everyone would see this. On Mon, 31 May 2004 09:28:20 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes wrote: > > A thought encountered this weekend, and some > permutations thereof... > > In many cases where people turn against science and > technology in general, without applying logic (except > maybe after the fact to try to justify it), it seems > to be because they have encountered science mainly as > an irritant in their lives. It heralds change, and > the labor needed to accomodate it, whether or not they > understand the reason for the change (or even if there > truly is one, in unfortunately many cases). > > One wonders, then, if this could be ameliorated by > spreading the meme of using science and technology to > make one's life personally easier, including to > address one's worries. From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 31 17:03:03 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:03:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <40BB45A5.7080406@cox.net> Message-ID: (5/31/04 10:48) Dan Clemmensen wrote: >The paper we are discussing examines density limits imposed by the >Heisenberg uncertainty principle on classical electronics, and is >independent of materials. These limits therefore will apply to molecular >transistors and all other nano-electronics. I think they also apply to >spintronics. They do not apply to nanomechanical computing. The problem is that even at this point, we're a lot closer to being able to commercialize spintronics and even quantum computing than we are nanomechanical computing. > >Note that nanoelectronics is likely to be unrelated to photolithography. >I really hope it can be implemented without the enormous capital costs >associated with today's silicon Fabs. My intuition is that any commerically viable method of nanoelectronics will necessarily start with patterned deposition and move quickly to self-assembly as we get a handle on the chemistry that is involved there. The problem I see most often from researchers is that they assume that the engineering problems are all trivial.[1] This is, of course, utter bull-pucky. I would start out assuming that the first generation of nanoelectronics fabrication facilities will be no less expensive than the traditional CMOS fabs at the time that nanoelectronics go to market. Anything else would be wishful thinking. The hope would be that the rate constant on cost growth for nanoelectronics would be significantly smaller than for CMOS at that time. Brent [1] True story: there are two companies that make blue LED devices. Cree Research, an American company, and Nichia, a Japanese company. Cree used SiC, Nichia used GaN. The Japanese researchers who developed the GaN tech patented the living fsck out of it, hoping to monopolize the market. Cree came along later and ate their lunch using SiC, not because SiC is a better material for the diodes. It isn't. GaN is much better. But, the GaN device that Nichia used was 30% bigger than Cree's SiC device. This let Cree outsell Nichia. Eventually, the two companies cross-licensed their respective technologies and everyone was happy. But this is an object lesson in why you MUST pay attention to the engineering details. The Nichia device would not fit in the standard packaging for LEDs, the Cree device would. Now both companies ship something that looks like Cree's device that uses GaN on SiC substrates (or vice versa. I forget which...) -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 31 17:40:15 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:40:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <20040531151323.GN12847@leitl.org> Message-ID: (5/31/04 17:13) Eugen Leitl wrote: >> but rather an industry consensus on the progress they expect to make. > >No, Moore's law is an empirical observation about integration density >progress over time, which has been linear in semi-log plot since 1959. It was an empirical observation when Gordon Moore made it. Since then, its a marketing tool and an industry goal. Nothing more. > >> There is nothing sacred about it, nor is there any particular reason >> why we -have- to continue to follow it at its 18-24 month doubling rate. > >Yes, there are very compelling reasons why Moore's law will hold until at >least 2012, or so -- economical demand driving feature shrink in >semiconductor photolithography. Major deviations from that will indicate that >something has gone seriously wrong with our economy, or ourselves. Physics >forecast is plain sailing, under clean blue skies. I never said that the underlying science was the problem. My argument was solely based on the economics of the semiconductor industry. The costs of either a new fab or a fab refit are prohibitively high, at a time when the products being made are being squeezed into lower price points due to commoditization of the technology. Right now, there is virtually -no- demand for high end chips in any significant quantity, when compared to circa 2000. > >I do expect a discontinuity before molecular electronics can pick up the >torch -- but there might not be one. Or optoelectronics, or spintronics, or, or, or.... > > >Big costs are building a new plant, refitting an existing plant to 300 mm are >less as Intel has shown. This is completely nonapplicable to organic devices >and self-assembly nanoelectronics, where the fab will become cheaper, and scale >to desktop fabbing. The cost of refit is not significantly less. There is a very good reason no one is fabbing 400 mm wafers. The technology is there, wafers can easily be grown that size. No one is willing to refit. There is no return on that investment, despite the efficiencies you get from being able to put more devices on the wafer. I disagree about the applicability of the costs to organic devices.. You're talking like a theoretician, assuming that the engineering problems are trivial. I certainly think that desktop fabbing is a compelling "holy grail," but it isn't going to start there. As I mentioned in a previous email, I think it is quite naive to assume that the first generation of fabs for that technology will be any cheaper. The only thing that will save you is having the cost growth be smaller. I even buy the argument that the associated growth constant might be negative, representing technology that gets cheaper as it matures. But you have to get there from somewhere, and despite the fervent wishes of researchers everywhere, it will not spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus. A lot of engineers will spend a lot of time and money making it happen, solving the problems that said researchers neglected to consider. :) > >OLED displays and printable electronics for smart RFID tags is already very >marketable, so I wouldn't start worrying yet. My next hot pick would be >nonvolatile organic memory, then molecular FPGAs (reconfigurable hardware in >general). I'm pretty excited about the next generation of CMOS-based FPGA technology myself. There is a research group in California somewhere who has figured out how to get single-cycle reconfigurability for an FPGA. One of their PowerPoint slides showed one of these FGPA's running in tandem with a general processing unit, and talked about the efficiencies that could be gained from being able to dynamically reconfigure the FPGA bank in order to optimize for the code that is about to come streaming down the pipeline. Cool stuff. I'd be surprised if no one is trying to commericalize it as we speak. Once that engineering problem is solved, then using molecular FPGAs to reduce the density of the gates on the chip (and increase max throughput) is icing on the cake. > >> There's also the fact that the current top end of CPUs have >> begun to exceed the needs of the average user. Without a > >Moore's law doesn't unfortunately translate into system speed very well, and >current systems are always too slow for the power user -- that'd be power >gamer. Sure it does. You can plot clock frequency on the same semilog plot as well, though the resulting curve is more noisy. And even the power gamers are not finding a compelling reason to upgrade their boxes. You can't tell 120 fps in Counterstrike from 100 fps visually. At that point you're just comparing penis length. And the power gamers with budget to buy a large penile surrogate aren't a large enough market to sustain Intel's R&D efforts. As we've seen time and time again, the sweet-spot on that curve is the corporate market. > >Lower power consumption isn't a bell & whistle, it's the only way to drive a >current process forward at a power density now rapidly approaching nuclear >reactor cores. Ditto power supplies, the demand spikes rise to fast to supply >the CPU. > Sure it is. Your process isn't going forward - you can't, because you're dissipating 100W or more, and your cooling tech is pretty much maxed. So you underclock the chips, add some clever trickery with heat pipes, ignore the fact that you've sacrificed about 10% of your peak performance, and call them "mobile" processors. Throw in a 802.11 interface on the south bridge, and you've just re-spun your current technological obstacle as a win. Good for you. But if you were IBM, and understood that GFLOP/watt is something that people really do care about, you'dve done a better job engineering your chips for power consumption and heat dissipation in the first place. I remember when I was working on a cluster-based supercomputer. We had to reserve half the budget for the computer to pay for the new cooling system and the new electrical line to be run to the building that would house it. By comparison, the IBM SP3 that I was using for my research had pretty much equivalent performance with much lower operating costs. The current shipping PowerPC chips at 2 GHz offer comparable performance FLOP-wise to the Pentium 4s at a quarter of the power dissipation. Even the AMD chips offer equivalent performance FLOP-wise at about 70-80% of the power dissipation, since they've integrated a lot of cool stuff they licensed from IBM. >> their M series chips - since laptops are where the growth >> in personal computing is currently. (Of course, if they'd > >The growth in pesonal computing is embeddeds. Mobile applications are >low-power, which is incompatible with high-performance in current >technology. Are you agreeing with me, or trying to tell me that the cell phone market has more money than the laptop market right now? If its the latter, then I will point out that the processors in most cell phones are using tech that's one to two generations behind what's currently in the top-end on the desktop or in a laptop. That makes it hard to argue that the industry is going to continue to push harder to integrate more transistors per unit area. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 31 17:44:09 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 10:44:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] new mersenne prime announced In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004301c44736$e10454a0$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Gimps has announced the latest Mersenne prime and new record largest prime: 2^24036583-1. {8-] http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm This is the ninth Mersenne prime discovered in the past decade. The doubling time of the size of the record largest known prime is given in the table below: date discovered doubling time (seconds) 01-Jul-94 615 03-Sep-96 172 13-Nov-96 44 24-Aug-97 16 27-Jan-98 298 01-Jun-99 11 14-Nov-01 12 17-Nov-03 8.4 15-May-04 5.1 5.1 second doubling time, this is a way cool trend as well. {8-] This new one has over 7.2 million decimal digits. The next Mersenne prime will probably have over 10 million decimal digits, so will bag the $100,000 EFF prize: http://www.eff.org/awards/coop.php According to my estimates, this EFF prize should be claimed within about two years. If you join GIMPS and run Prime95 in the background starting now, you have as much chance of claiming that $100k as anyone else. I have been running GIMPS in the background for nearly 6 years now, with no problems. You can get the software here, its free: http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm#download Actually it isn't totally free to run the software: it costs about a buck and a quarter a month in increased electricity usage to run GIMPS 24/7. Should one of you get the $100k prize instead of me, I will not be angry. (I might throw a minor tantrum and stamp my little footy, but Ill get over it. {8^D) The computer which discovers the record itself becomes worth a fortune as a museum piece, like a geek's version of record-breaking homerun baseballs. (Baseball fans, are the record-breaking bats also worth a ton of money?) And you get your name forever on the same short list with Cataldi, Euler, Lucas and several other math gods. Aint it good to be living in the 21st century? {8-] spike From dgc at cox.net Mon May 31 19:34:57 2004 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 15:34:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40BB88E1.1060307@cox.net> Brent Neal wrote: > (5/31/04 10:48) Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > >>The paper we are discussing examines density limits imposed by the >>Heisenberg uncertainty principle on classical electronics, and is >>independent of materials. These limits therefore will apply to molecular >>transistors and all other nano-electronics. I think they also apply to >>spintronics. They do not apply to nanomechanical computing. >> >> > >The problem is that even at this point, we're a lot closer to being able to commercialize spintronics and even quantum computing than we are nanomechanical computing. > > I don't know much about spintronics, but in one aspect it appears to enable quantum computing. In another aspect is appears to permit each electron in a flow to carry a bit. My gut feeling is that electron spin is even more uncertain (in the Heisenberg sense) than electron position, but I'm willing to be educated on this. If my intuition is correct, spintronics will cannot be scaled smaller than electronics., because electron spins will merge when the electrons get too close to each other. If this is correct, electronics will win, because it is easier to simply keep improving electronics than it is to shift to spintronics. Quantum computing (with or without spintronics) allows for fast parallel processing for a certain class of algorithms. AFAIK it is not a general substitute for binary computation. This means that it cannot substitute for electronics in most cases, and that a large new software infrastructure will be required. Contrary to popular belief, software design effort generally overwhelms hardware design effort at the system level. I doubt that quantum computing will have much impact except in specialty areas before we reach the CMOS density limit. Nanomechanical or naonelectronic hardware will require entirely new device technologies, but the resulting devices can be treated as straightforward direct replacements for the last CMOS generation. They are therefore much easier than Spintronic and Quantum computing elements to actually build into systems. >>Note that nanoelectronics is likely to be unrelated to photolithography. >>I really hope it can be implemented without the enormous capital costs >>associated with today's silicon Fabs. >> >> > >My intuition is that any commerically viable method of nanoelectronics will necessarily start with patterned deposition and move quickly to self-assembly as we get a handle on the chemistry that is involved there.[...] I would start out assuming that the first generation of nanoelectronics fabrication facilities will be no less expensive than the traditional CMOS fabs at the time that nanoelectronics go to market. Anything else would be wishful thinking. The hope would be that the rate constant on cost growth for nanoelectronics would be significantly smaller than for CMOS at that time. > > > I do not understand your intuition, here. The current technology is economical only for very high volume parts. It may be possible to introduce a new technology that is competitive for low -volume devices, using some alternative techniques. These may not need the whole capital infrastructure of the photolithography industry, even if it bootstraps using patterned deposition. Look as Affymetrix, not Intel. From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 31 19:47:06 2004 From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 12:47:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040531095418075f43@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005901c44748$0e191a00$6401a8c0@SHELLY> > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism > > > True enough, but when science makes one's life personally easier, it > is not called science anymore. It becomes something so embedded in the > texture of everyday life that you take it for granted without thinking > twice, Most people do not like going to the dentist. They think it is > annoying but do not even imagine how it was a few centuries ago... Ja, understatement Giu1i0. I remember when a trip to the dentist was a loooot worse than it is today, and Im only 43. Techniques have improved noticeably in that short time, altho I am not sure what they are doing differently since then. Perhaps the anesthetics have improved, or they use smaller needles? spike From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 31 19:50:11 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 15:50:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <40BB88E1.1060307@cox.net> Message-ID: (5/31/04 15:34) Dan Clemmensen wrote: >I don't know much about spintronics, but in one aspect it appears to >enable quantum computing. In another aspect is appears to permit each >electron in a flow to carry a bit. My gut feeling is that electron >spin is even more uncertain (in the Heisenberg sense) than electron >position, but I'm willing to be educated on this. If my intuition is >correct, spintronics will cannot be scaled smaller than electronics., >because electron spins will merge when the electrons get too close to >each other. If this is correct, electronics will win, because it is >easier to simply keep improving electronics than it is to shift to >spintronics. That's what I think as well, however, as I understand it, the energy (and thus time) it takes to change the state of a spin-based device is less, which is one of the nice things that people are interested in. > >Quantum computing (with or without spintronics) allows for fast parallel >processing for a certain class of algorithms. AFAIK it is not a general >substitute for binary computation. This means that it cannot substitute >for electronics in most cases, and that a large new software >infrastructure will be required. Contrary to popular belief, software >design effort generally overwhelms hardware design effort at the system >level. I doubt that quantum computing will have much impact except in >specialty areas before we reach the CMOS density limit. When people ask me about quantum computing and what it means, I usually say that it makes hard computing problems easy and easy computing problems hard. That's a gross generalization, but its pretty accurate. QC in and of itself is not really useful. Combining QC with traditional computation is interesting. But, its all moot at the current stage of the game because we cannot quickly and reliably entangle more than 7-8 qubits. I'm a few years out of the loop in QC, though, so its possible that the tech has gotten better. But not -that- much better. :) B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 31 19:56:53 2004 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 12:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism In-Reply-To: <005901c44748$0e191a00$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <20040531195653.77779.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> --- Spike wrote: > > > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism > > > > > > True enough, but when science makes one's life personally easier, > it > > is not called science anymore. It becomes something so embedded in > the > > texture of everyday life that you take it for granted without > thinking > > twice, Most people do not like going to the dentist. They think it > is > > annoying but do not even imagine how it was a few centuries ago... > > Ja, understatement Giu1i0. I remember when a trip to the dentist > was a loooot worse than it is today, and Im only 43. Techniques > have improved noticeably in that short time, altho I am not sure > what they are doing differently since then. Perhaps the anesthetics > have improved, or they use smaller needles? Cheaper synthetic diamonds for drill tips makes for more comfortable drilling/grinding/polishing, anasthetics for pain take effect sooner, among other things. ===== Mike Lorrey Chairman, Free Town Land Development "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 31 20:01:27 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 15:01:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism In-Reply-To: <005901c44748$0e191a00$6401a8c0@SHELLY> References: <470a3c52040531095418075f43@mail.gmail.com> <005901c44748$0e191a00$6401a8c0@SHELLY> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040531145830.01cf5da0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:47 PM 5/31/2004 -0700, Spike wrote: >I remember when a trip to the dentist >was a loooot worse than it is today, and Im only 43. Techniques >have improved noticeably in that short time I anticipate a reversal in the next few years, once the methods for tweaking stem cells into the right kinds of tooth buds are worked out. The aging Boomers will whimper like babies all night long as their teeth come in. (I know, someone will find an excellent oral analgesic. But it gives `I slept like a baby' a nasty spin.) Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 31 20:06:03 2004 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 15:06:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism In-Reply-To: <20040531195653.77779.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> References: <005901c44748$0e191a00$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <20040531195653.77779.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040531150217.01d24e90@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:56 PM 5/31/2004 -0700, Mike wrote: >Cheaper synthetic diamonds for drill tips makes for more comfortable >drilling/grinding/polishing, anasthetics for pain take effect sooner, >among other things. Replacement filler hardens faster under blue light. (Dr. Ed could tell us more if he's still on the list.) Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 31 20:49:44 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 22:49:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] diffraction limit In-Reply-To: <40BA2A4B.2080307@cox.net> References: <40B8D945.5010406@cox.net> <012901c44663$258cd630$94c41b97@administxl09yj> <40BA2A4B.2080307@cox.net> Message-ID: <20040531204943.GV12847@leitl.org> On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:39:07PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Thanks! Very interesting paper. Assuming I understand it correctly, it Very interesting indeed. Due to LCDs I almost never make hardcopies of a papers, but of that one I did. > says that no matter how you build it or what you build it out of, > digital electronics cannot be packed more closely that about 20 nm > cubed. Each such cube can contain a piece of interconnect, a gate, or a No. I haven't had time to read it thoroughly, but it definitely puts "irreversible logic" and "separation of a single charge" on a disclaimer list. I don't understand why they at all mention von Neumann, because it is completely irrelevant to the logic of the argument. To start with, they assume SNL, which is only valid for irreversible computing. Patient: "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts if I erase bits!" Doctor: "Then don't do that". I don't have an URL, but there's a paper on people estimating on threshold when reversible logic is worthwhile, and while it isn't yet worthwhile for 2d (for a given structure size/switching speed which I don't recall), the threshold is something over >10 layers, or so. It is certainly a vademecum for any 3d integration. Coherent spin transport and spin valves are more energy efficient, precisely because they don't require rapid tweaking of charge separation. > flip-flop. And yes, I'm making a very free interpretation of the paper. > > The paper is almost entirely about 2D systems. For a 2D system, with > flip-flops of 20nm squared, the heat dissipation will be about 60W/cm > squared. I thought we were past that power density in current flock of chips. > To a first approximation, this paper concludes that the practical limits > of electronic computation coincide with the practical limits of CMOS, > and are consistent with the Moore's-law industry roadmap's goal for the > year 2017. Do you really expect we won't have molecular components at least in memory within 13 years? > Note that these limits will are for CPUs (i.e, each cell changes state > frequently) as opposed to memory. A nanomechanical memory can be as much > as 1000 times denser than a nano-electronic CPU. Cellular architectures make no difference between a memory cell and a CPU (so mentioning von Neumann is a red herring). MRAM cells can be made to do arbitrary logic with two extra wires. Mechanical oscillations can be used for switching in a quantum dot (a paper from last couple of Science or Nature). While Moore is doomed on the long run (any exponential process in real space is) burying the fellow prematurely is not a good reality model, especially as AI bootstrap is hardware-bounded. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 31 20:50:15 2004 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 16:50:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism In-Reply-To: <20040531195653.77779.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: (5/31/04 12:56) Mike Lorrey wrote: >Cheaper synthetic diamonds for drill tips makes for more comfortable >drilling/grinding/polishing, anasthetics for pain take effect sooner, >among other things. Not to mention air-abrasion, eliminating the need for drills (and in many cases anaesthetics) entirely. Air-abrasion is essentially a mini-sandblaster for teeth. My dentist got it specifically for a few patients of his who react badly to the common nerve-block agents. I've had one tooth done without anaesthetic, and while its not comfortable, its certainly not painful. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 31 23:34:30 2004 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 16:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040531095418075f43@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20040531233430.37136.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > True enough, but when science makes one's life > personally easier, it > is not called science anymore. It becomes something > so embedded in the > texture of everyday life that you take it for > granted without thinking > twice > If only everyone would see this. The point was about why people don't see this, and what we can possibly do about it. Wishing doesn't make bad stuff go away, neither for them nor for us. I was talking to a historian who studied the original Luddism. One of the things he discovered was that they actually targeted just the machines that replaced laborers, not the ones that just made laborers' jobs easier or more productive/efficient. (It's a blurry line, but it was drawn, according to the historian.) And the sabotage was directed towards companies that did not make alternate arrangements ("job placement assistance", in the modern tongue) for their displaced workers. So, perhaps a slight restatement: it doesn't matter what one calls it - "science", "everyday life", or whatever. What matters is its actual (not theoretical, not planned, but street-level real) effect on peoples' lives, especially their wallets and labor allocations. It is the case that almost anyone today, even in the most disadvantaged background, can learn and gain employment in some high-tech trade *if they want to*. The disadvantage is little more than the fact that they *DON'T* want to - or, at least, they don't think they do, even if it is the logical conclusion of their desires (largely the same ones most of us feel, relative to the self) - and the factors that promote that decision. How can we get so much of the world to stop wanting to commit (economic/political/social/actual) suicide?